DonAthos

Grames, I would rather focus on the positive aspects.
As is commonly known, Rand implicitly and explicitly repeated that Objectivists should never accept any authority over their minds - especially, and even her own:
"The most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth."

From this, I take that it is irrational to enshrine any authoritative figure since a. he or she can make mistakes; b. far more importantly, it interferes with one's own relationship with reality.
"...an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error."[Galt]

I know that Peikoff has made some brilliant contributions to O'ism; similarly, Kelley has been of great value to me (and the fact they are at a seemingly insoluble intellectual impasse doesn't escape me - but 'to choose one side' is an error of mutual exclusion, in my mind). I am just as certain that in (due to?) his prolific Podcast output, LP has made some rationalistic errors in recent times.
That Diana Hsieh honestly pointed them out should not draw such virulent criticism, nor put her beyond the pale. He should thank her.
Thankfully, none of us is omniscient. Without deliberately going out to make them, in my view, one is not really trying hard, unless one does make mistakes...to then correct them.

Objectivist principles are not only contained within a set of books, but in the life and mind (errors and all) of each of us. They are not a suit of armor, nor a straitjacket, nor a hair-shirt - they are a tool and a guide with a singular purpose.

Sometimes, I believe that some Objectivists interpret what we might initially view as a "surface disagreement" (the 10% of disagreement) as being indicative of deep discord, hidden from view. So while you stipulate a likely 90+% of agreement, sometimes in my view dissenting Objectivists see each other as "wolves-in-sheep's-clothing," with little-to-no honest agreement, but a masked agenda to praise Kant, denigrate Rand, destroy reason, and etc. The resultant arguments proceed with about the civility you'd expect.

That said, I don't believe that's a rational approach in most circumstances (or nearly any circumstances, to be frank), and I don't think it has to be that way here. I believe that there's room for honest disagreement and passionate discussion (including, yes, a focus on the few areas upon which we disagree, which I don't think necessarily improper), without condemnation and the adversarial feeling that often seems to pervade.

Does "being forced to pay for it" count as participating in those programs?

Well at least someone else got the joke.

And I am adding the Pope part to future renditions. That is GOLD!

I don't think the phrase "be yourself" really has much meaning. At least in my case, trying to be myself is not much of a problem, but it doesn't get me what I want. I wouldn't have any personal concerns about socialization if all I had to do is act natural. When you want to fix something, natural is exactly what you don't want. You have to figure out what you need to work on, then use different strategies than you have used all along. Of course that's vague, but that's where books on conversation or even social psychology can help out, mixed with personal experience.

I've been in plenty of situations where I've been anxious to talk to someone. Not really because of a fear of rejection (well, maybe a little) and not at all to do with not accepting myself, but because it was so outside what I usually do. I don't know what's going to happen, so I don't really know what actions I want to take. I have a goal of getting to know a person that appears very interesting, but I don't know at all what steps to reach that goal! Flailing about by doing whatever comes to mind isn't an answer. Acting "myself" won't help because there isn't even a "myself" to refer to in this situation. Yeah, I have some friends that I'm comfortable with, but I can't use that in this new situation. The new person isn't even a friend yet.

So, what do I do when I feel totally locked on what to say or do? I have to use an "act" in some sense. As I said before, I don't mean anything second-handed. What I mean is choosing a method of socialization that feels alien enough that it also feels fake. I can acknowledge that yes, I am a little anxious, but I can force myself to say some positive, nice words. I can make myself appear perfectly happy even if I'm really quite nervous at the time. By doing this, I can produce at least a pleasant, brief conversation. The more I've done this sort of thing, the more it feels natural and "me".

What's a context error? I'm pretty sure Ethics and Politics are not outside the context of the physical world: the object of Physics.

And what do you think Ayn Rand meant by the expression "physical force", if not the force that exists in the physical world, as identified by the science which studies the physical world?

Identity means boundaries in space and time, limitations, some features which distinguish A from B. God however is unlimited, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient-in other words-undefined. Besides, one of his properties is a violation of identity law ( miracles) which means that God himself is not limited by identity. Definition, identity will strip him from his divine qualities and turn him to the object, one out of many-like a stone, star or nebula. If theists will ever accept such a God, I wonder what they will do with him?

An investment is something that you stand to gain from. Standing up to evil isn't just an investment. If you don't stand up to evil, you don't just lose what you would've gained by doing so. You eventually lose everything. What we gained, when we went to war against the Communists, isn't just trading partners in South Korea. We also gained everything else we would've lost: the whole of Asia, and probably the whole world.

So the question should never be "Is it worth it to stand up to evil?". It's always worth it. The question should be "What's the best way to stand up to evil, at any given point?".

Also, in answering that question for past generations, you should always keep in mind that you have the luxury of hind sight, and they didn't. Judge their decision making with that in mind.

Forgive me, but is the implication here that anyone who reaches different conclusions than you do with respect to homosexuality, or the transgendered, is necessarily therefore not an Objectivist?

As far as "the idea of normalcy"... well, what is the idea of normalcy? I'd like to know what we're talking about before I'm for or agin it. You don't mean that "normalcy" is to be desired for its own sake, right?



It seems right to fix something that is wrong with you (so long as the "cure" is not worse than the "disease"). But are we initially agreed that to be homosexual is to have something wrong with you? Because I'm not at all certain that there's anything "wrong" with homosexuality.



And these standards also stipulate the sex of one's sexual partners? How so? And if one is "improper" in this respect, and violates these standards, what is the specific penalty that one should expect to pay?



I don't quite know how to respond to this, except to say that if homosexuality is "traceable to causes dealing with neurology or psychology," which I think sounds likely, then wouldn't heterosexuality be equally traceable to those same kinds of causes? How do you determine what is "normal" here? Statistical analyses?

Ought one wish to be like others for the sake of being like others? Or is there a specific argument against homosexuality that does not ultimately boil down to "it isn't normal"?



Are you quite certain that "primacy of consciousness" is at issue here?



Heh. Well, we're talking about a few things now, it appears. You don't have to respond to anything you don't wish to, but I'm responding to comments you'd already made in the thread, and which I therefore considered "fair game."



And I like that topic, too. Come to it, can we discuss the phrase "the world's authority on Objectivism and objectivity" for a moment?

What does it mean to be "the world's authority" in this manner? What specific powers does such an authority have, by virtue of being an authority?

Who gives the "world's authority" that title? By what power? And for the uninitiated, by what means would they come to either agree or disagree that the "world's authority" was an "authority" in fact?



Without trying to respond to the whole essay, this gives me an opportunity to remark on something that has been a bit of an itch. The last sentence reads:



I'm aware that Rand used the term "hero worship," and I'm certain that it can be argued for in certain senses: like "a most intense form of respect"...? Perhaps.

But truth be told, it makes me uncomfortable. I do not consider myself inclined to worship, as I typically understand the term.

"It must be acknowledged that such people with such problems do have a problem and that they ought to work on fixing it"
A person having a sense of their body being improperly matched for them as far as their sex goes? Of course it is recognized as a problem all over the place. Clearly it is a problem seeing how it causes all kinds of severe discomfort at the least for anyone experiencing it. Fixing the discrepancy is definitely a high priority for those who are going through this. The thing is though, what you regard as the only acceptable fix is just completely impractical. The exact cause and workings of this condition is not well established, however, whatever the cause and function is, it has been shown to be something which just seeing a shrink won't fix. That has been tried and failed ad infinitum. We don't have the necessary knowledge and technology either to try to go in and do a manual override on somebody's brain to change it so that there their brain is now completely in sync with the rest of their body's sexual characteristics. Since we can't make the brain change that only leaves the rest of the body as an option to address to get the dissonance resolved.

It has happened a few times where I've felt motivated to bring up the issue of "civility" in threads in which I've participated here. Enough so that I think it warrants its own, separate discussion.

Let me set the table a bit for what I want to talk about.

When I look through threads I'm occasionally taken aback by the kind of "discussions" that some here participate in. They are hostile and filled with invective and scorn. Do I mean to implicate everyone? By no means. Nor am I making any claim about a certain percentage who participate in that manner, whether "some," "many" or "most" or anything like that. All that I'm saying is that it happens often enough that I'm no longer surprised to see it. If this hostility isn't quite "characteristic," it's certainly a noticeable feature of the community. A predictable feature.

And if this were most places on the Internet, I guess I'd let it go and spare everyone a pointless lecture on my own ruffled sense of propriety. I fully expect the comments on a YouTube vid to be heinous, for instance, and don't think I could get through to the myriad snarky 14 year olds there via such an appeal. But given the nature of this community -- people who care about ideas and take them seriously; people similarly committed to reason and standards of integrity and honesty -- I expect something different. Something better.

It's enough to make me wonder whether some people believe (perhaps implicitly) that there is some tie between being "honest" and intelligent, and being cruel or cutting. That's certainly nothing new to me, if so; I've lived long enough to recognize that sometimes the intelligent feel that their ability gives them license to be scornful, especially to those they consider (often incorrectly) to be their inferiors. Or maybe some take meaning from reports of Ayn Rand's testy demeanor and anger? Maybe they think that there's something inherently virtuous in being mean?

But here is why I believe that "civility" is important, and especially given the context of the kinds of discussions that I presume we wish to pursue.

Discussions don't generally take place between machines, but men. As a man, I strive to be logical, to be reasonable, and to use my mind as best I can to arrive at truth, to make good choices, and to live my life well. Discussions are both enjoyable and profitable for me in that they serve those ends. When I "philosophize" in a social setting (here meaning: discuss, debate, argue), I like the give-and-take and am thankful for those who challenge me. Why "thankful"? Because their challenges can often provoke me to new insights, both into their positions and into my own. And what is more, as a man I am prone to error and to mistake. This is not an argument for any subtle kind of skepticism, but a recognition that the process of arriving at truth is neither automatic, nor necessarily "easy." Through the process of argument, sometimes I am led to recognizing that I have been/am wrong, and to correction. This is, in fact, precisely what happened to me when I read Rand; I was persuaded that I had been wrong on a number of topics, and was overjoyed at the discovery.

However. As a man, I am also an emotional creature. Not to disparage emotion, which I think plays important roles in my life, but I know from experience that when I am in the throes of a strong emotion, my ability to reason clearly is sometimes impacted. When I fight with my family, with my wife, I sometimes say things that I recognize I do not mean or otherwise believe, upon later reflection. What's worse, I have a short temper -- a flaw that has long been with me, and which I continually seek to correct through being aware of my own emotional state, and tempering my passionate drive for immediate response against those who arouse my anger. There have been times even here, and despite my apparent righteousness on this subject, when I have lost my temper. And I have regretted it every time.

What we seek to do through conversation, and the rewards that are possible through these discussions, is wholly threatened when we allow ourselves to get angry, to lash out. Am I speaking just of my own personal experiences? Perhaps, but I do not believe so. Incivility -- "being a jerk" -- is a provocation to another person's anger; an invitation to "lose it." And that is no boon for rational discussion of any kind. To the contrary, it does nothing but put men "on their guard," and make it less likely that they will give all arguments the cool and reflective analysis that reasoned thought and discussion so often demands.

So. What I'm asking is that we try to maintain a certain level of politeness in our discussions. That we hold others -- and most importantly ourselves -- to the highest possible standard. This is not a call for false kindness or that we should all "like" one another or anything of the sort. Feel free to hate me, hate each other, I don't really care about that. Nor would I ask that we refrain from stark and frank discussion of ideas: it is not uncivil in this context to say that a certain position is unequivocally wrong, or to clearly demonstrate why. But if we want to discuss any topic of import, we ought to treat that topic with the respect it deserves. (If it is an unimportant topic, why discuss it at all?) And because we are men engaged in this discussion, and not machines, we should strive to be equally respectful of and polite to one another in order to facilitate the kinds of discussion necessary to make the entire endeavor fruitful.

If instead we just want the emotional satisfaction of railing against perceived "enemies," and allowing our bile to flow unimpeded, there are a million other forums on the Internet seemingly tailored for just that very thing. I would rather we make this place unlike all of those others, and as a valuable by-product demonstrate to the world what it looks like when men and women of intelligence, reason, and goodwill come together to discuss those matters upon which they might (howsoever temporarily) disagree.

I'm glad you brought this up. In calling for civility, I'm not arguing against "passion." You don't know me in real life -- you have nothing to go on for this except my word -- but I'm a passionate guy. Even when I haven't lost my temper, when I'm talking about anything I care about, I get animated. I admire "heat" in that sense. And strong opinions? Absolutely.

But there's still a way of talking to people that I consider, not just "polite," but as I've explained important to valuable conversation. And where passion is concerned, I believe that we are capable of focusing and using that passion when choosing how we respond to a given situation.

For instance, imagine that right now I believe that you are wrong on this topic that we're currently discussing. Imagine that I feel this strongly, passionately, that I'm "heated" on the subject. I still am master of how I choose to express my disagreement. (And how much more so, given that I'm typing this, and have the power to craft my response?) It's not that I would disagree with you any less, or be prevented from expressing my disagreement to you clearly, should I opt for "civility." Note these differences in possible phrasing:

1) You're wrong about this, and here are the reasons why:

2) This is a ridiculous notion. You should know why already, but if I have to spell it out for you:

3) You're ridiculous. I shouldn't even bother trying to explain since it's so obvious -- you're being intentionally obtuse. But in case anyone reading this isn't completely dense, they can consider that:

This is all I'm really talking about. This is a choice that we make, and I think that #1 is the right one for this forum. #1 isn't exactly bending itself over backwards to be nice and circumspect. It's direct -- blunt, even, and I'm not proposing it as the one and only "guide to civilized style," but I'd still take it head and shoulders over #2 and #3. And yet I believe that I see #'s 2 and 3, or their spiritual cousins if not verbatim, time and again, derailing potentially productive conversations and scaring away who knows how many would-be contributors of value.

If I thought that the only way to maintain a healthy passion for ideas, and for one's own presumed correctness, was to impugn one's interlocutors, then I guess I'd back down here and just decide that discussion, as such, wasn't for me. These catty and sophomoric exchanges aren't just problematic for sincere philosophical discourse, but I find them actively unpleasant. I'm too earnest and care too much about these topics to tolerate being disrespected for my contributions by people I'll never know in real life, and when I allow myself to get drawn in, I suffer for it and find that I've made my life worse. So if playing in the mud were the price of admission, I'd just bow out now and let the pigs have at it.

But I don't believe it is the only way. I don't think we lose anything of actual value by acting in a dignified manner. Not passion certainly. Not our conviction. Not our clarity and directness. And rather I think (and believe I have argued) that we stand to gain.

It has happened a few times where I've felt motivated to bring up the issue of "civility" in threads in which I've participated here. Enough so that I think it warrants its own, separate discussion.

Let me set the table a bit for what I want to talk about.

When I look through threads I'm occasionally taken aback by the kind of "discussions" that some here participate in. They are hostile and filled with invective and scorn. Do I mean to implicate everyone? By no means. Nor am I making any claim about a certain percentage who participate in that manner, whether "some," "many" or "most" or anything like that. All that I'm saying is that it happens often enough that I'm no longer surprised to see it. If this hostility isn't quite "characteristic," it's certainly a noticeable feature of the community. A predictable feature.

And if this were most places on the Internet, I guess I'd let it go and spare everyone a pointless lecture on my own ruffled sense of propriety. I fully expect the comments on a YouTube vid to be heinous, for instance, and don't think I could get through to the myriad snarky 14 year olds there via such an appeal. But given the nature of this community -- people who care about ideas and take them seriously; people similarly committed to reason and standards of integrity and honesty -- I expect something different. Something better.

It's enough to make me wonder whether some people believe (perhaps implicitly) that there is some tie between being "honest" and intelligent, and being cruel or cutting. That's certainly nothing new to me, if so; I've lived long enough to recognize that sometimes the intelligent feel that their ability gives them license to be scornful, especially to those they consider (often incorrectly) to be their inferiors. Or maybe some take meaning from reports of Ayn Rand's testy demeanor and anger? Maybe they think that there's something inherently virtuous in being mean?

But here is why I believe that "civility" is important, and especially given the context of the kinds of discussions that I presume we wish to pursue.

Discussions don't generally take place between machines, but men. As a man, I strive to be logical, to be reasonable, and to use my mind as best I can to arrive at truth, to make good choices, and to live my life well. Discussions are both enjoyable and profitable for me in that they serve those ends. When I "philosophize" in a social setting (here meaning: discuss, debate, argue), I like the give-and-take and am thankful for those who challenge me. Why "thankful"? Because their challenges can often provoke me to new insights, both into their positions and into my own. And what is more, as a man I am prone to error and to mistake. This is not an argument for any subtle kind of skepticism, but a recognition that the process of arriving at truth is neither automatic, nor necessarily "easy." Through the process of argument, sometimes I am led to recognizing that I have been/am wrong, and to correction. This is, in fact, precisely what happened to me when I read Rand; I was persuaded that I had been wrong on a number of topics, and was overjoyed at the discovery.

However. As a man, I am also an emotional creature. Not to disparage emotion, which I think plays important roles in my life, but I know from experience that when I am in the throes of a strong emotion, my ability to reason clearly is sometimes impacted. When I fight with my family, with my wife, I sometimes say things that I recognize I do not mean or otherwise believe, upon later reflection. What's worse, I have a short temper -- a flaw that has long been with me, and which I continually seek to correct through being aware of my own emotional state, and tempering my passionate drive for immediate response against those who arouse my anger. There have been times even here, and despite my apparent righteousness on this subject, when I have lost my temper. And I have regretted it every time.

What we seek to do through conversation, and the rewards that are possible through these discussions, is wholly threatened when we allow ourselves to get angry, to lash out. Am I speaking just of my own personal experiences? Perhaps, but I do not believe so. Incivility -- "being a jerk" -- is a provocation to another person's anger; an invitation to "lose it." And that is no boon for rational discussion of any kind. To the contrary, it does nothing but put men "on their guard," and make it less likely that they will give all arguments the cool and reflective analysis that reasoned thought and discussion so often demands.

So. What I'm asking is that we try to maintain a certain level of politeness in our discussions. That we hold others -- and most importantly ourselves -- to the highest possible standard. This is not a call for false kindness or that we should all "like" one another or anything of the sort. Feel free to hate me, hate each other, I don't really care about that. Nor would I ask that we refrain from stark and frank discussion of ideas: it is not uncivil in this context to say that a certain position is unequivocally wrong, or to clearly demonstrate why. But if we want to discuss any topic of import, we ought to treat that topic with the respect it deserves. (If it is an unimportant topic, why discuss it at all?) And because we are men engaged in this discussion, and not machines, we should strive to be equally respectful of and polite to one another in order to facilitate the kinds of discussion necessary to make the entire endeavor fruitful.

If instead we just want the emotional satisfaction of railing against perceived "enemies," and allowing our bile to flow unimpeded, there are a million other forums on the Internet seemingly tailored for just that very thing. I would rather we make this place unlike all of those others, and as a valuable by-product demonstrate to the world what it looks like when men and women of intelligence, reason, and goodwill come together to discuss those matters upon which they might (howsoever temporarily) disagree.

It has happened a few times where I've felt motivated to bring up the issue of "civility" in threads in which I've participated here. Enough so that I think it warrants its own, separate discussion.

Let me set the table a bit for what I want to talk about.

When I look through threads I'm occasionally taken aback by the kind of "discussions" that some here participate in. They are hostile and filled with invective and scorn. Do I mean to implicate everyone? By no means. Nor am I making any claim about a certain percentage who participate in that manner, whether "some," "many" or "most" or anything like that. All that I'm saying is that it happens often enough that I'm no longer surprised to see it. If this hostility isn't quite "characteristic," it's certainly a noticeable feature of the community. A predictable feature.

And if this were most places on the Internet, I guess I'd let it go and spare everyone a pointless lecture on my own ruffled sense of propriety. I fully expect the comments on a YouTube vid to be heinous, for instance, and don't think I could get through to the myriad snarky 14 year olds there via such an appeal. But given the nature of this community -- people who care about ideas and take them seriously; people similarly committed to reason and standards of integrity and honesty -- I expect something different. Something better.

It's enough to make me wonder whether some people believe (perhaps implicitly) that there is some tie between being "honest" and intelligent, and being cruel or cutting. That's certainly nothing new to me, if so; I've lived long enough to recognize that sometimes the intelligent feel that their ability gives them license to be scornful, especially to those they consider (often incorrectly) to be their inferiors. Or maybe some take meaning from reports of Ayn Rand's testy demeanor and anger? Maybe they think that there's something inherently virtuous in being mean?

But here is why I believe that "civility" is important, and especially given the context of the kinds of discussions that I presume we wish to pursue.

Discussions don't generally take place between machines, but men. As a man, I strive to be logical, to be reasonable, and to use my mind as best I can to arrive at truth, to make good choices, and to live my life well. Discussions are both enjoyable and profitable for me in that they serve those ends. When I "philosophize" in a social setting (here meaning: discuss, debate, argue), I like the give-and-take and am thankful for those who challenge me. Why "thankful"? Because their challenges can often provoke me to new insights, both into their positions and into my own. And what is more, as a man I am prone to error and to mistake. This is not an argument for any subtle kind of skepticism, but a recognition that the process of arriving at truth is neither automatic, nor necessarily "easy." Through the process of argument, sometimes I am led to recognizing that I have been/am wrong, and to correction. This is, in fact, precisely what happened to me when I read Rand; I was persuaded that I had been wrong on a number of topics, and was overjoyed at the discovery.

However. As a man, I am also an emotional creature. Not to disparage emotion, which I think plays important roles in my life, but I know from experience that when I am in the throes of a strong emotion, my ability to reason clearly is sometimes impacted. When I fight with my family, with my wife, I sometimes say things that I recognize I do not mean or otherwise believe, upon later reflection. What's worse, I have a short temper -- a flaw that has long been with me, and which I continually seek to correct through being aware of my own emotional state, and tempering my passionate drive for immediate response against those who arouse my anger. There have been times even here, and despite my apparent righteousness on this subject, when I have lost my temper. And I have regretted it every time.

What we seek to do through conversation, and the rewards that are possible through these discussions, is wholly threatened when we allow ourselves to get angry, to lash out. Am I speaking just of my own personal experiences? Perhaps, but I do not believe so. Incivility -- "being a jerk" -- is a provocation to another person's anger; an invitation to "lose it." And that is no boon for rational discussion of any kind. To the contrary, it does nothing but put men "on their guard," and make it less likely that they will give all arguments the cool and reflective analysis that reasoned thought and discussion so often demands.

So. What I'm asking is that we try to maintain a certain level of politeness in our discussions. That we hold others -- and most importantly ourselves -- to the highest possible standard. This is not a call for false kindness or that we should all "like" one another or anything of the sort. Feel free to hate me, hate each other, I don't really care about that. Nor would I ask that we refrain from stark and frank discussion of ideas: it is not uncivil in this context to say that a certain position is unequivocally wrong, or to clearly demonstrate why. But if we want to discuss any topic of import, we ought to treat that topic with the respect it deserves. (If it is an unimportant topic, why discuss it at all?) And because we are men engaged in this discussion, and not machines, we should strive to be equally respectful of and polite to one another in order to facilitate the kinds of discussion necessary to make the entire endeavor fruitful.

If instead we just want the emotional satisfaction of railing against perceived "enemies," and allowing our bile to flow unimpeded, there are a million other forums on the Internet seemingly tailored for just that very thing. I would rather we make this place unlike all of those others, and as a valuable by-product demonstrate to the world what it looks like when men and women of intelligence, reason, and goodwill come together to discuss those matters upon which they might (howsoever temporarily) disagree.

Great lecture--and one that I had not heard before.

Interesting that both Peikoff and Kelly essentially tell you to "not bother" with this label, generally, as it is not very practical (Peikoff) and ripe for abuse (Kelly).

I have the answer to my original query, which is that generally we should not get caught up with labels and names as they redirect the conversation needlessly away from the subject at hand--and I can properly call myself "an Objectivist" and not worry that somebody is going to check my identifying documents or demand a secret handshake. I agree with the fundamental principles of Objectivism and I'm trying to apply these principles, and that's enough.

Thanks, everybody.

I think Objectivism only needs reasoned adults discussing ideas civilly, and civilly disagreeing when needed.
I do not think Objectivism needs endless analysis of various sides and sects, where attitudes, not facts, get the primary treatment. It doesn't need "moral sanctions," "end my association"s publicly, or any other such quibbling. It's so tiresome! And it's a massive waste of time -- it changes nothing with those already in greater agreement with Rand's ideas, and does nothing to get her ideas out there to those not in agreement.

I know that Kant's epistemology is pretty bad, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it's the case his aesthetic beliefs follow from that (sort of directed at Thomas). It would be a quite complex argument that Kant is responsible for things like Dadaism. As far as I've read, Kant's aesethetic ideas are a lot more tenable than his epistemological ones. Probably ideas that are contradictory to his epistemological beliefs, though. The link between modern art and Kant seems on the face of it a lot weaker than his connection to post-modernist philosophy or philosphers like Hegel. Sure, epistemological beliefs do affect aesthetic ones, but compartmentalization is possible. Aristotle's epistemology regarding concept formation is pretty bad in the sense you perceive the essence in something, but you don't throw out everything he ever said about ethics because of that. Just talking about Kant's epistemological beliefs doesn't get much of anywhere in evaluating his aesthetic beliefs.

Regarding the discussion between softwareNerd and Trebor... for myself, the basic issue is this:

I believe in reason and reality, and I believe in them deeply. I believed in those things prior to reading Ayn Rand, though I did not recognize all of their consequences in branches of philosophy such as ethics or politics until reading Rand. I've come to believe that it was precisely this -- my committment to reason and reality -- which made Rand so compelling; when I established that she was arguing contra to some of my beliefs and that her arguments were correct, then I was undone in my opposition, and only too happy to concede on those points. This took place one argument at a time; I never reached a stage where I said, "Ayn Rand was right on X" and therefore took her word on Y. I challenged and fought on every topic, and was as happy to lose as anything else, so long as my "loss" was to the best argument.

When I say that "I am an Objectivist," what I mean is that I believe that the specifics with regards to Objectivist Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, and etc., are consonant with reason and reality, in my experience, and according to the best application of my mind that I can muster. I believe that Objectivism is true. And in that way, I do hold Objectivism to be an indivisible whole -- not one that can "stand or fall," but only one that stands.

However. Should I ever become convinced that Objectivism was in any way wrong -- and as an Objectivist, I'm not very well disposed to speculate on how that might happen -- it would be through that mechanism and no other; I would have to be convinced. And that means: it would only be because it was demonstrated to my satisfaction that Objectivism was inconsistent with reason and reality. While rejecting Objectivism would mean that I would simultaneously reject Objectivist Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, etc., as such, I would never reject reason and reality, nor would I reject any aspect of Objectivism which I believed continued to meet my experience of reality according to my best use of reason.

I would leave Objectivism in the exact same fashion in which I had come to it -- not as some undifferentiated mass to be swallowed whole or rejected -- but one argument at a time, with each given thought and weight and its proper accord.

I protest. Ancient scripture is often wrong, but I think we owe ancient folk more respect than this. It is not right to admire just (say) the post-Homeric Greeks and the Romans. Far before them, man has been struggling to make sense of the world around him. Whether it is ancient Nordic folk-tales or a wise "Confucius say", or the pantheism of the older Greeks and Indians, all point to man the thinker, trying to look for explanations and causation, until he arrived at reason as we know it today.
I think it is fair to hold more modern people in disdain when there are actually exposed to the various thoughts and ideas and yet choose the irrational. Also, if they choose not to pursue avenues of thought that seem promising, preferring to stay with their own form of conservatism. However, the ancients did not have the same opportunities we do, and -- even while disagreeing with them -- there is a sense in which we stand on their shoulders, because someone else came along and learnt from their mistakes.

I had a discussion about this with some friends who are visiting for the holidays and came to a few conclusions. Objectivism has become, in part, an activist movement. In any activist group there are people who have a combination of conviction, passion, inexperience and immaturity. Conviction is a feeling of certainty; passionate people are disproportionately vocal about their convictions. Inexperience creates situations where they do not completely understand their own position and creates difficulty in expressing positions they think they understand. Immaturity can cause defensiveness and abrasiveness. People who are new to movements want desperately to get out and make a difference, but they don't have the tools necessary to present their case while giving others a fair shake. This often leads to first impressions that poison future interaction.

When these people are also passionate about philosophy, unique problems arise. In political or religious discussions people are ready to encounter passionate, abrasive people, and therefore more willing to forgive a little rudeness. Philosophy, on the other hand, is dominated by academics that have very little tolerance for rudeness. This makes the inexperienced Objectivist activist more visible than the political or religious activist, who already has a visible and experienced network of leaders to proselytize for them. Objectivism is new enough that few people have access to coaching about outreach tactics.

Another thing that makes Objectivism unique philosophically is that it is individualistic. It asks people to do the work necessary to be certain, and to not be afraid to make value judgments about other people. Contrast this with Christian activists, who are sometimes coached to be a little mousey. Take Tim Tebow, for instance. He was brought up in a sub-culture that taught him to present his argument in an optimistic, benevolent light, and to be humble when challenged. This keeps any discussion genial and leaves an opening for later discussion.

Discussion-Image, you mentioned that every discussion you've had with an Objectivist has included these poor debate tactics. On the other hand, you say you have an Objectivist friend who doesn't do this. I have a couple of comments about this. One is that it suggests you are indeed falling victim to a confirmation bias. The other comment is that your statements are the type that might set off an inexperienced, immature, passionate person. Be wary of what you are doing in these discussions to try to mitigate any ill-tempered response. Nobody should have to walk on eggshells around other people, but sometimes that is the price we pay to have meaningful discussions with young, active minds.

Regarding the repulsion to non-Objectivist philosophers, it's useful to note that many people who are interested in philosophy read many different philosophers and like to discuss the things they like and don't like about them. Objectivists, on the other hand, were often introduced to philosophy through Objectivism and don't actually have an interest in other philosophies. Rand specifically mentioned two philosophers to which she owes an intellectual debt, but she criticized many others (like Kant). There are some people who read those criticisms but don't completely understand them. Some people will read the other philosopher to understand Rand's position. Some will lose interest and never discuss it, being satisfied with what they have. I suspect what is most irritating to you are those who just parrot what she said (it irritates me, too). In situations like these, it seems fair to ask the other person if they've read the philosopher to really gauge whether or not they understand Rand's criticism. Be prepared to have the same asked of you, though.

I'm with you on this one.
As time goes, I become more and more convinced that porn has such a bad rap because of ages of Christian influence on the culture. Like drugs, since porn had to go "underground," it picked up a lot of shady characters in the process. Knocking porn as such is like knocking your own sex drive.

I'll stick with being perceived as having a pretentious literary tone.

There is an insuperable problem here for this argument. It does not properly identify the referents of the concept of "force".

Being able to trade is beneficial. For the ostracized or the target of a boycott not being able to trade is detrimental. The refusal to deal with the target may even be described as retaliatory if it is in response to some action by the target. But a retaliatory and detrimental refusal to deal with the boycotted is not force, it is a negotiating position and attempt at persuasion which scrupulously respects the rights of everyone involved. It is an attempt to gain the consent of the target of the persuasion. Force and the threat of force is necessarily physical because physical force is the only way to compel a man to act without his consent.

In order to restore victims or to serve retribution in defense of rights it is necessary to use physical force or the threat of force on the initiator of force. A law defines what retribution or restoration corresponds to certain acts. A legal system is the collection of such laws and the methods used to try cases and the rules of evidence and appeal. A government puts a legal system into practice by supplying officials and officers with the physical ability to enforce the law over a specific bounded geographic area.

Force is not synonymous with violence because there is indirect force. Indirect force is both threats of violence and deception that results in physical possession of a physical good by someone other than the rightful owner. Laws are indirect force because of the threat of the retribution specified for the outlawed action.

edit: Laws without physical force to back them up are merely customs, traditions, or codes of etiquette.

2046: Okay then since you seem to seem to think that post #73 is essential to your argument while I see it as a wall of text jumping all over the place please abstract out the principles you're speaking of in a cliff note form so that they can be truly examined.

The basics that I get is that: everyone (or most people) has (or have) differing views on justice and you believe that competing pseudo-government markets can best bring those groups of people together who most closely share the same views on justice and according to this they will form stable little pockets of society. Somehow in there I believe you point to some mechanism that either nullifies or attenuates what effects could be caused on these little independent societies by other groups that share opposite or no concepts of justice but that possess equal or greater resources and could destroy them?

My point is exactly the opposite of this. I agree people now and maybe in the future may have differing concepts of justice, but that this point is completely irrelevant. There is only one concept of justice that is objective and falls in line with reality. This objective concept of justice and laws should be forced on all men regardless of their opinions on the matter. Whether all or none agree with objective concepts of law and justice is irrelevant; this is the only arena where men should literally have no choice in the matter. They must be forced to abide by objective laws that have objective punishments if they wish to live in a society regardless of their opinion on the matter. This is the purpose of government and only a government can do this. By the very definition of your society men have a choice in this regard. I am saying they do not and can not if they wish to live in and enjoy the products of a society.

.

Okay, there's a lot in there, let's try to untangle some of this. Rand would attest that productiveness as a virtue does follow from the ultimate end of life, because production is required to sustain life. Life is a sort of goal-directed process that requires constant action to sustain and further. Production here does not mean necessarily something more narrow, like picking up a hammer and some nails and building something; it means the widest possible sense of "the adjustment of nature to man." Productiveness doesn't mean something narrower like, wow you filed a lot of papers today, you were really productive; it means something more like having a commitment to taking responsibility for acting to achieve one's values. Technology does not mean something like computers and software and things like that; it means something more like in the Misesian sense of using the necessary means to achieve a given end. Man finds himself in a certain environment, man works with the numerous elements that he finds in his environment, by rearranging them in order to bring about the satisfaction of his ends. Industry here doesn't mean something like a process of manufacturing, making steel, etc.; it means more like effort, diligence, and the opposite of sloth and laziness.

So here we have a virtue that is about action, that is about "doing stuff" in other words. We use our reason to recognize the requirements of sustaining our lives and achieving our happiness, but then we need a commitment to actually go forth and do those things, to assert ourselves in the world and bring about what we need to see in order to make a contribution to our well-being. We recognize that entities act in accordance with their natures, that ends cannot be pursued without pursuing the means, then we need a sort of commitment to pursuing those means. So how does it fit in with reason, is that yes, we need reason to survive, but we also need to translate our ideas and plans into material form, into the actual various material goods they consist in.


Well, "begging the question" is an informal logical fallacy, it doesn't mean something like "raises the question," so I would avoid that usage. So if we can reformulate the objection, it goes something like this: If Rand is saying one needs this virtue in order to survive, that it's absolutely necessary in order for survival, then she can say one of two things: Either men already know and use this virtue by the very fact that they are being alive and thus this is nothing that anyone alive doesn't already have, so why consider it a virtue at all (like it would be considering "breathing" or "eating" or "having a pulse" as a virtue), and then this would seem inconsistent in that she acts like it is a virtue that some people have, and some don't have; or if she is right that you don't automatically have this virtue by being alive, that it is a character trait or habit that one has to achieve, and that only some virtuous people have it, and some don't, then how did the human race manage to survive up until Rand?
So the response is that this would be basically accurate if one takes Rand's ultimate end to mean a bare-bones survival in the Hobbesian sense. Then only a bare-bones survivalist ethics can follow from that. But what Rand has more in mind for her ultimate end is more like the Aristotelian conception of "eudaimonia" or flourishing human life, so the virtues she presents are not merely necessary for survival, but as systematic ongoing habits for happiness in this more enriched sense.

Okay, so having answered that, now you ask various questions like why should a guy that builds a skyscraper be admired, why is he more virtuous than some hippie, or what if I don't want to make steel and just want to do nothing, lie around, etc.

When asking whether you should admire something, keep in mind that we don't have any kind of idea that something is intrinsically valuable such that everyone ought to admire this no matter what. Something is only to be admired in the sense that you appraise it as "the good" and you can only do this if you have a standard of value, and this can only be objective if it follows from the facts of human nature. So why should you admire building skyscrapers? Well, maybe you shouldn't. Maybe you live out in Montana and you could care less if someone builds a skyscraper in NYC. Maybe your father or someone close to you is a weird hippie who lives in some shack in the woods, and so you admire him more than building skyscrapers. The point is, you have your own "axis of measurement" so to speak, where you look at your ultimate end (your own life) and then you look at various things by which your standard will appraise as good or bad. I'm sure building skyscrapers can fit somewhere on the good side, if for nothing else that it takes an immense amount of rationality and productiveness to build one, and that these are good traits of excellence that mean that person is creating material things that are life-affirming, adding to the welfare of the human race, not subtracting from it. This is what Rand means by there being certain heroes that "move the world." As far as the bum out in the woods, if I don't have any connection to him whatsoever, then his existence is insignificant to me by my own "axis of measurement," but yours can differ from mine, you don't have to want to get up and start making steel or something like that. But you do need to be productive.

Now what about if you want to do nothing? Well, if we take this seriously, then sure, productiveness will not help in this regard, but the absence of productiveness would be necessary. This is like a point Irfan Khawaja makes in regards the connection between reason and virtue, or in this analogy, between the principle of non-contradiction in thought and the virtue of productiveness in action. The principle of non-contradiction is not a categorical imperative to engage in thought, it merely states a fact about man's nature and the facts of reality that becomes a guide for thought when and only when one chooses to think. If someone were to say, well look, I don't have to abide by the principle of non-contradiction, if I don't want to. I can just not engage in any thought. Well sure, one way to evade principle of non-contradiction would be just to not think anything, as Aristotle says, to turn yourself into a vegetable. It certainly doesn't apply to a non-thinker, but this is hardly a threat to it's validity as a law of logic. In the same way, you can say, hey, what if I just want to laze around all day and take no actions? Well of course, then productiveness wouldn't be able to bind you as an objective moral law. But then your ultimate value is not life but death, which will come in due course because of the inaction. Productiveness is only necessary if one does choose life as a human being. If I choose life as an end, then I must choose the means to it. I can refuse the means, but then I must give up the end.

About Mises, I'll try to dumb it down. Yes I think Austrian economics and Objectivist ethics are two peas in a pod, and can co-exist. Mises' ethical views should not be confused with his views on economics. Objectivism too can hold that people change what they value today to tomorrow and so forth. But there is a difference between economic value (just saying that people do have values) and ethical value (saying what people ought to value.) As far as his a priori knowledge, yes you can reconcile the general point of what he means by this with Objectivist epistemology if you make the necessary changes, so don't worry about it too much. Empirical evidence can play a role in economics, certainly in economic history, and in cases where you need to gather data to study for various purposes. But you don't approach economic theory the same way you would about physics or biology, is Mises' point.