Jonathan13

We've been discussing how to make Objectivism more culturally relevant or influential. I've suggested that Objectivists, especially "major" ones, should be addressing informed and potent criticism of Objectivism. Here's one criticism, by George H. Smith, which might be a good starting point: http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/few-kind-words-about-most-evil-man-mankinds-history It's a very intelligent and informed refutation of the Objectivist position on Kant. There are others like it as well, but this is a good first example. I'd think that truly confident "major" Objectivists would be eager to address the content of such articles. J MOD NOTE: The thread was split from here. -Eiuol

I haven't been arguing against civility, but against the instances where people have been censored for their views regardless of how polite they were. And you're still not hearing what I've been saying. How would I promote intellectual and productive discussions? Invite and encourage criticism, and then answer it, if you can. If you can't answer it, then reconsider your opinion. Challenge people to try to demonstrate any ways in which Objectivism is wrong, or ways in which they think it might not have sufficient proof to back up some of its assertions. Dare them to try to knock Objectivism's block off. Treat philosophy as an objective science. Science doesn't exclude, prevent and resent testing and criticism. Objectivism is a proposed theory. Many of its supporters have self-graded it as superb, if not perfect. Well, the next step is inviting people who are not its supporters to test it and criticize it. The next objective step in the process is to encourage doubters and the harshest critics to throw everything they've got at and try to disprove any or all of it.

Well, the reality is that I have been moderated for disabusing others of their mistaken opinions on the Objectivist Esthetics, and for informing them of Rand's actual positions. I posted a link earlier that covered the issue in detail. And, seriously, I'm not upset about it. I laugh about it. I share it with others as a source of amusement. The point, though, is that if you want to be taken seriously, and have "major" Objectivists participate in your online forum, it's not going to happen if you have moderators who assert that Rand held positions which she did not, and then they censor the people who correct them. Now, it you're saying that those old days of such censorship on OO are gone, then, hey, I hope you're right. From my perspective, though, it's not looking as rosy as people are claiming. J

This post will probably be removed (or not allowed in the first place), but I just wanted to state, for the record, that I posted a response to Eiuol's last post, but it's been removed. Interesting how that works, no? Here, on a thread where we're being reassured that moderation and nannying isn't happening, my post gets removed. J

Let's try it this way. Let's imagine one of the "major" Objectivists showing up here, and doing so under a pseudonym (he wants to test the waters before revealing who he is -- he wants to see if this site is truly Objectivist, and that its owners, administrators, moderators and regular posters are worthy of his valuable time). Okay, so, after signing up here, he happens to open the most recent thread that he sees, and reads that certain people are making claims about "man's life" being the standard of aesthetic judgments. He recognizes this as false, and says so, but also provides reasoning and evidence that Rand separated ethical judgments from aesthetic ones. He demonstrates that Rand's view was that one need not like or agree with the philosophical content expressed in a work of art in order to rate it as aesthetically great. He shows that Rand's view was that an artist could show mankind as vicious and monstrous yet his work could still be judged as being aesthetically great despite being morally abhorrent. He provides quotes that the Objectivist position is that "man's life" is not the standard by which Objectivists should judge a work of art's aesthetic value, but rather the standard is how well the artist expressed his own view of existence, regardless of whether that view is pro-man or anti-man. He then looks in his private message box and sees that a moderator is informing him that his post has been removed, and the moderator's "reasoning" is that the pseudonymous major Objectivist was intentionally trying to misconstrue and misrepresent Rand's position. Heh. Do you think that he would stick around? Do you think he'd rate OO as being worthy of his time? J

Refusing, alone, doesn't necessarily imply evading. But it does imply evading when combined with other chronic patterns of behavior, such as bluffing and blustering, censoring and banning, puffing and posing, vilifying, bullying and then immediately playing victim, demanding that others treat one with more civility and respect than one extends to them, tough talk but an unwillingness to step outside of one's cloistered turf or safe space. It all adds up. It's not one element out of context, but multiple elements over years of context. J

Indeed, I do know them very well. I know them by their actions. Observing years of people's behavior is a very reliable way of discovering their motivations. They're predictable, testable. J

Hey everyone, see what I'm talking about? Thin-skinned mischaracterization of my posts, smugness, condescension and bitterness. Throwing gasoline on the fire. J

Thank YOU! J

Thanks! And, indeed, I'm not rude. I generally match opponents' tone. Here on OO, I'm usually much more polite than my opponents, especially when the opponents are moderators. They don't have a good history of leading by example, but have often initiated bad behavior, and then thrown gasoline on the fire. It's all just a set of tactics to avoid substance or evade admitting to errors. The Objectivists who call me rude are generally the ones whom I've defeated in arguments, and who are resentful that I've destroyed their poses as being brilliant and guru-like. It can be very upsetting for people to be shown to have been wrong, and on a very elementary level, after they were crafting an image of themselves as being very intelligent and important. They seem to become the angriest when, in a discussion, they end up inadvertently revealing how little they actually know (example: when they, say, don't recognize a very famous painting, and reveal that they've never heard of its creator, right after posing as a refined and cultured connoisseur of the visual arts). They start off by looking down their noses at anyone who doesn't share their inexperienced tastes and opinions, but then complain that they're being looked down upon when shown to be aesthetic novices -- they demand respect (if not homage), but then are very resentful to give it when shown that they are outclassed and eclipsed by an opponent. J

The value in engaging experts is that, more often than not, they know much more than you do, and you can learn from them. They often have deeper and broader knowledge, and think of valid criticisms which wouldn't occur to people with less knowledge and experience. The phrasing about "paying homage" in the quote is bluff. It's a transparent copout, a sort of poisoning of the well, as a means of excuse-making. The issue at hand is not "homage," and it is dishonest to assert, without evidence, that all academics are motivated by evil -- that they're in it for homage. The reality is that they are usually incredibly deep thinkers who have gotten where they are on intellectual merit, and they question everything. The brightest minds in academia would bring up dozens, if not hundreds, of questions that have never occurred to Peikoff. They would demand evidence where he has never been challenged by followers to provide it. He would have a very hard time backing up some of Objectivism's assertions which he has accepted but never thought to consider whether they need backing up with proof. Exactly. I'm also not about "appearing" to be strong and confident. I'm asking people to actually BE strong and confident. If they are truly confident, I'm asking them to behave as confident people do, rather than like people who are afraid. Objectivism is fabulous on many levels. But it also has some errors. They should be admitted to and corrected. And eagerly and happily so! I've brought up many issues in which Objectivism is wrong in my personal area of expertise, art and aesthetics. I've raised issues and given countless Objectivists the opportunity to attempt to answer. Once in a while, on very rare occasions, Objectivists will admit that I've pointed out obvious problems, and that the Objectivist Esthetics needs to be thought through more carefully, and repaired. That's a good Objectivist response. Unfortunately, a much more common response among Objectivists is to deny the reality of the errors, to dig in their heels, and to twist themselves into pretzels (and censor and ban the criticism). It's as if they think that if they admit that Rand was wrong about anything, then her reputation will be destroyed. The reverse is true: When people see Rand's followers defending an obviously mistaken position, that's what destroys Rand's, and their own, reputations as thinkers. J

How are you not understanding that that's exactly what I'm doing?!!! I'm explaining to young, amateur philosophy hobbyists and unskilled promoters of Rand's ideas how to curb their irrational instincts, unearned and unwarranted hubris and zealotry, and improve their methods. You're reaction seems to be quite defensive. Reread what I've written. I've said good things as well as critical things. I've written that OO is generally a good place, that it has improved greatly, but still has a lot of room for improvement, and the same is true of the "official" Objectivist organizations. They should be eagerly inviting criticism and debate on Objectivism, especially from academia, rather than running away from it and doing the best to prevent it. The owners and moderators here should be doing the same thing, albeit on a smaller level. No insult intended, but you're not experts here in any of the relevant arts or sciences. When someone like, say, Daniel Barnes (from the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog) shows up here, celebrate it as an opportunity for intellectual smackdown, rather than snarkily impeding him behind the scenes and then banning him. Do you have confidence in Rand's and your own ideas? If so, then act like it. Actions speak louder than words. J

Do you have no answers? You made statements. I then asked you to support them with evidence. You failed to do so. Instead you dodged my questions. Why is that? Is it because you're bluffing? Objectivism did quite well while Rand was alive, as far as having cultural influence goes. It even did okay during the 80s and 90s. Then it started to fade. Comparatively speaking, the "movement" and its influence isn't even a shadow of its former self. I think a big part of the problem is that no one ever learns. New generations come along and don't learn from the mistakes from Objecivism's older supporters. The longer that a new philosophy is in existence, the less likely that pompous smugness and evasion of criticism will work. Avoiding criticism, under the excuse that one doesn't want to "sanction" or give a "microphone" to opponents is a copout, and it screams weakness and insecurity. Instead of hiding from criticism, and censoring it and banning it (or requiring something akin to loyalty oaths to join a site or forum), Objectivists should be seeking out criticism, inviting it, and accommodating it. They should eager to face all challengers on neutral or even hostile ground, especially those with the most potent arguments. That would be the strong, confident thing to do. Objectivism will continue to fade and fizzle culturally until the day that its proponents no longer cloister themselves due to fear. J

I agree. Personally, I think you're by far the best moderator here. You're eminently reasonable. You came along right about when OO needed someone like you the most. J

Really? Salon has offered criticism of the philosophy of Objectivism?!!! Where? I'd love to read it. Please post links to Objectivism's heirs and leaders addressing informed criticism from philosophical experts. As for your bluff about someone demanding a microphone, no one is doing that. You seem to think that pretending that everyone wants a chance to be in the spotlight with Peikoff et al is going to be convincing. Heh. Well, Peikoff et al aren't in a spot light. They are not celebrities, or brilliant scholars. They're in hiding. They don't have a "microphone." A mere fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the population knows or cares who they are. They're small-time promoters who have a very small flock. Um, they way that real philosophy works is that theories are proposed, and then criticism is offered, and then the theory is defended. Back and forth. If you want to be a real philosopher, you've got to move beyond the silly bluff that answering criticism is an unreasonable burden, and a demand from others to get something for nothing. Heh. "We're really famous and popular, and other people are just trying to take advantage of our famous "microphone" when criticizing it, so we're not going to answer because we'd just be getting ripped off!" Silliness. Bluff and bluster. Not the mindset of serious thinkers. J

Rand and her "heirs" have never faced sustained, informed criticism of Objectivism from philosophical experts. They've only invited some questions from amateurs, students and supporters. At one public presentation of some of her views on aesthetics, she faced some minor criticism from John Hospers. She became enraged, and unfriended him. Excommunicated him. The questions he asked remain unanswered, including by her followers. Yet her followers, including high-ranking ones in the movement, insist that Hospers' minor criticism, which is standard at such events, was a horribly vicious attack, a monstrous betrayal and smear job. I've heard some of the questions that he asked of her, and they are valid. (One question was that Rand demonstrate that realistic landscape paintings and still lifes can reliably comply with her criteria for art and objectively communicate a view of man's relation to existence. She couldn't do so. Many times I've asked her followers to do so as well, and they have also failed. Over and over again. I've done so here on OO. I've provided visual examples and asked countless Objectivists to follow Rand's requirements for art and identify the realistic paintings' subjects and meanings. None have succeeded. Several have even been incapable of recognizing that some of the greatest Romantic paintings in the history of art are realistically representational, and not abstract.) Such incidents as the Hospers one are the reason, I believe, that the "heirs" and "leaders" of the "movement" avoid informed criticism of Objectivism, and only occasionally open themselves up to adoring and gullible followers, students, fledglings, neophytes and rookies. Fear. Objectivism is indeed a goldmine. It contains ounce after ounce, and ton after ton of gold. But it also has a lot of obvious pyrite mixed in, and a lot of Rand's followers, especially those who run the well-funder organizations which promote her views, don't want to have the pyrite identified and discarded. They want to pretend that it's all gold. You ask, "what is being offered in trade or exchange?" Do you mean, what is being offered to Objectivist "heirs" and "leaders" in exchange for facing criticism? If so, the answer is reality. Avoiding intelligent criticism under the guise that one needs to be paid or receive some sort of trade is a pose. It's the act of pretending that one is infallible, and that any criticism cannot possibly have merit, and therefore one is wasting one's time humoring wrongheaded little nobodies in exposing oneself to their criticisms. Such and attitude is bluff. Bluster. It's a tactic that is anything but Objectivist. As I've said many times, Objectivism will continue to fade away until the cloistered, smug and evasive attitudes are no longer common practice among Objectivists, and are no longer used as a mask to hide the fear of having no answers to people who are much more intelligent than the amateurs who have been allowed to ask softball questions which the "heirs" can then knock out of the park. No one's falling for it anymore. J

The above statement is illogical. OO has improved, and probably due to my and others having made public the irrational, anti-Objectivist silliness and bullying of some of the moderators. What is allowed now is not a valid gauge for imagining what was frantically not allowed in years past. Here are a couple links to examples that I've posted on OL of OO moderators behaving highly irrationally: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?/topic/12335-objectivismonline-objectivist-opposes-objectivism/#comment-166739 http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5754-heresy/#comment-51286 Many others have posted similar examples of bullying and irrational behavior. In fact, if I remember correctly, a few people may have added their stories of OO's abusive moderators on the two threads that I linked to above (I don't have time to reread them to be sure). So, no need to "imagine" the type of content that's been censored: My simple reporting of reality, of truth, had been censored. Also, I have copies and backups of all of my private correspondence with OO's moderators, as well as their abusive correspondence with others that has been shared privately with me. The abusive moderators don't want me to share those messages publicly, and for very good reasons. Their behavior was appalling. Would you like to see it? It's hilariously petty, snotty, childish and disproportionally angry. I'd be willing to share it publicly if people here insist on denying reality. J

Were you under the impression that anyone was not speaking for himself, or that anyone was claiming to speak for others? How would you see it? The actions that moderators take against members here are done so in private. I've posted multiple examples of OO censorship over on OL if you'd care to look. You're missing the point. The issue is not how many differing viewpoints are allowed on OO. The issue is only the differing viewpoints that the moderators can't answer. If a poster is pretty impotent in making an argument, it's easy for a moderator or other member to show him to be wrong. The problem comes when someone like me makes an argument that is so potent, rational, and factually accurate that a moderator can't answer it but wishes to cling to his mistaken opinion. Then the argument has to be evaded and blanked out of existence. Then you're not aware of how the censorship works here. When my posts have been deleted, it has usually happened prior to most other members even having seen them. And that was before I was placed on moderation. Now my posts don't even make it onto the board until reviewed by a moderator. My posts need approval first. Your expectation or belief that you would see evidence of censorship is mistaken. You need to correct the logic or your "if I don't see it then it's not happening" mindset on how moderation works here. Again, your judgment is based on a mistaken expectation that you would see, on OO, public evidence of moderation on OO. It doesn't work that way. Many people have offered up elsewhere their testimony of having been bullied and censored on OO. There are also many who have not commented on the abuse, but who have just laughed it off and gone elsewhere to post -- their brief experience here with young Objectivist moderators turned them off, and it wasn't important enough for them to even complain about it publicly. In short, you're not informed enough to come to a rational conclusion about how much of the criticism OO receives is earned versus unearned. Generally, OO is a good place. A few of the moderators are intellectually and emotionally mature enough to handle rigorous debate and informed criticism, but there are one or two who lack that maturity. They're passionate about their beliefs, and they want to influence the culture, but they don't have the ability to win certain arguments without cheating reality. As for your question about the McCaskey affair, here's a link: http://www.johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html The Objectivist "movement" has a long history of such silliness. Authority poses, power grabs, censorship, ostracization, un-personing, airbrushing/erasing history have been very common, and are the reason that the "movement" is a mere shadow of what it was in the past. It's dying, almost dead, and the passion and excitement isn't coming back until all of that nonsense goes away. J

Hi Jack, Thanks for the response, and for bringing it back to the forum instead of keeping it in messenger. You wrote: In the context of the long history of the Objectivist movement, I don't think that my post was harsh at all. Allow me to explain. In your initial post on this thread, you mention that you're not very experienced in the field of aesthetics. With that admission in mind, perhaps then you're also not familiar with the Objectivist movement's long history of aesthetic bullying, psychologizing, moralizing, shaming, punishment, and then either submission and conformity or ostracization. Many people over the decades have commented on Rand's fans displaying "a dismaying uniformity in artistic tastes," and have observed the "art police" and "aesthetic response as morals exam" attitude, and the quite vicious and collectivist pressure to conform that is practiced by many of Rand's followers. (If you're interested, I'll even see it I can dig up some great examples from Objectivist luminaries like Lindsay Perigo, Joe Rowlands, Diana Hsieh, Dr. Peikoff, Stephen Hicks, etc.) As one critic aptly observed of Rand's followers abandoning their passion for Maxfield Parrish's work: "In the early 1970's, many Objectivists thought they'd found a kindred artistic spirit in the paintings of Maxfield Parrish. At a Ford Hall Forum, someone asked Ayn Rand for her assessment of his work, to which she curtly replied, 'Trash!' One could almost hear the bonfires raging across the country." The questions that you asked in your post have been asked by others many times in the past, and they've quite often involved a lot of guilt and self-condemnation, which is something that I thought MIGHT have been involved in your post. I wasn't sure though, which is why I was ASKING for clarification. As I wrote, "It kind of seems that you might be asking for approval and for permission to like what you like and to feel what you feel." [bold added] You're comment about being "fooled" by superlative acting is what made me a bit suspicious. And I'd still like to know what you meant by that. But that's NOT what I asked. I asked IF you were looking to conform to those here whom you felt were more knowledgeable or experienced in aesthetics. And I asked "if so," then "why?" If you were not looking to conform and to adopt officially approved Objectivist tastes, then my questions and comments which followed my use of "If so, why?" would not apply to you. I think that's maybe also the mistake that the moderator made. I was not making judgements of you, but asking questions. And I was doing so from having witnessed decades of behavior in others that you and the moderator may not be aware of. Hey, I'm glad to hear it! I'm happy to discover that my suspicions about your initial post were wrong. But I'd still like to hear answers to the questions that I asked you: "What do you mean by being 'fooled' by superlative examples of acting, editing, music, etc.?" "What, specifically, do you experience in each of the movies that you listed? What do they mean to you? What value do you get from them?" See, in my view, "superlative acting" IS aesthetics. It IS the aesthetic judgment, and therefore your suspecting that you might be "fooled" by it suggests that you're imposing an ethical judgment on the art, and are therefore confusing aesthetic judgments with ethical ones. An additional problem with your questions is that you refer to Romanticism and Naturalism. Well, Rand had her own peculiar views and definitions of those terms. So, assuming that, since this is an Objectivist forum, you're using her notions of those terms' "essential characteristics," do I take it that by "Romanticism," you mean art which "champions volition," and by "Naturalism," you mean art that denies it (advocates determinism)? If so, do you categorize the four movies that you listed as championing volition, or as denying it? Are the films' characters shown "engaging in purposeful action" and "pursuing their goals"? J

What do you mean by being "fooled" by superlative examples of acting, editing, music, etc.? That statement seems to suggest that you believe that your own aesthetic responses are not genuine and legitimate, but that someone else here has proper and objective responses which are genuine and legitimate, and that you should conform to their tastes. It kind of seems that you might be asking for approval and for permission to like what you like and to feel what you feel. If so, why? Is that what a real-life Dagny, Galt or Roark would do? Would they assume a submissive position to a bunch of anonymous online posters? Why would you assume that others here have more knowledge of aesthetics, or that their tastes and judgements are more legitimate? Is it because Rand and many of her fans have aggressively and arrogantly presented the attitude or facade of being experts on aesthetics, and of having "objectively" superior tastes? If so, that's no reason, logically speaking, to immediately surrender your own judgments and to defer to theirs. If you're intimidated by mere brash attitudes and judgments, please step back and reconsider what you're doing. Don't accept poses of authority, don't question or abandon what you value, and don't accept unearned guilt, no matter where it comes from. Don't start with the assumption that you're supposed to hate most art, and that you need to somehow justify what you think are your guilty pleasures. Anyway, what, specifically, do you experience in each of the movies that you listed? What do they mean to you? What value do you get from them. J

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Sorry for the misunderstanding. J

Heh. That reminds me of a previous exchange that we had in which you asserted that I was misrepresenting Rand, probably due to your not having carefully read her writings on aesthetics. You believed that you were representing what she "really said." I easily demonstrated the falsehood of your position, here, and especially here. But I got no admission of error from you. Why is that? And here you are once again suggesting that the natural, default assumption should be that I'm wrong about anything that I say about Rand on the issue of aesthetics. What's eating you, sNerd? Why do you continue to be so upset about my accurately reporting Rand's position, when you're not interested enough in the topic of aesthetics to actually study what she wrote? Why do you have a need to believe that she held positions that she didn't? J

To me, they don't have the same impact. They each have their own aesthetic feel. They each evoke a different vibe. I think that a typical visual artist would say that the one on the left is more visually interesting. Artists tend to like texture, variation, modeling, stumbling, etc. I think that Rand, on the other hand, would have preferred the one on the right. She personally, subjectively preferred the absence of the effects that visual artists like. She liked smooth, clean, pure surfaces, etc. She didn't like "painterly" effects. She didn't want to see brushwork. You seem to be assuming that whichever of the samples that you like best IS the best, and that its being better is so self-evident that you don't even need to identify which you prefer! Which do you think is better? Personally, my view is that none are universally "better," but each is contextually better at evoking different aesthetic responses in each viewer. The same would be true of a musical chord played on saxophones versus violins -- one has more "texture" and the other is "smoother," and the textured one is better at evoking certain feigns, while the smoother one is better at evoking other feelings. J

My point was that in Travers' presentations on art appreciation, he promotes the Randian idea that a work of art must be self-contained, and that no "outside considerations" should be required in order to understand its meaning, but then he always ends up smuggling in lots of such external content and context. In short, he doesn't seem to know if he agrees with Rand or not, and sometimes he doesn't seem to even realize that he is advocating the opposite of her position, and demonstrating the opposite of what he claims. J

What does Travers mean? Isn't he disagreeing with Rand here? Wasn't her position that one should be able to be merely exposed to a work of art, and then, just by looking at its content, understand its meaning? What else does Travers think a viewer needs? Did you notice that none of those questions are about aesthetics? None of them are about visual artistry and visual expression. None are about the aesthetic effects of visual phenomena on the viewer, or about the artist's technical artistic skills or deficiencies, or about composition, choice of range of color palette, internal visual consistency, lighting, perspective, vantage point, angle, etc. Travers seems to have the mindset of downplaying or removing aesthetics from art. I wonder why. Rather than being about visual art qua visual art, Travers' questions are about only one small aspect of visual art -- the narrative. In effect, he treats visual art as if it were literature, and he seems to be unaware of the expressiveness of all other elements of visual art. His doing so makes me wonder if he has any real knowledge of those other elements. J