Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Calling Someone A Rationalist

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Split from another thread.

... with that arch-rationalist.

(2) This forum will not tolerate posts which contain personal insults or are otherwise devoid of intellectual content. Examples of personal insults include: (a) sarcastic comments directed at a particular person's character, and ( :) accusations of irrationality or immorality.

I guess the rules don't apply anymore? Or just not to Diana? Seems that the moderators and admins have tolerated this particular instance for a great deal longer than they should have. I shouldn't even have to bring it up.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(2) This forum will not tolerate posts which contain personal insults or are otherwise devoid of intellectual content. Examples of personal insults include: (a) sarcastic comments directed at a particular person's character, and (:) accusations of irrationality or immorality.

I guess the rules don't apply anymore? Or just not to Diana? Seems that the moderators and admins have tolerated this particular instance for a great deal longer than they should have. I shouldn't even have to bring it up.

The moderators are free to delete my comment if they so choose. (Frankly, given your recent behavior, I'm surprised that they haven't deleted your account.)

In any case, describing someone as an "arch-rationalist" is not a personal insult nor an accusation of immorality. Even in its extreme forms, rationalism is not a moral problem -- unless a person refuses to correct it. As for that kind of moral breach, I didn't say or even imply anything of the sort about you. But if the shoe fits, then you are more than welcome to wear it. If not, then don't. Whatever your choice, please don't expect any further replies from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, describing someone as an "arch-rationalist" is not a personal insult nor an accusation of immorality.

Yes, but the rules say "accusations of irrationality or immorality. "

I take it that it would be okay to say "The following statement that you made is not logical" or "that statement is irrational," but not to say "you are an irrational person." or "you are an irrationalist" or, in this case, an "arch-rationalist."

That's how I read the rules as stated. I think we need a clarification as to what the rules intend.

I mean if someone comes on the board and says "Causality is a myth, life is just a fantasy dreamed up by a giant purple dragon made of jello..." I mean... come on, I can't say to that guy, "you are irrational?"

Or do I just say his argument is not rational and then let the mods ban him, without being personal about it? That could be a legitimate desire of the management, to keep personal comments off of the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the rules say "accusations of irrationality or immorality. "
I believe the key word here is "accusation." The other admins and mods can correct me if I'm wrong, but an accusation is a kind of assertion; that is, it is a leveling of a charge absent evidence. However, anybody who has followed this spectacle or the blogs associated with it, particularly if they caught the thread (now gone) that accused this forum of stealing and a blog post about sex crossposted to the Egosphere a few months back, it is not difficult to see that this is not an accusation: it is an identification of fact. I don't think there's anything wrong with calling a spade a spade, so long as it as it is clear and conclusive that a spade is a spade. This is my interpretation, anyway. Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rationalism, like empiricism, is a kind of epistemology. Rationalism is not a valid epistemology. For the meaning of "rationalism," within the context that Objectivism sets, see "Rationalism vs. Empiricism," The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Being a rationalist is not, in itself, a moral failure. Accusing someone of being a rationalist or archrationalist is not an accusation of immorality.

Likewise, "rationalist" does not mean irrationalist. The essence of irrationalism, as a form of personal behavior ("irrationality"), is evasion -- that is, unfocusing. (See ""Irrationality," ARL, entry 1.) That is immoral.

Irrationalism as an epistemological position is "the doctrine that reason is not a valid means of knowledge or a proper guide to action." (See "Irrationalism," ARL.)

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burgess,

As always, that was quite enlightening.

So the question to the management would be: is it forbidden to accuse someone of having the specific epistemology of "irrationalism" (in which case it would be acceptable to accuse someone of having any other, not-specifically-forbidden-to-accuse, epistemology), or is the rule against accusing a person of having any particular epistemology (on the idea that you can only accuse their statements of having this or that quality, rather than their person, and that they will speak for themselves on what epistemology they do or do not hold)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Burgess that "rationalism" refers to the person's epistemology, not to their morality.

Objectivists who understand the issue strive not to fall prey to rationalism. Therefore, in the context of an Objectivist forum, calling someone a rationalist could well amount to "fighting words". If someone called me a rationalist I'd be insulted, even though the accusation does not speak to my moral character.

In most contexts within the forum, even if one sees signs of rationalism by someone who is trying to learn and/or apply Objectivism, it wouldn't help to simply state: that's a rationalistic argument. One would need to show the right way of thinking about the topic. However, that would be in a context of fostering a continuing, collegial dialog; it would be in a context of seeing the other person learn and change; it would be in a friendly context.

Edited to add: Okay, let me get specific and address the current context...

What started this public fracas was when TomL posted to the forum saying that the forum-owner is a thief. He did not say: the forum owner is wrong about what is or is not intellectual property, he did not say the forum owner is evading. Instead, he accused the forum owner of theft. Having done so, he now asks us to enforce the forum's rules about not allowing insults. How much context can one person drop!!

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...