Canonical TCS (was: Children's Rights)

[Jason]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote on RP list:
>
>> Communication is difficult. When you criticize libertarianism you don't express what you're criticizing the way that libertarians do either. It's not intentional in either case.
>
> this is super unfair. there is basically no such thing as canonical libertarianism. i can't mimic what how most libertarians would express something because they vary in their positions and expression styles so much. as opposed to with stuff like TCS and Objectivism where there is recognizably Objectivist or TCS ways to approach a topic.

I think we agree about objectivism - it has readily identifiable and
available canon: the Ayn Rand Lexicon, OPAR, and Rand's nonfiction
books. Whether you can disagree with some of what's in those sources
and still call yourself an objectivist is debated, but a different
topic.

And I agree that libertarianism does not have a canon like objectivism does.

That leaves TCS.

I've seen some references to old newsletters that aren't readily
available, some web pages published by a person that you've later
disavowed, your own web site, and list archives - some of which are
still available and some not.

It's not at all clear which if any of those sources ought to be
considered canonical TCS. In particular, list archives are a great
resource but I don't see how they could be canonical. They contain
lots of contradictory statements, from different people at different
times.

Exactly what are you saying constitutes canonical TCS, that is
specific and non-contradictory in a way that's similar to what's
available in canonical objectivism?

--Jason

[Justin Mallone]

On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote on RP list:
>>
>>> Communication is difficult. When you criticize libertarianism you don't express what you're criticizing the way that libertarians do either. It's not intentional in either case.
>>
>> this is super unfair. there is basically no such thing as canonical libertarianism. i can't mimic what how most libertarians would express something because they vary in their positions and expression styles so much. as opposed to with stuff like TCS and Objectivism where there is recognizably Objectivist or TCS ways to approach a topic.
>
> I think we agree about objectivism - it has readily identifiable and
> available canon: the Ayn Rand Lexicon, OPAR, and Rand's nonfiction
> books. Whether you can disagree with some of what's in those sources
> and still call yourself an objectivist is debated, but a different
> topic.
>
> And I agree that libertarianism does not have a canon like objectivism does.
>
> That leaves TCS.
>
> I've seen some references to old newsletters that aren't readily
> available, some web pages published by a person that you've later
> disavowed,

Do you think later disavowal is relevant to the existence of a "canon"?

[Jason]

It is if the person making the disavowal is the same person suggesting
there's a canon, and is also the most prominent promoter of the ideas
in question that I know of.

A simple explanation like, "I don't think Joe was ever very good at
thinking in general, but I and most other TCSers still consider his
TCS stuff at <address> to be part of the TCS canon" is fine, but
absent such an explanation it's really hard to know whether Joe's
stuff is considered canon or not.

--Jason

[Justin Mallone]

On Mar 19, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote on RP list:
>>>>
>>>>> Communication is difficult. When you criticize libertarianism you don't express what you're criticizing the way that libertarians do either. It's not intentional in either case.
>>>>
>>>> this is super unfair. there is basically no such thing as canonical libertarianism. i can't mimic what how most libertarians would express something because they vary in their positions and expression styles so much. as opposed to with stuff like TCS and Objectivism where there is recognizably Objectivist or TCS ways to approach a topic.
>>>
>>> I think we agree about objectivism - it has readily identifiable and
>>> available canon: the Ayn Rand Lexicon, OPAR, and Rand's nonfiction
>>> books. Whether you can disagree with some of what's in those sources
>>> and still call yourself an objectivist is debated, but a different
>>> topic.
>>>
>>> And I agree that libertarianism does not have a canon like objectivism does.
>>>
>>> That leaves TCS.
>>>
>>> I've seen some references to old newsletters that aren't readily
>>> available, some web pages published by a person that you've later
>>> disavowed,
>>
>>
>> Do you think later disavowal is relevant to the existence of a "canon"?
>
> It is if the person making the disavowal is the same person suggesting
> there's a canon, and is also the most prominent promoter of the ideas
> in question that I know of.

If a person made a "reference" to a specific web page as being good or containing TCS ideas, that'd indicate that they thought the stuff by a person on that site was "canon" regardless of any later disassociations which occurred, wouldn't it?

And if there was any specific ambiguity, one could just ask...

I just find it curious because, you specifically cited Rand's non-fiction as part of the Objectivist canon, but at least some of her works, which contain writing by people like Nathaniel Branden, disclaim any association with Nathaniel Branden.

And I wouldn't just limit the assumption of canonicity to stuff in Rand's books. Like any stuff in the Objectivist Newsletter or whatever I would assume is canon unless disclaimed, because Rand was alive for all of it. I wouldn't assume his post-break self-esteem stuff is, though.

>
> A simple explanation like, "I don't think Joe was ever very good at
> thinking in general, but I and most other TCSers still consider his
> TCS stuff at <address> to be part of the TCS canon" is fine, but
> absent such an explanation it's really hard to know whether Joe's
> stuff is considered canon or not.

I know you meant this as a throwaway example, but I find it an extremely curious one. One isn't bad at thinking while coming up with quality TCS stuff.

-JM

[Jason]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 19, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote on RP list:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Communication is difficult. When you criticize libertarianism you don't express what you're criticizing the way that libertarians do either. It's not intentional in either case.
>>>>>
>>>>> this is super unfair. there is basically no such thing as canonical libertarianism. i can't mimic what how most libertarians would express something because they vary in their positions and expression styles so much. as opposed to with stuff like TCS and Objectivism where there is recognizably Objectivist or TCS ways to approach a topic.
>>>>
>>>> I think we agree about objectivism - it has readily identifiable and
>>>> available canon: the Ayn Rand Lexicon, OPAR, and Rand's nonfiction
>>>> books. Whether you can disagree with some of what's in those sources
>>>> and still call yourself an objectivist is debated, but a different
>>>> topic.
>>>>
>>>> And I agree that libertarianism does not have a canon like objectivism does.
>>>>
>>>> That leaves TCS.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen some references to old newsletters that aren't readily
>>>> available, some web pages published by a person that you've later
>>>> disavowed,
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think later disavowal is relevant to the existence of a "canon"?
>>
>> It is if the person making the disavowal is the same person suggesting
>> there's a canon, and is also the most prominent promoter of the ideas
>> in question that I know of.
>
> If a person made a "reference" to a specific web page as being good or containing TCS ideas, that'd indicate that they thought the stuff by a person on that site was "canon" regardless of any later disassociations which occurred, wouldn't it?

No.

Firstly, a reference might not be considered canon, but merely good
thought provoking stuff. List archives are a great reference, but a
terrible canon.

Secondly, changing one's mind about a person might or might not have
come about partially because of reconsidering their ideas in stuff you
previously referenced. So if you said "Joe's TCS stuff is canon" and
then later, "Joe is full of shit," maybe you still think Joe's TCS
stuff is canon, or maybe you don't.

>
> And if there was any specific ambiguity, one could just ask...

Let me ask another way, more directly:

What specific things do you consider to be TCS Canon?

--Jason