Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MisterSwig last won the day on July 20

MisterSwig had the most liked content!


About MisterSwig

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Experience with Objectivism

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

3887 profile views
  1. I almost agree with you, but what do you mean by "expressive"? The music (rhythm and melody) primarily conveys feeling, while the lyric (words) primarily conveys thought. You can't say that, in general, one is more expressive than the other, because in that context they are dissimilar. They serve different functions in the song.
  2. Rap has its purpose in songwriting. It works when you need to emphasize the meaning over the emotion of a lyric. Rap is more storytelling than musical. The music is there to keep the beat and add emotional flourishes.
  3. Did you see my thread on Rucka? So far I have reviewed "Am I Gay?" and "Prince Ali Obama."
  4. This is definitely a road I enjoy going down. Typically unimaginable refers to something real that a particular person can't imagine himself because he lacks the necessary context or experience. For example, a man who survived the first wave at Omaha Beach might say to his grandson, "It was unimaginable chaos." Even if he tried to explain what happened, he knows that the boy can't imagine it. In your example, you are trying to apply the term to something that is not real. If it's not real, then who could possibly imagine it? Only the person who thinks of the unreal can imagine it. Everyone else relies on your description, and then they are imagining their own interpretation of the unreal. This gets into the meaning of imagine. What is imagining? Is it forming a picture impression in your mind, or can it be mere thoughts, a concept? I'm struck by the difference between memory and imagination. Memory is recalling something that existed. Imagination is inventing something that hasn't existed. We try to fit our thoughts into these categories, to keep reality separate from fantasy. But sometimes we make mistakes and put them in the wrong category. You can't imagine infinity, but you work with the concept. Should infinity be something other than a concept?
  5. Didn't you just imagine the so-called "unimaginable"? If it's truly unimaginable, then you wouldn't be able to think of it and describe it. You just described contradictions. "Category of the Unreal" sounds like an avant-garde metal band that I would want to murder repeatedly.
  6. Disagree. They are having an open debate. No, but some of them need to be re-conceived. It sounds like a popular textbook writer would, and he gets them while they're young and impressionable.
  7. Do you consider a pictograph a word or statement?
  8. In response to Tew's criticism of him, Rucka made a comment on YouTube. Tew had claimed that Rucka defended Charles' harshness "on the grounds that spreading Objectivism doesn't matter that much." Rucka, however, denies saying this, which, if true, fatally undercuts Tew's argument. Without evidence, Tew's accusation is arbitrary. Furthermore, he fails to mention the issue in a follow-up video, so perhaps he has conceded the point. Rucka also accuses Tew of "unbelievable cowardice" for "unload[ing] without [him] there to defend [himself]." This is the only part of Rucka's response that Tew directly acknowledges. However, he doesn't start doing it until thirteen minutes into the video called "Updates." He says: "if you took what [Rucka] said at face value...you would not have guessed that I notified him in advance of putting either of those last two podcasts up, and that he approved of my doing so." This claim is at least half-absurd. Why wouldn't we have guessed that he gave Rucka advanced notice, when he told us he would do exactly that in the video on which Rucka commented? Regarding the second half, Tew suggests that Rucka calls him cowardly for doing something of which Rucka approved in a prior email exchange. However, note that Rucka calls him a coward for "unloading" without Rucka being present, not for merely posting a "critical" video like he said he would. Rucka indicates his problem with the degree or kind of criticism, which he believes warranted a face-to-face chat. And, furthermore, since he had not seen Tew's video beforehand, he could not know or approve its highly estranging content. Besides, what control does Rucka have over Tew's actions? Should Rucka have begged for a one-on-one discussion, even after Tew had rejected that request in the emails? Tew says that he "gives people the benefit of the doubt. I assume good things about people until I am proven wrong. And I think that's valid." Yet here he could not see a possibility in which Rucka spoke earnestly. "In my view, that response is conclusive evidence, proof, that Rucka is a fundamentally dishonest person." Tew also declares Rucka "irredeemable" and "worthless," apparently on account of the "cowardice" remark alone. For, up until that point, he still expected to speak with Rucka about him creating "nihilistic filth," not caring about the spread of Objectivism, and acting "worse than an enemy." But then after the comment was made, he wanted to have nothing to do with the guy. It is curious that Tew could not identify a supposedly "essentially dishonest" person over the course of many multi-hour interactions, until, of course, Rucka called him yellow. Perhaps Tew doesn't understand people, or maybe Rucka is a phenomenal liar. I suspect that the former is more likely. Tew uses his judgment to justify ignoring Rucka's other responses. "I don't care about, or pay attention to, fundamentally dishonest people. So I haven't looked at anything else he said on the issue past that comment." First of all, if he doesn't pay attention to his opponents, honest or not, then he blindly exposes himself to their attacks. It's not a rational policy to evade what people publish about you, even if you intend not to respond. You should at least determine whether an attack poses a real threat to your person or reputation, which you can't do without looking at it. And second, if Tew insists on appealing to his personal judgment of Rucka, without giving us adequate evidence for his conclusion, then we might want to gauge the reliability of his judgments. So let's do a bit more of that now. When Tew needs to explain his initially high regard for Rucka, he claims that Rucka "deceptively presents himself as very reasonable. That is the overwhelming vibe, feeling, you get from him. He's just very measured in his mannerisms, and his tone, and his speech. And so you get the impression of somebody who is supremely reasonable and willing to talk things through." However, when Tew needs to justify his current, very negative evaluation, suddenly Rucka becomes a mixed-up "hothead": "Now, it didn't take long, in fact this was obvious in our first conversation that this was, to some extent, an affectation, because he almost immediately revealed that he was highly irrational and emotionalistic in the short-term." We're given a tale of two Ruckas, depending on the needs of Tew's different points. In one breath Rucka is "supremely reasonable" and "measured in manner and speech," but in the next breath he's "obviously irrational" and "emotionalistic." How does Tew explain his contradictory assessments? Well, he must have been hoodwinked by a dishonest nihilist. "Even though [Rucka] was irrational, hotheaded in the short-term, in the long-term he seemed to be rational. But, eventually, I realized that that too was insignificant. It was superficial and also an act, because, yes, he calms down, but not in a way that he ever learns from what he did." Tew perhaps forgets that earlier he argued for Rucka's "deceptively reasonable vibe" and "measured mannerisms, tone, and speech." Those are not long-term qualities of an individual. So not only do we have two Ruckas, we have them at the same time: in the moment, in the short-term. Tew doesn't make sense. And it's unfair for him to condemn someone while providing such a wildly inconsistent description of their character. I conclude that Tew greatly exaggerates Rucka's alleged flaws in order to maintain the delusion that he's "worthless." Basically, Tew has built a straw Rucka in order to avoid facing the real Rucka. After discussing Rucka, Tew starts talking about himself, about his own psychological issues which might have caused audience members some confusion. "I'm not critical to a fault, I'm generous with my praise to a fault, because I am desperate to find good people. I blow out of proportion anybody's good attributes, because I really want there to be good people." Perhaps he's being sincere, but this attitude doesn't match with his admitted disinterest in sanctioning evil. Recall that, for him, sanction is about finding good people. But "[his] kind of people don't exist, so it's hard for [him] to care very much about sanction." So, if good people don't exist, why then does he desperately seek them? And, on the other hand, if they do exist, why doesn't he care about sanctioning evil? I question whether he actually wants to help people get better by offering objective criticism. He seems more interested in dreaming good people into existence through the power of undue praise. "I do overemphasize people's good qualities early on. I did this with Ben Shapiro, [and] with Jordan Peterson." In his videos, Tew periodically compares himself to characters in Ayn Rand's novels. While pondering his pessimism, he says he's like Dominique Francon. While thinking about his tolerance of evil, he's like Gail Wynand. And while explaining his drinking, he describes himself as most like Leo Kovalensky. I can think of another potential match: Ellsworth Toohey. Toohey also has a penchant for "praising to a fault." But he doesn't do it hoping to find good people. He does it hoping to hurt them. He overly praises Peter Keating, to ruin Howard Roark. Toohey represents an actual nihilist. From Journals of Ayn Rand (p.193): "It would be Toohey who'd find philosophical significance in Donald Duck. Why? It's not Donald Duck that he's boosting. It's philosophy that he's destroying." Similarly, it would be Toohey who'd find a model Objectivist in Rucka Rucka Ali. Why? It's not Rucka Rucka Ali that he's boosting. It's Objectivism that he's destroying. The nihilist aims to crush values, and thereby gain crushed followers. "Toohey is out to destroy and discredit--philosophically and practically--all happiness. Unhappy people look for a yoke--and they come to him." (Journals, p. 210) Charles Tew says that his particular flaw, "praising to a fault," is "a common mistake with better Objectivists." I say, no, it's a common fault among anti-Objectivists, and I think Tew realizes this. Notice here how he catches part of his self-deception (at 27:10-40): "Because [better Objectivists] want to find good things in the world, they'll overstate its value, not in an attempt to deceive anyone, but, well, except for themselves really." Is this Tew admitting his self-deception? If so, why put his audience through all that nonsense about being honest and objective? "Some people are saying that I was being dishonest and misleading people, but that is not the case." Actually, it sort of is, according to his own statement. So, which is it: is Tew deceiving himself or being honest? Maybe he's lying to himself and telling the truth to everyone else, but I don't see how that would work. And I'm about done entertaining his nonsense. Throughout this critique, I have been, in an indirect way, charitable to Mr. Tew. I have left out several "uhs" and "ums" from his quotes that I transcribed. But in this final quote I need to include them all, in order to convey his evasive mental action after recognizing his self-deceptive method of moral judgment. Note how many filler words he cycles through before latching onto a concept that is not self-deception. "And, uh, so, you know, it's a kind of understandable, uh, irrationality, but it is still irrationality. It is a form of emotionalism, and therefore evasion, and therefore immorality." Yes, he spits up several words there, but not dishonesty, because that would put him in the same category as Rucka. He would then need to explain how Rucka is "essentially dishonest," while he is not, despite the revelation that his immorality begins with deceiving his own self.
  9. Okay, so is there a type of math system that's wholly insane, i.e., not even indirectly connected to reality? Algebra, for the most part, still deals with counting things. Geometry and trigonometry deal with measuring shapes. Calculus measures changes. Probability measures potentials. I understand how concepts like "negative numbers" and "imaginary planes" have no direct relation to physical reality, but even those ideas are indirectly related. Is there, however, a branch of math that has absolutely nothing to do with the outside world, and is entirely in the mind?
  10. Tew actually doesn't talk much about Rand's views in these particular videos. I address his own arguments. Besides, in Part 2 where he does relate his moral views to Rand's, he admits that she'd condemn him. So readers don't have to judge my view there. They have to judge Tew's.
  11. Are we dealing with a false dichotomy here? It's not that math is about either the world or our abstractions of the world. Math is about discovering ways to measure things. And since we have imaginary things in our heads (two absent dimes, for example), we need a method of measuring them.
  12. It might be funny to start calling him a sophist. But nobody really uses that word anymore, not to describe teachers.
  13. All it means is that in the final edition of The Ayn Rand Letter, she wrote that Dr. Peikoff's 1976 course was "the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism, i.e., the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate." It doesn't mean that Peikoff's word is Objectivism--just his course. However, there were some changes between the course and the book version. So OPAR is considered Peikoff's interpretation of Rand, which he acknowledges in the preface. There won't be another intellectual heir to Rand, because she's dead. And Peikoff said he's not naming one for himself.
  14. I'm not asking anyone to accept my view without doing their own due diligence. Did I miss something? No. Anyone can claim to be an Objectivist. That's my hope. But as I told Eiuol privately, I have more selfish reasons for analyzing Tew, related to personal interests and projects.
  • Create New...