Poll: Did Rand make any mistakes?
Kiekeben
wrong. Anyway, I'd be interested in seeing the results, and probably others
would too.
This poll is designed mainly with Objectivists in mind. It isn't intended to
differentiate between, say, a libertarian who regards Rand's ethics as
basically wrong, and a Christian socialist who believes Rand is evil incarnate.
But everyone is of course welcome to take it.
Some might believe that there is no difference between choices (c) and (d) in
the first question. In that case, pick the stronger statement, (d). I don't
think the other choices are as likely to create problems. We'll see...
1. Which of the following best describes your view?
A) Ayn Rand was wrong about many things and/or wrong about some very important
things.
B) Rand was wrong about some minor things, but not about any fundamental
philosophical principles. (In other words, she made some mistakes in deriving
conclusions from her fundamental principles, but correctly applied, those
fundamental principles would not lead to error.)
C) Rand was right about everything of a philosophical nature. The only time she
was ever wrong about anything was when she went beyond philosophical issues
(e.g., when she said Charlie's Angels was a good TV show).
D) Rand was right about Everything.
2. I consider myself:
A) Neither an Objectivist nor a strong sympathizer
B) A strong sympathizer, but not an Objectivist
C) An Objectivist who is more in sympathy with the Kelleyites
D) An Objectivist who agrees with the ARIans
Thanks for your input.
kiek...@aol.com
Kiekeben <kiek...@aol.com> wrote:
> 1. Which of the following best describes your view?
>
> A) Ayn Rand was wrong about many things and/or wrong about some very
important
> things.
>
> B) Rand was wrong about some minor things, but not about any
fundamental
> philosophical principles. (In other words, she made some mistakes in
deriving
> conclusions from her fundamental principles, but correctly applied,
those
> fundamental principles would not lead to error.)
>
> C) Rand was right about everything of a philosophical nature. The
only time she
> was ever wrong about anything was when she went beyond philosophical
issues
> (e.g., when she said Charlie's Angels was a good TV show).
>
> D) Rand was right about Everything.
>
> 2. I consider myself:
>
> A) Neither an Objectivist nor a strong sympathizer
>
> B) A strong sympathizer, but not an Objectivist
>
> C) An Objectivist who is more in sympathy with the Kelleyites
>
> D) An Objectivist who agrees with the ARIans
To get the ball rolling...
1) A
2) A
--
Franz
http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/home.html
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Owl
> > 2. I consider myself:
> > A) Neither an Objectivist nor a strong sympathizer
> > B) A strong sympathizer, but not an Objectivist
> > C) An Objectivist who is more in sympathy with the Kelleyites
> > D) An Objectivist who agrees with the ARIans
> To get the ball rolling...
>
> 1) A
> 2) A
I will say 1A and 2A. However, don't you think that (2) needs an option
E) An Objectivist who agrees neither with the Kelleyites nor with the
ARIans.
David Schwartz
FWIW, BC.
DS
kiek...@aol.com
Owl <a@a.a> wrote:
>
> I will say 1A and 2A. However, don't you think that (2) needs an
option
>
> E) An Objectivist who agrees neither with the Kelleyites nor with the
> ARIans.
You're right: I shouldn't have assumed that any non-ARIan Objectivist
agrees more with the Kelleyites (though isn't that true? maybe someone
should take a poll...)
What 2C should have said is "Objectivist, but not ARIan".
hackerbabe
2. B (I'm just a student of Objectivism right now.)
whe...@my-deja.com
still mulling things over. For now:
1 A
2 B
Julian Morrison
> 1. Which of the following best describes your view?
> B) Rand was wrong about some minor things, but not about any fundamental
> philosophical principles. (In other words, she made some mistakes in
> deriving conclusions from her fundamental principles, but correctly
> applied, those fundamental principles would not lead to error.)
> 2. I consider myself:
E) A rational person who frankly has better things to do than take sides
over McCoys vs Hatfields.
Farblefumble
> 1. Which of the following best describes your view?
>
> A) Ayn Rand was wrong about many things and/or wrong about some very
> important things.
>
> B) Rand was wrong about some minor things, but not about any
> fundamental philosophical principles. (In other words, she made some
> mistakes in deriving conclusions from her fundamental principles, but
> correctly applied, those fundamental principles would not lead to
> error.)
>
> C) Rand was right about everything of a philosophical nature. The
> only time she was ever wrong about anything was when she went beyond
> philosophical issues (e.g., when she said Charlie's Angels was a good
> TV show).
>
> D) Rand was right about Everything.
Hmm. I'd have to go basically for C, except a bit of A: Rand was
totally wrong about a very important thing: she didn't like rock
music! :)
> 2. I consider myself:
>
> A) Neither an Objectivist nor a strong sympathizer
>
> B) A strong sympathizer, but not an Objectivist
>
> C) An Objectivist who is more in sympathy with the Kelleyites
>
> D) An Objectivist who agrees with the ARIans
D.
> Thanks for your input.
FarbleFumble
Ken Gardner
> 1. Which of the following best describes your view?
> A) Ayn Rand was wrong about many things and/or wrong about some very impo
> rtant
> things.
No...
> B) Rand was wrong about some minor things, but not about any fundamental
> philosophical principles. (In other words, she made some mistakes in deriving
> conclusions from her fundamental principles, but correctly applied, those
> fundamental principles would not lead to error.)
Bingo!
> C) Rand was right about everything of a philosophical nature. The only ti
> me she
> was ever wrong about anything was when she went beyond philosophical issues
> (e.g., when she said Charlie's Angels was a good TV show).
No....
> D) Rand was right about Everything.
No.
> 2. I consider myself:
> A) Neither an Objectivist nor a strong sympathizer
No.
> B) A strong sympathizer, but not an Objectivist
No.
> C) An Objectivist who is more in sympathy with the Kelleyites
No, at least not in the sense you seem to mean it. If I don't get to add
my option E) below, here is where I would fit, but again not in the sense
I think you mean.
> D) An Objectivist who agrees with the ARIans
Hell no.
E) An Objectivist "free agent," i.e. no affiliations or strong leanings.
Yes.
Ken
Ken Gardner
> I will say 1A and 2A. However, don't you think that (2) needs an option
> E) An Objectivist who agrees neither with the Kelleyites nor with the
> ARIans.
That would be me, or maybe I'm somewhere between D) and E).
Ken
Ken Gardner
> What 2C should have said is "Objectivist, but not ARIan".
The problem is that this implies that there are ARIan Objectivists, which
is self-contradictory.
I suggest, "Objectivist, but not a supporter or promoter of ARI." Then
put me down for 2C, as revised.
Ken
Dan Lind
> 1. Which of the following best describes your view?
>
> A) Ayn Rand was wrong about many things and/or wrong about some very
> important things.
I would prefer to say that Rand was right about many things, and very
right about some very important things.
> B) Rand was wrong about some minor things, but not about any
> fundamental philosophical principles. (In other words, she made some
> mistakes in deriving conclusions from her fundamental principles, but
> correctly applied, those fundamental principles would not lead to
> error.)
This is close to my view. Her key philosophical contribution was
identification of fundamental philosophical principles, not so much the
elaboration of those principles. I believe she would have claimed
that her most important philosophical achievements resided in
metaphysics and epistemology. I would disagree with such a claim.
Her most important achievement, and the one which I believe will best
stand the test of time, is her ethical philosophy and its argument for
selfishness as a fundamental virtue.
> C) Rand was right about everything of a philosophical nature. The
> only time she was ever wrong about anything was when she went beyond
> philosophical issues(e.g., when she said Charlie's Angels was a good
> TV show).
No.
Now had you said,
"Rand was right about everything about Objectivism. The only time she
was ever wrong was when she went beyond Objectivist issues (eg., when
she said Charlie's Angels was a good TV show)"
----.then I would agree with C).
> D) Rand was right about Everything.
I'm quite certain this choice will have a zero. It's a silly option.
> 2. I consider myself:
>
> A) Neither an Objectivist nor a strong sympathizer
No.
> B) A strong sympathizer, but not an Objectivist
Yes.
> C) & D)
Had this been, "A strong sympathizer who is more in sympathy with the
Kelleyites than the ARIites," my answer would have been, Based on what
I've read, Yes.
Dan Lind
Terrence Chan
2. E, as defined by Ken Gardner
--
Terrence Chan
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand/
"It profiteth the wise, to be deemed a fool."
-Oceanus, Aeschylus' _Prometheus Bound_
Chris Cathcart
Dan Lind <danl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > D) Rand was right about Everything.
>
> I'm quite certain this choice will have a zero. It's a silly option.
Stephen Grossman might very closely approximate perspective D.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of this thread is supposed to be.
Seems pretty silly to me. We can already readily tell based on
people's postings what kinds of Objectivists, pretenders to
Objectivism, opponents, etc. there are here.
--
Chris Cathcart
*
Rational Objectivism Resources:
Daily Objectivist - http://dailyobjectivist.com
Objectivist Center - http://objectivistcenter.org
We The Living Forums - http://wetheliving.com
Journal of Ayn Rand Studies - http://aynrandstudies.com
The ARI/Kelley Split - http://wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html
ARIan Idiocy Documented - http://jeffcomp.com/faq
Merrill on ITOE - http://members.nbci.com/cathcacr/gm.htm
Walsh on Rand and Kant -
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1
kiek...@aol.com
> > C) Rand was right about everything of a philosophical nature. The
> > only time she was ever wrong about anything was when she went beyond
> > philosophical issues(e.g., when she said Charlie's Angels was a good
> > TV show).
>
> No.
>
> Now had you said,
> "Rand was right about everything about Objectivism. The only time she
> was ever wrong was when she went beyond Objectivist issues (eg., when
> she said Charlie's Angels was a good TV show)"
> ----.then I would agree with C).
Well, if Objectivism is defined as Rand's views, then it's not too
surprising that she might have been 100% right about it...
> > D) Rand was right about Everything.
>
> I'm quite certain this choice will have a zero. It's a silly option.
Yes, it is silly, but nevertheless I get the impression that Peikoff
(for one) would agree with it. Maybe some other ARIans would too? Also,
from reading accounts of the Obj. movement in the 60's (e.g., N.
Branden's) it seems that back then those in the inner circle (at least)
held this view. That's the impression I (and probably many other
people) get, though it could certainly be wrong. That's one reason I
posted this poll.
--
Franz
http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/home.html
Kyle Haight
>
>Yes, it is silly, but nevertheless I get the impression that Peikoff
>(for one) would agree with it.
Peikoff is on the record as disagreeing with a number of Rand's
aesthetic preferences, e.g. Rand thought horror movies were totally
malevolent and worthless, but Peikoff enjoys watching them from time to
time. So, no, Peikoff would not agree with it.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
"Feeding on the blood of the working classes for fun and profit."
Bert Clanton
>
>
> 1. Which of the following best describes your view?
>
> A) Ayn Rand was wrong about many things and/or wrong about some very impo
> rtant
> things.
>
> B) Rand was wrong about some minor things, but not about any fundamental
> philosophical principles. (In other words, she made some mistakes in deriving
> conclusions from her fundamental principles, but correctly applied, those
> fundamental principles would not lead to error.)
>
A and a half..
..I think that she was wrong about a couple of very important things:
her ethical egoism and her conceptual blindness to the objective
reality of ecological problems. I think that she was very right in
wanting to ground morality in the objective nature of humankind (I just
disagree with her about what the nature of humankind is)..
>
> 2. I consider myself:
>
> A) Neither an Objectivist nor a strong sympathizer
>
Best wishes,
Bert
Owl
> > > D) Rand was right about Everything.
> >
> > I'm quite certain this choice will have a zero. It's a silly option.
>
> Yes, it is silly, but nevertheless I get the impression that Peikoff
> (for one) would agree with it. Maybe some other ARIans would too? Also,
If I recall correctly, there are some around here who would say that Rand
was right even when she stated falsehoods. For instance, she was right when
she said Milton Friedman was a communist, even though he wasn't one.
Jason Kauppinen
Virtue of Selfishness. So I consider myself to still be in the process
of evaluating the Objectivist philosophy. This option seems to be
closest to the impression I've formed so far.
2. B)
Jason
@unknownsite
: > >
: > > I'm quite certain this choice will have a zero. It's a silly option.
: >
: > Yes, it is silly, but nevertheless I get the impression that Peikoff
: > (for one) would agree with it. Maybe some other ARIans would too? Also,
One simple test to find out how many people would accept option D is:
Open Letter to Boris Spassky, PWNI. She makes several errors on the
subject of chess. No big deal. Nothing to do with Objectivism. Does not
affect Objectivism. Does not affect the theme of the article. The point
is: how many hard-core Objectivists will accept that she made these
errors?
Example: Ayn Rand falsely assumes that the game of chess does not
involve conceptual thinking. It is easy to give examples of conceptual
thinking in chess.
Here is is possible to _prove_ that she was wrong. Not a matter of
opinion.
--
Jerry Story
Robert Chapman
> A) Ayn Rand was wrong about many things and/or wrong about some very impo
> rtant
> things.
>
> B) Rand was wrong about some minor things, but not about any fundamental
> philosophical principles. (In other words, she made some mistakes in deriving
> conclusions from her fundamental principles, but correctly applied, those
> fundamental principles would not lead to error.)
B, among her mistakes she was wrong accepting Locke's social contract, her
definition of the nature of man was rationalistic, her aesthetics were
faulty and worst of all, in effect, were her ideas on interpersonal
relationships (though she was 100% right about ethical egoism). The last
fault I would call a 'very important thing' but this is not enough to pick
'A'.
> 2. I consider myself:
E) An Objectivist who doesn't make the mistakes of either Objectivist facti
on.
Rob
kiek...@aol.com
Kyle Haight <kha...@olagrande.net> wrote:
> Peikoff is on the record as disagreeing with a number of Rand's
> aesthetic preferences, e.g. Rand thought horror movies were totally
> malevolent and worthless, but Peikoff enjoys watching them from time
to
> time. So, no, Peikoff would not agree with it.
Good to know. However, there is something a bit puzzling here. Rand
believed that she could identify the reasons behind every one of her
emotions, and thus offer a justification for every single one of them,
right? She therefore would regard anyone who disagreed with any of her
aesthetic preferences as mistaken -- not merely as having a different
sense of life, but as having a *bad* sense of life. This explains why
she felt justified in not pursuing friendships with someone for, e.g.,
enjoying Beethoven.
Thus, if Peikoff disagrees with her about the value of certain horror
movies, he should admit that she made some logical error. But I doubt
very much he'd be willing to do that. He might be willing to say that
some of his tastes differ from some of hers, but I don't think he'd say
that she ever made any logical mistakes.
Kyle Haight
>
>Thus, if Peikoff disagrees with her about the value of certain horror
>movies, he should admit that she made some logical error. But I doubt
>very much he'd be willing to do that. He might be willing to say that
>some of his tastes differ from some of hers, but I don't think he'd say
>that she ever made any logical mistakes.
As I recall, Peikoff's discussion of this particular case included
the fact that, to him, horror movies had different associations based
on earlier experiences in his life. Consequently, he focussed on
different aspects of the movies when he watched them, leading to a
different aesthetic reaction.
A similar phenemenon could be seen in the differing reactions that
people had to TITANIC; some people focussed on the class warfare
elements, and others on the romantic elements, and evaluations
differed significantly based on which parts were emphasized.
Dan Lind
> A similar phenemenon could be seen in the differing reactions that
> people had to TITANIC; some people focussed on the class warfare
> elements, and others on the romantic elements, and evaluations
> differed significantly based on which parts were emphasized.
>
> --
Same object, different evaluations. Why? Different contexts.
Fascinating.
Dan Lind
Chris Cathcart
() <jst...@ecn.ab.ca @unknown site> wrote:
> One simple test to find out how many people would accept option D
is:
> Open Letter to Boris Spassky, PWNI. She makes several errors on the
> subject of chess. No big deal. Nothing to do with Objectivism. Does
not
> affect Objectivism. Does not affect the theme of the article. The
point
> is: how many hard-core Objectivists will accept that she made these
> errors?
Well, if it the errors have nothing to do with Objectivism or don't
affect Objectivism, then it wouldn't be "hard-core Objectivists" that
we'd be speaking of. Hard-core Randists would be the people you mean
to speak of.
--
Chris Cathcart
*
Rational Objectivism Resources:
Daily Objectivist - http://dailyobjectivist.com
Objectivist Center - http://objectivistcenter.org
We The Living Forums - http://wetheliving.com
Journal of Ayn Rand Studies - http://aynrandstudies.com
The ARI/Kelley Split - http://wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html
ARIan Idiocy Documented - http://jeffcomp.com/faq
Merrill on ITOE - http://members.nbci.com/cathcacr/gm.htm
Walsh on Rand and Kant -
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1
Owl
> Example: Ayn Rand falsely assumes that the game of chess does not
> involve conceptual thinking. It is easy to give examples of conceptual
> thinking in chess.
Could you tell us what exactly she said that you think implies that chess
does not involve conceptual thinking? I thought that a large part of her
point was just the opposite.
Jim Klein
kiek...@aol.com wrote:
>What 2C should have said is "Objectivist, but not ARIan".
That's redundant.
jk
Ken Gardner
> One simple test to find out how many people would accept option D is:
> Open Letter to Boris Spassky, PWNI. She makes several errors on the
> subject of chess. No big deal. Nothing to do with Objectivism. Does not
> affect Objectivism. Does not affect the theme of the article. The point
> is: how many hard-core Objectivists will accept that she made these
> errors?
I prefer "old school" to hardcore myself, but I'm one who believes that
she made mistakes about chess in this article.
> Example: Ayn Rand falsely assumes that the game of chess does not
> involve conceptual thinking. It is easy to give examples of conceptual
> thinking in chess.
And how.
Ken
@unknownsite
: <jst...@ecn.ab.ca @unknown site> wrote in message news:3a77...@ecn.ab.ca...
PWNI, page 67, middle paragraph, first sentence.
<AR>
"Unlike algebra, chess does not represent the abstraction--the basic
pattern--of mental effort; it represents the opposite: it focuses mental
effort on a set of concretes, and demands such complex calculations that a
mind has no room for anything else."
</AR>
At about expert level (ELO 2000-2199), that's where chess players start
to "automatize" tactics. They tend to start to automatically see
combinations. (This is according to Hans Berliner.) At grandmaster level
(ELO 2500+), not only tactics is "automatized" but also strategy is
"automatized". (Someone said that the difference between an ordinary
master and a grandmaster is the master will think for 10 minutes and
decide on strategic grounds that the best square for the Knight is KB5;
the grandmaster will absent-mindedly toss the Knight and it will land on
the right square.) The world champion level (Kasparov and Kramnik,
ELO 2800+) is beyond my comprehension.
In one article in Chess Life magazine, world champion Kasparov made a
special point that at the world championship level, chess is NOT simply
calculation. He even used the expression "almost philosophical".
Ayn Rand did not know what she was talking about.
In fact the way I see it, one of the attractions of the game IS the
conceptual thinking.
--
Jerry Story
Owl
> PWNI, page 67, middle paragraph, first sentence.
> <AR>
> "Unlike algebra, chess does not represent the abstraction--the basic
> pattern--of mental effort; it represents the opposite: it focuses mental
> effort on a set of concretes, and demands such complex calculations that a
> mind has no room for anything else."
> </AR>
Ok, I didn't remember that remark. You're right--Rand was certainly wrong
there, although it's a common enough misconception.
> In one article in Chess Life magazine, world champion Kasparov made a
> special point that at the world championship level, chess is NOT simply
> calculation. He even used the expression "almost philosophical".
Indeed, if she knew more about it, Rand could have used chess as an example
of the great power of higher-level conceptual thinking. The interesting
stuff in chess is abstract, strategic concepts, not tactics. How else could
a human player compete with a computer?
From the quotation, Rand's conception, and probably that of many people who
don't know the game well, seems to be that humans play like computers play.
If that were true, it would have been trivial to program a computer to beat
the best human player in the world. After all, we now have home computers
that can perform a billion calculations in 1 second; how many can a human
perform? Six? A little reflection would have shown that what the humans are
doing must be qualitatively quite different.
bhol...@my-deja.com
Kiekeben <kiek...@aol.com> wrote:
> 1. Which of the following best describes your view?
>
> A) Ayn Rand was wrong about many things and/or wrong about some very
important things.
You bet! She made a lot of mistakes. Every original thinker does,
because they're in uncharted territory. The important thing is to take
what's good and build on it.
> 2. I consider myself:
>
I don't know what an Objectivist is - is there a secret handshake or
something? - but I am very sympathetic to much in Rand. - Brian
@unknownsite
: From the quotation, Rand's conception, and probably that of many people who
: don't know the game well, seems to be that humans play like computers play.
: If that were true, it would have been trivial to program a computer to beat
: the best human player in the world. After all, we now have home computers
: that can perform a billion calculations in 1 second; how many can a human
: perform? Six? A little reflection would have shown that what the humans are
: doing must be qualitatively quite different.
An interesting question: Which is the greater achievement of the human
mind: Kasparov playing chess as well as Deep Blue, or Deep Blue playing
chess as well as Kasparov? (Bill Gates in an article thought the former.)
--
Jerry Story
Owl
> An interesting question: Which is the greater achievement of the human
> mind: Kasparov playing chess as well as Deep Blue, or Deep Blue playing
> chess as well as Kasparov? (Bill Gates in an article thought the former.)
Good question. The former is certainly the greater individual achievement.
The latter is also a great achievement, for the series of people whose work
went into it over the years; most of us probably don't realize how really
difficult it is to bring off.
Dave OHearn
>
> An interesting question: Which is the greater achievement of the human
> mind: Kasparov playing chess as well as Deep Blue, or Deep Blue playing
> chess as well as Kasparov? (Bill Gates in an article thought the former.)
To actually program a computer to play chess is very, very easy. There are
no special tricks in Deep Blue. You could explain the algorithm to
someone in high school, and they'd understand it completely. There is no
essential difference between Deep Blue and one of those $50 chess programs.
What makes it win where a common chess program would lose is simply that
it's faster and massively parallel; it's on special, expensive hardware.
Now, the engineering feat of making the hardware is certainly a great
achievement, but it's no where near creating an intelligent computer.
Deep Blue is fast, but actually pretty "stupid", not unlike a calculator.
IIRC, its speed lets it look 14 moves ahead, which no human could do, but
it knows nothing of strategy and has no memory. Every turn, it does the
same thing, looking 14 moves ahead and chosing a new move. If you tried to
get the hardware to process anything except a chess board, it wouldn't
know where to start. Humans can adapt to new situations.
--
Dave O'Hearn
@unknownsite
: Deep Blue is fast, but actually pretty "stupid", not unlike a calculator.
: it knows nothing of strategy and has no memory. Every turn, it does the
: same thing, looking 14 moves ahead and chosing a new move.
I think probably you are underestimating the effort that went into the
software of Deep Blue, and the advances in computer chess over the
decades. It goes far beyond the simple min-max algorithm. Don't forget
the alpha-beta enhancement of the min-max. And the B* algorithm invented
by Berliner. And the BP* algorithm by Palay. And a shitload of other
stuff that was developed over the decades in computer chess. To explain
all these things to some high school students would require some serious
courses.
It does not simply look ahead 14 moves. (BTW, it is not true that no
human can do that. The longest combination on record is by Botvinnik and
it is 22 moves long (43 ply). He had to calculate the whole thing to
justify the first move. )
Deep Blue does not suffer from the "horizon effect" like many chess
programs of the 70s and 80s did. It does an exhaustive search for a set
number of ply deep. It deepens this search in lines of play where it
encounters a check. It also does a "selective search" after it finishes
the "exhaustive search". It also does something called "singular
extension". This means that when it finds a move that it finds
"interesting", it searches it deeper. If it finds a series of
"intersting" moves, it might search 40 or 50 ply deep in some variations.
I also suspect that it uses Berliner's B* algorithm, which does not
suffer from the horizon effect.
Also it is not correct to say that it knows nothing of strategy. It
has a bunch of criteria for evaluating positions and it evaluates
positions to a precision of 1/100 of a Pawn. It is true that it doesn't
quite have Human understanding of strategy. But it calculates so deeply
that tactics and strategy start to merge.
With all the hardware and software going into this monster, it is a
wonder that Kasparov (or anyone) could beat it. If I understand Kasparov
correctly, he beat it by more correct evaluations of positions. It
evaluates positions by mere count of strategic criteria. Kasparov
understands intuitively the *interaction* of strategic criteria.
--
Jerry Story
Ed Kiser
Ayn Rand did not say that playing chess "doesn't require concepts."
What she said was that it doesn't "represent the basic pattern of
mental effort." She thinks there are important kinds of mental effort,
that fit in "the basic pattern," but that are nothing like playing
chess.
When she said that "It [playing chess] focuses mental effort on a set
of concretes," she meant ULTIMATELY: no matter what abstractions you
employ in choosing your moves, the effects of those abstractions never
reach beyond the chessboard. (You could play for real stakes, but that
would be an add-on; it is not part of the game of chess.)
It seems to me that objections to Ayn Rand like this one are based on
poor reading comprehension.
-- Edward Kiser
Dave OHearn
> Dave OHearn (dav...@lessing.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
> : Deep Blue is fast, but actually pretty "stupid", not unlike a calculator.
> : IIRC, its speed lets it look 14 moves ahead, which no human could do, but
> : it knows nothing of strategy and has no memory. Every turn, it does the
> : same thing, looking 14 moves ahead and chosing a new move.
>
> I think probably you are underestimating the effort that went into the
> software of Deep Blue, and the advances in computer chess over the
> decades. It goes far beyond the simple min-max algorithm. Don't forget
> the alpha-beta enhancement of the min-max. And the B* algorithm invented
> by Berliner. And the BP* algorithm by Palay. And a shitload of other
> stuff that was developed over the decades in computer chess. To explain
> all these things to some high school students would require some serious
> courses.
Not really. I learned all that stuff in one week in college, and I had
other courses to deal with. The algorithms are silly abstractions of
utter trivialities. The only reason they weren't invented decades ago is
that there are no practical applications of the junk, so only academics
bother with it.
> It does not simply look ahead 14 moves. (BTW, it is not true that no
> human can do that. The longest combination on record is by Botvinnik and
> it is 22 moves long (43 ply). He had to calculate the whole thing to
> justify the first move. )
No human can do it in the general case. There might be special cases,
like the standard openning, where everything is so cut-and-dry that you
can, but not many.
> Deep Blue does not suffer from the "horizon effect" like many chess
> programs of the 70s and 80s did. It does an exhaustive search for a set
> number of ply deep. It deepens this search in lines of play where it
> encounters a check. It also does a "selective search" after it finishes
> the "exhaustive search".
That stuff is really rather boring. So it searches, and then searches
harder on places it guesses are intersting. Big deal. I can write a
program that does that in 40 minutes and I did similar things before I
had any real education. Every human being does the same thing, every
day of their lives, and it isn't very hard to get a computer to do it.
Using fancy terms like "horizon effect" obfuscates how banal the whole
operation is.
> Also it is not correct to say that it knows nothing of strategy. It
> has a bunch of criteria for evaluating positions and it evaluates
> positions to a precision of 1/100 of a Pawn. It is true that it doesn't
> quite have Human understanding of strategy. But it calculates so deeply
> that tactics and strategy start to merge.
It can't recognize a pattern it wasn't programmed with, and thus can't
change its own strategy. It has no mechanism for learning its opponent's
strategy and playing off weaknesses. I am the last person who will say
that making an intelligent machine is impossible, but Deep Blue isn't
even close to reaching that goal.
--
Dave O'Hearn
@unknownsite
: When she said that "It [playing chess] focuses mental effort on a set
: of concretes," she meant ULTIMATELY: no matter what abstractions you
: employ in choosing your moves, the effects of those abstractions never
: reach beyond the chessboard.
Is this true of ALL abstract thinking if it is to be applied to reality?
--
Jerry Story
@unknownsite
: When she said that "It [playing chess] focuses mental effort on a set
: of concretes," she meant ULTIMATELY: no matter what abstractions you
: employ in choosing your moves, the effects of those abstractions never
: reach beyond the chessboard. (You could play for real stakes, but that
: would be an add-on; it is not part of the game of chess.)
: It seems to me that objections to Ayn Rand like this one are based on
: poor reading comprehension.
Let's read that again.
<AR>
Unlike algebra, chess does not represent the abstraction--the basic
pattern--of mental effort; it represents the opposite: it focuses mental
effort on a set of concretes, and demands such complex calculations that a
mind has no room for anything else.
</AR>
Focus on: "and demands such complex calculations that a mind has no room
for anything else."
That sounds like chess thinking involves little or nothing else than
calculation.
Several grandmasters were asked how many moves deep they typically calculate.
Some answers:
1. "Oh, one, sometimes two."
2. "As a rule, not a single move."
3. "One. The best."
It is said that Capablanca could see more in a glance than most people
could see in a month.
Kasparov said: "I can play by my hand."
It is said that FIDE World Champion Vishy Anand can play the game at
grandmaster level "without thinking".
What's happening here? Calculation?
--
Jerry Story
R Lawrence
>Good to know. However, there is something a bit puzzling here. Rand
>believed that she could identify the reasons behind every one of her
>emotions, and thus offer a justification for every single one of them,
>right? She therefore would regard anyone who disagreed with any of her
>aesthetic preferences as mistaken -- not merely as having a different
>sense of life, but as having a *bad* sense of life. This explains why
>she felt justified in not pursuing friendships with someone for, e.g.,
>enjoying Beethoven.
The Beethoven stuff is a myth. Tales that Rand ended relationships with
people over disagreements in musical tastes seem to stem primarily from
Barbara Branden's book _The Passion of Ayn Rand_, in which Branden gives a
brief account of several arguments between Rand and her longtime friends
Joan and Allan Blumenthal, over differences of taste in music and painting.
According to the information in Branden's book, these arguments were part
of a generally worsening relationship between Rand and the Blumenthals over
several years in the late 1970s, which culminated in the Blumenthals
breaking with Rand (not vice versa) in 1978. At least one person who
remained Rand's friend until her death was an admitted lover of Beethoven's
music: Leonard Peikoff, who was Rand's closest friend for over a decade and
the heir to her estate.
Rand's stated position on evaluating music was that not enough was known
about the subject to form firm, rationally justified conclusions. Any claim
to the contrary is simply mistaken.
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
Wm. J. Beck, Jr.
Poll: Did Rand make any mistakes?
Group: humanities.philosophy.objectivism Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001, 8:55pm
(EST+5)
From: kiek...@aol.com (Kiekeben)
I don't think there's been
a poll like this on hpo before,
though I could be wrong.
Anyway, I'd be interested in
seeing the results, and
probably others would too.
This poll is designed mainly
with Objectivists in mind. It
isn't intended to differentiate
between, say, a libertarian
who regards Rand's ethics
as basically wrong, and a
Christian socialist who
believes Rand is evil
incarnate. But everyone
is of course welcome to
take it.
Some might believe that
there is no difference
between choices (c) and
(d) in the first question.
In that case, pick the
stronger statement, (d).
I don't think the other
choices are as likely to
create problems. We'll see...
1. Which of the following
best describes your view?
A) Ayn Rand was wrong
about many things and/or
wrong about some very
important things.
My vote is 'A' above.
B) Rand was wrong
about some minor things,
but not about any funda-
mental philosophical
principles. (In other words,
she made some mistakes
in deriving conclusions
from her fundamental
principles, but correctly
applied, those fundamental
principles would not lead
to error.)
C) Rand was right about
everything of a philosophical
nature. The only time she
was ever wrong about
anything was when she
went beyond philosophical
issues (e.g., when she
said Charlie's Angels was
a good TV show).
D) Rand was right about
Everything.
2. I consider myself:
A) Neither an Objectivist
nor a strong sympathizer
B) A strong sympathizer,
but not an Objectivist
I am closest to 'B' above/
C) An Objectivist who
is more in sympathy
with the Kelleyites
D) An Objectivist who
agrees with the ARIans
Thanks for your input.
Anytime.
Bill Beck
kiek...@aol.com
David Buchner <buc...@wcta.net> wrote:
> Kiekeben <kiek...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > C) Rand was right about everything of a philosophical nature. The
only
> > time she was ever wrong about anything was when she went beyond
> > philosophical issues (e.g., when she said Charlie's Angels was a
good TV
> > show).
>
Yep. She said it on one of her appearances on Donahue. Barbara Branden
mentions it in her bio.
Apparently Rand thought this because "C. Angels" is in the romantic
tradition.
--
Franz
http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/home.html
-
Jim Peron
Angels.
Television has changed a great deal since then and we are looking back
in a completely different context.
When I watch the shows which I though were great 20 years ago I'm
usually shocked at how bad they are. But they are bad in the context of
the choices we have today and not in the context of the choices of then.
To laugh at her choice in television is like criticizing Georeg
Washington for wearing wigs in public or having wooden teeth.
Jay Andrew Allen
> 1. Which of the following best describes your view?
>
> A) Ayn Rand was wrong about many things and/or wrong about some very
important
> things.
>
> B) Rand was wrong about some minor things, but not about any
fundamental
> philosophical principles. (In other words, she made some mistakes in
deriving
> conclusions from her fundamental principles, but correctly applied,
those
> fundamental principles would not lead to error.)
>
> C) Rand was right about everything of a philosophical nature. The
only time she
> was ever wrong about anything was when she went beyond philosophical
issues
> (e.g., when she said Charlie's Angels was a good TV show).
>
> D) Rand was right about Everything.
>
> 2. I consider myself:
>
> A) Neither an Objectivist nor a strong sympathizer
>
> B) A strong sympathizer, but not an Objectivist
>
> C) An Objectivist who is more in sympathy with the Kelleyites
>
> D) An Objectivist who agrees with the ARIans
>
> Thanks for your input.
(1) A. Rand had some great points about the nature of concepts, the
functioning of the rational mind, and the destructive nature of
transcendent collectives (i.e., collectives in which "the group" is
constructed to mean something "greater" than the individual members
that comprise it). But her metaphysics was trite, her epistemology
inadequate, her ethics faulty and dogmatic, and her politics
materialistic and valueless (objections notwithstanding).
As a writer, though, I consider her esthetics to be her most
stiltifying error. She took hundreds of years of progress in the arts
and just flushed it down the crapper. Most Objectivists never discover
the joys of Flaubert, Chekhov, Nabakov, Dickens, Lewis, Parker, or
Plath - not to mention modern literary masters like Raymond Carver,
John Updike, Joyce Carol Oates, Mary Gaitskill and Rick Moody. Taken
too strictly, the philosophy instills a moralistic voice in their heads
that shields them from seeing the humanity and wisdom of these author's
flawed characters. Likewise, they become too obsessed with the "reason
and rationality" gig to enjoy authors who experiment alternative modes
of story construction: Burroughs, Ionesco, Glass, even Kafka. According
to Oist literary theory, if it doesn't have a traditional plot that
travels in a straight line from A to B, it's not rational fiction.
Which is, of course, ridiculous.
(2) A. I used to be an Objectivist, but time - and other Objectivists -
cured that.
Ja ne,
-J-
--
Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
"One expects so much from an egg, and is so utterly disappointed."
- Sherwood Anderson, "The Egg"
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Jay Andrew Allen <kensho_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
----------------excerpted, see original----------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
This commentator illustrates the very worst characteristics of
some people found on the fringes of Objectivism. A close reading
of these comments can help to spot them early in their antilife
cycle. They are originally attracted as outcasts and then later
condemn the philosophy out of their irrational vindictivness at
being rejected again. They are like a previous cigaret smoker
that crusades against smoking pleasures or a communist like
Chambers who is hired to attack socialism as an intimate insider.
Obviously their inherent character defects make any comments
they make so much garbage but it's still important to see them. JD
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cathcart
[...]
> But her metaphysics was trite, her epistemology
> inadequate, her ethics faulty and dogmatic, and her politics
> materialistic and valueless (objections notwithstanding).
>
> As a writer, though, I consider her esthetics to be her most
> stiltifying error. She took hundreds of years of progress in the arts
> and just flushed it down the crapper.
[...]
> (2) A. I used to be an Objectivist, but time - and other
Objectivists -
> cured that.
[...]
> --
> Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
*The* Jay Allen, former Objectivism Resource Guide operator firmly
ensconced within the ARI camp? Wow. (Mrs. Speicher would chalk this
up to emotionalistic, immature cult-seeking running its course [whereas
Mrs. Speicher's refined, long-term cult-seeking is a superior
alternative!]. Why didn't you find a home in the dogmatically
promiscuous Objectivist Center? ;-) When you say "other Objectivists,"
what do you mean? Don't you mean pseudo-rational, pseudo-independent,
pseudo-active-minded pseudo-Objectivists with whom you would have had
plenty interaction with among ARIans? Chris Wolf, for instance, was
certainly turned off by these people, but didn't abandon Objectivism.
--
Chris Cathcart
*
Objectivism Resources:
Daily Objectivist - http://dailyobjectivist.com
Objectivist Center - http://objectivistcenter.org
We The Living Forums - http://wetheliving.com
Journal of Ayn Rand Studies - http://aynrandstudies.com
The ARI/Kelley Split - http://wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html
ARIan Idiocy Documented - http://jeffcomp.com/faq
Merrill on ITOE - http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/cathcacr/gm.htm
Walsh on Rand and Kant -
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1
Ken Gardner
> The* Jay Allen, former Objectivism Resource Guide operator firmly
> ensconced within the ARI camp? Wow. (Mrs. Speicher would chalk this
> up to emotionalistic, immature cult-seeking running its course [whereas
> Mrs. Speicher's refined, long-term cult-seeking is a superior
> alternative!]. Why didn't you find a home in the dogmatically
> promiscuous Objectivist Center? ;-) When you say "other Objectivists,"
> what do you mean? Don't you mean pseudo-rational, pseudo-independent,
> pseudo-active-minded pseudo-Objectivists with whom you would have had
> plenty interaction with among ARIans? Chris Wolf, for instance, was
> certainly turned off by these people, but didn't abandon Objectivism.
I wouldn't necessarily regard Chris as an Objectivist, but he, of course,
is not the only one. :)
It would be nice if these converted non-Objectivists would actually
explain why they no longer agree with her philosopy. Jay's statement
that "her metaphysics was trite, her epistemology inadequate, her ethics
faulty and dogmatic, and her politics materialistic and valueless
(objections notwithstanding)" is a conclusion, not an explanation.
Ken
kiek...@aol.com
pe...@gonet.co.za wrote:
> I don't think we should laugh too much about Rand liking Charlie's
> Angels.
>
> Television has changed a great deal since then and we are looking back
> in a completely different context.
>
> When I watch the shows which I though were great 20 years ago I'm
> usually shocked at how bad they are. But they are bad in the context
of
> the choices we have today and not in the context of the choices of
then.
Could this be a desperate attempt to justify Rand's peculiar taste?
First, plenty of people back then thought "Angels" was a terrible show.
Second, I have no idea what you mean when you say TV has changed a
great deal since then. (Of course it has changed in some ways. There
are a lot more channels now. Certain things are reagrded as more
acceptable now. And so on. But that's not the kind of thing you're
implying.) TV was mostly garbage then and it's mostly garbage now.
There are, however, a handful of worthwhile shows (both then and now).
Or are you seriously maintaining that all 70's shows were as bad as
"Angels"?
--
Franz
http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/home.html
Kyle Haight
>In article <3A81C7...@gonet.co.za>,
>
>First, plenty of people back then thought "Angels" was a terrible show.
I suspect that you can find plenty of people who think just about
any show was terrible.
>Second, I have no idea what you mean when you say TV has changed a
>great deal since then.
One example that comes to mind is the original Star Trek. At the time,
it was ground-breaking. Today, it looks very dated. The effects are
poor, the obsession with cold war politics comes across as bizarre, etc.
The value context in the culture has shifted such that issues that were
considered worthy of discussion then are simply uninteresting today.
I don't know to what extent this sort of thing applies to Charlie's Angels
as I never watched it. (Too young.)
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
"Feeding on the blood of the working classes for fun and profit."
Betsy Speicher
> Jay Andrew Allen <kensho_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > But her metaphysics was trite, her epistemology
> > inadequate, her ethics faulty and dogmatic, and her politics
> > materialistic and valueless (objections notwithstanding).
> >
> > As a writer, though, I consider her esthetics to be her most
> > stiltifying error. She took hundreds of years of progress in the arts
> > and just flushed it down the crapper.
> [...]
> > (2) A. I used to be an Objectivist, but time - and other
> Objectivists -
> > cured that.
> [...]
> > --
> > Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
> When you say "other Objectivists," what do you mean? Don't you mean
> pseudo-rational, pseudo-independent, pseudo-active-minded
> pseudo-Objectivists with whom you would have had plenty interaction
> with among ARIans?
Anyone who reads what Jay Allen wrote (and Cathcart quoted) will see that
Allen's disagreement is not with ARI. It is with Ayn Rand's metaphysics,
epistemology, ethics, esthetics AND politics.
> Why didn't you find a home in the dogmatically promiscuous Objectivist
> Center?
.... where disagreement with Ayn Rand's metaphysics, epistemology, ethics,
esthetics AND politics is common and those who so disagree still call
themselves "objectivists."
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Jay Andrew Allen
I figured someone from the Kelleyite side would be the first to engage
me rationally. Kudos to you. :)
In article <95tib1$42b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Chris Cathcart <cath...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> *The* Jay Allen, former Objectivism Resource Guide operator firmly
> ensconced within the ARI camp?
[bow]
> Wow. (Mrs. Speicher would chalk this
> up to emotionalistic, immature cult-seeking running its course
[whereas
> Mrs. Speicher's refined, long-term cult-seeking is a superior
> alternative!]. Why didn't you find a home in the dogmatically
> promiscuous Objectivist Center? ;-)
I can't speak for what Betsy thinks, though I know she's no longer
speaking to me. Look, I had no dishonest intentions. At the time,
Objectivism was appealing. I wanted to swallow it all. Really, I did.
My thought just took too divergent a path.
Objectivism is a powerful draw for an alienated, unconfident teenager
lost in a world where few people are willing to take a stand on
anything. Then again, so is Socialism. Had the Socialists gotten a hold
of me first, I probably would be known as the former author of the
Marxian Resource Guide (MRG) and former rising star of the World
Socialism Movement. Both movements have a great many similarities in
the tenor of their world views and the behavior of their adherents.
I've been eavesdropping on the WSM discussion list for a few weeks now,
and sometimes it's like deja vu all over again.
> When you say "other Objectivists,"
> what do you mean? Don't you mean pseudo-rational, pseudo-independent,
> pseudo-active-minded pseudo-Objectivists with whom you would have had
> plenty interaction with among ARIans? Chris Wolf, for instance, was
> certainly turned off by these people, but didn't abandon Objectivism.
Principally, the former. I'm not ready to give your side a clean bill
of health either - especially when it's composed of people like Chris
Wolf, who, as I remember, was as bad as I was. :-) But I think
the "Kelleyites" tend to be slightly more grounded - and their
intellectual output far more interesting - than their "ARIan"
counterparts. (Who came up with that *awful* term, anyway? Did someone
think the similarity to "Aryan" - and the racist associations that word
conjures - was amusing? It's overdone, bordering on hysterical.
Personally, I've been referring to each side in my own thought as
the "dogmatists" and the "heretics". though I doubt those terms will
fly here. :-)
Goddess knows I set no examples of sterling behavior when I was an
Objectivist, so I feel funny throwing stones at anyone - even as a
collective - when my own house has so much shattered glass. No one's to
blame for what I was and did, and nothing and no one could have changed
it; it had to run its course. All I'll say on that score is that, for
years, I was surrounded by people who bragged about how rational,
productive, dynamic and *happy* they were. Over time, however,
everybody's deeply-troubled selves (including mine) eventually bubbled
up to the fore, and I learned what Shakespeare meant by a tale full of
sound and fury. Most Objectivists I knew were more like Richard Cory
than Howard Roark.
Allan Blumenthal has noted that Rand's emphasis on philosophy as the
predecessor of psychology is an inversion: One's philosophy flows from
one's psychology. Who we are - products of nature and nurture, choice
and chance - is determined long before we realize we have a say in the
matter. The little choices we make from day to day fuse together in our
subconscious and cement themselves into a personality - and, before we
realize it, we are who we are, and it makes us miserable. It's a
glorious day when we awaken to a sense of our own possibility.
Unfortunately, most of us then do the worst possible thing to
ourselves: we latch onto a system.
Why do people climb Everest? Because it's there, and it's hard. I think
philosophical systems have much of the same allure. A closed system,
like dogmatic Objectivism, has an even richer aura (a deep-blue aura -
like an angel, or a bug zapper), combining as it does a "complete" set
of ideas for living one's life with the veneration of a Christ-like
figure whose every moral transgression is whitewashed or ignored.
Dogmatic Objectivism is religion for the religiously disillusioned.
That's why the heretics, such as yourself, are fighting an upward
battle. We live in an anti-intellectual culture; championing a dynamic,
open-ended Objectivism, while noble, will not appeal to the masses like
a closed system will.
Frankly, I've had my fill of systems, regardless of their quantum
state. System allegiance puts one's mind into the same read-and-reject
mode another poster in this group recently complained about: instead of
exposing your open mind to a wide variety of ideas, you parse
everything for its errors - and, for Objectivists, nearly every
cultural product of the last four thousand years of human history is
riddled with errors. That way of thinking makes my brain itch. I'm much
happier these days working in a loose framework of Neo-Pagan
spiritualism and radical political liberalism. Both resonate with my
intuitive understanding of the universe and human nature without being
overly prescriptive. I need that mental lebensraum; my thought's too
crazy and dynamic to be straight-jacketed by someone else's mental
projection.
Mea maxima culpa.
There. That wasn't *too* bitter, was it?
Ja ne and Blessed Be,
-J-
--
Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
"One expects so much from a chicken and is so dreadfully
disillusioned."
- Sherwood Anderson, "The Egg"
Jay Andrew Allen
jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> This commentator illustrates the very worst characteristics of
> some people found on the fringes of Objectivism. A close reading
> of these comments can help to spot them early in their antilife
> cycle. They are originally attracted as outcasts and then later
> condemn the philosophy out of their irrational vindictivness at
> being rejected again. They are like a previous cigaret smoker
> that crusades against smoking pleasures or a communist like
> Chambers who is hired to attack socialism as an intimate insider.
> Obviously their inherent character defects make any comments
> they make so much garbage but it's still important to see them. JD
Wow. You deduced my life history, mental construction AND immorality
from a single post to HPO? I'm impressed. Does this make me part of an
anti-Objectivist conspiracy? I've never been part of a conspiracy
before. I'm honored.
Quid rides? Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.
-J-
P.S. to Chris Cathcart: quod erat demonstrandum.
--
Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
"One expects so much from a chicken and is so dreadfully
disillusioned."
- Sherwood Anderson, "The Egg"
Chris Cathcart
Well, there was a question subtly hinted at in my remarks, to the
effect that (a) I was inquiring about what it was about these people
that turned him off, and (b) I'm curious how this alone could explain
his views about the inadequacies of Objectivism (since at least some
other people's being turned off by these people didn't lead them to
abandon Objectivism).
Not that someone coming to the conclusion that Rand's "metaphysics is
trite" or that her "epistemology is inadequate" isn't to be completely
surprising; particularly with the metaphysics, it's quite
understandable that they find "A is A," "EE," chapter one of _OPAR_,
etc., to be very helpful at understanding much about reality or
philosophical problems in general. Whether Jay Allen can give well-
thought-out reasons for thinking the Oist philosophy to be inadequate
at handling various problems (as some academically-trained as well as
non-academic students of philosophy I know have done, however much they
might accept the content of Objectivism), or has more or less casually
dismissed the philosophy without giving a whole lot of careful thought
to it (perhaps symmetrical to not having given the philosophy much
careful thought before accepting it), I can't tell, given what he's
said -- hence why it would be helpful for him to explain.
Chris Cathcart
Anyone who reads what Jay Allen wrote will see that my above question
to him was based on a comment he made:
> > > (2) A. I used to be an Objectivist, but time - and other
> > Objectivists -
> > > cured that.
Yes, he *does* state that he disagrees with AR's philosophical views,
but he *also* states that "other Objectivists" "cured" him of being an
Objectivist, which I take to mean that certain people (most likely and
most notoriously those who act like cultists) had something to do with
his abandoning Objectivism. That may be understandable if what he's
exposed to are a bunch of cultish pseudo-Objectivists, though the
reason I bring up Chris Wolf as a counter-example is that one can be
fed up with these people without ending up abandoning Objectivism.
There should be better reasons for abandoning Objectivism than being
fed up with certain cultist-pretenders.
> > Why didn't you find a home in the dogmatically promiscuous
Objectivist
> > Center?
>
> .... where disagreement with Ayn Rand's metaphysics, epistemology,
ethics,
> esthetics AND politics is common and those who so disagree still call
> themselves "objectivists."
Q.E.D. re: the strawman against TOC.
Tupac Chopra
<kensho_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>All I'll say on that score is that, for
>years, I was surrounded by people who bragged about how rational,
>productive, dynamic and *happy* they were. Over time, however,
>everybody's deeply-troubled selves (including mine) eventually bubbled
>up to the fore, and I learned what Shakespeare meant by a tale full of
>sound and fury. Most Objectivists I knew were more like Richard Cory
>than Howard Roark.
Even after 6 years as an ex-Objectivist, I still smile wryly and get a
sick satisfaction whenever I come across this IRL.
>Allan Blumenthal has noted that Rand's emphasis on philosophy as the
>predecessor of psychology is an inversion: One's philosophy flows from
>one's psychology.
This is THE issue that explains the whole phenomenon, IMO.
Objectivists like to begin theorizing in mid-stream, as it were. The
ego views itself as sui generis, which then assumes its own free will,
never realizing that it is an evolutionary adaptation that rests on an
a-rational instinctual past, characterized largely by out-of-awareness
impulses and fixed habitual behavior.
>Who we are - products of nature and nurture, choice
>and chance - is determined long before we realize we have a say in the
>matter. The little choices we make from day to day fuse together in our
>subconscious and cement themselves into a personality - and, before we
>realize it, we are who we are, and it makes us miserable. It's a
>glorious day when we awaken to a sense of our own possibility.
Objectivists need to realize that "genuine" free will is something
that is acquired piecemeal, involving large amounts of effort and
WORK.
How convenient it is to believe that one merely chooses to "focus" and
that's that. Such a belief is nothing more than a mental
tranquilizer. When that's not enough to quell the growing sense of
Existential Presence, more drastic measures are needed. To wit:
>Unfortunately, most of us then do the worst possible thing to
>ourselves: we latch onto a system.
"Fine philosophies reflect more the need to feel good than how anyone
has lived their lives." -- Christopher S. Hyatt
>That's why the heretics, such as yourself, are fighting an upward
>battle. We live in an anti-intellectual culture; championing a dynamic,
>open-ended Objectivism, while noble, will not appeal to the masses like
>a closed system will.
Sad but true.
The Enlightenment idea that we are all "creatures of God" and possess
the same capacity for rational thought is a joke. The hordes of men
who have gone, are going, and will continue to go to their graves
having lived as nothing more than herd animals attests to this fact.
IT'S NOT GETTING BETTER FOLKS.
>Frankly, I've had my fill of systems, regardless of their quantum
>state. System allegiance puts one's mind into the same read-and-reject
>mode another poster in this group recently complained about: instead of
>exposing your open mind to a wide variety of ideas, you parse
>everything for its errors - and, for Objectivists, nearly every
>cultural product of the last four thousand years of human history is
>riddled with errors. That way of thinking makes my brain itch. I'm much
>happier these days working in a loose framework of Neo-Pagan
>spiritualism and radical political liberalism. Both resonate with my
>intuitive understanding of the universe and human nature without being
>overly prescriptive. I need that mental lebensraum; my thought's too
>crazy and dynamic to be straight-jacketed by someone else's mental
>projection.
Great post. I enjoyed it.
Word to the wise: ditch the neo-pagan thing. :)
Namaste,
TC
Chris Cathcart
>
> I figured someone from the Kelleyite side would be the first to engage
> me rationally. Kudos to you. :)
>
> In article <95tib1$42b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Chris Cathcart <cath...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > *The* Jay Allen, former Objectivism Resource Guide operator firmly
> > ensconced within the ARI camp?
>
> [bow]
>
> > Wow. (Mrs. Speicher would chalk this
> > up to emotionalistic, immature cult-seeking running its course
> [whereas
> > Mrs. Speicher's refined, long-term cult-seeking is a superior
> > alternative!]. Why didn't you find a home in the dogmatically
> > promiscuous Objectivist Center? ;-)
>
> I can't speak for what Betsy thinks, though I know she's no longer
> speaking to me.
What, you let her down? She's looking for the "good" minds, you know.
The ones that can maintain *long-term* loyalties.
> Look, I had no dishonest intentions. At the time,
> Objectivism was appealing. I wanted to swallow it all. Really, I did.
> My thought just took too divergent a path.
>
> Objectivism is a powerful draw for an alienated, unconfident teenager
> lost in a world where few people are willing to take a stand on
> anything. Then again, so is Socialism. Had the Socialists gotten a
hold
> of me first, I probably would be known as the former author of the
> Marxian Resource Guide (MRG) and former rising star of the World
> Socialism Movement. Both movements have a great many similarities in
> the tenor of their world views and the behavior of their adherents.
> I've been eavesdropping on the WSM discussion list for a few weeks
now,
> and sometimes it's like deja vu all over again.
Pursuit to this and other comments you made later on your post (about
how people are psycho-epistemologically inclined toward receptivity of
certain kinds of ideas), you express something about Objectivism having
a lot of appeal toward the young, particularly teenagers, which is not
an altogether new observation. We've all heard hundreds upon hundreds
of times about how her selfishness appeals to those who haven't yet
outgrown their childhood, or how her atheism appeals to those
rebellious against authority. (The flip side of this, of course, is
the dogmatism and authority-worship most typified in the "Objectivist
movement" by the Estatists, and most tragically among the screwed-up
older people like the Speichers, who are "psychologically mature," as
it were, but chronic, life-long evaders.)
In my own case, I came to Rand's writings after a rather lengthy move
in that direction from Limbaugh-style conservatism, and study of market
economics. For me, it was more or less an acceleration toward ideas I
was already headed toward. I read the works of Rasmussen-Den Uyl,
Nozick, Mack, and others before I even got around to _Atlas Shrugged_.
As it turns out, I most admire her novels now, and appreciate Rand's
philosophy *most* for introducing me to a philosophical method of
viewing the world and thinking about issues. In my transition phase, I
was "agnostic," for instance, on the question of God's existence, but
now have a considerably more useful way of looking at an issue like
that. Not, mind you, specifically informed by Rand's arguments, but by
the methods of thinking, based on a respect for reason and evidence.
For a number of Rand-influenced thinkers, that may lead to positions at
variance with her, even if they maintain a basic respect for a great
many of her conclusions. But take an branch of study dealing with
philosophy of mind or language, and you see that Rand either didn't
have much to say, or made some pronouncements that some follow
dogmatically.
The best that Rand can bestow upon her readers is an active-minded way
of thinking, which I take to be fundamental to objectivity. I think
quite a number of people in this newsgroup who are philosophers by
training and don't consider themselves Objectivists nonetheless find a
lot of interest in it, perhaps for that reason. Owl and Agent Cooper
seem to be a couple examples. What they are interested in is *doing
philosophy* as an activity (not as a fixed set of ideas), and I presume
that they hope to find a number of people here who've been inspired by
Rand to think philosophically, or at least find admiration of her for
that. David Friedman, by no means an Objectivist, finds much of value
in her novels, and probably in a good deal of her non-fiction. So
there are many means of appreciating her or her influence, without
succumbing to cultish dogmatism.
> > When you say "other Objectivists,"
> > what do you mean? Don't you mean pseudo-rational, pseudo-
independent,
> > pseudo-active-minded pseudo-Objectivists with whom you would have
had
> > plenty interaction with among ARIans? Chris Wolf, for instance, was
> > certainly turned off by these people, but didn't abandon
Objectivism.
>
> Principally, the former. I'm not ready to give your side a clean bill
> of health either - especially when it's composed of people like Chris
> Wolf, who, as I remember, was as bad as I was. :-) But I think
> the "Kelleyites" tend to be slightly more grounded - and their
> intellectual output far more interesting - than their "ARIan"
> counterparts. (Who came up with that *awful* term, anyway? Did someone
> think the similarity to "Aryan" - and the racist associations that
word
> conjures - was amusing? It's overdone, bordering on hysterical.
> Personally, I've been referring to each side in my own thought as
> the "dogmatists" and the "heretics". though I doubt those terms will
> fly here. :-)
One of the difficult things to do is make classifications and
corresponding labels that are least misleading, and it can be hard to
do. "ARIan" gets bashed a lot for the reason that you mention. But
what word to use to succinctly identify the group of cultist dogmatists
surrounding the ARI? I've just suggested "Estatists" as a possible
alternative, partly in response to your post. :-) But calling the
Estatists "orthodox" or "dogmatists," much less "Objectivists," hardly
captures the essence or even the accuracy of what they're about, or
sufficiently distinguishes them. Same with Kelleyites (by whom I
basically take to mean those in basic agreement with the word if not
the spirit of _Truth and Toleration_ contra the word and/or spirit
of "Fact and Value"). Kelley is an orthodox Objectivist if that is
taken to mean someone who accepts the fundamental framework of
Objectivism in its entirety. What he differs with Peikoff on is not
*that* question specifically, but the way that the debates are often
framed around here, that is what it can often seem like.
What distinguishes the groups, as a matter of fact rather than what
they pay lip service to, is the emphasis each places on loyalty, vs.
having an active, objective mind. I refer to the latter as "truth-
seeking," but even there you get sneers from Estatists about it always
being a bunch of questions with no answers (which is a strawman).
[...]
> We live in an anti-intellectual culture; championing a dynamic,
> open-ended Objectivism, while noble, will not appeal to the masses
like
> a closed system will.
It is said that Rand had sought intelligent agreement, which she found
so hard to find. Of chief concern should be the truth. If the truth
doesn't appeal to the masses, that can be discouraging, but that's no
reason at all to succumb to mass-appeal, because an intellectual
culture of a nation *can* and *does* change. It happens slowly, of
course, but it happens.
[...]
> I'm much
> happier these days working in a loose framework of Neo-Pagan
> spiritualism and radical political liberalism.
I'm a radical political liberal. :-)
--
Chris Cathcart
*
Objectivism Resources:
Daily Objectivist - http://dailyobjectivist.com
Objectivist Center - http://objectivistcenter.org
We The Living Forums - http://wetheliving.com
Journal of Ayn Rand Studies - http://aynrandstudies.com
The ARI/Kelley Split - http://wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html
ARIan Idiocy Documented - http://jeffcomp.com/faq
Merrill on ITOE - http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/cathcacr/gm.htm
Walsh on Rand and Kant -
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1
Dave OHearn
> Objectivists need to realize that "genuine" free will is something
> that is acquired piecemeal, involving large amounts of effort and
> WORK.
>
> How convenient it is to believe that one merely chooses to "focus" and
> that's that. Such a belief is nothing more than a mental
> tranquilizer. When that's not enough to quell the growing sense of
> Existential Presence, more drastic measures are needed. To wit:
Maybe I'm just oblivious, but I never got that message from Objectivism.
It's just too obvious to me that, while some aspects of my personality
resulted from well-reasoned choices, some is a random hash I accumulated
over the years. I think some people try to get too much out of
Objectivism. It's a philosophy, and answers very basic questions. If
someone has psychological problems, he should see a psychologist or other
counselor, not a philosopher.
> The Enlightenment idea that we are all "creatures of God" and possess
> the same capacity for rational thought is a joke. The hordes of men
> who have gone, are going, and will continue to go to their graves
> having lived as nothing more than herd animals attests to this fact.
>
> IT'S NOT GETTING BETTER FOLKS.
I'm pretty much consigned to that. Talking to people on the Internet, I
almost forget that there are so many damned people in the real world that
believe in God, not to mention their ridiculous positions in other areas.
I rarely attempt a good discussion with anyone in real life, as they
probably aren't as smart or interesting as people here, but when I do, I
am very disappointed.
Still, no matter what I see, the facts keep me from giving up hope.
Capitalism makes everyone richer, happier, and freer, end of story. It's
true. I don't expect everyone to wake up one day and become a rational
capitalist, but the more we can make society free, the more people will
have to think for themselves, and the more they'll want to be freer. It
just make take generations, as almost no one changes the opinions they
were born with, at least not in a substantial way.
--
Dave O'Hearn
kiek...@aol.com
Kyle Haight <kha...@olagrande.net> wrote:
> In article <95uh1c$tms$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <kiek...@aol.com> wrote:
> >In article <3A81C7...@gonet.co.za>,
> >
> >First, plenty of people back then thought "Angels" was a terrible
show.
>
> I suspect that you can find plenty of people who think just about
> any show was terrible.
True, but you seem to have missed my point. The post I was responding
to implied that in the context of 70's TV, "Angels" wasn't a bad show.
But most people who liked (what I regard as) good shows back then
thought "Angels" was terrible.
Tym Parsons
> Objectivism is a powerful draw for an alienated, unconfident teenager
> lost in a world where few people are willing to take a stand on
> anything. Then again, so is Socialism. Had the Socialists gotten a
> hold of me first, I probably would be known as the former author of
> the Marxian Resource Guide (MRG)
Ah, a True Believer.
> and former rising star of the World Socialism Movement.
"Rising star"? That's rather overweening innit?
> Both movements have a great many similarities in the tenor of their
> world views and the behavior of their adherents. I've been
> eavesdropping on the WSM discussion list for a few weeks now, and
> sometimes it's like deja vu all over again.
Allen is in a position to know better than to pull this characterisation
in terms of nonessentials (if it's even that).
<snip>
> Goddess knows I set no examples of sterling behavior when I was an
> Objectivist, so I feel funny throwing stones at anyone - even as a
> collective - when my own house has so much shattered glass.
That's for damn sure.
> No one's to blame for what I was and did, and nothing and no one could
> have changed it;
Except himself ;-/
> it had to run its course. All I'll say on that score is that, for
> years, I was surrounded by people who bragged about how rational,
> productive, dynamic and *happy* they were. Over time, however,
> everybody's deeply-troubled selves (including mine) eventually bubbled
> up to the fore,
Projection I daresay; and fatalistic too. Misery loves company.
> and I learned what Shakespeare meant by a tale full of sound and fury.
The only "sound and fury" I notice around here is Allen's rationalising
soliloquy.
> Most Objectivists I knew were more like Richard Cory than Howard
> Roark.
Whoever that is %o
> Allan Blumenthal has noted that Rand's emphasis on philosophy as the
> predecessor of psychology is an inversion: One's philosophy flows from
> one's psychology.
No, one's philosophy properly flows from the facts of reality.
> Who we are - products of nature and nurture, choice and chance - is
> determined long before we realize we have a say in the matter.
Having a choice IS "having a say in the matter". Like one's philosophy.
> The little choices we make from day to day fuse together in our
> subconscious and cement themselves into a personality - and, before we
> realize it, we are who we are, and it makes us miserable. It's a
> glorious day when we awaken to a sense of our own possibility.
> Unfortunately, most of us then do the worst possible thing to
> ourselves: we latch onto a system.
Fascinating bit of rationalisation: eschew system-building; don't
integrate, if you want to be happy.
<snip>
> I'm much happier these days working in a loose framework of Neo-Pagan
> spiritualism and radical political liberalism. Both resonate with my
> intuitive understanding of the universe and human nature without being
> overly prescriptive. I need that mental lebensraum; my thought's too
> crazy and dynamic to be straight-jacketed by someone else's mental
> projection.
Translation: the poster prefers whim-worshipping mysticism and faith.
Since I know for a fact that he's in a position to know better, this is
as good an instance of volition and evasion as any I've seen.
Jay, why are you here? Just to troll?
> Mea maxima culpa.
>
> There. That wasn't *too* bitter, was it?
Defensive too ;-/
Tym Parsons
Jay Andrew Allen
Tupac Chopra <tupac_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The Enlightenment idea that we are all "creatures of God" and possess
> the same capacity for rational thought is a joke. The hordes of men
> who have gone, are going, and will continue to go to their graves
> having lived as nothing more than herd animals attests to this fact.
>
> IT'S NOT GETTING BETTER FOLKS.
Oh, I believe everyone has the *capacity* - I just don't think they use
it. *And this is not necessarily a moral indictment of that person*.
Environment, circumstances, past bad choices, and all the other rot
instill ideas, opinions, problems and malfunctions in us before we even
realize what's going down. It takes tremendous effort of will to break
past this, *and many people never succeed*. Nathaniel Branden discussed
this in nice detail in several books (especially HONORING THE SELF,
written without any overlording from Rand or a similar dogmatic
figure).
That's why I find modern literature so fascinating: it dissects and
celebrates *both* man's successes and failures. A flawed human being,
like Hamlet, can be beautiful not only in spite of his flaws, but
*because* of those flaws. We pity him, learn from him and admire him
all in the same instant. It's a far cry from the Randian world of
Brillo-scrubbed heroes.
> Word to the wise: ditch the neo-pagan thing. :)
The immediate prospects for this are bleak, Tupac, but I'll keep you
posted. :-)
Blessings (couldn't resist),
Jay Andrew Allen
that
> Allen's disagreement is not with ARI. It is with Ayn Rand's
metaphysics,
> epistemology, ethics, esthetics AND politics.
Actually, Betsy, it's with both. ARI has a history of treating people
like dirt, and its figureheads are some of the most intellectually
desparate people I've ever seen. Take Peikoff, who - among many
zingers - reviewed TITANIC *by reviewing a review of the movie*. Now, I
think TITANIC is a shoddy piece of Hollywood doo-doo, but at least I
watched it before forming that opinion. AFter years of taking people
like WIlliam F. Buckley to task for critiquing ATLAS SHRUGGED without
even reading it, that's disgraceful.
> > Why didn't you find a home in the dogmatically promiscuous
Objectivist
> > Center?
>
> .... where disagreement with Ayn Rand's metaphysics, epistemology,
ethics,
> esthetics AND politics is common and those who so disagree still call
> themselves "objectivists."
And why is this such a danger? It's a philosophy, not a museum piece.
Let it loose and it'll return home when it's all grown up.
-J-
--
Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
"One expects so much from a chicken and is so dreadfully
disillusioned."
- Sherwood Anderson, "The Egg"
Dean Sandin
Having apparently abandoned Ayn Rand's view of reason, to the
extent that _his_ reason has no power to identify a true
philosophy (and hence no power to argue that Rand's isn't true).
> but he *also* states that "other Objectivists" "cured" him of being an
> Objectivist,
So he rebounded from a core rationalism to a core subjectivism.
This Allen character's whole view of Objectivism and Objectivists
is dependent on rationalization being the foundation for holding a
philosophy, and psychologizing as being the way to "cure" oneself
of a given belief. Then he feels sorry for himself for being in
the crucial grip of forces! Well of course he does. Abandoning
the very foundation for achieving happiness may just have
something to do with it. This is all as pathetic a "psychological
confession" as we could hope to (not) ever see on h.p.o.
I do agree with him on one thing: it _was_ accidental that _he_
fell under the sway of Objectivism instead of World Socialism,
before becoming enlightened of the "fact" that reason is helpless
to answer the big questions -- e.g., such questions as "how do we
know a fact?" and "what is the role and power of reason?".
> which I take to mean that certain people (most likely and
> most notoriously those who act like cultists) had something to do with
> his abandoning Objectivism.
Which proves my point, and reflects solely on _him_. He
identified with (perceived or projected) cultists, and could
understand himself only in relation to_them_. He did _that_
rather than identifying with, and understanding himself in
relation to, the large element among Objectivists that shines out
as rational.
When someone like him shows up on your doorstep whining for
acceptance as he does, you don't make excuses and you don't
tolerate his appearance there. As with a bum showing up to whine
for money, while implying his contempt for your virtues that
gained you your wealth, you don't necessarily even tell him what
you think of him. You _do_ quickly shut the door.
--Dean
Jay Andrew Allen
Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > and former rising star of the World Socialism Movement.
>
> "Rising star"? That's rather overweening innit?
Hm. Yeah, you're probably right, Tym. I was no Garmong or Tracinski or
Hull. Would you settle for "active participant in"?
> > Both movements have a great many similarities in the tenor of their
> > world views and the behavior of their adherents. I've been
> > eavesdropping on the WSM discussion list for a few weeks now, and
> > sometimes it's like deja vu all over again.
>
> Allen is in a position to know better than to pull this
characterisation
> in terms of nonessentials (if it's even that).
Ahhh, I'm being last-named out of existence. :/ Is it really so hard to
treat a person with whom you disagree as a human being and call them by
their first name? Are you people passing around some sort of playbook
of tactics to use on philosophical enemies? "Never use first names with
the irrational - that implies familiarity and respect."
And no, it isn't. It points to essentially similar thought processes.
I'm not the first one to point it out, either - go look up Michael
Shermer's famous article in SKEPTIC.
Stop treating Objectivism like religion - arguing that I "should know
better" because I've been "exposed to the truth" ("seen the light").
> > it had to run its course. All I'll say on that score is that, for
> > years, I was surrounded by people who bragged about how rational,
> > productive, dynamic and *happy* they were. Over time, however,
> > everybody's deeply-troubled selves (including mine) eventually
bubbled
> > up to the fore,
>
> Projection I daresay; and fatalistic too. Misery loves company.
Projection is a technical psychological assessment - usually
accomplished by professionals using Rorschach plates - and one you're
hardly qualified to make. Especially over Usenet.
What evidence is there for my statement? There's Rand herself, who's
obviously stuffed full of hate. Objectivists continue to ignore the
mountain of evidence that's accumulated about how bitter and lonely she
was, dismissing her detractors as having an axe to grind. (Never mind
that the people who were close to her, such as Peikoff, have a vested
interest in maintaining the illusion of her rationality. That never
enters an Objectivist's mind, for some reason.) Aside from personal
anecdotes, however, you can see it in her published writings and
speeches. Outside a select circle, she hated the world.
And then, of course, there's Peikoff and his cohorts, who all behave
like children. Their behavior is fully documented - you just refuse to
recognize it, either consciously or because you're too far immersed in
the Objectivist way of thinking. Unlike you, I'll give you the benefit
of the doubt and assume the latter.
> > Most Objectivists I knew were more like Richard Cory than Howard
> > Roark.
>
> Whoever that is %o
You coulda done a search on Yahoo!, Tym. "Richard Cory" is a poem by
Edward Arlington Robinson:
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/rp/poems/robnea4.html
> > Allan Blumenthal has noted that Rand's emphasis on philosophy as the
> > predecessor of psychology is an inversion: One's philosophy flows
from
> > one's psychology.
>
> No, one's philosophy properly flows from the facts of reality.
...which are many, multivarious, and open to constant dispute - as
centuries of philosophical debate has shown. I'm sorry, Tym, but I'm
not naive enough to believe that the philosophical discourse of 2500
years suddenly stops because a chain-smoking Russian with a nasty
attitude spilled some ink.
> > Who we are - products of nature and nurture, choice and chance - is
> > determined long before we realize we have a say in the matter.
>
> Having a choice IS "having a say in the matter". Like one's
> philosophy.
And, as I've already pointed out, choice - volition - is an overblown
concept, with many existential qualifiers. Yes, I say this as much from
my personal experience as from my observation of others - but so what?
That doesn't automatically prove it false. Of COURSE I want this
principle applied to myself as well; if I didn't, it wouldn't be a
*principle*, would it?
The question is: Do I think it's true because I think it reflects
reality, or because I *want* it to reflect reality? You haven't proven
the latter - you've simply asserted it. Not content just to attack the
*idea*, you have to besmirsch my *character* in the same breath.
Objectivists constantly distinguish on a theoretical level between the
person and the idea; outside of the Kelleyites, I have hardly ever seen
this theory practiced.
>
> > The little choices we make from day to day fuse together in our
> > subconscious and cement themselves into a personality - and, before
we
> > realize it, we are who we are, and it makes us miserable. It's a
> > glorious day when we awaken to a sense of our own possibility.
> > Unfortunately, most of us then do the worst possible thing to
> > ourselves: we latch onto a system.
>
> Fascinating bit of rationalisation: eschew system-building; don't
> integrate, if you want to be happy.
"Rationalization" is another non-rational smear term.
Did I say "don't integrate"? No. I said: Don't LATCH ONTO a system.
There's a big difference between forming your own understanding of
reality and digesting someone else's - as though truth were something
you could buy off a shelf, like a TV dinner.
> > I'm much happier these days working in a loose framework of Neo-
Pagan
> > spiritualism and radical political liberalism. Both resonate with my
> > intuitive understanding of the universe and human nature without
being
> > overly prescriptive. I need that mental lebensraum; my thought's too
> > crazy and dynamic to be straight-jacketed by someone else's mental
> > projection.
>
> Translation: the poster prefers whim-worshipping mysticism and faith.
> Since I know for a fact that he's in a position to know better, this
is
> as good an instance of volition and evasion as any I've seen.
See, Tym, here was your chance to learn something. You could've asked
about the nature of my belief and worship - is it metaphysical, or
mytho-psychological, a la the theories of James and Jung? (Not that I
expect an Objectivist to be familiar with James and Jung, but hey...)
Instead, you use your Objectivist screens to declare that I'm an
irrational evader.
I'm a productive member of society - a programmer and budding artist.
I'm the father of four (soon to be five) well-adjusted, mentally sharp
and happy children. (They're soooo cute, too.) I've been in a
monogamous, loving relationship for six years and counting. I involve
myself in my community, and in politics and social movements at both
the national and local levels. I form my philosophical ideas honestly
and to the best of my ability, and when I debate ideas, I strain to do
so calmly and with respect for my opponent. I praise good, condemn
evil, and show tolerance for people's errors (including my own).
But, of course, none of this matters, because I'm an evader.
> Jay, why are you here? Just to troll?
I've always enjoyed debating ideas, you know that. I'm also on the
World Socialism Movement list, even though I'm not a Socialist.
In case you haven't noticed, Tym, this is a group *about* Objectivism -
not a restricted list for the converted. (You can always go to OSG for
that.) Non-Objectivists also hang here and discuss their opinions of
the philosophy. (See Tupac's great response to my post.) Despite
Objectivism's lament to the contrary, the world is becoming more
capitalist, more market-driven and more corporate-oriented, not less -
putting Objectivism in a position to make inroads with the general
populace. If I can do just a little bit to help stop that by telling my
story, so much the better.
Apparently, though, you all don't even need my help to reap the spoils
of defeat. The split between Frederick Gibson and the Speichers - it
would appear between nearly the entire world and the Speichers - is so
typical: A technical discussion about first-level concepts breaks down
into an infantile screaming match, with accusations of evasion and
irrationality flying back and forth. Combined with the
Reardan/Salsman/<insert your name here> fallouts, it means the
cohesiveness of the movement is even worse than when I was a member.
How do any of you expect to make any headway into mainstream discourse
when you can't prevent yourselves from splitting apart at the seams?
How can you continue to have fistfights over concepts and consider
yourselves calm, rational adults?
-J-
--
Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
"One expects so much from a chicken and is so dreadfully
disillusioned."
- Sherwood Anderson, "The Egg"
Jay Andrew Allen
> Reardan/Salsman/<insert your name here> fallouts,
DOH! I meant *Sanford*, not Salsman. Sorry - got my Richards mixed up.
That's about as bad as the time I referred to Normal Lear as "Your
Majesty".
Haha! Hehe.
Eh....
Jason Lockwood
I'm curious.
OK, so you no longer agree with Objectivism. Fine. It doesn't matter to me
what you believe, so long as you do not impose your beliefs on me. But that
beings up a question: why spend your time posting here? Presumably, if your
current philosophical beliefs are different from and/or counter to
Objectivism, then your *interest* in the philosophy would go away. Is that
true?
Jason Lockwood
Ken Gardner
> Ahhh, I'm being last-named out of existence. :/ Is it really so hard to
> treat a person with whom you disagree as a human being and call them by
> their first name? Are you people passing around some sort of playbook
> of tactics to use on philosophical enemies? "Never use first names with
> the irrational - that implies familiarity and respect."
Welcome to HPO. :)
> How do any of you expect to make any headway into mainstream discourse
> when you can't prevent yourselves from splitting apart at the seams?
> How can you continue to have fistfights over concepts and consider
> yourselves calm, rational adults?
I posed these very questions myself about six or seven months ago. I
wish I still had my post, but I think I can summarize it as follows:
Many Objectivists have never learned how to disagree in a rational and
civil manner, much less accept the fact that in Real Life, disagreement
on philosophical issues is inevitable. They often react to the fact of
disagreement with anger, hostility, and a zeal to condemn. They take
for granted many philosophical premises that are either unknown or
disputed by the vast majority of people. They often engage in a
practice that even Ayn Rand condemned, although she herself often
practiced it herself): psychologizing. Many of them, including here on
HPO, are not immune from making illogical arguments and committing
common logical fallicies. They are more concerned with being consistent
with something Rand or Peikoff wrote than with being consistent with the
facts of reality. They are quick to pass judgment -- almost always
moral condemnation -- without taking the time or trouble to understand
correctly what their opponent is actually saying. They often condemn
without first attempting to explain rationally why they disagree and
without first giving the other guy a chance to respond and/or correct
any mistake. And their tone is almost universally bitter, hostile, and
angry. The result of all this is that it takes a very special type of
person even to endure these people for more than a few days or weeks --
which is not exactly the way to promote Objectivism in our culture.
Having said all this, I don't blame the philosphy itself for the ugly
behavior of some of its alleged adherents. You said in a recent post
that you regarded Objectivism as inadequate in several respects. Can
you elaborate? I guess we can start with ethics and politics and see if
your disagreements go even deeper (i.e. metaphysics or epistemology,
which I happen to regard as essentially Aristotelian albeit with a
different terminology, e.g. "stolen concept" instead of "denying a self-
evident truth," "contextual certainty" instead of "right opinion;"
"distinguishing characteristic" instead of "essential," "measurement
omission" instead of "accidental," etc.).
Ken
Jay Andrew Allen
Dean Sandin <dsa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <snip>
This is more ad hominem personal attack, with no intellectual content.
Rather than debating my ideas, Dean, you take Tym's tack and choose to
pick apart my character - again, on the basis of a handful of Usenet
posts. Not a particularly fine moment for you, I'm sad to say...
> When someone like him shows up on your doorstep whining for
> acceptance as he does, you don't make excuses and you don't
> tolerate his appearance there. As with a bum showing up to whine
> for money, while implying his contempt for your virtues that
> gained you your wealth, you don't necessarily even tell him what
> you think of him. You _do_ quickly shut the door.
Have you met a lot of these "bums," Dean? Is there a particular
explosion of contemptuous whining "bums" where you live?
I used to live in New York City on Cathedral Parkway, the very edge of
Harlem. To get to midtown Manhattan, I'd take the C line, which runs
under Central Park West (CPW). One night a homeless man was sleeping on
the bench opposite from me. Whenever we stopped anywhere along CPW -
86th, 72nd - he'd lean his head up and shout, "I know those people who
live up there in those fancy apartments. I used to work with those
people. They can all fucking DIE!!" And then he'd go back to sleep.
Outside of him, I've met few homeless people who approach me with
contempt, even when I don't give them anything. I always look them in
the eye when they ask for help, and I always see lost people who can't
seem to figure out how life got the best of them. Some of them will,
sadly, live out their lives like this; others will eventually triumph
over adversity, and move on to do great things.
Yes, great people often have tragic flaws, Dean. Ever hear how Edgar
Allan Poe died? Or read about Einstein's mistress? Reasonable people
know that even a genius can have her demons, and they act accordingly.
-J-
--
Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
"One expects so much from a chicken and is so dreadfully
disillusioned."
- Sherwood Anderson, "The Egg"
Jay Andrew Allen
Hey Jason,
It's kind of like a car crash, I guess - you know it's awful, but you
crane your neck all the same. ;-)
For me, this entire movement is a case study in what NOT to do to make
a new set of ideas heard. See my analysis above for more on that. As I
stated earlier, I'm very interested as well in comparing the character
of some of the participants with those of adherents to other
ideologies, and noting the similarities and differences.
Also, since I've reoriented my worldview, I need a testing-ground for
my post-Objectivist interpretation of the philosophy. Though I'm no
longer an Objectivist, I still need to process it and file it away in
the necessary mental buckets - and I'd rather not do my bucket-filing
in a vacuum.
Jay Andrew Allen
everything in here due to time constraints, so let me hit a few salient
points.
In article <95vh1b$qij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Chris Cathcart <cath...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> But calling the
> Estatists "orthodox" or "dogmatists," much less "Objectivists," hardly
> captures the essence or even the accuracy of what they're about, or
> sufficiently distinguishes them. Same with Kelleyites (by whom I
> basically take to mean those in basic agreement with the word if not
> the spirit of _Truth and Toleration_ contra the word and/or spirit
> of "Fact and Value"). Kelley is an orthodox Objectivist if that is
> taken to mean someone who accepts the fundamental framework of
> Objectivism in its entirety.
<snip>
> What distinguishes the groups, as a matter of fact rather than what
> they pay lip service to, is the emphasis each places on loyalty, vs.
> having an active, objective mind.
Good point. Perhaps "exclusionists" versus "tolerationists"? Or "closed-
system" vs. "open-system" Objectivists? I prefer the former - the
latter is too formal, and doesn't hit at the exclusionists' veracity.
> It is said that Rand had sought intelligent agreement, which she found
> so hard to find. Of chief concern should be the truth. If the truth
> doesn't appeal to the masses, that can be discouraging, but that's no
> reason at all to succumb to mass-appeal, because an intellectual
> culture of a nation *can* and *does* change. It happens slowly, of
> course, but it happens.
I agree completely. It was more an observation than a call to water
down your ideology - which would be a shameful act.
> [...]
> > I'm much
> > happier these days working in a loose framework of Neo-Pagan
> > spiritualism and radical political liberalism.
>
> I'm a radical political liberal. :-)
Toupee. :-)
With Love and Laughter,
-J-
--
Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
"One expects so much from a chicken and is so dreadfully
disillusioned."
- Sherwood Anderson, "The Egg"
Ken Gardner
> > What distinguishes the groups, as a matter of fact rather than what
> > they pay lip service to, is the emphasis each places on loyalty, vs.
> > having an active, objective mind.
> Good point. Perhaps "exclusionists" versus "tolerationists"? Or "closed-
> system" vs. "open-system" Objectivists? I prefer the former - the
> latter is too formal, and doesn't hit at the exclusionists' veracity.
"Certainty seekers" v. "truth seekers."
Ken
Jim Klein
Jay Andrew Allen <kensho_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> *The* Jay Allen, former Objectivism Resource Guide operator firmly
>> ensconced within the ARI camp?
>
>[bow]
Well, I'll be goddammed! Do you know that you're one of the relatively few
examples as proof positive that the disease isn't necessarily fatal?
>Principally, the former. I'm not ready to give your side a clean bill
>of health either - especially when it's composed of people like Chris
>Wolf, who, as I remember, was as bad as I was. :-)
And _he's_ one of the other examples! Point being...be very, very careful
of lingering symptoms.
>But I think the "Kelleyites" tend to be slightly more grounded - and their
>intellectual output far more interesting - than their "ARIan"
>counterparts.
That's obvious but it doesn't say very much. Some intellectual output has
to be more interesting than none at all. How interesting is a parrot on the
topic of philosophy?
>(Who came up with that *awful* term, anyway?
<Ahem>
>Did someone think the similarity to "Aryan" - and the racist associations
>that word conjures - was amusing?
No, but it didn't hurt...a scum label for a scum philosophy.
>It's overdone, bordering on hysterical.
Well, you have to distinguish between a single utterance and an overdone
series of them. It's not exactly unusual to add "ian" to something to
identify an adherent, and it's completely normal to drop the second "i".
>Personally, I've been referring to each side in my own thought as
>the "dogmatists" and the "heretics". though I doubt those terms will
>fly here. :-)
I think "dogmatists" does the job nicely, since that's exactly what they
are. While I have no allegiance to the "Kelleyite" [oops...should that be
"Kelleyan"?] faction, I think "heretic" does a disservice to Rand.
Objectivism is not something of which one can be an heretic. For myself,
that's its most notable distinction; that's why it's so obvious that
ARIanism is so completely opposed to Objectivism.
>Goddess knows I set no examples of sterling behavior when I was an
>Objectivist, so I feel funny throwing stones at anyone - even as a
>collective - when my own house has so much shattered glass. No one's to
>blame for what I was and did, and nothing and no one could have changed
>it; it had to run its course. All I'll say on that score is that, for
>years, I was surrounded by people who bragged about how rational,
>productive, dynamic and *happy* they were. Over time, however,
>everybody's deeply-troubled selves (including mine) eventually bubbled
>up to the fore, and I learned what Shakespeare meant by a tale full of
>sound and fury.
"I'm rational and happy. No, really...I _am_ rational and happy. And not
only that, I'll bop you in the head if you're not as rational as me!"
>Most Objectivists I knew were more like Richard Cory than Howard Roark.
Ha...good one. That's because contra hearing the Objectivists tell it, Rand
was not very focused on genuine egoism at all. I mean, she had bits and
pieces of it and offered a truly fine foundation for it; it's still the
case that she was far from the epitome of egoism and that her philosophy
suffered for it.
>Allan Blumenthal has noted that Rand's emphasis on philosophy as the
>predecessor of psychology is an inversion: One's philosophy flows from
>one's psychology. Who we are - products of nature and nurture, choice
>and chance - is determined long before we realize we have a say in the
>matter.
Ugh. What, like you haven't had a say in what you've become? As the
survivor of an oft-deadly illness (to the mind, anyway), you of all people
ought to understand that _any_ combination of "nature and nurture" can be
trumped by one's own decisions. This is what it means to say that we're
volitional beings. Surely you don't deny that, do you?
Why sell yourself short? And don't throw out the baby with the bathwater;
Rand's errors don't make her philosophy worthless. She offered plenty of
valuable stuff, even in areas where she made some mistakes. And while her
derivation was seriously flawed, she nonetheless came up with the correct
conclusion...that there is a bridge between "is" and "ought". Her insights
into this will allow others to build the bridge properly.
>Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
And if that happens in time for you, you'll know that you put these in the
wrong order.
Nice posts anyway; very well done. And congratulations---you've
accomplished a feat tougher than you yourself seem to know. The retrieval
of a mind is not a simple task.
jk
Jim Klein
Jay Andrew Allen <kensho_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It's a philosophy, not a museum piece.
>Let it loose and it'll return home when it's all grown up.
Pow...what a line.
In my experience, _this_ is perhaps the best answer to, "What is Objectivism?"
jk
Jim Klein
>When someone like him shows up on your doorstep whining for
>acceptance as he does, you don't make excuses and you don't
>tolerate his appearance there. As with a bum showing up to whine
>for money, while implying his contempt for your virtues that
>gained you your wealth, you don't necessarily even tell him what
>you think of him.
"I hate you, Allen, for what you've done. I hate myself even more, because
I chose not to do it. And I'm going to pretend that I never said that!"
>You _do_ quickly shut the door.
Precisely, Dean...that's the most honest thing you've written in years.
Just so you know, though, civilized folks usually strip naked in private.
"But this is not a 'closed' mind, it is a _passive_ one. It is a mind that
has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging,
and feels threatened by any request to consider anything."
Rand, _Philosophical Detection_ in PWNI
jk
Tym Parsons
as it is with unsubstantiated sweeping assertions, strawman, ad hominem,
and an insufferable presumptuousness and condescension. Worst of all is
his vague, floating discourse and undefined use of terms e.g. "choice -
volition - is an overblown concept, with many existential qualifiers."
In short the poster is confirming that he's the troll I expected
> Did I say "don't integrate"? No. I said: Don't LATCH ONTO a system.
> There's a big difference between forming your own understanding of
> reality and digesting someone else's - as though truth were something
> you could buy off a shelf, like a TV dinner.
Knowing the truth certainly does require independent, active-minded
thought. The poster isn't the first True Believer to latch onto
Objectivism and then discard it, and he won't be the last.
Tym Parsons
Jim Klein
Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I see little in Jay Allen's last post that warrants a response, filled
>as it is with unsubstantiated sweeping assertions, strawman, ad hominem,
>and an insufferable presumptuousness and condescension. Worst of all is
>his vague, floating discourse and undefined use of terms e.g. "choice -
>volition - is an overblown concept, with many existential qualifiers."
>
>In short the poster is confirming that he's the troll I expected
Wow...that looks like a fairly sweeping and unsubstantiated assertion.
It's also a strawman since it doesn't address anything substantive in Jay's
post, but rather just addresses Jay.
Technically it's a form of ad hominem because you have concluded that
nothing warrants a response because of the (accused) character of the
writer.
It's presumptuous because you presume him to be a troll when it's completely
obvious that he's not and is only being sincere.
And lastly it's condescending because it's...well, it's condesending.
IOW Tym...you have engaged _each and every_ charge that you brought against
Jay, on your own behalf. What you apparently don't get is that your words
cannot affect Jay; it's only _you_ that suffer for them. That's why you
find it all "insufferable;" it's easier to evade than understand what
you're doing. If you'd shut your yap for a moment and just _think_, perhaps
you'd understand what it _really_ means when I say:
"Hypocrisy is the most pernicious trait common to many ARIans."
You aren't slaying Jay with your hypocrisy; you're killing yourself.
jk
Jay Andrew Allen
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
> You aren't slaying Jay with your hypocrisy; you're killing yourself.
What else is there to say but, "Ditto"?
Very well put, Jim.
With Love and Laughter,
-J-
--
Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
"One expects so much from a chicken and is so dreadfully
disillusioned."
- Sherwood Anderson, "The Egg"
Ernest Brown
O's who put judgement before identification? It has the added advantage of
connoting the "White Death" of "blanking out" entailed by such
irrationality.
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
Jay Andrew Allen
Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I see little in Jay Allen's last post that warrants a response, filled
> as it is with unsubstantiated sweeping assertions, strawman, ad
hominem,
> and an insufferable presumptuousness and condescension. Worst of all
is
> his vague, floating discourse and undefined use of terms e.g. "choice
-
> volition - is an overblown concept, with many existential qualifiers."
Should I have attached a dictionary?
That's what a *discussion* is about, Tym. Not everything is defined to
everyone's satisfaction in the first two messages. Besides which, this
is just a summary of what I said in the post prior to that one - the
sentence you quote is simply a poetic restatement of the idea that
philosophy flows from psychology, not vice versa. I handed you *plenty*
of context for that quote; if you chose to drop it, that doesn't
reflect on me, but on you.
> In short the poster
What kind of poster am I, BTW? Personally, I've always envisioned
myself as a velvet Elvis. Or a Black Jesus. *
> is confirming that he's the troll I expected
Well, okay. I guess labeling me is easier than actually responding to
what I wrote.
I have to point out, Tym, that your post sounds like some sort of
Objectivist Mad Lib. There's nothing original in your reply to me -
nothing, even, that's *unique* to my post. You could have gone into the
archives, found one of my old replies to Chris Wolf or Diana Mertz
Hsieh (nee Brickell), changed the names - from "Diana" or "Chris" to
"The Poster" - and pasted it in, with a quote from me tacked on to lend
the appearance of a direct reply.
>
> > Did I say "don't integrate"? No. I said: Don't LATCH ONTO a system.
> > There's a big difference between forming your own understanding of
> > reality and digesting someone else's - as though truth were
something
> > you could buy off a shelf, like a TV dinner.
>
> Knowing the truth certainly does require independent, active-minded
> thought.
At least we agree on that. Once you want to engage in some independent,
open-minded thought, give me a buzz - I'll be ready.
> The poster isn't the first True Believer to latch onto
> Objectivism and then discard it, and he won't be the last.
My apologies for evolving. I'll do my best to stay static and
unchanging in the future. **
Sincerely,
The Poster
* This is a joke.
** This is also a joke. Kinda.
--
Jay Andrew Allen - Writer. Father. Witch.
"One expects so much from a chicken and is so dreadfully
disillusioned."
- Sherwood Anderson, "The Egg"
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
Jay Andrew Allen <kensho_g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:962e13$9a5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> My apologies for evolving. I'll do my best to stay static and
> unchanging in the future. **
Change is only a benefit it you go from wrong to right, is it not?
You seem to imply a value to change for it's own sake.
In addition, isn't arriving at the correct understanding of reality a
position (whatever that may be) that must also reflect the 'flexibility of
reality?
I might add, that I have never discovered a 'flexibility's that allowed me
to do this with my opinions, but if I understood you, there are 'other
realities' out there that allow for less extreme positions.
--
Arnold
Ken Gardner
> Why not use the term "TB (True Believer) Objectivists" to refer to those
> O's who put judgement before identification? It has the added advantage of
> connoting the "White Death" of "blanking out" entailed by such
> irrationality.
Because this term is an oxymoron. :)
Ken
Ken Gardner
> I see little in Jay Allen's last post that warrants a response, filled
> as it is with unsubstantiated sweeping assertions, strawman, ad hominem,
> and an insufferable presumptuousness and condescension. Worst of all is
> his vague, floating discourse and undefined use of terms e.g. "choice -
> volition - is an overblown concept, with many existential qualifiers."
> In short the poster is confirming that he's the troll I expected
This has to be the funniest post that I have ever read on HPO. And I
bet you weren't even trying to be funny!
Ken
Jay Andrew Allen
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou <bro...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> Jay Andrew Allen <kensho_g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:962e13$9a5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > My apologies for evolving. I'll do my best to stay static and
> > unchanging in the future. **
>
> Change is only a benefit it you go from wrong to right, is it not?
> You seem to imply a value to change for it's own sake.
Tym's accusation was that I'm some irrational bastard for dropping
Objectivism. The fact is, paradigm shifts like that are very common,
especially amongst the young. Your knowledge of "reality" grows by
leaps and bounds between the ages of 18 and 27.
> In addition, isn't arriving at the correct understanding of reality a
> position (whatever that may be) that must also reflect the
'flexibility of
> reality?
> I might add, that I have never discovered a 'flexibility's that
allowed me
> to do this with my opinions, but if I understood you, there are 'other
> realities' out there that allow for less extreme positions.
I'm afraid you lost me there. What's the "flexibility of reality"?
There's only one reality. Reality's not the problem - it's perception
that's the bitch.
-J-
Ernest Brown
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Chris Cathcart
Jay delivered a one-liner (actually, two-liner) here about Objectivism
being a philosophy, not a museum piece, which Jim Klein has already
praised. I don't know if I agree with the way it's stated, though I do
agree with the spirit of it. Perhaps a better way of putting it is the
old saying about giving a man a fish, vs. teaching him how to fish.
Perhaps the *best*, most single important idea that Rand can impart to
newcomers to her philosophy is the value of objectivity in thought,
which does leave open-ended what ideas one may formulate and arrive at
one one's own (within a range, of course: IDI's and other silliness
gets excluded).
This is why the genuine Objectivists look at philosophy as an
*activity*, akin to the way Aristotle viewed eudaemonia as an activity
rather than some static state. The intellectual bigots who pretend to
be doing philosophy see their "philosophy" as a specific set of
contents, to be clung to.
In that context, Jay is absolutely right that 2,500 years of
philosophical tradition doesn't essentially come to and end because
some 20th century novelist "spilled some ink." There isn't anything
about the content of Objectivism that gives it a privileged place among
the history of ideas, but the pretenders, the Estatists, do treat it in
so privileged a manner, so they don't seriously consider alternative
ideas or objections in an objective fashion. Veneration toward Rand's
writings is the first rule; charitably understanding, say, Immanuel
Kant's ideas takes a seat near the back.
Why else is it that Aristotle, not Ayn Rand, is recognized, and will
forever be recognized, as one of the greatest, towering figures in the
history of philosophy? The Catholic Church of the Renaissance era
didn't make any progress by enshrining the *content* of Aristotle's
ideas, now did it? What they championed was a stale dogmatism, with
Aristotle's works as a vessel.
--
Chris Cathcart
*
Objectivism Resources:
Daily Objectivist - http://dailyobjectivist.com
Objectivist Center - http://objectivistcenter.org
We The Living Forums - http://wetheliving.com
Journal of Ayn Rand Studies - http://aynrandstudies.com
The ARI/Kelley Split - http://wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html
ARIan Idiocy Documented - http://jeffcomp.com/faq
Merrill on ITOE - http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/cathcacr/gm.htm
Walsh on Rand and Kant -
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
> In article <q14h6.1175$FU5....@ozemail.com.au>,
> Arnold Broese-van-Groenou <bro...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Jay Andrew Allen <kensho_g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:962e13$9a5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > My apologies for evolving. I'll do my best to stay static and
> > > unchanging in the future. **
> >
> > Change is only a benefit it you go from wrong to right, is it not?
> > You seem to imply a value to change for it's own sake.
>
> Tym's accusation was that I'm some irrational bastard for dropping
> Objectivism. The fact is, paradigm shifts like that are very common,
> especially amongst the young. Your knowledge of "reality" grows by
> leaps and bounds between the ages of 18 and 27.
>
> > In addition, isn't arriving at the correct understanding of reality a
> > position (whatever that may be) that must also reflect the
> > 'flexibility of reality?
> > I might add, that I have never discovered a 'flexibility's that
> allowed me
> > to do this with my opinions, but if I understood you, there are 'other
> > realities' out there that allow for less extreme positions.
>
> I'm afraid you lost me there. What's the "flexibility of reality"?
>
> There's only one reality. Reality's not the problem - it's perception
> that's the bitch.
Glad to hear it, but when Tym said that:
"one's philosophy properly flows from the facts of reality."
What did you mean by:
"...which are many, multivarious, and open to constant dispute - as
centuries of philosophical debate has shown. I'm sorry, Tym, but I'm
not naive enough to believe that the philosophical discourse of 2500
years suddenly stops because a chain-smoking Russian with a nasty
attitude spilled some ink."?
You said _many_; and that would of course give you an independent philosophy
for each one. That is what I meant by flexible philosophy.
OTOH, _one_ reality allows _no_ flexibility, if one is to accept the law of
identity.
Granted one can be mistaken in one's view of reality, but what I get from
you, is not so much that one can be mistaken, but that one is inflexible.
Would you not agree that IF one had the correct understanding of reality, it
could not be flexible, since reality isn't that way?
--
Arnold
Chris Cathcart
> >I see little in Jay Allen's last post that warrants a response,
filled
> >as it is with unsubstantiated sweeping assertions, strawman, ad
hominem,
> >and an insufferable presumptuousness and condescension. Worst of
all is
> >his vague, floating discourse and undefined use of terms
e.g. "choice -
> >volition - is an overblown concept, with many existential
qualifiers."
> >
> >In short the poster is confirming that he's the troll I expected
Interesting exposition of method here . . . rather than ask Mr. Allen
to clarify what he means when he says that "choice" is subject to many
existential qualifiers, the poster immediately *assumes* that the
discourse is "vague, floating . . . and undefined." For the rest of us
intellectually civilized individuals, not operating at the level of
mental savagery of the poster, we can have at least some good idea of
what Mr. Allen is getting at when he speaks of choice as having many
existential qualifiers. That our psycho-epistemology isn't _sui
generis_, for instance, and is affected by various background
conditions.
One might even go so far as to say that certain mental savages are so
stunted intellectually that they don't effectively exercise choice in
intellectual matters, but grunt reflexively, in a knee-jerk manner.
Such poor souls wouldn't be self-made intellectually, but would instead
identify with comfortable-sounding and comfortably-concatenated sets of
words. Psycho-epistemologically, they'd be so far removed from the
realm of competence as to be beyond hope and beyond help, and best
serve as a case study in the damaging effects of intellectual pathology.
--
Chris Cathcart
*
Objectivism Resources:
Daily Objectivist - http://dailyobjectivist.com
Objectivist Center - http://objectivistcenter.org
We The Living Forums - http://wetheliving.com
Journal of Ayn Rand Studies - http://aynrandstudies.com
The ARI/Kelley Split - http://wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html
ARIan Idiocy Documented - http://jeffcomp.com/faq
Merrill on ITOE - http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/cathcacr/gm.htm
Walsh on Rand and Kant -
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1
Chris Cathcart
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou <bro...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> Jay Andrew Allen <kensho_g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[...]
> > There's only one reality. Reality's not the problem - it's
perception
> > that's the bitch.
>
> Glad to hear it, but when Tym said that:
> "one's philosophy properly flows from the facts of reality."
>
> What did you mean by:
>
> "...which are many, multivarious, and open to constant dispute - as
> centuries of philosophical debate has shown. I'm sorry, Tym, but I'm
> not naive enough to believe that the philosophical discourse of 2500
> years suddenly stops because a chain-smoking Russian with a nasty
> attitude spilled some ink."?
>
> You said _many_; and that would of course give you an independent
philosophy
> for each one.
He said that there are many facts of reality, not many realities.
> OTOH, _one_ reality allows _no_ flexibility, if one is to accept the
law of
> identity.
> Granted one can be mistaken in one's view of reality, but what I get
from
> you, is not so much that one can be mistaken, but that one is
inflexible.
> Would you not agree that IF one had the correct understanding of
reality, it
> could not be flexible, since reality isn't that way?
That would be correct. Of course, at the level of scientific
understanding, there isn't a whole lot in the way of dispute about what
the facts are, and that rationally-oriented people have no debates
among themselves about a wide range of scientific facts. In that
regard, they're pretty inflexible. But philosophy deals with meta-
level issues, and it brings in a bunch of considerations that do lead
to lots of debate, doubt, etc. For instance: at the level of ordinary
fact, I don't think rationally-oriented people disagree among
thesmelves that we have free will in some discernable sense, or we at
least have some idea based on introspection what free will involves for
us experientially. But take the issue to the level of philosophical
debate about the nature of causality, "understanding reality" becomes
more difficult. I don't even think both sides of the debate as they
happen here and other Objectivism discussion forums have an exact
common understanding of what "determinism" means or entails. Some have
a certain idea of what "choice" means such that we can choose in a
given situation even if we couldn't do otherwise. That immediately
strikes many of the others as *odd*, though it wouldn't be a cause for
immediate dismissal of the position as absurd; rather, it should invite
some inquiry as to what the person means to say is involved in the act
of making a genuine choice, how we can get our head around a unitary
meaning of "could have done otherwise," and so on. With this and many
other topics of debate in philosophy, there is much to be parsed out
before we know we understand reality correctly, so that we can *then*
be inflexible. :-)
--
Chris Cathcart
*
Objectivism Resources:
Daily Objectivist - http://dailyobjectivist.com
Objectivist Center - http://objectivistcenter.org
We The Living Forums - http://wetheliving.com
Journal of Ayn Rand Studies - http://aynrandstudies.com
The ARI/Kelley Split - http://wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html
ARIan Idiocy Documented - http://jeffcomp.com/faq
Merrill on ITOE - http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/cathcacr/gm.htm
Walsh on Rand and Kant -
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1
Dave OHearn
Kiekeben <kiek...@aol.com> wrote:
> 1. Which of the following best describes your view?
>
> C) Rand was right about everything of a philosophical nature. The
> only time she was ever wrong about anything was when she went beyond
> philosophical issues (e.g., when she said Charlie's Angels was a good
> TV show).
This one's me. I think her philosophy is great, and although there are
some issues like free will that I prefer to think about in different
terms than she did, I'm still in agreement. To a certain extent, I don't
think it matters which philosophy people study, as they have to answer
all the important questions first-hand with their own mind. But in a
culture that holds selfishness as a virtue and mysticism as an ideal, it
takes an extra effort to unmask the false prmises at work. No one did a
better job of ripping apart the death premise than Ayn Rand.
I'm a bit unsure of Ayn Rand's aesthetics, and I haven't read The
Romantic Manifesto. I think there's some value in trashy art that depicts
villainy or pop culture waste, as it opens me to self-destructive aspects
I may have in my personality, and I can't deal with them if I don't
understand them. Romantic art presents an ideal to inspire us, but I
think naturalistic art also has a purpose, if not a timeless one. Still,
Romantic art has always been my favorite, which is probably why I like
Anime.
> D) Rand was right about Everything.
I don't like this one. I've never read anything by Ayn Rand that I
thought was stupid or totally off the wall, but it's contradictory to say
that she was right about Everything. One can't agree with Objectivism and
take on faith every off hand comment she might have made.
> 2. I consider myself:
>
> B) A strong sympathizer, but not an Objectivist
I'm wary of giving myself any label with a capital letter, and I don't
really see the point in calling myself an Objectivist unless I were a
career philosopher. Maybe when I'm older and have read more philosophy,
I'll be able to take a firmer position.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Dave OHearn
> But in a culture that holds selfishness as a virtue and mysticism as an
^^^^^^^^^^^
That should, of course, say "selflessness". That's what I get for reading
by shape, not sound. It will be quite a while before the grammar checker
can pick up philosophic errors...
--
Dave O'Hearn
Ken Gardner
> Perhaps the *best*, most single important idea that Rand can impart to
> newcomers to her philosophy is the value of objectivity in thought,
> which does leave open-ended what ideas one may formulate and arrive at
> one one's own (within a range, of course: IDI's and other silliness
> gets excluded).
Absolutely.
> This is why the genuine Objectivists look at philosophy as an
> *activity*, akin to the way Aristotle viewed eudaemonia as an activity
> rather than some static state. The intellectual bigots who pretend to
> be doing philosophy see their "philosophy" as a specific set of
> contents, to be clung to.
Right. And the specific activity here is the absolute commitment to
noncontradictory identification of the facts of reality. The pretenders
see it instead as a set of rules to live by, rules (or, more precisely,
categorical imperatives in the Kantian sense) that are never to be
questioned, validated, or improved upon, i.e. a secular and slightly
more expansive version of the Ten Commandments.
> There isn't anything about the content of Objectivism that gives it
> a privileged place among the history of ideas, but the pretenders,
> the Estatists, do treat it in so privileged a manner, so they don't
> seriously consider alternative ideas or objections in an objective
> fashion.
I agree with respect to the "Estatists." Regarding the content of
Objectivism itself, I do think Rand deserves special credit for her
objective theory of concepts, but on everything else she mostly stands
on the shoulders of Aristotle. Her metaphysics and ethics strike me as
being essentially Aristotelian, albeit with different terminology. I
cannot think of a single metaphysical principle that Objectivism accepts
that Aristotle would not also accept. Her ethics, for the most part, is
the Nicomachean ethics with different terminology. To the extent of any
differences, I think that, objectively speaking (no pun intended),
Aristotle actually provides more concrete, helpful guidance for living
and enjoying life. The content of Rand's political philosphy is
straight from John Locke and the Founding Fathers and is a logical
consequence of anyone who accepts her ethical system. IMO, had
Aristotle lived in the late 18th Centruy, he would have fully accepted
the principle of individual rights as well.
Ken
Ken Gardner
> Glad to hear it, but when Tym said that:
> "one's philosophy properly flows from the facts of reality."
> What did you mean by:
> "...which are many, multivarious, and open to constant dispute - as
> centuries of philosophical debate has shown...."
I understood Jay to be saying that the _facts_ of reality -- or, more
precisely, our conceptualization of these facts -- are "many,
multivarious, and open to constant dispute." And, objectively speaking,
he's right. People disagree all the time about a great many things,
philosphical and non-philosophical alike. Further, I get the sense that
Jay is turned off by the way that many "Objectivists" treat their actual
or perceived opponents. I am, too, although unlike Jay I haven't thrown
out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm not saying that the fact of disagreement proves that we can never
know the facts of reality, that no one philosphy or viewpoint can ever
be right, or any other such nonsense. I'm saying only that Objectivists
and other rational people should take the fact of inevitable
disagreement into account when engaging opponents in philosophical
discussion. It is another fact of reality, this one pertaining to human
nature, that when angry and hostile proponents of a certain view quickly
accuse opponents of being evil without waiting to understand what the
other guy is actually saying or explaining rationally why he is wrong,
the opponents are much more likely to refuse to consider, much less
accept, what's right about their view.
Ken
Tym Parsons
> That's what a *discussion* is about, Tym. Not everything is defined to
> everyone's satisfaction in the first two messages. Besides which, this
> is just a summary of what I said in the post prior to that one - the
> sentence you quote is simply a poetic restatement of the idea that
> philosophy flows from psychology, not vice versa. I handed you
> *plenty* of context for that quote; if you chose to drop it, that
> doesn't reflect on me, but on you.
I leave it to the reader to note that I already responded to the claim
that "philosophy flows from psychology", and was rewarded with yet more
vague, airy pronouncements.
<snip>
> I have to point out, Tym, that your post sounds like some sort of
> Objectivist Mad Lib. There's nothing original in your reply to me -
> nothing, even, that's *unique* to my post.
Yeah, I know. There's nothing in your post that deserves more than a
generic write-off, even if that may conflict with your inflated sense of
self-importance. After all you haven't even SAID anything of substance.
<snip>
> Once you want to engage in some independent, open-minded thought, give
> me a buzz - I'll be ready.
Once the poster wants to adduce facts and logic, I'll be ready. So far
all we've seen is a lot of sound and fury.
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
> >I see little in Jay Allen's last post that warrants a response,
> >filled as it is with unsubstantiated sweeping assertions, strawman,
> >ad hominem, and an insufferable presumptuousness and condescension.
> >Worst of all is his vague, floating discourse and undefined use of
> >terms e.g. "choice - volition - is an overblown concept, with many
> >existential qualifiers."
> >
> >In short the poster is confirming that he's the troll I expected
>
> Wow...that looks like a fairly sweeping and unsubstantiated assertion.
It's substantiated by simply pointing to Allen's post. Since contains
nothing but vague or arbitrary gibberish, that's all I need or can do.
> It's also a strawman since it doesn't address anything substantive in
> Jay's post,
But there IS nothing substantive in his post.
> but rather just addresses Jay.
>
> Technically it's a form of ad hominem because you have concluded that
> nothing warrants a response because of the (accused) character of the
> writer.
False. His post doesn't warrant a response because to all intents and
purposes he hasn't SAID anything.
> It's presumptuous because you presume him to be a troll when it's
> completely obvious that he's not and is only being sincere.
A troll is someone who is uninterested in facts and logic and only wants
to vent, which is the case here. And I dispute the poster's
"sincerety", since I know for a fact that he's capable of more than the
vague unfocused rambling we see from him. What that says about his
motive or character I leave to the reader to decide.
Tym Parsons
> For the rest of us intellectually civilized individuals, not operating
> at the level of mental savagery of the poster, we can have at least
> some good idea of what Mr. Allen is getting at when he speaks of
> choice as having many existential qualifiers. That our
> psycho-epistemology isn't _sui generis_, for instance, and is affected
> by various background conditions.
That's a noncontroversial self-evidency. But Allen talks out of both
sides of his mouth e.g. "Who we are - products of nature and nurture,
choice and chance - is determined long before we realize we have a say
in the matter."
If you are a product of your own choice, you ARE "having a say in the
matter". What possibly could be his motive for obliterating the
distinction? Since he made the remark in the context of his own
admitted past foibles and cultlike "latching on" to a philosophical
system, I submit that the only motive could be to absolve himself of any
responsibility for his thought and actions. What other interpretation
is objectively possible?
Tym Parsons
James E. Prescott
Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote in
message news:9645q3$h7l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> [...] Allen talks out of both sides of his mouth e.g.
> "Who we are - products of nature and nurture, choice
> and chance - is determined long before we realize we
> have a say in the matter."
>
> If you are a product of your own choice, you ARE "having
> a say in the matter".
Sure. And you may be having a say in the matter long before you realize that
you had a say in the matter. A child's very early choices affect the
character of the man he becomes. The child doesn't know this, of course.
> What possibly could be his motive for obliterating the
> distinction? Since he made the remark in the context
> on his own admitted past foibles and cultlike "latching
> on" to a philosophical system, I submit that the only
> motive could be to absolve himself of any responsibility
> for his thought and actions. What other interpretation
> is objectively possible?
There might be any number of motives, including just that it was a very nice
turn of phrase that conveyed a great deal of important truth. But Mr. Allen
may indeed want to understand and even absolve, or at least forgive, the
young man who made those mistakes. So what? That seems to me an okay thing
to do, and it certainly doesn't mean he isn't correct.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Chris Cathcart
Jay Andrew Allen <kensho_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In case you haven't noticed, Tym, this is a group *about*
Objectivism -
> not a restricted list for the converted. (You can always go to OSG for
> that.)
Zing!
A concise identification of actual practices vs. stated policies to
which mere lip service is paid.
BTW, you think that perverted tripe like
http://deja.com/article/607708799.2
is fed to participants on the list there, not getting the full
thrashing that it does out here in the open?
(Note, particularly, the utter perversions of the concepts of "truth"
and "fact," and how "different facts" can make contradictory
conclusions both true. Speicher and his ilk have yet to actually
defend any of this garbage, but it was peddled by that "long-time
Objectivist" as bona fide Objectivist epistemological doctrine.)
--
Chris Cathcart
*
Objectivism Resources:
Daily Objectivist - http://dailyobjectivist.com
Objectivist Center - http://objectivistcenter.org
We The Living Forums - http://wetheliving.com
Journal of Ayn Rand Studies - http://aynrandstudies.com
The ARI/Kelley Split - http://wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html
ARIan Idiocy Documented - http://jeffcomp.com/faq
Merrill on ITOE - http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/cathcacr/gm.htm
Walsh on Rand and Kant -
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1
Chris Cathcart
> Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > and former rising star of the World Socialism Movement.
> >
> > "Rising star"? That's rather overweening innit?
>
> Hm. Yeah, you're probably right, Tym. I was no Garmong or Tracinski or
> Hull. Would you settle for "active participant in"?
The only "widespread" distinction (i.e., notoriety) that Tracinski has
is a biased, weasel-worded hatchet job on Kelley's "A Question of
Sanction" (see the "ARI/Kelley split" link below). Oh, that and being
editor of _The Intellectual Activist_ -- again, if that's a sign of
distinction or accomplishment rather than notoriety.
Chris Cathcart
Ken Gardner <kesga...@home.com> wrote:
[...]
> I'm not saying that the fact of disagreement proves that we can never
> know the facts of reality, that no one philosphy or viewpoint can
ever
> be right, or any other such nonsense. I'm saying only that
Objectivists
> and other rational people should take the fact of inevitable
> disagreement into account when engaging opponents in philosophical
> discussion. It is another fact of reality, this one pertaining to
human
> nature, that when angry and hostile proponents of a certain view
quickly
> accuse opponents of being evil without waiting to understand what the
> other guy is actually saying or explaining rationally why he is
wrong,
> the opponents are much more likely to refuse to consider, much less
> accept, what's right about their view.
As you well know by now, some of these pretenders to Objectivism to
whom you refer carry to the discussion and underlying tone of
intimidation (perhaps no more evident than in the case of the speicher
male). The manner in which they proceed in discussion carries the tone
of, "Well, you had better get this point, and get it pretty damn fast,
or we'll have no course other than to brand you an evader." That was
perhaps most evident in the case of their shoddy, unpersuasive
diatr...er, "arguments" about the nature of truth. The problem is with
your reticence, not the dubious character of their claims.
--
Chris Cathcart
*
Objectivism Resources:
Daily Objectivist - http://dailyobjectivist.com
Objectivist Center - http://objectivistcenter.org
We The Living Forums - http://wetheliving.com
Journal of Ayn Rand Studies - http://aynrandstudies.com
The ARI/Kelley Split - http://wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html
ARIan Idiocy Documented - http://jeffcomp.com/faq
Merrill on ITOE - http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/cathcacr/gm.htm
Walsh on Rand and Kant -
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1
Jay Andrew Allen
Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Jay Andrew Allen wrote:
> I leave it to the reader to note that I already responded to the claim
> that "philosophy flows from psychology", and was rewarded with yet
more
> vague, airy pronouncements.
- which, supposedly vague and airy though they are, several other
posters in this forum have had no problem interpreting.
It's not like I'm pushing some bizarro theory yanked from a fifth
dimension. My statement is a mainstream cultural view of volition: it
exists, yes, but that doesn't mean it's always as easy to make the
"right" decisions as Objectivists would have us believe. As Jim Klein
pointed out in one of his responses to my post, I still haven't even
escaped Objectivism's hold on my psychology, despite my volitional
decision to abandon it: hints of the past keep bubbling up to the
surface despite my vigilance.
Whether you agree with me or not, you should be able to understand me
based solely on your own experience. Who here has NEVER rationalized a
bad decision, or ignored facts to fulfill an emotional need? (Please
don't reply with "Ayn Rand", either. Or do - I need a hearty laugh.)
Who here hasn't *in some way* admired a successful person - author,
scientist, musician, businessman - with annoying or even self-
destructive traits? (Dostoevsky, anybody?) All I'm arguing for is a
more realistic, compassionate view of human psychology than Objectivism
has to offer. You can admire men like Dostoevsky, and even *sympathize*
with the personal mess that they made of their lives - especially if
you introspect vigilantly.
I've now overloaded you with explanation and evidence, Tym - as have
Jim Klein, Jim Prescott and others. If this isn't enough to meet your
standard of rational discourse, then NOTHING is.
-J-
--
Jay Andrew Allen - Good Father. Plus-good Writer. Double-plus-ungood
Witch.
"One expects so much from a chicken and is so dreadfully
disillusioned."
- Sherwood Anderson, "The Egg"