howardofski

Could you offer an example or two, please?

I agree. I think there are general statements we can safely make about "the" mind, such as that it has free will, can perceive reality, etc. These are more philosophical than psychological. And though Nathaniel Branden takes the title of Psychologist, most of what he writes of in his books is simply good philosophy. My objection is to the debate tactic which Ayn herself termed "psychologizing" - contemptuous references to one's opponent's mind. I am impressed with how popular a tactic it is, even among Objectivists, who ought to know better. My real interest in bringing this up is the quality of debate itself. I find that the two most popular techniques of debate cheating are psychobabble and misrepresentation (sometimes called Straw Man argument). You can spot the debate cheat by his pattern of making you - his opponent - the subject of his statements. He will discuss your motives, and misstate your positions.

Glad to help. Bad guess, though.

I think philosophy is a short subject. I said nothing about the value of debating it, did I? I have found that Objectivists are more prone to psychobabble insults than Christians or Libertarians. I made very clear that there were parts of Objectivism I disagree with. There is no such thing as a study of "the" mind. You can study yours, no one else's. I wrote no psychobabble about Ayn. I said "I wonder...", consistent with my view that psychology is guessing. I did not criticize all participants in this forum. I did not pop up. My comments are not a smattering. Why I'm here is not your concern and not something you can ever know.

There is no such thing as "our psychology". There is your psychology which you would do well to study if you aspire to living well. But if you speak of my psychology, you are pretending to know what you cannot know. Hardly objective.

I do not address how people feel, I was using those terms to describe the speech, not its effect on the listener. However, most people do not react well debate-wise to such rhetorical tactics. Often, at that point, the debate is derailed. Technically, psychobabble is a change of subject, an irrelevancy.

I defend debate by criticizing psychologizing. You suggest that I am against arguing. I write several paragraphs presenting my judgments. You suggest I am against judging. I say we have information only about behavior and speech, not mind. You ask if behavior and speech are not information.

If I were against arguing, why would I be criticizing those who wreck debates with psychobabble? If I were against judging, why would I post my judgements, as I just did? Psychology does not "sort out the information that comes our way". No information about the minds of others comes our way. All we have is their behavior, which includes their speech. We can know they have minds, since they communicate. We can only guess about the contents and workings of those minds. And such guesses are both unprovable and useless. Seeing patterns in behavior is not seeing into a mind. Psychological statements are utterly unnecessary to the art of philosophy.

[Mod's note: Split from an earlier topic. -sN] An argument which is original or challenging to you? How is anyone to know what you know? A forum which seeks new members should expect them to ask old questions and should be prepared to offer brief and respectful replies, otherwise it becomes a hangout for a gang of good old boys and girls who know the jargon, the pat answers, and are prepared to slap down anyone who dares to ask a naive question. After many decades of Objectivism and objectivism, I have drawn the conclusion that philosophy is a short subject, suitable to a small pamphlet (economics is a brochure, politics is a poster) and the art of philosophy includes the virtue of brevity. Ayn reduced her philosophy to a paragraph. My main objection to most of Objectivism's adherents is their habit of shaming and humiliating anyone who questions them. This is hardly a vice exclusive to them, of course, but as a group, they seem to relish this approach to debate far more than, say, Christians (present day) or Libertarians. I blame Ayn and Nathaniel for setting this tone, along with many of their early followers. It was their standard practice to make psychological / epistemological diagnosis of anyone who opposed them (although on TV, I once watched Nathaniel say “In a debate between gentlemen, one does not question the motives of one's opponents”). Psychobabble is bad philosophy. Psychology is not a science, it is a guessing game. We can blab all day about what we think is going on in the minds of others, but we will never actually know. That is a fact. Psychology is almost always used as a means to insult others. Accusing others of “psycho-epistemological” sins such as “evasion” is guaranteed to offend, not convince, and it is an utterly unprovable accusation. Telling others who they should be sexually attracted to is utterly offensive and invalid. I wonder if this bad habit is more easily developed by writers of fiction. They tell us, in their stories, all about what is going on in the minds of their characters. Perhaps they mistakenly assume that they can see into the minds of real people. They cannot. I am here because I just got an email inviting me to check out this newly formatted forum. But already I see signs of what I call the Objectivist Tone: Beware! We do Not Sanction those who Disagree. However, anyone who cares about your sanction or lack thereof, is a fool, which makes it foolish to post such warnings. After more than 50 years of pondering Ayn, I have come to these conclusions: Psychology is an intellectual fraud. Insults are anti-debate - meaning that they function to end debate. Coercive monopoly is evil. And since Ayn included these errors in her philosophy, I now call myself an objectivist. I still love and respect her memory. She was a great thinker and artist and I am convinced that her heart was in the right place. But she was mistaken about some important philosophical questions. John Howard