Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on April 21

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Partner
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

22970 profile views
  1. He didn't say that it was (which is different than saying it generally leads that direction). What are you even talking about? That wouldn't be nationalism even to Hazony as far as I can tell. There is no monolithic European culture. There is culture that is Scandinavian, German, Italian, Hungarian, Spanish, French, etc. These cultures are all distinct. If you mean "the West", that isn't a national identity, it would be more like an imperialist identity (because it would be some universalist principal or identity that supersedes nation states). This is heavily connected to anti-Semitism by the way, because Jews aren't European and also have a distinct culture. I don't see why Journo would write about this. Why would he want to talk about "the West up until now" when he's talking about what is rational and individualist?
  2. This is an interesting connection. I doubt it is done quite directly. Sort of like "let me show you what it's like to have hopes in life and have them destroyed by someone", but only implicit. When someone struggles to find meaning in their own life (even if they abstractly know what the meaning should be), they might attach meaning onto someone else. Then imagine that being worse when it is accompanied by self-hatred like the kind of depression that Tew described about himself. But then when the darkness and hopelessness of reality becomes apparent again like it was for themselves originally, the same pessimism and self-hatred would be directed to someone else. This is even an interesting case study about psychological health as related to one's philosophical views. We have Tew expressing his own thought processes so we don't you to make assumptions about what he thinks. We have some evidence of symptoms of depression, and some evidence of alcohol abuse (confusing rationalizations, outright denial of wrongdoing, sabotaging stable and healthy social relationships).
  3. Eiuol

    Rucka Rucka Ali

    How would you interpret the parts about Obama as a Muslim? Most of the joke is making fun of the whole "Obama is a Muslim" absurdity. The only true parts are the asides, the rest is about fear of black people and fear of Muslims. More directly, the original is a list of lies and exaggerations, and the parody is a list of lies and exaggerations (mostly from Obama's critics that are outright fabrications).
  4. ARI is just a think tank, I wouldn't call it part of a movement. In any case, even if it tries to make itself into part of a movement, that's misguided. It doesn't do anything in particular to change things. The most it really is, is an organization that keeps track of Rand's estate and promotes interest in her as a thinker. But the people you're talking about are so loosely connected that we can't call that a movement. If you want to call that a movement, okay, it just lacks anything like political purpose, or social purpose. All we have is some people say something like "hey guys, let's talk about these interesting ideas, maybe I can persuade you to change your mind about some things". The only problem with calling this a movement is that I think it makes one more complacent thinking that their discussion will change something, even though they certainly won't change a thing this way in the culture at large. Since you ultimately care about changing the world, why bother with Tew? Discourse is purely academic, and while it has value for us to determine which values matter, it has no value in terms of bringing about change. So don't worry about a guy who has big problems psychologically. Perhaps the more academic people are in a better position to change things - but it seems safe to say that the people who care about ideas won't (and clearly don't based on his viewership) look to Tew as a beacon of rationality. Christianity isn't a good example. It's extremely broad, and only some variations of it can really be said to change the world. Not to mention that the part of Christianity that did gain power and clout (the Roman Catholic Church) involved a lot of war and extensive political manipulation. We could call that a movement, because there were specific political ends. It wasn't a loose organization of people who share a pretty general ideology and people who discuss philosophy.
  5. I don't think there is a such thing as the Objectivist movement. Or at least, if there is, I don't think any movement so narrowly defined can last. People organized around a set of ideas in either a social or political way makes sense. Supposing you you mean similar minded people, Tew doesn't seem anything but superficially similar. He is filled with anger and minimal benevolence. Maybe he desires to be more positive and feel better about life, but he certainly isn't that way now. What you have is a person who is psychologically unwell. Arguing against him won't help that. Arguing against him won't help the people who will find appeal in his extreme pessimism. There is something deeper going on than what you can change the argumentation or persuasion. How would you change his emotional reaction? Definitely not this way. If you care, for example, about social and political values that are common among people who like Rand, and feel that you can improve things - better to do something more direct. Address drinking and alcoholism, address Tew as an individual with his own experiences. Engaging him or criticizing him at high levels of abstraction avoids and ignores the real problems. I'm just addressing you in most of this Swig. Tew is a pretty tragic case, and I find it pretty masochistic to bother with him. Unfortunately, with people like him, usually the worst happens before they change for the better. It would be better for you to be productive on your own with your own projects, rather than "rescuing" a movement that doesn't exist and a person trapped in his own despair.
  6. Is it really worth the time to analyze Tew's views? Nothing is wrong with discussing the purpose and morality of profanity, but the video seems superficial. It's mainly his impression, without any contention to grab a hold of for us to criticize. There isn't anything there. Sometimes this is fine when you're having a quick conversation with someone, but this is a 15 minute podcast. He doesn't elaborate either, so it ends up being the very profanity that he doesn't like - spewing out words without any particular meaning behind them, dressing words with adjectives that convey anger and frustration. "Nihilistic filth" is just as profane as "motherfucking trash". There is no deep analysis of language here on how curse words become filled with the meaning they have, or all the ways curse words can be used, or getting offended by certain uses of curse words when it's actually a misunderstanding. These videos I find very funny. Even better, they give me more to think about than anything that Tew said.
  7. Eiuol

    Rucka Rucka Ali

    That parody reminded me of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7gwX7rjOw There are the more superficial sides of parody that you pointed out. But the nature parity I think tears something apart deeper than what's on the surface - at least if it's good. For the video you linked, I think it's tearing apart some notions of sexuality, especially making fun of absurd rationalizations to claim that you aren't gay or even bi. "It's not gay if it's in a three-way", "it's only gay if our dicks touch". That's already absurd, not to mention that if anyone said that seriously, it's like avoiding anything that remotely seems gay. Rucka highlights that by pushing it even further to say "it's not gay if he doesn't come on me", but then on the other hand, his character accepts that he might not be heterosexual, which would actually wouldn't be a big deal. So it seems only destructive about rationalizing one's behavior, and says nothing negative about being something besides heterosexual.
  8. I've read into this a little bit. From what I've gathered, he has a very unhealthy relationship with alcohol (I hesitate to say alcoholic), a deeply pessimistic attitude, mixed with some pretty bad depression. So it's not drunkenness per se, but the attitude that leads him to drink in the first place. He literally seeks to dull the anger that he feels all the time towards the world. It's a classic reason for people to abuse alcohol. This is not psychologizing, he actually said as much (59:15 for his specific remarks): I'm not pointing out the moral failing of Tew so much as I am pointing out that I find it sad when people seek to blame things outside themselves for deeply psychological problems that originated within themselves.
  9. It sounded like he meant that contradictions are possible (within one's mind as ideas) and that Rand is right that contradictions are impossible (in reality outside of your mind).
  10. Well, true, I looked it up, it is not a pure amphetamine. It might actually be worse, because it combines an upper and a downer, so we can't compare dosages directly - especially since Rand wasn't using it for psychological reasons.
  11. For sure. It might not be a contradiction to Barbara's story though. Both things can be true. Still, Barbara might be reliable for basic facts, but nothing that involves emotionally charged drama like this (events like that are prone to being misremembered, that goes for anyone). To say the least, it shouldn't be controversial to say that Rand was rough around the edges. That's not necessarily a bad thing. So I wonder if amphetamines contributed to that at all, and exaggerated those personality traits. Intelligence has nothing to do with drug use itself, but being intelligent makes it easier to hide drug use. The thing about amphetamines is that they don't necessarily impair rational thought, but they can impair emotional function. About all I know is that she used them at least since 1942, and used them for 30 years. We don't know her dosage, or habits of use. It doesn't matter why they were prescribed, and many doctors at the time had no idea just how bad they were for you. So a "low dose" back then would probably be seen as a high dose nowadays. Using amphetamines for that long is not good psychologically. Do you know any other books that might talk about it?
  12. I must have misread something. I don't know who "the subject" you're referring to is. It sounded like you were saying that Barbara Branden was contradicting herself because she pointed out what she remembered as worth mentioning, while also saying that meeting Rand was so deeply important to her. Either way, I don't put much weight on memoir type biographies. Does either book mention much about Rand's use of amphetamines?
  13. It's not a discredited source for that behavior, although it certainly was disputed (not to mention it isn't a contradiction to say that meeting someone you are critical of was one of the most important things in your life). Actually, you didn't even dispute the behavior. Anyway, it's pretty well known that she did take amphetamines. I just want to hear more. For a moment, let's consider that she might not have been either being a jerk or using legitimate psychological insight that she was approving. Using drugs like amphetamines can screw up your ability to interpret social situations or manage emotions. This isn't bashing Rand, it's looking for more context to her life. Depending on how much of a user she was, it would be a way to verify behavior that doesn't rely on memory.
  14. I wonder, and I'm curious if anyone has more thoughts on this. Might this relate to Rand's use of amphetamines? As far as I heard, she used it for decades. It would only make sense that it would manifest as behavior like this. And I wouldn't be surprised that people may have attributed this behavior to her personality instead, especially in that day and age. I'm only interested in terms of her biography, so I would like to know more.
  15. Did I miss something? I looked at some of his recent videos just today, and I see there's quite a bit of drama involving Tew in the comments of his videos!
  • Create New...