Kelley v. Peikoff & the 'Most pernicious trait of ARIans'
Owl
the Kelley-Peikoff schism within Objectivism, because I think Speicher
fairly represents the Peikovian sect of Objectivists. What is the root
cause of this schism? I know that a lot has been written on this that I
haven't read, so what follows might be repetition, but I continue anyway:
First, I think I have to disagree with Kelley and Peikoff that the split
is primarily doctrinal in nature. It seems to me that the root of the
dispute is a personality difference, and that *leads to* the difference in
doctrines. When I say this, though, I don't mean a conflict between
specific people (e.g. that David Kelley in particular had a personality
conflict with Leonard Peikoff). I mean a divergence between two types of
personalities that are drawn to Objectivism.
What personality traits are typical of the ARIan sect of Objectivists?
Jim Klein keeps saying that hypocrisy is the most unnerving or (lately)
pernicious trait common to many ARIans. That is one of their negative
traits, but I'm not sure it is the most unnerving one, nor the most
pernicious. Similarly, Chris Wolf keeps pointing out the dishonesty of
Stephen Speicher, but I don't think that's his worst fault.
I think that their general malevolence, or misanthropy, is more unnerving.
The ARIans seem to be very angry at the world. When they look around,
they just see horrible evil and 'dishonesty' everywhere. You would think
it would be an unpleasant life, to be surrounded by 'evil' people and to
see outrageous things going on whenever you turn around. But I speculate
that this leads them to take a kind of perverse pleasure in issuing
violent condemnations of others, often exercising considerable linguistic
skill in phrasing the worst insults against others that they can find
(without resorting to obscenity). There are several people on this
newsgroup who provide examples of this.
This isn't unique to ARIans -- I think humans in general very often take
pleasure in moral self-righteousness and in condemning other people. An
example would be those Jerry Springer type talk shows, in which audience
members stand up and call the guests "sluts", or whatever. Some people
watch those shows because they enjoy feeling morally outraged. A similar
trait afflicts many of those leftists who are constantly outraged by the
rampant 'racism' and 'sexism' in our society.
Ayn Rand's writings have two strands in them, two different emotional, or
if you like 'spiritual', attitudes towards the world that they express at
different moments, and I think the Kelley-Peikoff schism stems essentially
from the fact that the two sects of Objectivists are drawn to these
different strands. I think the strand of general anger or bitterness
towards humanity is a real one in Rand's work; it's not just a product of
a warped interpretation on the part of the Peikovians; moreover, the
Randian corpus provides a philosophical justification for such bitterness,
and that is part of what draws ARIans to her work. I mentioned their
penchant for issuing insults, for instance. It was Rand who came up with
the following sorts of epithets: 'mystic of muscle', 'whim-worshipper',
'hater of the good for being the good', 'second-hander', 'collectivist
thugs.' Rand frequently accused people of 'evasion', of 'irrationality',
of mounting an 'attack on man's mind', and of just general 'evil'. A few
examples suffice to make the point.
(1) I just turned to a random page in _Philosophy: Who Needs It_
(hereafter, PWNI) and the first sentence on the page reads:
"In the title essay of _For the New Intellectual_, discussing modern
philosophy's concerted attack on man's mind..." (PWNI, 83)
(2) First sentence of "Faith and Force":
"If you want me to name in one sentence what is wrong with the modern
world..." (PWNI, 58)
(3) 1st paragraph of "From the Horse's Mouth":
"... I had a chance to catch up on some reading I had wanted to do for a
long time. Opening one interesting book, I almost leaped out of bed ... I
had been reporting on some of those journalistic writings [in the New York
Times] occasionally, as a warning against the kinds of intellectual
dangers (and booby traps) they represented. But they looked like cheap
graffiti compared to the sweep of wholesale destruction presented in a few
sentences of that book." (PWNI, 77)
(4) First sentence of "Causality versus Duty":
"One of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral
philosophy is the term 'duty'." (PWNI, 95)
You get the picture. I did not have to search through the book to find
these remarks; I just turned to the beginnings of 4 consecutive essays.
Every one of them starts by talking about something bad or evil. This, I
propose, is the strand of Rand that attracts the ARIans.
I'm not sure whether the ARIans were already angry at the world, and were
attracted to Objectivism because it provided them a philosophical
justification for their misanthropy, or whether they became angry at the
world through reading Rand. Either way, though, they seem to have found
that they like it, and have latched onto the attitude.
I propose, then, that David Kelley and his supporters were kicked out of
ARI because they did not share this attitude, and because they provided a
new target for the ARIans' expressions of anger and moral outrage.
The Kelleyites, I think, are attracted to a different strand in Rand's
writings: the positive vision, "the concept of man as a heroic being".
(That quotation appears on ARI's website, but it seems misplaced there.)
As a rough explanation of the difference, contrast the parts of the
_Fountainhead_ that are about Roark's achievements, with parts of _Atlas_
that are about Wesley Mouch, or the various villains and their evil
doings. As an example, I just turned to a random page near the end of
_Anthem_ and read:
"Then here, on this mountaintop, with the world below me and nothing above
me but the sun, I shall live my own truth. Gaea is pregnant with my
child. Our son will be raised as a man. He will be taught to say 'I' and
to bear the pride of it. He will be taught to walk straight and on his
own feet. He will be taught reverence for his own spirit." (117)
As you can gather, some of Rand's works are more positive and some more
negative. I think that the positive ones are earlier, and the bitterness
comes in mostly in her later work. Along the same lines: She said that
the purpose of her fiction was the projection of an ideal man. The
Fountainhead seems genuinely devoted to that. (Atlas less so.) Rand's
philosophy is *officially* one of benevolence (even though the opposite
attitude seems expressed often enough implicitly), and that's what the
Kelleyite faction is drawn to. I recently had occasion to talk to Stephen
Hicks (one of the prominent Objectivist Center members), and this
experience supported my impression -- I was initially uncertain what he
would be like, since I know of some nasty Objectivists (I've also read
some of the stories on Chris Wolf's website). But he turned out to be
just what an Objectivist philosopher should be (and what the ARIans are
not) -- benevolent, ever ready to listen to arguments and respond
patiently, and very scholarly. This was a radical contrast to what I
would have expected from an ARIan.
A last topic: what about the putative dishonesty of Speicher, Schwartz, et
al.? I don't think that Speicher dishonest in a simple way (though he may
be dishonest in a more subtle, complex way) -- that is, not in the simple
way of, e.g., a child who says he didn't raid the cookie jar, to escape
punishment, when he knows full well that he did. When Speicher posts
false allegations or makes blatant distortions of what other people have
said, one wonders at first how he can lie so boldly -- as an analogy, the
child would not try claiming he didn't raid the cookie jar, if the adult
was standing there watching while he did it; how could he hope to get away
with it? I think the explanation is that Speicher really believes that
all the things he says are true (in the 'context of his knowledge', of
course) at the time he says them -- or, he talks himself into believing
it. Just as he has talked himself into believing that most of the people
on this newsgroup are evil. And I think the latter is what really drives
the former: that is, he finds it eminently believable that various people
have said or done various stupid, disreputable, dishonest, etc. things,
because he already assumed that they are generally evil to begin with.
It is tempting to simply turn Speicher-type 'dishonesty' and 'evasion'
insults back against him, but we won't advance our understanding of what
is really going on that way; anyway, the only worthwhile insults are those
with a basis in truth. The truth is that his fundamental problem is his
general spitefulness and bitterness towards other people.
Kyle Haight
>
> [Elided.]
Oh, Lord. Here we go again.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@netcom.com
"Feeding on the blood of the working classes for fun and profit."
Chris Wolf
>What personality traits are typical of the ARIan sect of Objectivists?
>Jim Klein keeps saying that hypocrisy is the most unnerving or (lately)
>pernicious trait common to many ARIans. That is one of their negative
>traits, but I'm not sure it is the most unnerving one, nor the most
>pernicious. Similarly, Chris Wolf keeps pointing out the dishonesty of
>Stephen Speicher, but I don't think that's his worst fault.
Of course not. But it's the easiest one to point out, and I figure that
once I've established that someone is not honest, my job is done. If
anyone elects to continue dealing with such an individual, or continue to
give him any credibility, that's not my problem.
>I think that their general malevolence, or misanthropy, is more unnerving.
>The ARIans seem to be very angry at the world. When they look around,
>they just see horrible evil and 'dishonesty' everywhere. You would think
>it would be an unpleasant life, to be surrounded by 'evil' people and to
>see outrageous things going on whenever you turn around. But I speculate
>that this leads them to take a kind of perverse pleasure in issuing
>violent condemnations of others, often exercising considerable linguistic
>skill in phrasing the worst insults against others that they can find
>(without resorting to obscenity). There are several people on this
>newsgroup who provide examples of this.
I'd say you've pretty well called it.
>You get the picture. I did not have to search through the book to find
>these remarks; I just turned to the beginnings of 4 consecutive essays.
>Every one of them starts by talking about something bad or evil. This, I
>propose, is the strand of Rand that attracts the ARIans.
Obviously. If you love to go on witch hunts for "evil" people, Rand will
give you all the ammunition and justification that you need.
>I'm not sure whether the ARIans were already angry at the world, and were
>attracted to Objectivism because it provided them a philosophical
>justification for their misanthropy, or whether they became angry at the
>world through reading Rand. Either way, though, they seem to have found
>that they like it, and have latched onto the attitude.
>
>I propose, then, that David Kelley and his supporters were kicked out of
>ARI because they did not share this attitude, and because they provided a
>new target for the ARIans' expressions of anger and moral outrage.
Yep.
>A last topic: what about the putative dishonesty of Speicher, Schwartz, et
>al.? I don't think that Speicher dishonest in a simple way (though he may
>be dishonest in a more subtle, complex way) -- that is, not in the simple
>way of, e.g., a child who says he didn't raid the cookie jar, to escape
>punishment, when he knows full well that he did. When Speicher posts
>false allegations or makes blatant distortions of what other people have
>said, one wonders at first how he can lie so boldly -- as an analogy, the
>child would not try claiming he didn't raid the cookie jar, if the adult
>was standing there watching while he did it; how could he hope to get away
>with it? I think the explanation is that Speicher really believes that
>all the things he says are true (in the 'context of his knowledge', of
>course) at the time he says them -- or, he talks himself into believing
>it. Just as he has talked himself into believing that most of the people
>on this newsgroup are evil. And I think the latter is what really drives
>the former: that is, he finds it eminently believable that various people
>have said or done various stupid, disreputable, dishonest, etc. things,
>because he already assumed that they are generally evil to begin with.
OF COURSE he believes what he says. With the Objectivist emphasis on
honesty, creeps like Speicher could never consciously lie. Instead they
rewrite reality until they are convinced that they ARE telling the truth.
I'd say you've got it figured out pretty good.
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/
The Dishonesty Of Stephen Speicher
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/speicher.html
Jim Klein
Owl <a@a.a> wrote:
>First, I think I have to disagree with Kelley and Peikoff that the split
>is primarily doctrinal in nature. It seems to me that the root of the
>dispute is a personality difference, and that *leads to* the difference in
>doctrines. When I say this, though, I don't mean a conflict between
>specific people (e.g. that David Kelley in particular had a personality
>conflict with Leonard Peikoff). I mean a divergence between two types of
>personalities that are drawn to Objectivism.
I don't want to go into great detail, but I think you're completely wrong.
I think it is doctrinal in nature and I think the differences in doctrines
are fundamental. I'm not very familiar with Kelley, but I've become pretty
damn familiar with the Peikovian doctrine.
IMO, there are two essential points of what I call "ARIanism" that are
fundamentally at odds with Objectivism. The first is epistemological, and
basically it's just a complete screw-up of "context." I know you're
familiar with my views on that, and really I still don't know what Rand had
to offer specifically. But whatever it was, I can tell that the ARIan
version is completely different because of the _result_. It's _far_ too
oriented on the perspective of the subject, and while objectivity is indeed
the integration of facts _by_ a mind, what truth is _about_ has nothing to
do with a mind at all.
The other area--the one that leads you to your conclusions, I think--is
judgement. Judgement _is_ the result of what we do "qua man," but it's a
result and not a cause. Well it's a cause of our actions, sure; what it's
not is a cause of, is identification. At least not properly, it isn't.
The stuff you write about the "judgementalism" of Rand and all of that; I
don't think you'll find that it distinguishes one sort of Objectivist from
another. Take me---I'm as anti-ARIan as they come, but you'll notice that I
don't exactly withhold judgement. Judgement is what we _do_ as humans,
again at least as the result of our cognition, and I think that anyone who
takes their cognition seriously will tend to be pretty judgemental.
The difference, as I've pointed out, is _where_ in the hierarchy it ought to
fall. An _objective_ person _always_ places identification as primary;
_nothing_ is more fundamental than that. In the end, that's all
"rationality" means...accurate identification. Sure, judgement _comes_ from
that; but essentially it's identification that we're doing. "REASON is
man's only ABSOLUTE." This MEANS that the faculty of identification is
_primary_; the ever-popular "man qua man" refers to precisely this. That's
why Rand was so heavily focussed on justifying that our rational faculty
really does identify reality _as it is_, and why therefore there can be such
a thing as rational judgement. Ultimately, it implies that there is also
such a thing as rational, or objective, morality.
ARIans--IMO because of their screwed-up epistemology--believe that we can
short-circuit the process. If there's such a thing as rational judgement,
and if that's the result of rational identification, then why can't we just
go immediately to the rational judgement? Maybe it's not a bad idea, but
it's just not how it works. The closest analogy I can think of is believing
that you can win a horse race by going directly to the finish line; forget
about the work of running around the track.
Here, it's as if by _accepting_ the rational judgements of Rand, and doing
what we think follows from that, we'll have achieved "man qua man." Well,
we won't...because "man qua man" refers to the _whole_ process, not just the
result. And hierarchically, the identification _must_ precede the
judgement, else it's not genuinely rational judgement that's happening.
Similarly, spouting words because one faithfully accepts them is rather
different than understanding the ideas they are meant to express. Once
again, we see ARIans fail to discriminate the crucial difference. If one
_says_ one holds the philosophy of Rand in its totality, then one is a real,
Big-O Objectivist; if one _does_ accept the philosophy of Rand but
disagrees in matters of detail, then one is an "enemy of Objectivism."
As far as the animosity toward others, I think that's a personality thing.
I've seen "Kelleyites" be just as upset about the state of the world, or the
philosophy of others, as ARIans. I'm pretty damn upset, and I'm
neither. Malevolence generally has a psychological origin and indeed, I'd
say that one of the conclusions of Rand's philosophy is that there is
_never_ a need for such malevolence. An egoist understands that _he_ is at
the center of the moral universe, and as long as he has no reason to be
malevolent toward himself, everything else is secondary.
I've written this quickly to say right away that I think you're focussing on
non-essentials. It's admittedly inadequate. Hopefully I'll be back later
in the year with a more rigorous approach. As correct as I believe I am
about what Rand's philosophy was, I concede that I can't demonstrate her
intentions as well as I'd like. Really, I think that's a pretty
insignificant topic but I'm just sick and tired of seeing rational folks
hoodwinked by the likes of the Speichers...and Peikoff (as he's made
himself) and Schwartz. And since they inevitably appeal to Rand rather than
reality, I suppose being an expert on reality isn't enough to expose their
dastardly fraud for what it is.
Expose it I will. If I don't have time to educate myself this year, then
it'll be next year, or the next. But ARIanism--the philosophy--will be
fully exposed for what it is, a total inversion of Objectivism. See, in the
process of that exposition will come what's _really_ important---not the
rigorous development of Objectivism per se, but the rigorous development of
a rational philosophy. No matter what it's called, it's _the_ most
worthwhile activity in which a man can engage---not for everyone else, but
for himself.
As I've written before, I see no reason to live just one life and not make
it as perfect as possible.
jk
Stephen Speicher
[deleted]
Some agree and some disagree with Betsy, but for several years
she has been saying that the philosophical battle is over, and
the opposition has lost. Michael Huemer (aka Owl), the academic
philosophy Professor at University of Colorado, Boulder, is a
data point in support of Betsy's thesis.
Huemer is unable to rationally support his philosophic criticism
of Objectivism, so instead he examines its 'emotional' content,
and he resorts to innuendo, psychologizing, and complete
fabrication. When the intellectual battle is over, all that is
left is the smear.
The reason why Huemer is a data point to consider, is that he is
just a typical academic working at an average institution. He
represents the mean, and if intellectual cowardice is all he has
to offer, the battle has indeed been won.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
You can always tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Eric
Owl wrote in message <8cj2ja$bnv$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
>The recent discussions of Speicher's vices have prompted me to reflect on
>the Kelley-Peikoff schism within Objectivism, because I think Speicher
>fairly represents the Peikovian sect of Objectivists. What is the root
>cause of this schism? I know that a lot has been written on this that I
>haven't read, so what follows might be repetition, but I continue anyway:
>
Along the same lines read this essay-
http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Spir/ObjectivismasaReligion4.htm
Tom S.
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> On 6 Apr 2000, Owl wrote:
> Huemer is unable to rationally support his philosophic criticism
> of Objectivism, so instead he examines its 'emotional' content,
> and he resorts to innuendo, psychologizing, and complete
> fabrication.
Isn't that pretty much the history of philosophy, particularly the last 150
years? With few exceptions, most philosophers pontificate and offer little or
no support for their ideas.
Tom
--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed-and
thus clamorous to be led to safety-by menacing it with an endless series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."-H.L. Mencken
Jim Klein
"Tom S." <tms...@sk.uswest.net> wrote:
>"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
>> On 6 Apr 2000, Owl wrote:
>> Huemer is unable to rationally support his philosophic criticism
>> of Objectivism, so instead he examines its 'emotional' content,
>> and he resorts to innuendo, psychologizing, and complete
>> fabrication.
>
>Isn't that pretty much the history of philosophy, particularly the last 150
>years? With few exceptions, most philosophers pontificate and offer little
>or no support for their ideas.
What an odd comment, unless you're saying that Owl is one of the obvious
exceptions. After all, he offers tons and tons of support for his ideas.
Myself, I think his ideas are generally wrong (at least in that essay) and I
think his support fails; but at least I can see that it's there.
Meanwhile, the post with which you're agreeing consisted of absolutely no
support for the ideas under consideration; in fact it didn't even mention
them at all. IOW, it was a post 100% evasive of the ideas at hand and
consisted of nothing except some off-the-wall comments about the person who
entered the ideas.
You really can't see the complete epistemological breakdown? Here you stand
in support of a post which consists exactly of what you stand against, and
stand against a man who does exactly what you imply that you support.
"Odd" doesn't quite do that position justice, though "inverted" seems to
have some relevance.
jk
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> > On 6 Apr 2000, Owl wrote:
> > Huemer is unable to rationally support his philosophic criticism
> > of Objectivism, so instead he examines its 'emotional' content,
> > and he resorts to innuendo, psychologizing, and complete
> > fabrication.
>
> Isn't that pretty much the history of philosophy, particularly the last 150
> years? With few exceptions, most philosophers pontificate and offer litt
> le or
> no support for their ideas.
>
In general I would have to say yes, I agree. But, as wrong
approached as many were, there was still a certain respect for
ideas. In the mid to late 1800's, you have people like Bergson
and Whitehead who, though grossly mistaken, gave a nod to the
stature of philosophy, perhaps in recognition of what it once
was. The academics today are more like a street gang, and thum
their noses at real ideas.
R Lawrence
>I think that their general malevolence, or misanthropy, is more unnerving.
>The ARIans seem to be very angry at the world. When they look around,
>they just see horrible evil and 'dishonesty' everywhere. You would think
>it would be an unpleasant life, to be surrounded by 'evil' people and to
>see outrageous things going on whenever you turn around. But I speculate
>that this leads them to take a kind of perverse pleasure in issuing
>violent condemnations of others, often exercising considerable linguistic
>skill in phrasing the worst insults against others that they can find
>(without resorting to obscenity). There are several people on this
>newsgroup who provide examples of this.
And you say the Kelleyites are those with the opposite motivation and
behavior.
Accepting for the sake of argument the convenient division of Objectivists
in to these two camps, do you admit to exceptions to these
characterizations? If so, do you have some explanation for them?
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: <http://www.objectivism.addr.com/>
Chris Cathcart
Owl <a@a.a> wrote:
[etc.]
> I think that their general malevolence, or misanthropy, is more
unnerving.
> The ARIans seem to be very angry at the world. When they look around,
> they just see horrible evil and 'dishonesty' everywhere. You would
think
> it would be an unpleasant life, to be surrounded by 'evil' people and
to
> see outrageous things going on whenever you turn around. But I
speculate
> that this leads them to take a kind of perverse pleasure in issuing
> violent condemnations of others, often exercising considerable
linguistic
> skill in phrasing the worst insults against others that they can find
> (without resorting to obscenity). There are several people on this
> newsgroup who provide examples of this.
[etc.]
I don't think this captures the fundamental difference between ARIans
and the other groups more or less associated with Objectivism.
It doesn't, for instance, characterize very well someone like Betsy
Speicher, who I'd regard as a chief instance of ARIanism in action. As
far as I can tell, she goes about her daily business in a cheerful
manner, looks at the world (through whatever-color glasses) and sees
evidence that Objectivism is winning. She takes a more nonchalant,
albeit often obnoxious, approach to her detractors in this group (e.g.
the nature of her questions in a recent post to David Friedman, such as
that about the academic "game"), but she isn't out to denounce them or
be particularly disturbed by whatever evils they've engaged in.
Whatever objections I have to the way Mrs. Speicher operates, I don't
get the impression that she has a malevolent attitude towards the
world. That isn't the main problem I see in her posts.
HOWEVER, there is something about Mrs. Speicher, and why I consider her
a preeminent example of ARIanism in action, that I find a lot to leave
desired. It's the same element that unites her with her husband and
various other ARIans on this group -- namely, the dogmatism. This is
manifested in various ways: unwillingness to take seriously and put for
the effort to understand alternative views and criticism, ignoring
pieces of evidence that should be particularly disturbing to them
(e.g., Petey Shwartz's dishonesty), engaging in or sanctioning second-
and third-rate scholarship/arguments/polemics that they wouldn't
tolerate if perpetrated by others and/or against Objectivist ideas, and
more or less kooky rationalizations for implausible tenets.
Those are the chief problems I find with the behavior of a great many
(though not all) ARIans here. The ARI provides a home for those who
take a more or less dogmatic approach to Objectivism and philosophy.
But they can't be expected to be the ones taken seriously by those with
a highly critical approach to ideas, and in the long run will have
negligible influence in society at large.
When Mr. Speicher wrote his "The Truth about Truth" post, he was
engaging in an exegesis of the Objectivist theory but really didn't
offer much convincing argument. (The intimidatory language is specific
to him and some others, like Dean Sandin.) As I read his post, one
thing that prominently came to my mind was, "This guy hasn't seriously
questioned his views in the past 20 years, has he? Where is the
willingness to bring in and take seriously theoretical objections and
respond to them?"
The kind of person that properly exemplifies principles of Objectivism
is one who constantly (subject, of course, to the constraints on his
time and other life-endeavors) raises questions and objections to the
tenets that he holds. This isn't the skepticist trap of questioning
everything for the sake of questioning, in which one really shouldn't
hold particular beliefs even with contextual certainty, but it is a
rational obligation to maintain an *active* mind.
I submit that the way the ARIans have responded on the questions raised
about their view of truth, exhibits a high degree of mental
inactiveness on this issue. The problem of the precise relation
between propositions and metaphysical facts is one that many
philosophers have been grappling with for very long now, as the issues
are complicated and troubling for those who go through the process of
questioning, but a lot of these ARIans sweep all of it aside and label
it "pedantic linguistic analysis" or "complexity worship," and don't
take the problems seriously at all. They'll sure give you the
*answers* but they don't present much in the way of questions.
And, it turns out, those who take philosophy more seriously tend to
stray from the ARI camp eventually. A few, like Tara Smith, present
more of a puzzle in this regard. I think too highly of the work she
has done to see how she could find the ARI camp to be so appealing, or
why she would find them impressive. But with exceptions like that
aside, many other Rand-influenced scholars have found a more welcome
face in someone like David Kelley. These are the scholars who do more
to get Objectivist ideas taken seriously, but they do so by engaging in
serious philosophical endeavor. I've mentioned there names many times
before, but the likes of Mack, Rasmussen, Den Uyl, and Sciabarra do
serious and respectable work.
Leonard Peikoff's reaction to Rasmussen and Den Uyl's publication of
the first book (_The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand_) containing
essays from professional philosophers examining various Objectivist
tenets? Complicity in Rand's threat of a lawsuit should be publish it,
and deciding never to even read it. Or: his reaction to David Kelley's
_Truth and Toleration_, which made the case that Peikoff's "Fact and
Value" had some problems in it that could use reexamining? Refusal to
read it, and cutting off further debate. If this behavior (and that of
Petey Schwartz, which needs no reiterating here) is any indication of
how leading "Objectivist" figures behave, that is strong evidence for
the chief distinguishing characteristics of ARIanism that I've
identified.
--
Chris Cathcart
*
" . . . the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the
subordination of your mind to the mind of another . . . " -- Ayn Rand
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Anthanson1
>From: Stephen Speicher s...@compbio.caltech.edu
>Date: 4/6/00 5:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
><Pine.LNX.4.10.100040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>
>
>On 6 Apr 2000, Owl wrote:
>
>
>Some agree and some disagree with Betsy, but for several years
>she has been saying that the philosophical battle is over, and
>the opposition has lost.
Chuckle. What is the definition of the Speichers?
-Imbecility squared.
>Huemer is unable to rationally support his philosophic criticism
>of Objectivism,
So what are the problems with his criticisms, Huckleberry?
so instead he examines its 'emotional' content,
What's wrong with that?
>and he resorts to innuendo, psychologizing,
When you examine the emotional content of a view you must obviously make some
psychological observations.
As far as innuendo is concerned, he wasn't suggesting anything. He came out and
said directly what he thought.
and complete
>fabrication. When the intellectual battle is over, all that is
>left is the smear.
Chuckle.
>
>The reason why Huemer is a data point to consider, is that he is
>just a typical academic working at an average institution. He
>represents the mean, and if intellectual cowardice is all he has
>to offer, the battle has indeed been won.
You are the epitome of cowardice and intellectual mediocrity since you will do
anything to avoid debating philosophical issues. Owl would pick your bones
clean
in a real debate defending his criticisms.
We'll never see that, of course, because one thing you have going for you is
you know your limitations.
Wrathbone
Anthanson1
>Date: 4/6/00 6:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <fCaH4.1540$2b4....@news.uswest.net>
>
>
>"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
>> Huemer is unable to rationally support his philosophic criticism
>> and he resorts to innuendo, psychologizing, and complete
>> fabrication.
>
>Isn't that pretty much the history of philosophy, particularly the last 150
>years? With few exceptions, most philosophers pontificate and offer little
>or
>no support for their ideas.
Really? Who, for example? So you are saying most of the philosophers in the
last 150 years didn't give any support for their ideas? Can you give any
support for this idea of yours? Can you name five or six philosophers that
didn't give any arguments for their ideas.
Wrathbone
Anthanson1
>Date: 4/6/00 9:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
><Pine.LNX.4.10.100040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>
>
>On 7 Apr 2000, Tom S. wrote:
>
>>
>> news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
>> > On 6 Apr 2000, Owl wrote:
>> > Huemer is unable to rationally support his philosophic criticism
>> > of Objectivism, so instead he examines its 'emotional' content,
>> > and he resorts to innuendo, psychologizing, and complete
>> > fabrication.
>>
>> Isn't that pretty much the history of philosophy, particularly the last 150
>> years? With few exceptions, most philosophers pontificate and offer litt
>> no support for their ideas.
>>
>
And thus you confirm you are a moron.
But, as wrong
>approached as many were,
Interesting construction.
there was still a certain respect for
>ideas. In the mid to late 1800's, you have people like Bergson
>and Whitehead who, though grossly mistaken, gave a nod to the
>stature of philosophy, perhaps in recognition of what it once
>was. The academics today are more like a street gang, and thum
>their noses at real ideas.
Chuckle.
I noticed you left Bertrand Russell off your list, a figure much more
influential than Whitehead. I know Russell had a large nose, but he certainly
didn't "thum" it, as you say, at real ideas. (-:
Wrathbone
David Friedman
<RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Owl <a@a.a> wrote:
>
> >I think that their general malevolence, or misanthropy, is more
> >unnerving.
> >The ARIans seem to be very angry at the world.
...
> And you say the Kelleyites are those with the opposite motivation and
> behavior.
>
> Accepting for the sake of argument the convenient division of
> Objectivists
> in to these two camps, do you admit to exceptions to these
> characterizations? If so, do you have some explanation for them?
I can't speak for the authors of the post, but I would say both that I
think there is some truth to their characterization and that both you
and Ken Gardner are exceptions. Neither of you comes across as
malevolent. And Chris Wolf is to some degree an exception in the
opposite direction.
Nonetheless, my experience is that a surprisingly high fraction of the
ARI Objectivists in this group write in a way that suggests a generally
malevolent attitude--much higher than of the non-ARI objectivists, and I
think somewhat higher than of people I encounter in other political
newsgroups. Not that there isn't a good deal of malevolence to go around.
I think the obvious explanation for the existence of the exceptions is
that there are also some substantive disagreements between the two
camps, even if those disagreements are less central to the conflict
between the two. So someone who is not malevolent but happens to agree
with Peikoff's side of such a disagreement may end up in the ARI camp.
The most obvious difference between the two groups is that Kelley et.
al. are willing to act as part of a broader movement--while still
retaining the usual objectivist attitude that they are the part that has
the correct philosophical foundation. Peikoff et. al. are much more
inclined to maintain themselves as the biggest fish in a small pond.
That difference makes sense in terms of the personality differences
discussed here. But there are also legitimate arguments for and against
both policies. So someone who concludes that objectivists are better off
as an exclusive movement rather than as one intellectual strand in a
broader movement might identify with ARI despite not having the relevant
personality traits.
--
David Friedman
http://www.best.com/~ddfr
anth...@hotmail.com
Owl <a@a.a> wrote:
>
> It is tempting to simply turn Speicher-type 'dishonesty' and 'evasion'
> insults back against him, but we won't advance our understanding of
what
> is really going on that way; anyway, the only worthwhile insults are
those
> with a basis in truth. The truth is that his fundamental problem is
his
> general spitefulness and bitterness towards other people.
I imagine Stephen was either an only child, or the runt of the Speicher
litter. His tactics remind me of the sort of "ressentiment" that is
often harbored by those who were picked on mercilessly by peers or
schoolmates in their formative years. I would bet that he had some sort
of odd mannerism, or physical defect about which he was often taunted;a
lisp perhaps, or some feminine features. (-:
Wrathbone
Owl
news:fCaH4.1540$2b4....@news.uswest.net...
> Isn't that pretty much the history of philosophy, particularly the last
150
> years? With few exceptions, most philosophers pontificate and offer
> no support for their ideas.
No. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but I don't see how anyone
could be familiar with contemporary philosophy and think that was at all
accurate. I suggest taking a look at almost any article in one of the
major journals (e.g., Phil Review, Mind, or Journal of Philosophy).
Owl
Thanks for your interesting post. I think you're right at least this far:
the general malevolence I attribute to the ARIans doesn't seem to explain
the epistemological inversion that you describe. However, I don't think
the inversion explains the malevolence either.
You say that the ARIans put judgement before identification. One can see
how this could cause people to make a lot of mistaken judgements and
identifications (given that this is the wrong epistemological method).
But that doesn't explain why there would be so many *negative*,
condemnatory judgements, and why they would be so focused on that. To
explain that, I think you have to posit the general malevolence I
described. I also think that, even if this isn't the cause of their
philosophical errors, it does help support those errors in an important
way: it makes them unwilling to listen to people who criticize their
views, and unwilling to do scholarly research -- or unwilling to interpret
the critics charitably if they do do such research -- since they already
have contempt for the critics and are convinced that contemporary
philosophy is full of dishonest evaders.
I'm not sure if we're really disagreeing though. You went on:
> As far as the animosity toward others, I think that's a personality
thing.
> I've seen "Kelleyites" be just as upset about the state of the world, or
the
> philosophy of others, as ARIans. I'm pretty damn upset, and I'm
> neither.
Maybe so -- and I admit that I'm pretty upset about some things that are
going on in the world too, though I don't let that dominate my
personality. After I sent that message, I looked at some of the material
on the ARI and TOC web sites, and I thought I could add some to my
analysis. See if you can guess which description comes from which web
site; also see if you can identify a difference in attitude:
"Objectivism offers a radical alternative to the ideas which dominate
today's culture and universities: mysticism, altruism, and collectivism -
and their results, such as nihilism, environmentalism, "multiculturalism,"
and statism. Objectivism challenges 2,000 years of thought - and provides
the basis for a new Renaissance."
"Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and
renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their
highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual:
self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort."
Both quotations describe (in part) what Objectivism is against, and both
end with a positive note about the benefits of Objectivism. I thought it
would be a good experiment to see if people can tell which quotation comes
from which web site, without prior knowledge. So, if there's anyone
reading this who doesn't already know: please post your guesses as to
which comes from where.
I claim that one can tell, on the basis of a difference in tone, or in the
attitude expressed. I'll give a little help. I claim that, although both
quotations are critical of something, one of them is critical in a special
way: namely, it *sneers*. I admit, though, that I'm not certain about
this; it might just seem that way to me because I already know where they
came from, and I already have background knowledge about the two
organizations.
Anyway, if I'm right, this is relevant to what you said above. I might
have given the false impression in my last message that the problem with
ARIans is merely that they're too critical of too many things, or that
they have too many negative judgements. But this example, if I'm right
about it, illustrates the fact that that's not it -- that there are
different ways of being critical. The ARIans, I say, are critical in a
sneering way, while the Kelleyites are not. And I say that this reflects
the basic benevolence of the Kelleyite faction, even when they're
attacking something.
I leave it to the reader to judge whether this characteristic of sneering
applies to the way Speicher attacks people, and whether it distinguishes
him from the way that other people make criticisms. I predict that
Speicher will be unable to remove the sneering attitude from his writing
if he replies to this -- even though he knows that to display it will only
succeed in proving my point.
It occurred to me that I might be accused of deploying the fallacy of
'poisoning the well' -- that's where you try to forestall an opponent's
response, by telling the audience beforehand that he's going to lie to
you, or something like that. Whatever the opponent says, you can then
claim it's only proving your prediction right. However, I'm not really
doing that; if my analysis in my previous message were wrong, one would
predict that Speicher would be perfectly able to write a reasonable,
non-malevolent response to it, without any sneering, and thereby (in some
measure) refute me. It is only if he does not do this that I can claim he
is further proving my point. And again, I leave it to the reader to judge
whether this happened.
You (Jim) concluded:
> See, in the
> process of that exposition will come what's _really_ important---not the
> rigorous development of Objectivism per se, but the rigorous development
of
> a rational philosophy. No matter what it's called, it's _the_ most
> worthwhile activity in which a man can engage---not for everyone else,
but
> for himself.
There we agree.
Owl
news:8cjok5$nph$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Accepting for the sake of argument the convenient division of
Objectivists
> in to these two camps, do you admit to exceptions to these
> characterizations? If so, do you have some explanation for them?
I think Friedman's answer to this was right. A couple things to add:
First, I neglected to mention the Objectivist who fit into neither camp --
the 'independent' objectivists, as we might call them. (Jim Klein would
be an example.) I make no generalizations about them.
Second, I think there could be benevolent people allied with the ARI camp,
as Friedman said, for intellectual reasons. However, I predict that such
people, if they have a lot of personal interaction with Peikoff and other
big ARI people, will eventually get excommunicated. (If they never talk
to Peikoff, they're pretty safe.)
Owl
news:8cjteg$mrf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> HOWEVER, there is something about Mrs. Speicher, and why I consider her
> a preeminent example of ARIanism in action, that I find a lot to leave
> desired. It's the same element that unites her with her husband and
> various other ARIans on this group -- namely, the dogmatism. This is
You make a good point here. I don't think Betsy is generally spiteful,
but she is, as you say, dogmatic. It is puzzling why she can't see the
malevolence of her cohorts. I propose that in her case, there is the
'anti-conceptual mentality' at work. Roughly speaking, she won't think
abstractly, and so is unable or unwilling to put together the evidence
pointing towards the malevolence of the ARI faction. I think this
anti-conceptual mentality is also what makes possible her general
dogmatism. I haven't read many of her posts, but from what I saw, they
seemed to have very little philosophical content -- citing concrete
details, e.g. about the history of the objectivist movement, or news items
allegedly showing that 'objectivism is winning' is more her style. An
interesting exercise would be counting the number of her posts that
contain a philosophical argument. (Well, maybe not that interesting.)
> The kind of person that properly exemplifies principles of Objectivism
> is one who constantly (subject, of course, to the constraints on his
> time and other life-endeavors) raises questions and objections to the
> tenets that he holds. This isn't the skepticist trap of questioning
Yes, I think that characterizes any rational and philosophically-minded
person (whether Objectivist or not).
I'll give an example. After I wrote my posting about the most pernicious
trait of ARIans, it occurred to me to wonder how one might respond to it.
It occurred to me to wonder whether I had just engaged in 'poisoning the
well' (as I mention in another message today). I doubt if that sort of
thought would ever occur to Speicher -- that is, he would never have that
kind of *reflection* on what's going on in his own mind, that kind of
habit of examining what one has just thought and saying, "Wait, was that
just a such-and-such fallacy?"
This is a sort of habit that one learns from studying academic philosophy.
Whatever other faults it has (it has some, but that's a topic for another
time), analytic philosophy forces one to consider every (well, every
major) objection that someone might come up with to one's view, and to be
prepared to explain thoroughly and explicitly what is your response to it,
before one can consider one's philosophical work done. Similarly, I think
that academic work in general forces one to be familiar with and master a
diverse literature.
Another example (of the opposite trait) is Betsy's response to Friedman's
use of "game" to describe professional economic research. Any academic
philosopher would have *automatically* had multiple interpretations of
that usage pop into his mind, from which he could select the best one.
Betsy had only one come to mind. (Automatically, because that is the
result of the mental training one goes through. You find yourself
automatically aware of alternative interpretations, alternative theories,
or objections to what you're thinking, as you're thinking it.) The ARIans
are like a child who is tracking mud all over the house, and who
periodically sees these mud footprints and wonders where they came from.
They lack the self-awareness that is necessary to real *objectivity* --
the ability to step back and see how you look from the outside, so to
speak.
I suspect that this sort of blindness is necessary to the maintenance of
all serious vices.
> And, it turns out, those who take philosophy more seriously tend to
> stray from the ARI camp eventually. A few, like Tara Smith, present
> more of a puzzle in this regard. I think too highly of the work she
Right, I meant to mention her. She's clearly an anomaly for my view.
She's the only ARIan I know to be a professional, academic philosopher. I
don't know her work in detail, but I think her teaching at U Texas and
publishing (at least one piece) in the Journal of Philosophy pretty much
establish that she has to have a capacity for critical thought and
scholarship, and cannot be as generally malevolent as other ARIans. I
don't know why she is associated with ARI. A mildly interesting question
would be how closely she is associated with them (does she have personal
interaction with Peikoff, Schwartz, et al?) and how long she has been. I
don't think it's impossible for a benevolent or rational person to be
associated with ARI, but I think it's improbable.
Ananda Gupta
>Whatever other faults it has (it has some, but that's a topic for another
>time), analytic philosophy forces one to consider every (well, every
>major) objection that someone might come up with to one's view, and to be
>prepared to explain thoroughly and explicitly what is your response to it,
>before one can consider one's philosophical work done.
I'd actually be interested in what you think the faults of analytic
philosophy are.
Ananda
Paul Cohen
Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> On 6 Apr 2000, Owl wrote:
>
> [deleted]
>
I don't think that your statement in any way answers the
argument. It's not quite ad hominem, since you don't attack him
to discredit his arguments. You appear to be answering something
not under discussion. What does "typical academic working at an
average institution" mean with respect to any issue that was
brought up?
I don't know who OWL is, but telling me where he works is at best
a non-sequitor.
Paul
Paul Cohen
Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> On 7 Apr 2000, Tom S. wrote:
>
> >
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> > > On 6 Apr 2000, Owl wrote:
> was. The academics today are more like a street gang, and thum
> their noses at real ideas.
>
What ideas was he thumbing their noses at? You didn't address
anything he said? He was addressing differences between two
groups or people.
Paul
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Accepting for the sake of argument the convenient division of
>>Objectivists in to these two camps, do you admit to exceptions to these
>>characterizations? If so, do you have some explanation for them?
>
>I think Friedman's answer to this was right.
Just to flesh out the reference, Dr. Friedman's response was that there are
exceptions, and he explains them on the grounds that there are real (albeit
"less central") intellectual differences between the two groups. For some
indeterminate fraction, these differences cause them to identify with the
group that is wrong for their personality.
> A couple things to add:
>
>First, I neglected to mention the Objectivist who fit into neither camp --
>the 'independent' objectivists, as we might call them. (Jim Klein would
>be an example.) I make no generalizations about them.
>
>Second, I think there could be benevolent people allied with the ARI camp,
>as Friedman said, for intellectual reasons. However, I predict that such
>people, if they have a lot of personal interaction with Peikoff and other
>big ARI people, will eventually get excommunicated. (If they never talk
>to Peikoff, they're pretty safe.)
Or they could be "anti-conceptual mentalities," since you gave that as an
explanation regarding Mrs. Speicher.
Interestingly, these alternative explanations mostly go to explain the
"exceptions" for the "ARI camp," leaving us to wonder about the causes of
the "sneering" directed *against* the ARI by, say, Chris Cathcart or Steve
Reed. Should we presume those are all just people with "intellectual
reasons?"
Of course, the more significant acknowledgement is that the division of
Objectivists(*) into "ARIans" and "Kelleyites" is incomplete to begin with.
Objectivists do not necessarily consider themselves to be a member of one
or the other "camp" -- in some cases they don't even know about the split.
Which raises the question: Is it possible that many, even most,
Objectivists are actually among the 'independent' Objectivists? How does
one get classified into a "camp" to begin with?
(*) For purposes of this discussion, I am using the term 'Objectivists' to
refer to people who are self-described as such. Such people might or might
not meet some other criteria for determining whether they are actually
Objectivists.
Maurice Willey
Chris Cathcart wrote in message <8cjteg$mrf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>.......snip
You caught the one thing that has been really bothering
me about Objectivism as it is presently constituted. It
has no questions, only answers (putative). This, I fear,
marks it as a cult rather than a philosophy.
I am very open to being convinced otherwise, but as I
have said elsewhere, it seems that Objectivism is dead,
and something new must grow up that takes the good
ideas and leaves the bad ones behind.
Cheers.
David Friedman
<RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Interestingly, these alternative explanations mostly go to explain the
> "exceptions" for the "ARI camp," leaving us to wonder about the causes of
> the "sneering" directed *against* the ARI by, say, Chris Cathcart or
> Steve
> Reed. Should we presume those are all just people with "intellectual
> reasons?"
I actually mentioned an exception in the other direction, although not
one of the ones you mention. My guess is that serious hostility is never
due only to "intellectual reasons."
Incidentally, the personality division we are discussing isn't limited
to Objectivists. I have been told that Murray Rothbard on some occasion
asserted that the problem with me was that I wasn't a good enough hater.
I don't know if the story is true, but I would like to believe it is.
And I think part of Rothbard's animosity towards my father, like Rand's,
came from the fact that he saw the enterprise as an argument among
reasonable and well intentioned people, not as a war between good and
evil.
It might be an interesting exercise to try to expand Owl's analysis to
include non-Objectivist libertarians--and perhaps others.
Stephen Speicher
[deleted]
Some agree and some disagree with Betsy, but for several years
she has been saying that the philosophical battle is over, and
the opposition has lost. Michael Huemer (aka Owl), the academic
philosophy Professor at University of Colorado, Boulder, is a
data point in support of Betsy's thesis.
Huemer is unable to rationally support his philosophic criticism
of Objectivism, so instead he examines its 'emotional' content,
and he resorts to innuendo, psychologizing, and complete
fabrication. When the intellectual battle is over, all that is
left is the smear.
The reason why Huemer is a data point to consider, is that he is
just a typical academic working at an average institution. He
represents the mean, and if intellectual cowardice is all he has
to offer, the battle has indeed been won.
Stephen
Steve Reed
out of curiosity and choose to answer one directly, for only the second time
in 18 months. (Apart from tossing a few e-mails at y'all.)
>Richard Lawrence wrote:
>>Interestingly, these alternative explanations mostly go to explain the
>>"exceptions" for the "ARI camp," leaving us to wonder about the causes
>>of the "sneering" directed *against* the ARI by, say, Chris Cathcart or
>>Steve Reed. Should we presume those are all just people with "intellectual
>>reasons?"
You shouldn't -presume- any such thing. You should -ask.- I'll tell you,
though, anyway.
It -is- an intellectual and institutional disagreement, at least for me. No
one at the ARI or among those affiliating with it has personally wronged me.
(I don't know about Cathcart. But with the -persistence- of his jeremiads,
here and elsewhere, I commend to him the thought in the .sig below.)
I would direct disdain and spite against any organization that was being used,
bearing the name of someone I admire as much as I do Rand, for such
unchallenging and wasteful ends. The ARI's most recent activities represent:
* Retailing of philosophy via subsidizing of noncompetitive radio talk shows.
("Philosophy is the wholesaler in human affairs." This point of hers has,
apart from some graduate-study subsidy, largely been forgotten at ARI.)
* Poorly executed and ineptly followed up exercises in street theater
("volunteerism," Kazan) that have largely given excuses to the media for
yet more misrepresentation of Rand.
* Trading on Rand's name to sell books with material only marginally hers
("Why Businessmen Need Philosophy"), or supporting and giving institutional
cachet to parasitical reworkings of her writings ("Return of the Primitive").
* Using such a low standard of rhetoric in creating op-eds as to let a Peikoff
get away with invoking -religious- metaphors ("A Sin to Deport Elian") that
weaken its own case -- and waste the publicly supported legacy of Rand that
the ARI principals espouse.
* Allowing access to the Rand Archives not on an impartial scholarly basis,
such as to permit someone like Chris Sciabarra to see her Petrograd college
transcript, but to encourage creation of hagiographies, such as Michael
Paxton's film.
All of this has ended up being parasitical, second-handed, duplicitous,
tactically flaccid, strategically empty, fiscally wasteful, sinecure-creating,
often miscommunicative, and playing far too often to mere arguments from
Rand's fame or eminence. Very little of it supports anyone showing exactly why
she -deserved- that eminence. Almost none of it engages the academic
community, except to question its members' claims to being part of the human
race -- in the attitude that Peikoff shows in "OPAR."
Yes, when such a combine, with its reinforcing partners at Lyceum and Second
Renaissance Books (among others), wastes this much capital of mind and
of wallet, it's worthy of being derided. Entirely apart, that is, from any
habits of reasoning -- or rationalization -- on its supporters' parts.
Beyond this, as Lawrence well knows, I have made many detailed criticisms of
Peikoff and Schwartz as parasites on Rand's achievements. (These are
available at Deja.com for anyone interested.) -They- end up causing criticism
to splatter on ARI, precisely because they're both involved closely with ARI.
David Friedman wrote:
>I actually mentioned an exception in the other direction, although not
>one of the ones you mention. My guess is that serious hostility is never
>due only to "intellectual reasons."
It rarely is, I would say -- although that doesn't mean that -non-intellectual
reasons are necessarily due to an animus arising from personal wrongs.
Peikoff infuriates me, not from my having been wronged by him, but from -his-
being so stunningly wrong about how he treats Rand's legacy. Most of all, in
"Fact and Value" and his misrepresentations of David Kelley's work within
that legacy.
>Incidentally, the personality division we are discussing isn't limited
>to Objectivists. I have been told that Murray Rothbard on some occasion
>asserted that the problem with me was that I wasn't a good enough hater.
>I don't know if the story is true, but I would like to believe it is.
It is. Rothbard said something similar to this in my presence in a hospitality
suite at the 1981 Libertarian National Convention. His gloss on it, as I
understood it, was that you were among those who didn't know when a bit of
emotional flavoring -- of what outrages mattered to you, if any -- would help
with your written efforts at persuasion. He contrasted this with Mencken, who
knew when to bring up pertinent flavoring, both of outrage -and- of joy.
>And I think part of Rothbard's animosity towards my father, like Rand's,
>came from the fact that he saw the enterprise as an argument among
>reasonable and well intentioned people, not as a war between good
>and evil. [...]
Rothbard saw more of a moral dimension, true enough. Neither was he as
sanguine about the persistence of human rationality, in practice, as you (or
your father) have seemed to be. With how its lack has made political and
cultural institutions run amuck in the past century, I can hardly blame him.
I always thought, for your dad's generation, of Milton being the "good cop"
and Murray being the "bad cop," in terms of libertarian polemics. Both have a
role, and they rarely get along smoothly when on the barricades.
--
* Stev...@earthling.net *
"I love the valiant. But it is not enough to wield a broadsword,
one must also know against whom. And often there is more
valor when one refrains and passes by, in order to save oneself
for the worthier enemy." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Gordon G. Sollars
> See if you can guess which description comes from which web
> site; also see if you can identify a difference in attitude:
I love puzzles! (BTW, do you know the one about the two envelopes?)
FWIW, let me state that I have not seen either website. (This newsgroup
- aside from some of Ayn Rand's books and my precious copy of Peikoff's
pamphlet "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" - is my sole source of
information about Objectivism.)
> "Objectivism offers a radical alternative to the ideas which dominate
> today's culture and universities: mysticism, altruism, and collectivism -
> and their results, such as nihilism, environmentalism, "multiculturalism,"
> and statism. Objectivism challenges 2,000 years of thought - and provides
> the basis for a new Renaissance."
ARI
> "Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and
> renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their
> highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual:
> self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort."
Kelleyite
--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@pobox.com
R Lawrence
his disagreement with the ARI, Steve Reed offers up a series of concrete
items: Peikoff's radio show, the Kazan protests, etc. I guess it was
inevitable that someone would pop up to provide this sort of "fire bad,
tree pretty" concrete-bound self-justification. However, as an explanation
of *intellectual* disagreement it falls flat. This is partly because in
this case the concrete items offered are relatively recent, and thus cannot
explain emnities of over 10 years standing, but even more importantly, it
is because disagreements over concrete actions are simply manifestations of
underlying differences. If the concretes were the whole story, we would be
left wondering why it just so happened that the ARI constantly did the
wrong thing, and the IOS/TOC constantly did the right thing (or vice versa,
depending on who is making the claims).
In the specific instance we cannot even tease out a common cause from the
individual concretes, because Mr. Reed does not bother to provide any
argument for *why* he believes the ARI's various actions to be misguided,
other than to describe them all in slanted language ("inept,"
"parasitical," "flaccid," etc.) that simply repeats the phenomenon this
thread is supposed to explain. Alas, he is coming from the "wrong camp," if
Mr. Huemer's theories are to be believed.
"I'm a Hatfield; they're McCoys," would have worked just as well, and would
have been less prolix. However, Mr. Reed did do me one favor: he spared me
the need to justify for newer readers why I listed his name as someone who
vituperates the ARI.
Note for Mr. Huemer: Perhaps you should rethink your idea of the
'anti-conceptual mentality' being a cause for people to *support* the ARI.
Chris Wolf
>Whatever objections I have to the way Mrs. Speicher operates, I don't
>get the impression that she has a malevolent attitude towards the
>world. That isn't the main problem I see in her posts.
You are much too kind. I see a VERY malevolent attitude, concealed behind
a phony smile.
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/
The Dishonesty Of Stephen Speicher
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/speicher.html
Jim Klein
100...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>The reason why Huemer is a data point to consider, is that he is
>just a typical academic working at an average institution. He
>represents the mean, and if intellectual cowardice is all he has
>to offer, the battle has indeed been won.
I think the post I just sent can stand on its own, but it never hurts to
have some extra hard evidence. Here, Stephen explicitly makes the point
that I attributed to him---something has supposedly been gained because Owl
has supposedly failed. Some image of man as a noble and heroic being, eh?
And notice that's _exactly_ what he's saying---IF intellectual cowardice is
all Owl has to offer, THEN the battle has been won. Stephen wins through
another's loss, like Rand didn't address all of that.
If Stephen were actually a thinking person, the question to be asked here
would be, "WHAT has been gained through Owl losing?" Since he's not, the
more apt one is, "What the hell do you imagine you're doing, you fucking
idiot, pretending to represent Rand's philosophy?"
jk
Jim Klein
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I think the post I just sent can stand on its own...
...assuming it ever propogates. FTB.
jk
Steve Davis
it is. We only need to read posts by Owl, Chris Cathcart or Jim Klein to
remind ourselves of that.
Some of us have decided not to give evil a voice. This is why I have just
placed Owl between Cathcart and Klein in my killfile.
--
http://www.stratrant.com
Controversial and provocative essays on
American politics, culture and philosophy.
Jim Klein
Steve Davis <st...@pobox.com> wrote:
>The truth is people like me do see evil and dishonesty everywhere, because
>it is. We only need to read posts by Owl, Chris Cathcart or Jim Klein to
>remind ourselves of that.
>
>Some of us have decided not to give evil a voice. This is why I have just
>placed Owl between Cathcart and Klein in my killfile.
Wrong thread, bub. It's over in the truth thread where we won't have a
voice because our posts won't appear "in the context of your knowledge."
While you're at it, why don't you imagine all the statists gone too? Then
you won't have to pay any taxes! Hey, go all out...just fantasize happiness
and immortality!
"WHOOIIEEE!!!" How sad that Dorothy didn't live to see her most perfect
summation of these yahoos' philosophy so amply demonstrated, day after day
in post after post.
Though I suppose she saw it all along, and knew the truth would out. Keep
'em comin' fellas...you're vindicating a lot of good folks' judgement.
jk
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
"But who will guard the guards themselves?"--Juvenal
David Schwartz
Steve Davis wrote:
> Some of us have decided not to give evil a voice. This is why I have just
> placed Owl between Cathcart and Klein in my killfile.
'K' comes before 'O'.
DS
Chris Cathcart
> The truth is people like me do see evil and dishonesty everywhere,
because
> it is. We only need to read posts by Owl, Chris Cathcart or Jim
Klein to
> remind ourselves of that.
And Davis expects us to react to this - how? He's taking potshots from
behind his killfile so won't be responding when he is challenged to
provide evidence to substantiate his assertion. He never did in my
case; all he said when he announced that he killfiled me, was that I
was a lowlife. No evidence, no argument, nothing.
Further, it's one thing to killfile someone and to ignore them without
mention from thereafter. It's another to take continuous potshots from
the sanctuary behind one's killfile.
Steve Davis is a fucking coward.
--
Chris Cathcart
*
" . . . the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the
subordination of your mind to the mind of another . . . " -- Ayn Rand
Stephen Speicher
> The truth is people like me do see evil and dishonesty everywhere, because
> it is. We only need to read posts by Owl, Chris Cathcart or Jim Klein to
> remind ourselves of that.
>
> Some of us have decided not to give evil a voice. This is why I have just
> placed Owl between Cathcart and Klein in my killfile.
>
And that is a perfectly valid choice, as is the choice of a few
others who periodically respond to show them for what they are
(of course, with Cathcart and Klein that is hardly necessary,
since they are both so clueless they do not even realize how much
their own posts reveal).
I treat Cathcart and Klein pretty much as you describe for
yourself, but Michael Huemer (aka Owl) is an interesting case.
Unlike the other two bozos, he actually has a veneer of
rationality, and as an academic he speaks each year to a large
group of young minds who take his philosophy classes. I know
some people at the school he teaches, and the more he reveals of
what he really is, the more clear it is for others to also become
aware.
Eventually for me Huemer will join the same little group and be
treated as you treat the two others.
Owl
...
> the "sneering" directed *against* the ARI by, say, Chris Cathcart or
Steve
> Reed. Should we presume those are all just people with "intellectual
> reasons?"
I don't know if Reed or Cathcart are Objectivists at all. If you don't
even agree with the major philosophical claims of Objectivism, then you
wouldn't be a candidate for being either an ARIan or a Kelleyite to begin
with.
As another example, I have encountered some nasty, even sneering leftists,
as well as some who seem to be generally angry at America. They obviously
wouldn't be able to join the ARI camp though. I wasn't trying to say that
general hostility towards other people was the central characteristic of
ARIan Objectivists (since there's a lot of philosophical content that they
have to accept); just that it was the main *difference* between ARIan and
Kelleyite Objectivists.
...
> Which raises the question: Is it possible that many, even most,
> Objectivists are actually among the 'independent' Objectivists? How does
> one get classified into a "camp" to begin with?
Yes, it's certainly possible. I have very little information from which
to guess how many Objectivists are independents, so it might be the
majority, for all I know.
For the second question, an operation definition might be: An ARIan
objectivist is one who, if asked which camp he belongs to (with "ARI",
"TOC", and "neither/don't know" as options), would answer "ARI". This
isn't quite right, though, because some people might object to the
phrasing of the question, or object to being called a member of a 'camp.'
So we'd have to find a more neutral way to phrase the question. But the
central point is that people classify themselves into one camp or another.
Owl
news:38EE8B65...@home.com...
[answering Speicher]
> I don't think that your statement in any way answers the
> argument. It's not quite ad hominem, since you don't attack him
> to discredit his arguments.
(No; he merely attacked me.)
> You appear to be answering something
> not under discussion. What does "typical academic working at an
> average institution" mean with respect to any issue that was
> brought up?
>
> I don't know who OWL is, but telling me where he works is at best
> a non-sequitor.
I haven't read the post, but from what you and others have said, it sounds
like he provided more evidence for my thesis -- that is, that Speicher is
extremely preoccupied with (what he regards as) evil. He is apparently
trying to gather personal information about me, perhaps in an attempt to
dig up 'dirt' for future efforts at defamation. I suspect he intends to
deter me from pointing out his flaws.
If my general thesis in the post starting this thread is true, then one
would predict that Speicher, rather than addressing any of the arguments
in it, would simply come up with more ways of trying to insult the author.
Jim Klein said in another message that a genuine Objectivist knows that he
himself is the center of the moral universe; and that Speicher, in
contrast, has no ego. A genuine Objectivist isn't obsessed with defaming
non-Objectivists.
Chris Wolf
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:.
>>the "sneering" directed *against* the ARI by, say, Chris Cathcart or
>>Steve Reed. Should we presume those are all just people with
>>"intellectual reasons?"
>
>I don't know if Reed or Cathcart are Objectivists at all. If you don't
>even agree with the major philosophical claims of Objectivism, then you
>wouldn't be a candidate for being either an ARIan or a Kelleyite to begin
>with.
Well, there was a reason I put in a specific caveat that I was talking
about self-described Objectivists. If we let people start applying other
criteria, then one can simply define one "camp" or the other out of
Objectivism, thus rendering moot the issue of any other distinctions. This
isn't hypothetical: I'm quite sure than Jim Klein doesn't consider most (if
any) of those he labels as "ARIans" to be Objectivists, for example.
>>Which raises the question: Is it possible that many, even most,
>>Objectivists are actually among the 'independent' Objectivists? How does
>>one get classified into a "camp" to begin with?
>
>Yes, it's certainly possible. I have very little information from which
>to guess how many Objectivists are independents, so it might be the
>majority, for all I know.
>
>For the second question, an operation definition might be: An ARIan
>objectivist is one who, if asked which camp he belongs to (with "ARI",
>"TOC", and "neither/don't know" as options), would answer "ARI". This
>isn't quite right, though, because some people might object to the
>phrasing of the question, or object to being called a member of a 'camp.'
>So we'd have to find a more neutral way to phrase the question. But the
>central point is that people classify themselves into one camp or another.
Do they? How many "ARIans" use such a term to describe themselves? How many
"Kelleyites"? It's not at all clear to me that these classifications have
any function other than to smear people by association with others that the
classifier finds disreputable.
Jim Klein
R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I'm quite sure than Jim Klein doesn't consider most (if
>any) of those he labels as "ARIans" to be Objectivists, for example.
When I'm precise, that's correct. ARIan doesn't mean "supporting the ARI."
It means "holding the philosophy of ARIanism." I'm quite sure you are (or
have been) the former and equally sure you're not the latter, for example.
>Do they? How many "ARIans" use such a term to describe themselves? How many
>"Kelleyites"? It's not at all clear to me that these classifications have
>any function other than to smear people by association with others that the
>classifier finds disreputable.
Don't be silly; of course they have another function. While I won't plead
completely innocent of polemics, there _is_ an identification involved. I
believe that particular choice of verbiage is legitimate because I believe
that the ARI is part and parcel of the development of the screwy philosophy.
That you may have survived unscathed, if you have, is a comment about you
and not the ARIan philosophy or the role of the ARI in forwarding it.
As far as "Kelleyite" is concerned, from my observation it's _them_ who
engage the term--or at least the concept--because an important part of their
philosophy is their support for David Kelley, often with regard to his stand
against (what I call) ARIanism. In that particular respect I'd be a
Kelleyite, but my support for him personally doesn't carry me far enough to
qualify IMO. Besides, I could never be a _________ite of any persuasion,
since I'd never trust anyone's judgement more than my own, philosophically.
I'm a Ken Griffeyite, but that's an awfully limited context.
jk
Chris Cathcart
> The reason why Huemer is a data point to consider, is that he is
> just a typical academic working at an average institution.
This must be another one of Speicher's "contextually true" conclusions,
which he can weasel out of if he specifies enough for us the context
that he "really" meant, just like he did when his smear of Chris Wolf
blew up in his face, and revealed Speicher to be what a dishonest
coward he is.
The "average institution" in question is the University of Colorado at
Boulder. I don't know about the university as a whole, but its
philosophy department is one of the highest ranked in the country --
not far below that of, say, the University of Texas at Austin. It is
probably quite difficult to get a position at a place like this, but
then again, Mr. Huemer did graduate study in philosophy at one of *the*
most elite graduate philosophy programs in the country -- as in the top
three.
So one is left wondering just how "true" Speicher's conclusion is. Has
Speicher gotten carried away in his vituperation, or is it really the
case that Mr. Huemer is just an average intellectual at an average
institution? Hard to ever know if we accept Speicher's contextual view
of truth, in which he can make enough qualifications so that it comes
out true in the analysis -- so that "it really doesn't matter whether
he represents the mean; he is still a data point in support of Betsy's
thesis, which is the essential point."
Just as Speicher could weasel his way out of the smear he propagated
against Chris Wolf by telling us that the "real" issue (since after
all "it didn't matter whether Chris Wolf really came to the banquet
dressed that way") was that the Chris Wolf portrayed in the smear
matched his intellectual estimation of him, thus -- in Speicher's
world -- relieving him of any intellectual or moral obligation to
retract the remarks, and instead resort to impugning the intellectual
and psychological integrity of those who call him upon it.
*This* is the sick, twisted epistemology applied to real-life cases
that is the hallmark of this cowardly, dishonest, hypocritical,
evasive "long-time Objectivist."
If the intellectual battle has been won in favor of essentially
Objectivist ideas, it won't be because of the likes of Speicher, who
would have rendered Objectivism a convoluted mess long ago if they had
their way. Thank goodness that, in the long run, the likes of Speicher
are impotent when it comes to the widespread propagation of rational
philosophy.
David Friedman
> It's not at all clear to me that these classifications have
> any function other than to smear people by association with others that
> the classifier finds disreputable.
But if that were true, why would people making the classification go out
of their way to mention exceptions--people who are classified as
(wicked) X but aren't dreadful folk like most of the other X's.
There is a statistical technique called, I think, "cluster analysis,"
which involves taking a collection of observations and finding out how
they can be divided so that each cluster consists of observations that
are similar in a variety of dimensions. Obviously, it doesn't work for
all collections--but if it does work, it suggests some pattern to what
is going on.
My observation is mostly of behavior on these news groups; I've heard
Kelley speak and spoken to him briefly, have never met Peikoff, so far
as I can recall, and have read little in the controversy other than the
two standard essays. But my impression is that there is a good deal of
clustering--enough to define fairly clear groupings.
You can see some of it by who approves of or argues with whom. The
people I think of as orthodox Objectivists (i.e. ARI) tend to agree with
each other. They are reluctant to criticize ARI people, at least here.
For example, while I may have missed it, I don't think I have seen
anything by any ARI supporter, not even you and Ken Gardner who I regard
as the reasonable ones, recognizing just how bad a piece of work
Schwartz's essay on libertarianism is.
Both factions disagree with the anarcho-capitalist position, of course,
but it seems to me that there is a difference in the tone of the
disagreement. One old example (of the non-ARI approach) would be Jimbo
Wales. He and I had a long and furious argument on the subject, much of
it, I think, before this group was created--I don't remember whether you
were around at that point or not. But while I often felt he was
misunderstanding the position, I didn't feel, so far as I can recall (it
was several years ago) that he was uninterested in understanding the
position--that he already knew it had to be wrong, and was interested in
"arguing" only as an excuse for expressing hostility. That is the
attitude that usually comes across when I am arguing anarchism with
orthodox Objectivists.
The clustering isn't perfect, by any means. You and Ken and (on the
whole) Betsy come across as reasonable human beings, despite the error
of your views. Chris Wolf comes across as someone who, on personality
grounds, belongs in the ARI camp. Perhaps you and he ought, in the
interest of tidiness, to switch sides.
It occurred to me to wonder about Brad Aisa. As best I recall, he was a
slightly heretical member of the ARI faction in the early days, but I
gather has become disenchanted with them. Unfortunately he hardly ever
posts here currently, so I can't tell if there was any associated
personality change. He struck me as the most intelligent, hence most
interesting, of the hostile style of orthodox Objectivist--when he was
one.
Betsy Speicher
[Repost]
On 8 Apr 2000, Owl wrote:
> You make a good point here. I don't think Betsy is generally spiteful,
> but she is, as you say, dogmatic.
And proud of it! (More accurately, I'm certain, consistent, and
stubborn.)
> It is puzzling why she can't see the malevolence of her cohorts. I
> propose that in her case, there is the 'anti-conceptual mentality' at
> work. Roughly speaking, she won't think abstractly, and so is unable
> or unwilling to put together the evidence pointing towards the
> malevolence of the ARI faction. I think this anti-conceptual
> mentality is also what makes possible her general dogmatism.
Interesting diagnosis, Dr. Freud.
> I haven't read many of her posts,
Considering how much I post here, that isn't easy.
> but from what I saw, they seemed to have very little philosophical
> content -- citing concrete details, e.g. about the history of the
> objectivist movement, or news items allegedly showing that
> 'objectivism is winning' is more her style.
Real philosophers don't cite concrete details! ;-)
> An interesting exercise would be counting the number of her posts that
> contain a philosophical argument. (Well, maybe not that interesting.)
An interesting exercise would be learning to _recognize_ a philosophical
argument.
> > And, it turns out, those who take philosophy more seriously tend to
> > stray from the ARI camp eventually. A few, like Tara Smith, present
> > more of a puzzle in this regard. I think too highly of the work she
>
> Right, I meant to mention her. She's clearly an anomaly for my view.
And a wonderful person I like to spend time with at Objectivist
conferences.
> She's the only ARIan I know to be a professional, academic
> philosopher.
Never heard of Darryl Wright, Robert Mayhew, Allan Gotthelf? All tenured
philosophy professors. All Objectivists.
> I don't know her work in detail, but I think her teaching at U Texas
at Austin
> and publishing (at least one piece) in the Journal of Philosophy
and two major books
> pretty much establish that she has to have a capacity for critical
> thought and scholarship, and cannot be as generally malevolent as
> other ARIans. I don't know why she is associated with ARI. A mildly
> interesting question would be how closely she is associated with them
> (does she have personal interaction with Peikoff, Schwartz, et al?)
> and how long she has been.
She was of the first class of ARI-sponsored grad students and was
personally tutored by Harry Binswanger. She's been associated with ARI
for over a decade. She will be a featured speaker at this summer's Second
Renaissance Conference.
> I don't think it's impossible for a benevolent or rational person to
> be associated with ARI, but I think it's improbable.
Considering how much you know about people associated with ARI, I can see
how you have come to that conclusion.
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/
Frederick C. Gibson, Architect
news:Pine.LNX.4.20.00040...@hypermall.com...
> Never heard of Darryl Wright, Robert Mayhew, Allan Gotthelf? All tenured
> philosophy professors. All Objectivists
As of very early this morning, an email was sent out by Andrew Lewis to warn
that Alan Gotthelf's new book _On Ayn Rand_ and the review of it by Darrly
Wright is objectively flawed. This claim is being supported by Leonard
Peikoff, Gary Hull, David Harriman and Andrew Lewis and can be seen at:
http://www.intellectualactivist.com/tia/letters/onaynrand.html
Whether or not this means Wright and Gotthelf are being "kicked out" remains
to be seen. I certainly hope not.
I have not read the book but have heard Gotthelf give a lengthy talk about
writing the book and he seemed like a very reasonable person and very
knowledgeable about Aristotle as well. (I asked him whether he knew of any
flaws in Aristotle's Organon and he said that he didn't, but to be certain
he would have to do an in depth analysis over a long period of time to find
out)
A paragraph from the book is used to expose the 'non-objectivity' in
question:
<TIA quote introduction: "In metaphysics, explaining why the primacy of
existence enables a man to resolve conflicts:">
"First, there is only one reality, the one man perceives, not two
conflicting ones. And second, if consciousness is fundamentally awareness
and not creation, then its products are the causal result of interactions
between conscious organisms and reality. There will be, therefore, no innate
content to consciousness--neither ideas nor desires nor irrational urges,
destructive or otherwise. All conscious content will be the product of
reason making identifications (whether logically or not) based on the direct
awareness of reality provided by the senses, and then evaluating what it
identifies according to some standard of value it has adopted (whether
logically or not). Emotions and desires will be the products of those
evaluations. Conflicts will be the result of contradictory
judgments--failures of integration--which subsequent thought (sometimes long
and difficult) can in principle always correct."
The only thing I can see wrong with this paragraph is the implication that
reason includes all conscious content (i.e. including feelings) and the
implication that subsequent thought *without* further factual evidence is
all that is needed to correct a contradictory judgement. However, these
problems can be easily fixed with some editing and may simply be an
oversight on Gotthelf's part (He had to write the book in a *very* short
period of time). I sure hope they asked Gotthelf for clarification and
possible remedies to the problem before publicly condemning the book in its
entirety and Wright's review of the book.
--
Fred Gibson, Architect
Fred...@gibson-design.com Architecture Designed Objectively
==================================-----------||||||||||||||||||||||
Frederick Clifford Gibson Architect & Associates
1220 14th Avenue Suite 106
San Francisco, CA 94122
415.753.3797 |tel| 415.759.8848 |fax|
(c)1999 http://www.gibson-design.com
EASG: Epistemology-Aesthetics Study Group
http://www.gibson-design.com/philosophy
ART: American Renaissance for the Twenty-First Century
http://www.art-21.org
Anthanson1
>From: Betsy Speicher be...@speicher.com
>Date: 4/9/00 8:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.20.00040...@hypermall.com>
>
>
>[Repost]
>
>On 8 Apr 2000, Owl wrote:
>> but from what I saw, they seemed to have very little philosophical
>> content -- citing concrete details, e.g. about the history of the
>> objectivist movement, or news items allegedly showing that
>> 'objectivism is winning' is more her style.
>Real philosophers don't cite concrete details! ;-)
Sure, but they are capable of abstract thought also.
>> An interesting exercise would be counting the number of her posts that
>> contain a philosophical argument. (Well, maybe not that interesting.)
>An interesting exercise would be learning to _recognize_ a philosophical
>argument.
I am sure you can recognize one, and I think Owl would grant you this. I have
observed, however, that you can't follow one -- that you "crash" after one or
two steps.
Wrathbone
R Lawrence
>>It's not at all clear to me that these classifications have
>>any function other than to smear people by association with others that
>>the classifier finds disreputable.
>
>But if that were true, why would people making the classification go out
>of their way to mention exceptions--people who are classified as
>(wicked) X but aren't dreadful folk like most of the other X's.
To avoid the embarassment of being presented with obvious counterexamples.
And to be able to maintain their own belief in the smears thru minor
modifications that accept "exceptions."
My question stands: To what extent, if at all, do people actually refer to
themselves as "ARIans" or "Kelleyites?" If such classifications are not
used for self-reference, then the odds of them simply being smear terms
goes up dramatically.
R Lawrence
>As of very early this morning, an email was sent out by Andrew Lewis to warn
>that Alan Gotthelf's new book _On Ayn Rand_ and the review of it by Darrly
>Wright is objectively flawed. This claim is being supported by Leonard
>Peikoff, Gary Hull, David Harriman and Andrew Lewis and can be seen at:
>http://www.intellectualactivist.com/tia/letters/onaynrand.html
>
>Whether or not this means Wright and Gotthelf are being "kicked out" remains
>to be seen. I certainly hope not.
I can see the headline now: "Disagreement Among Philosophers: Intellectual
Community Shocked." Film at 11.
Kyle Haight
Steve Reed <Stev...@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>* Using such a low standard of rhetoric in creating op-eds as to let a Pei
>koff
>get away with invoking -religious- metaphors ("A Sin to Deport Elian") that
>weaken its own case -- and waste the publicly supported legacy of Rand that
>the ARI principals espouse.
Part of Rand's project involved the reclamation of certain religious
terms and metaphors for rational, secular use. She discussed this in
her introduction to the 25th anniversary edition of _The
Fountainhead_.
If, as she says, there is a rational foundation for concepts like
"sacred", then there is a corresponding foundation for concepts such
as "sin" and "profane".
Whether using these terms in the context of an op-ed piece is
tactically appropriate is a reasonable question, but Rand herself had
a history of and justification for using religious terms and metaphors
in her own work.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@netcom.com
"Feeding on the blood of the working classes for fun and profit."
Chris Wolf
>The clustering isn't perfect, by any means. You and Ken and (on the
>whole) Betsy come across as reasonable human beings, despite the error
>of your views. Chris Wolf comes across as someone who, on personality
>grounds, belongs in the ARI camp.
That's probably due the many years that I spent in the ARI camp before
David Kelley and Michael Berliner finally opened my eyes.
Kyle Haight
R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Frederick C. Gibson, Architect" <Fred...@gibson-design.com> wrote:
>
>>As of very early this morning, an email was sent out by Andrew Lewis to warn
>>that Alan Gotthelf's new book _On Ayn Rand_ and the review of it by Darrly
>>Wright is objectively flawed. This claim is being supported by Leonard
>>Peikoff, Gary Hull, David Harriman and Andrew Lewis and can be seen at:
>>http://www.intellectualactivist.com/tia/letters/onaynrand.html
>>
>>Whether or not this means Wright and Gotthelf are being "kicked out" remains
>>to be seen. I certainly hope not.
>
>I can see the headline now: "Disagreement Among Philosophers: Intellectual
>Community Shocked." Film at 11.
The thing I find amusing about this is that the Kelleyite review of the
book (by Gregory Johnson, still available on www.dailyobjectivist.com)
was also negative, and made some similar critical points (in addition
to a number of others). Johnson's conclusion was that as an
introduction to Rand's thought, _On Ayn Rand_ merited a C+ at best.
I see two possible interpretations here. Perhaps Peikoff, Hull,
Harriman and Lewis are going to be kicked out for agreeing with the
Kelleyites. Or, alternatively, perhaps Gotthelf's book actually does
have some objective failings which were overlooked in Wright's review.
ARI intellectuals seem to be caught in a bind. If they praise
Gotthelf's book, then they're unthinking, sycophantic or cultish. If
they criticize it, they're preparing to "excommunicate" the author. I
wonder what would have been considered an acceptable course of action?
Owl
> Well, there was a reason I put in a specific caveat that I was talking
> about self-described Objectivists. If we let people start applying other
Right, that's what I was talking about too. What I meant is that I don't
know whether Cathcart or Reed classify themselves as Objectivists -- I
just don't recall reading anything by them where they say one way or the
other.
> >So we'd have to find a more neutral way to phrase the question. But
the
> >central point is that people classify themselves into one camp or
another.
>
> Do they? How many "ARIans" use such a term to describe themselves? How
many
> "Kelleyites"? It's not at all clear to me that these classifications
have
> any function other than to smear people by association with others that
the
> classifier finds disreputable.
I don't see how those terms could be used as 'smears' -- unless the fact
is that it is generally known to be disreputable or bad to be associated
with the groups in question.
Anyway, as I mentioned, some might object to the phrasing. You could try
asking, "In the controversy between Kelley & Peikoff, which side, if any,
are you on?", or something to that general effect. Certainly there are
people who would say, in some roughly equivalent paraphrase, that they
side with Peikoff. I don't find it at all plausible to suggest that my
categories don't exist.
Owl
news:8cov94$f43$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> qualify IMO. Besides, I could never be a _________ite of any
persuasion,
> since I'd never trust anyone's judgement more than my own,
philosophically.
I guess you're just a Kleinite.
Owl
news:8F0FD5D23asgup...@32.97.166.128...
> I'd actually be interested in what you think the faults of analytic
> philosophy are.
I will post a message about this, under "Analytic Philosophy".
David Friedman
<cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> David Friedman writes:
>
> >The clustering isn't perfect, by any means. You and Ken and (on the
> >whole) Betsy come across as reasonable human beings, despite the error
> >of your views. Chris Wolf comes across as someone who, on personality
> >grounds, belongs in the ARI camp.
>
> That's probably due the many years that I spent in the ARI camp before
> David Kelley and Michael Berliner finally opened my eyes.
Thus providing another case of reason triumphing over personality--but
in the anti-ARI direction.
More seriously ... . Having been on both sides, do you see any element
of consistent personality difference? Does it seem to you, for example,
as though the ARI people, bad as they may be in substance, are more
willing to properly attack those they disagree with than those wimps on
the other side? Of if not that particular, and perhaps implausible,
guess, is there some sense in which you see a personality difference
between the camps?
David Friedman
<kha...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Whether using these terms in the context of an op-ed piece is
> tactically appropriate is a reasonable question, but Rand herself had
> a history of and justification for using religious terms and metaphors
> in her own work.
But when non-Objectivists apply such metaphors to Objectivists or parts
of the objectivist movement, a lot of Objectivists get offended.
David Friedman
<RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> My question stands: To what extent, if at all, do people actually refer
> to
> themselves as "ARIans" or "Kelleyites?" If such classifications are not
> used for self-reference, then the odds of them simply being smear terms
> goes up dramatically.
Not if the groups being discussed exist, but use different terminology.
Take someone else's suggestion of classifying people by their answer to
a question about which party they think is correct in the disagreement
between Kelley and Peikoff.
I think there would be a sizable group who would say that, on the whole,
Peikoff was right and Kelley wrong, a sizable group the other way--and a
lot of people who either are unfamiliar with the dispute or not on
either side. Do you disagree?
If that is true, we can then talk about what other common
characteristics members of each group have, if any.
David Friedman
<kha...@netcom.com> wrote:
> ARI intellectuals seem to be caught in a bind. If they praise
> Gotthelf's book, then they're unthinking, sycophantic or cultish. If
> they criticize it, they're preparing to "excommunicate" the author. I
> wonder what would have been considered an acceptable course of action?
Criticizing it and not excommunicating the author--continuing to publish
his stuff in their publications, invite him to speak at their
conferences, etc. It will be interesting to see if that is what happens.
Betsy Speicher
> Kyle Haight <kha...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > ARI intellectuals seem to be caught in a bind. If they praise
> > Gotthelf's book, then they're unthinking, sycophantic or cultish. If
> > they criticize it, they're preparing to "excommunicate" the author. I
> > wonder what would have been considered an acceptable course of action?
> Criticizing it and not excommunicating the author--continuing to publish
> his stuff in their publications, invite him to speak at their
> conferences, etc. It will be interesting to see if that is what happens.
That's pretty much what I expect will happen.
Kyle Haight
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2000, David Friedman wrote:
>
>> Criticizing it and not excommunicating the author--continuing to publish
>> his stuff in their publications, invite him to speak at their
>> conferences, etc. It will be interesting to see if that is what happens.
>
>That's pretty much what I expect will happen.
I'm not a TIA subscriber, but I have attended the past two Lyceum
conferences and I don't recall Gotthelf speaking at either of them.
Just for reference, how frequently has Gotthelf had stuff published in
Objectivist periodicals and spoken at Objectivist conferences? If he
didn't really do so prior to now, I don't see how his not doing it
afterwards would constitute evidence of much of anything.
I would be taken aback if, on the basis of this review alone, Second
Renaissance stopped selling Gotthelf's other works.
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >On 10 Apr 2000, David Friedman wrote:
> >That's pretty much what I expect will happen.
> I'm not a TIA subscriber, but I have attended the past two Lyceum
> conferences and I don't recall Gotthelf speaking at either of them.
> Just for reference, how frequently has Gotthelf had stuff published in
> Objectivist periodicals and spoken at Objectivist conferences?
He doesn't do much of either because he is usually, but not always,
occupied in other venues.
Dr. Gotthelf gets a big crowd whenever he speaks at Objectivist
gatherings. He recently spoke on his new book before ARI-supporting
community groups in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and many other
major cities.
In general, however, he speaks and writes within a scholarly, academic
context. He has a world-wide reputation as an authority on Aristotle.
While he has spoken at a few Objectivist conferences, he usually spends
his summers abroad teaching in England (I forget whether it was Oxford or
Cambridge) and, more recently, in Japan.
I remember one summer when he came in from England to speak at a
conference (and to lead the faculty team to victory in the softball game),
but he was sorrowfully jet-lagged.
His publications are usually in scholarly books and journals rather than
in magazines like TIA. His volume in the Wadsworth Philosopher's series
is about as close to a "popular" book as he has ever done.
He is also a long-time Objectivist who has been well regarded by other
Objectivists since he was involved in campus clubs in New York in the
early 1960's, was one of the participants in Ayn Rand's epistemology
seminars, up until the current day when he is one of my favorite posters
to Harry Binswanger's private e-mail list.
> I would be taken aback if, on the basis of this review alone, Second
> Renaissance stopped selling Gotthelf's other works.
So would I. I don't expect that to happen.
Owl
> David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
...
> >But if that were true, why would people making the classification go
out
> >of their way to mention exceptions--people who are classified as
> >(wicked) X but aren't dreadful folk like most of the other X's.
>
> To avoid the embarassment of being presented with obvious
counterexamples.
> And to be able to maintain their own belief in the smears thru minor
> modifications that accept "exceptions."
Richard Lawrence had said that "ARIan" and "Kelleyite" are used merely as
smear terms.
If the words were *merely* smear terms, i.e. without cognitive content,
then there wouldn't be anything to avoid -- no one could possibly present
a 'counter-example', since how would it be recognized as such? You would
have to identify first whether person X was a member of camp Y,
independent of whether X has the negative characteristics ascribed to camp
Y, in order to claim you had a counter-example. That means that camp Y
has to have non-evaluative criteria of membership.
Put it another way. Suppose my thesis was that assholes are malicious
people. No one could find a counter-example to that by saying, "So and so
is an asshole but not malicious," because I would just say, "No, he's not
an asshole." That's because "asshole" really is just an insult word,
without cognitive content, so I can make whatever claims I like about who
is or isn't an asshole.
David Friedman
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2000, David Friedman wrote:
>
> > Kyle Haight <kha...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > ARI intellectuals seem to be caught in a bind. If they praise
> > > Gotthelf's book, then they're unthinking, sycophantic or cultish. If
> > > they criticize it, they're preparing to "excommunicate" the author.
> > > I
> > > wonder what would have been considered an acceptable course of
> > > action?
>
> > Criticizing it and not excommunicating the author--continuing to
> > publish
> > his stuff in their publications, invite him to speak at their
> > conferences, etc. It will be interesting to see if that is what
> > happens.
>
> That's pretty much what I expect will happen.
Having now read the letter from Peikoff et. al., I suspect you are
correct, unless this is only the first round or Prof. Gotthelf is
unusually touchy. The letter doesn't claim that anything he said is
wrong, merely that he has tried to sum up Rand's entire philosophy in
far too few pages, with the result that the book will be uninformative
to those who already understand the subject and incomprehensible to
those who do not (I exaggerate, but only slightly).
Chris Wolf
>In article <38fccf19....@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf
><cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>> David Friedman writes:
>>
>> >The clustering isn't perfect, by any means. You and Ken and (on the
>> >whole) Betsy come across as reasonable human beings, despite the error
>> >of your views. Chris Wolf comes across as someone who, on personality
>> >grounds, belongs in the ARI camp.
>> That's probably due the many years that I spent in the ARI camp before
>> David Kelley and Michael Berliner finally opened my eyes.
>Thus providing another case of reason triumphing over personality--but
>in the anti-ARI direction.
I hardly see how reason could triumph over reality, going in the ARI
direction. :-)
>More seriously ... . Having been on both sides, do you see any element
>of consistent personality difference?
Oh my God, yes! I could write a treatise on the subject. Even though I
was blind to the difference until I was on the receiving end of ARI
"justice."
Getting kicked in the teeth does a remarkable job of focusing one's mind.
>Does it seem to you, for example,
>as though the ARI people, bad as they may be in substance, are more
>willing to properly attack those they disagree with than those wimps on
>the other side?
Is there snow on Everest?
>Of if not that particular, and perhaps implausible,
>guess, is there some sense in which you see a personality difference
>between the camps?
Like I said; I could write a treatise.
The ARI camp clearly attracts the worshippers and the cheerleaders, who are
willing to be led. People with independent minds don't stay long. They
quickly migrate to Kelley's organization, where independent thinking is
welcomed.
When one organization welcomes independent thinking, while another condemns
it, I guarantee you will see a particular personality type attracted to
each organization.
If you want to see how the ARI crowd does it, consider this example from
one of their get-togethers. Shortly after Peikoff's Fact/Value article
appeared, an ARI-sanctioned conference was held. Naturally everyone had a
million questions about the article, and the reasons behind it. When
Peikoff finally got up to speak, he said he would not answer any questions
about the article, or about David Kelley; that everything he had to say was
in his Fact & Value article.
Naturally this did not satisfy many of the participants. So they decided
to get together that evening, in one of the big conference rooms, for an
impromptu discussion of the issue. All were invited. The conference room
was normally left open, every evening, for impromptu discussions and
spontaneous get-togethers.
When the conference organizers got wind of the upcoming discussion, they
promptly acted to squelch it. They LOCKED the doors to the conference
room. So the students held the conference outside, in the courtyard, and
it went on into the wee hours.
That's the difference you can expect between an ARI conference, and a David
Kelley conference. The latter is free and open, and invites debate. The
former is as rigidly controlled as the changing of the guard at Buckingham
Palace, where independent thought is simply not tolerated.
Anthony Argyriou
>For the second question, an operation definition might be: An ARIan
>objectivist is one who, if asked which camp he belongs to (with "ARI",
>"TOC", and "neither/don't know" as options), would answer "ARI". This
>isn't quite right, though, because some people might object to the
>phrasing of the question, or object to being called a member of a 'camp.'
>So we'd have to find a more neutral way to phrase the question. But the
>central point is that people classify themselves into one camp or another.
Do you believe that David Kelley's work is hostile to, or significantly
inconsistent with, Objectivism? Yes/No/Don'tKnow
Yes - arian
No - kelleyite
Don't Know - happier for it.
Anthony Argyriou
Unix _is_ user-friendly. It's just selective about its friends.
Jim Klein
Anthony Argyriou <ant...@alphageo.com> wrote:
>Do you believe that David Kelley's work is hostile to, or significantly
>inconsistent with, Objectivism? Yes/No/Don'tKnow
>
>Yes - arian
>No - kelleyite
Bzzztt!! I don't know of _any_ Objectivist--kelleyite or otherwise--who
believes Kelley's work is inconsistent with Objectivism, at least generally
if not every bit and piece.
It's _only_ those who hold the ARIan philosophy that even forward that
claim, at least to the best of my knowledge. And has been more than
adequately demonstrated, that philosophy has nothing to do with Objectivism.
>Don't Know - happier for it.
No such thing IMO...never happened and never will, at least not for a
rational person.
jk
NPGreeley
>ARI Objectivists in this group write in a way that suggests a generally
>malevolent attitude--much higher than of the non-ARI objectivists...
I think the opposite. The nastiest posts seem to come from those, such as
Cathcart and Wolf, who fight beneath the banner of toleration. And I relish
the irony.
Bill Greeley
Anthony Argyriou
>In article <atp7fs47ufomh852i...@4ax.com>,
> Anthony Argyriou <ant...@alphageo.com> wrote:
>
>>Do you believe that David Kelley's work is hostile to, or significantly
>>inconsistent with, Objectivism? Yes/No/Don'tKnow
>>
>>Yes - arian
>>No - kelleyite
>
>Bzzztt!! I don't know of _any_ Objectivist--kelleyite or otherwise--who
>believes Kelley's work is inconsistent with Objectivism, at least generally
>if not every bit and piece.
>
>It's _only_ those who hold the ARIan philosophy that even forward that
>claim, at least to the best of my knowledge. And has been more than
>adequately demonstrated, that philosophy has nothing to do with Objectivism.
The point of the question was to identify whether someone can be classified
into one of two pigeonholes. Your response makes it obvious that you do not
belong in one of the particular pigeonholes, though you may not call
yourself a "Kelleyite", and may have sound reasons to not do so. While an
arian may disagree with my labels (especially those who know Catholic
history), I doubt they'd have much disagreement with using my question as a
filter.
>>Don't Know - happier for it.
>
>No such thing IMO...never happened and never will, at least not for a
>rational person.
I disagree. It's very easy for a person to become less happy when he gains
more knowlege, depending on the knowlege. Once one becomes aware of such
knowlege, dealing with it will result in more happiness than evading it, but
it may not be possible to recover the bliss that was ignorance.
R Lawrence
>If the words were *merely* smear terms, i.e. without cognitive content,
>then there wouldn't be anything to avoid -- no one could possibly present
>a 'counter-example', since how would it be recognized as such?
I didn't say the words were "*merely*" smear terms, or that they had no
cognitive content. I suggested that their only real function might be to
act as smear terms. Hillary Clinton's reference to a 'vast right-wing
conspiracy' has some cognitive content, for example, but the function of
that phrase in discourse -- the use to which it was actually put -- was to
smear her husband's political opponents.
Clearly the terms in question ('ARIan' and 'Kelleyite') are quite
frequently used as terms of abuse. My question is, what other function(s)
do they serve? And I would prefer an answer that is actual, not
theoretical. Just because you can manufacture a hypothetical way to define
or use these terms as non-smears doesn't mean that anyone really uses them
that way. (And no, meta-discussions about the terms themselves and what
awful traits should or should not be associated with them do not count.)
Some readers might want to write this off as a trivial issue, but these
questions have an impact. Notice that one term refers to a person, while
the other refers to an organization. The use of terms such as 'Peikovian'
and 'Peikoffer' (more precise counterparts to 'Kelleyite') used to be
common around here, until they were thoroughly discredited in just this
type of discussion. 'ARIan' is now used instead. Whether it will suffer the
same fate remains to be seen.
Jim Klein
R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Some readers might want to write this off as a trivial issue, but these
>questions have an impact. Notice that one term refers to a person, while
>the other refers to an organization.
That might be interesting as an issue of etymology, but it's well off point
as far as reference is concerned. The distinctive feature of a "Kelleyite"
is the support of David Kelley. Beyond the presumption of being
Objectivists, not much can be said of the philosophy of any particular
Kelleyite. Indeed, that's precisely one of the complaints forwarded by
anti-Kelleyites!
"ARIan" OTOH _does_ refer to a person who holds a fairly particular
philosophy. It does not mean "supporter of the ARI" in the manner that
Kelleyite means "supporter of David Kelley." Again, it refers to a
particular philosophy with quite well-defined attributes...better defined
than even Objectivism itself, in fact.
The point is that the respective distinctions are different---one refers to
support of a person, the other to adherence of a philosophy. I realize that
this doesn't really explain the different sort of roots, but again that's
just an etymology question. But neither is it correct for you to imply that
they're the same sort of words---a philosophy is not a person.
>The use of terms such as 'Peikovian' and 'Peikoffer' (more precise
>counterparts to 'Kelleyite') used to be common around here, until they were
>thoroughly discredited in just this type of discussion. 'ARIan' is now used
>instead.
Don't be silly...they weren't "discredited;" the change occured for two
reasons. First was a simple courtesy of not using a person's name for the
root of a word with admittedly negative connotations. [Notice that those
who use "Kelleyite" don't demonstrate a likewise courtesy.] And second was
to incorporate the fact that Leonard Peikoff, while perhaps most responsible
for the development of the philosophy of ARIanism, doesn't deserve all the
blame himself.
Being the single individual most responsible for the spread (such as it may
be) of these words in the language, I think I'm in a position to state both
of those facts with full authority...unless you want to challenge my honesty
as to motivation.
>Whether it will suffer the same fate remains to be seen.
When the referent disappears, so will the concept. It's rather less
important what it's called than what it is, don't you think?
FWIW, I have no reason to imagine that an idealized "Kelleyite" is any
closer to the philosophy of Objectivism than an idealized "ARIan." OTOH, I
have many reasons to believe that those who are today labelled as
"Kelleyites" are much, much closer to Rand's philosophy than those who are
(properly) labelled "ARIans."
jk
Owl
> Clearly the terms in question ('ARIan' and 'Kelleyite') are quite
> frequently used as terms of abuse. My question is, what other
function(s)
> do they serve?
First, I don't really see how they are terms of abuse. I don't see how
"ARIan" is a term of abuse, unless it is obviously disreputable to be
associated with ARI. I don't see how "Kelleyite" is a term of abuse
either, unless it is disreputable to be associated with David Kelley.
Second, obviously the terms serve the function of referring to two
different kinds of Objectivists. What function does "Objectivist" serve?
Or, for an analogy, people distinguish Shiite Muslims from Sunnite
Muslims. What's the function of the terms "shiite" and "sunni"? Well,
just to refer to those different kinds of Muslims. I guess I don't
understand what you're asking or objecting to.
R Lawrence
>"ARIan" OTOH _does_ refer to a person who holds a fairly particular
>philosophy. It does not mean "supporter of the ARI" in the manner that
>Kelleyite means "supporter of David Kelley." Again, it refers to a
>particular philosophy with quite well-defined attributes...better defined
>than even Objectivism itself, in fact.
You are the only person I know of who thinks of the term in this way, based
on your own fantasy-world views about Objectivism and the ARI. Any supposed
"well-defined attributes" of this non-existent philosophy go unmentioned by
other users of the term.
>>The use of terms such as 'Peikovian' and 'Peikoffer' (more precise
>>counterparts to 'Kelleyite') used to be common around here, until they were
>>thoroughly discredited in just this type of discussion. 'ARIan' is now used
>>instead.
>
>Don't be silly...they weren't "discredited;" the change occured for two
>reasons. First was a simple courtesy of not using a person's name for the
>root of a word with admittedly negative connotations. [Notice that those
>who use "Kelleyite" don't demonstrate a likewise courtesy.] And second was
>to incorporate the fact that Leonard Peikoff, while perhaps most responsible
>for the development of the philosophy of ARIanism, doesn't deserve all the
>blame himself.
Sure, Jim. The coincidence of the term being dropped right around the time
that no one could come up with a legitimate meaning for it in public
discussions, is just a happenstance.
>Being the single individual most responsible for the spread (such as it may
>be) of these words in the language, I think I'm in a position to state both
>of those facts with full authority...unless you want to challenge my honesty
>as to motivation.
Your honesty less questionable than your connection to reality. I suppose
in the greater scheme of life, the objects of your obsessions are less
dangerous than a belief in zionist conspiracies or alien abductions, but
they have no more grounding in facts -- and I have no more expectation that
it will be possible to demonstrate this to you than it would be disprove
any other crank theory to its author.
Jim Klein
R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>You are the only person I know of who thinks of the term in this way, based
>on your own fantasy-world views about Objectivism and the ARI.
I wonder what you think those "fantasy-world views" are. Can you give an
example, besides my extremely broad view of Objectivism itself?
>Any supposed "well-defined attributes" of this non-existent philosophy go
>unmentioned by other users of the term.
Surely you don't lay their failures on me, do you? In my case, the
attributes of ARIanism are well-defined, well-explained and well-evidenced.
If anything, I'd think your gripe is that the evidence is a bit _too_ much!
>Sure, Jim. The coincidence of the term being dropped right around the time
>that no one could come up with a legitimate meaning for it in public
>discussions, is just a happenstance.
Gee, I don't recall that. Maybe I wasn't involved or maybe my memory is
just failing again. In either event, it'd be a soft challenge to do that so
I don't think this is much of a point at all.
>Your honesty less questionable than your connection to reality.
Oh. Would you care to support that or are you just falling into that great
sewer that is unsubstantiated charges around here? Y'know...for all my
charges--and they're more than a few I admit--I _always_ offer evidence and
substantiation for them.
>I suppose in the greater scheme of life, the objects of your obsessions are
>less dangerous than a belief in zionist conspiracies or alien abductions,
I wonder how you'd determine that, if it were true. Nonetheless your
smearing my opinions as "obsessions" is disingenuous in view of the fact
that I've gone to _great_ lengths both to pinpoint what my objections are
_and_ why they're so important philosophically. Hierarchy and all that, of
course.
I'd say that's rather different than an "obsession" grounded as it is in
identification and philosophy...all clearly explained. I can appreciate
that you don't particularly like my identifications, but I don't see how
your dislike of them is somehow aided by your throwing out unsubstantiated
(and false) charges, combined with obvious smear tactics.
>but they have no more grounding in facts -- and I have no more expectation
>that it will be possible to demonstrate this to you than it would be
>disprove any other crank theory to its author.
Now your expectation is supposed to say something about me...is that it? If
you've got some facts, then set 'em out. I do, and I do.
jk
R Lawrence
>First, I don't really see how they are terms of abuse. I don't see how
>"ARIan" is a term of abuse, unless it is obviously disreputable to be
>associated with ARI. I don't see how "Kelleyite" is a term of abuse
>either, unless it is disreputable to be associated with David Kelley.
Look at Mr. Klein's posts if you want to see 'ARIan' used for abuse. Now, I
admit that he is an unusual case, and it is possible that the excessive use
of the term in a highly negative way by him and a couple of others has
skewed my impression of how the term is used in general. My impression,
however, is that the term is used primarily, perhaps exclusively, by people
who oppose the ARI. Furthermore, the way it is used by these people
indicates that is intended not simply to convey that someone supports or
contributes to the ARI, but also to suggest various other traits which are
viewed negatively by the writer. I also believe that 'Kelleyite' is used in
a similar fashion.
>Second, obviously the terms serve the function of referring to two
>different kinds of Objectivists. What function does "Objectivist" serve?
To go back to an example I used earlier, someone could claim that Hillary
Clinton's use of the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" was simply
descriptive, with no intent to convey negative connotations, but that would
be a rather disingenuous claim. It is possible that some people use the
terms 'ARIan' and 'Kelleyite' in the way you indicate, without any attempt
to convey negative connotations, but I don't recall seeing an example of
such outside this thread. That is one of the reasons I asked whether the
terms were ever used by people for to describe *themselves*. The use of the
term for (non-ironic) self-reference would quickly resolve the issue in
favor of it not being only a term of abuse. No examples of self-referential
usage have been provided in response to my request.
There are also some concerns about spelling and pronounciation that are
unique to 'ARIan', but I consider that to be a separate issue from the way
the term is used.
Jim Klein
R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Look at Mr. Klein's posts if you want to see 'ARIan' used for abuse.
You have an extraordinarily low standard for "abuse." Damn, man...others
publicly post _lies_ about me and I don't even consider that abuse.
>Now, I admit that he is an unusual case,
Thank you; that's more like it.
>and it is possible that the excessive use of the term in a highly negative
>way by him and a couple of others has skewed my impression of how the term
>is used in general.
Or it's possible that you still have sufficient remnants of an ego such that
you're a bit ashamed of the truth of the charges.
>My impression, however, is that the term is used primarily, perhaps
>exclusively, by people who oppose the ARI. Furthermore, the way it is used
>by these people indicates that is intended not simply to convey that
>someone supports or contributes to the ARI,
See...here come the lies. How much more could I do than state publicly and
clearly that "ARIan" _does not_ mean "supporter or contributor of the ARI??"
How many posts do there have to be explaining _precisely_ what the word
means and _precisely_ the attributes of the philosophy of which it's
indicative? I wonder what your answer is that I haven't written more than
that many.
See how you do? You start with, "Look at Mr. Klein's posts..." and then you
start throwing around charges which are _false_.
>but also to suggest various other traits which are viewed negatively by the
>writer. I also believe that 'Kelleyite' is used in a similar fashion.
Fine. Do you object to "Commie" on the same basis?
>To go back to an example I used earlier, someone could claim that Hillary
>Clinton's use of the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" was simply
>descriptive, with no intent to convey negative connotations, but that would
>be a rather disingenuous claim. It is possible that some people use the
>terms 'ARIan' and 'Kelleyite' in the way you indicate, without any attempt
>to convey negative connotations, but I don't recall seeing an example of
>such outside this thread. That is one of the reasons I asked whether the
>terms were ever used by people for to describe *themselves*. The use of the
>term for (non-ironic) self-reference would quickly resolve the issue in
>favor of it not being only a term of abuse. No examples of self-referential
>usage have been provided in response to my request.
Betsy has, I think; but who cares anyway? Of course the connotations are
negative, because the _philosophy is wrong_. What's the problem?
What...it's okay to call David Kelley "slime" in a national publication, but
it's _not_ okay to point out the fraud perpetrated by _some_ involved with
the ARI regarding Objectivism? What sort of standard are you using?
>There are also some concerns about spelling and pronounciation that are
>unique to 'ARIan', but I consider that to be a separate issue from the way
>the term is used.
That's just the ARIan in you---judge on falsehoods and evade the truth!
jk
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>and it is possible that the excessive use of the term in a highly negative
>>way by him and a couple of others has skewed my impression of how the term
>>is used in general.
>
>Or it's possible that you still have sufficient remnants of an ego such that
>you're a bit ashamed of the truth of the charges.
I'm not sure why you think I would be "ashamed" of any charges you have to
make against "ARIans," even if they are true. The meaning you claim for the
term is not one that I would consider applicable to myself.
>>My impression, however, is that the term is used primarily, perhaps
>>exclusively, by people who oppose the ARI. Furthermore, the way it is used
>>by these people indicates that is intended not simply to convey that
>>someone supports or contributes to the ARI,
>
>See...here come the lies. How much more could I do than state publicly and
>clearly that "ARIan" _does not_ mean "supporter or contributor of the ARI??"
Perhaps you would like to re-read what I wrote, and then tell me exactly
what lie I told in the quote above. Pay special attention to the use of the
word "not." Also take into consideration that you are not the only person
who uses the term. An apology will be accepted if one is forthcoming.
>Do you object to "Commie" on the same basis?
Yes, in parallel situations. That is, I'm not overly upset that people
insult one another, but when insult terms are brought into a more serious
conversation and claimed to be accurate descriptive terms, then there is a
problem.
>What...it's okay to call David Kelley "slime" in a national publication,
I don't recall saying that such a thing was "okay." Perhaps there are
"lies" at work here?
Jim Klein
R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure why you think I would be "ashamed" of any charges you have to
>make against "ARIans," even if they are true. The meaning you claim for the
>term is not one that I would consider applicable to myself.
Me neither, generally. Of course "generally" isn't "always;" it's a fairly
complex attribute after all. Hell, even I've got mild symptoms of it!
>>>My impression, however, is that the term is used primarily, perhaps
>>>exclusively, by people who oppose the ARI. Furthermore, the way it is
>>>used by these people indicates that is intended not simply to convey that
>>>someone supports or contributes to the ARI,
>>
>>See...here come the lies. How much more could I do than state publicly
>>and clearly that "ARIan" _does not_ mean "supporter or contributor of the
>>ARI??"
>
>Perhaps you would like to re-read what I wrote, and then tell me exactly
>what lie I told in the quote above.
Oops...I get it. "My impression..." and "indicates" make it automatically
not a lie, unless I think you're lying about _those_. All things
considered, I don't.
Sufficient couching; apology proffered.
>Pay special attention to the use of the word "not."
Sorry, that doesn't do it. In fact, that's what would make it a lie, were
it not for "my impression." When you say "not simply to..." you are saying
"additionally to..."
In the case here, what it's in addition to is false.
>Also take into consideration that you are not the only person
>who uses the term.
Irrelevant...it's too much of a stretch to imagine that I'm not included in
the class of "these people," unusual or not.
>An apology will be accepted if one is forthcoming.
Take what you got. If you want to get Richard Lawrence about it, "here come
the lies" doesn't state that one already came!
>>What...it's okay to call David Kelley "slime" in a national publication,
>
>I don't recall saying that such a thing was "okay."
I don't recall saying that you did. Surely a question mark is sufficient to
mark a question, isn't it?
If that doesn't do it for you, the "what" at the beginning is an indication.
>Perhaps there are "lies" at work here?
Or perhaps there aren't, and were none to start. I'm glad we were able to
stop them before they came!
jk
David Friedman
> >>My impression, however, is that the term is used primarily, perhaps
> >>exclusively, by people who oppose the ARI. Furthermore, the way it is
> >>used
> >>by these people indicates that is intended not simply to convey that
> >>someone supports or contributes to the ARI,
> >
> >See...here come the lies. How much more could I do than state publicly
> >and
> >clearly that "ARIan" _does not_ mean "supporter or contributor of the
> >ARI??"
>
> Perhaps you would like to re-read what I wrote, and then tell me exactly
> what lie I told in the quote above. Pay special attention to the use of
> the
> word "not." Also take into consideration that you are not the only person
> who uses the term. An apology will be accepted if one is forthcoming.
Speaking as an observer ... .
The sentence:
"X is used not simply to convey Y but ..."
Strongly implies that X is used to convey Y, but that isn't all that it
is doing. That's why "simply" is in the sentence.
You wouldn't write:
"'Libertarian' is used not simply to convey that someone is in favor of
a strong central government but ... " because you know that
libertarian doesn't convey that at all. But you (or, more plausibly,
Peter Schwartz) might well write:
"'Libertarian' is used not simply to convey a vague belief in liberty
but also to convey the belief that philosophical foundations don't
matter."
Hence, if Jim does not use "ARIan" to mean "supporter or contributor ...
," then your sentence:
"Furthermore, the way it is used by these people indicates that is
intended not simply to convey that someone supports or contributes to
the ARI, ..."
Strongly implies the (false) claim that he uses it to mean someone who
supports or contributes to the ARI, while simultaneously he was implying
some additional ideas about such people--for instance that they are
irrational cultists who misrepresent Rand's philosophy.
Of course, a false claim is not the same thing as a lie--to be a lie it
must be told with the intention to deceive, rather than being an honest
mistake. But it is close enough so that I don't think your indignant
response is entirely justified.