Jonathan13

Yeah, I guess that I don't understand. So, are you saying that even when these people disagree with Peikoff on an issue as significant as initiation of force and property rights, they somehow convince themselves that the disagreement isn't important, or that the opposite positions that they and Peikoff have taken are somehow only tentative and therefore not actually conflicting positions, or that they and Peikoff can come to opposite conclusions, but that it's okay as long as both they and Peikoff claim to be basing their positions on Objectivist reasoning?!?!

Do you think they've actually convinced themselves that Peikoff might somehow be right even when they know that reason supports the opposite conclusion? After all, they do appear to be very eager to overlook the absurdity of his position, and instead to fawn over him and behave as if his rationalizations are deep and brilliant analysis that they need to ponder further. Are they really so mesmerized by their view of Peikoff as The Objectivist Authority Figure that they're this easily talked into doubting their own use of reason, and into treating absolute absurdity as if its deserving of serious consideration?

Scary.

J

You only find such voiding of property rights to be merely "dangerous," and not an example of the initiation of force against those who have not been proven to be threats?




I don't think that we should be investigating mosques, but people. Just like guns, mosques don't kill people, or commit other crimes, people do.

If someone is making the accusation that others pose a real threat in which our "metaphysical survival is at stake," the accusation must be investigated and proven to be true before any force or voiding of property rights can rightfully be implemented. If certain people are shown to be an imminent threat, then they should be arrested, tried and imprisoned if found guilty. Whether they intend to build a mosque or not, or whatever other benign uses they might decide to make of their property, should be none of our concern -- if we're "at war" with terrorists, then we should take action against terrorists rather than against the construction of buildings owned by people who are not themselves terrorists, or who have not been shown to be supporting terrorism, but who only happen to share some of the terrorists' religious beliefs.

Why is Peikoff is interested in going after buildings rather than terrorists? His position appears to be that all muslims are such a horrible threat that we have the right to prevent them from building a mosque on their property, but, at the same time, they're not enough of a threat to be arrested and imprisoned? Our "metaphysical survival" is at stake, so we should let "the enemy" walk around amongst us, but let's not let them build a mosque?!?!

J

You only find such voiding of property rights to be merely "dangerous," and not an example of the initiation of force against those who have not been proven to be threats?




I don't think that we should be investigating mosques, but people. Just like guns, mosques don't kill people, or commit other crimes, people do.

If someone is making the accusation that others pose a real threat in which our "metaphysical survival is at stake," the accusation must be investigated and proven to be true before any force or voiding of property rights can rightfully be implemented. If certain people are shown to be an imminent threat, then they should be arrested, tried and imprisoned if found guilty. Whether they intend to build a mosque or not, or whatever other benign uses they might decide to make of their property, should be none of our concern -- if we're "at war" with terrorists, then we should take action against terrorists rather than against the construction of buildings owned by people who are not themselves terrorists, or who have not been shown to be supporting terrorism, but who only happen to share some of the terrorists' religious beliefs.

Why is Peikoff is interested in going after buildings rather than terrorists? His position appears to be that all muslims are such a horrible threat that we have the right to prevent them from building a mosque on their property, but, at the same time, they're not enough of a threat to be arrested and imprisoned? Our "metaphysical survival" is at stake, so we should let "the enemy" walk around amongst us, but let's not let them build a mosque?!?!

J

Did Rand designate Peikoff her "intellectual heir"? My understanding has been that she did not, but only designated him heir of her estate. I've heard Objectivists saying that Rand made no public statement about Peikoff being her "intellectual heir." If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it, and I'm sure a lot of other people would as well.

J

Awesome.




Why do you assume that an Objectivist "expert" knows more about any subject than anyone else, and that anyone who disagrees with the "expert" must be mistaken? We haven't even brought up any specific issues, yet you're position is that the only proper action of anyone who disagrees with an Objectivist "expert" is try to understand his own mistake? And daring to suggest that an "expert" might be wrong is an "insult"?

In other words, you're saying that the Objectivist "experts" are infallible -- that they are always right, and those who disagree with them are always wrong (and therefore need to "try to understand their mistake"). So, what I'm wondering is how does one get promoted to Objectivist "expert" status and therefore achieve infallibility? Does one somehow demonstrate one's infallibility? If so, I'd be eager to learn how, since, as I've said in an earlier post, the overwhelming majority of Objectivist "experts" have not faced peer review or rigorous scholarly criticism of their work or their beliefs.




I think Peikoff deserves criticism. And I think Rand would agree if she were alive. I think she'd be outraged at some of the things he's said and done in the name of Objectivism.




I think that your mindset about Objectivist "experts" and their infallibility is what's insulting to Objectivism.

J

Awesome.




Why do you assume that an Objectivist "expert" knows more about any subject than anyone else, and that anyone who disagrees with the "expert" must be mistaken? We haven't even brought up any specific issues, yet you're position is that the only proper action of anyone who disagrees with an Objectivist "expert" is try to understand his own mistake? And daring to suggest that an "expert" might be wrong is an "insult"?

In other words, you're saying that the Objectivist "experts" are infallible -- that they are always right, and those who disagree with them are always wrong (and therefore need to "try to understand their mistake"). So, what I'm wondering is how does one get promoted to Objectivist "expert" status and therefore achieve infallibility? Does one somehow demonstrate one's infallibility? If so, I'd be eager to learn how, since, as I've said in an earlier post, the overwhelming majority of Objectivist "experts" have not faced peer review or rigorous scholarly criticism of their work or their beliefs.




I think Peikoff deserves criticism. And I think Rand would agree if she were alive. I think she'd be outraged at some of the things he's said and done in the name of Objectivism.




I think that your mindset about Objectivist "experts" and their infallibility is what's insulting to Objectivism.

J

Awesome.




Why do you assume that an Objectivist "expert" knows more about any subject than anyone else, and that anyone who disagrees with the "expert" must be mistaken? We haven't even brought up any specific issues, yet you're position is that the only proper action of anyone who disagrees with an Objectivist "expert" is try to understand his own mistake? And daring to suggest that an "expert" might be wrong is an "insult"?

In other words, you're saying that the Objectivist "experts" are infallible -- that they are always right, and those who disagree with them are always wrong (and therefore need to "try to understand their mistake"). So, what I'm wondering is how does one get promoted to Objectivist "expert" status and therefore achieve infallibility? Does one somehow demonstrate one's infallibility? If so, I'd be eager to learn how, since, as I've said in an earlier post, the overwhelming majority of Objectivist "experts" have not faced peer review or rigorous scholarly criticism of their work or their beliefs.




I think Peikoff deserves criticism. And I think Rand would agree if she were alive. I think she'd be outraged at some of the things he's said and done in the name of Objectivism.




I think that your mindset about Objectivist "experts" and their infallibility is what's insulting to Objectivism.

J

Awesome.




Why do you assume that an Objectivist "expert" knows more about any subject than anyone else, and that anyone who disagrees with the "expert" must be mistaken? We haven't even brought up any specific issues, yet you're position is that the only proper action of anyone who disagrees with an Objectivist "expert" is try to understand his own mistake? And daring to suggest that an "expert" might be wrong is an "insult"?

In other words, you're saying that the Objectivist "experts" are infallible -- that they are always right, and those who disagree with them are always wrong (and therefore need to "try to understand their mistake"). So, what I'm wondering is how does one get promoted to Objectivist "expert" status and therefore achieve infallibility? Does one somehow demonstrate one's infallibility? If so, I'd be eager to learn how, since, as I've said in an earlier post, the overwhelming majority of Objectivist "experts" have not faced peer review or rigorous scholarly criticism of their work or their beliefs.




I think Peikoff deserves criticism. And I think Rand would agree if she were alive. I think she'd be outraged at some of the things he's said and done in the name of Objectivism.




I think that your mindset about Objectivist "experts" and their infallibility is what's insulting to Objectivism.

J

I don't think that people can be considered "major figures" in a movement while either hiding their identities or making them difficult to discover. I sometimes get the impression that certain people here are ashamed to be associated with Objectivism.




OO may be popular, and fun, but I think that if you want serious, meaty discussions with knowledgeable people, OL has much heavier hitters (including published writers like George H. Smith, Jeff Riggenbach, Roger Bissell, etc.), primarily because, unlike other forums, OL allows everyone to speak freely, including non-Objectivists, and thus attracts higher caliber minds (the owners of OL don't see Objectivism as being weak and as needing protection from strong criticism).

J

I don't think that people can be considered "major figures" in a movement while either hiding their identities or making them difficult to discover. I sometimes get the impression that certain people here are ashamed to be associated with Objectivism.




OO may be popular, and fun, but I think that if you want serious, meaty discussions with knowledgeable people, OL has much heavier hitters (including published writers like George H. Smith, Jeff Riggenbach, Roger Bissell, etc.), primarily because, unlike other forums, OL allows everyone to speak freely, including non-Objectivists, and thus attracts higher caliber minds (the owners of OL don't see Objectivism as being weak and as needing protection from strong criticism).

J

I don't think that people can be considered "major figures" in a movement while either hiding their identities or making them difficult to discover. I sometimes get the impression that certain people here are ashamed to be associated with Objectivism.




OO may be popular, and fun, but I think that if you want serious, meaty discussions with knowledgeable people, OL has much heavier hitters (including published writers like George H. Smith, Jeff Riggenbach, Roger Bissell, etc.), primarily because, unlike other forums, OL allows everyone to speak freely, including non-Objectivists, and thus attracts higher caliber minds (the owners of OL don't see Objectivism as being weak and as needing protection from strong criticism).

J

Ed Hudgins of TAS posts on OL, SOLO and Rebirth of Reason, as did Robert Bidinotto when he was working for TAS. Barbara Branden posts on OL, and she used to post on SOLO until she was no longer willing to tolerate the the owner's abusiveness toward members.




I think that fear probably plays a part in it. I think that they want to limit and control the types of questions that they're asked, and minimize their exposure to informed, scholarly criticism.




I think they fear that the students would no longer be "Students of Objectivism" if they saw their teachers being "taken to school" on a level playing field.

J

I don't think that people can be considered "major figures" in a movement while either hiding their identities or making them difficult to discover. I sometimes get the impression that certain people here are ashamed to be associated with Objectivism.




OO may be popular, and fun, but I think that if you want serious, meaty discussions with knowledgeable people, OL has much heavier hitters (including published writers like George H. Smith, Jeff Riggenbach, Roger Bissell, etc.), primarily because, unlike other forums, OL allows everyone to speak freely, including non-Objectivists, and thus attracts higher caliber minds (the owners of OL don't see Objectivism as being weak and as needing protection from strong criticism).

J

Ed Hudgins of TAS posts on OL, SOLO and Rebirth of Reason, as did Robert Bidinotto when he was working for TAS. Barbara Branden posts on OL, and she used to post on SOLO until she was no longer willing to tolerate the the owner's abusiveness toward members.




I think that fear probably plays a part in it. I think that they want to limit and control the types of questions that they're asked, and minimize their exposure to informed, scholarly criticism.




I think they fear that the students would no longer be "Students of Objectivism" if they saw their teachers being "taken to school" on a level playing field.

J

Are you saying that you've interviewed "most people" on the subject of what they think of images of people with their flesh pressed against glass? If so, that must have taken years of your time!




Which humans' preferences? Those who agree with your subjective judgments of beauty?




"Harmonious" and "distorted" are not opposites, and I think that "most people" would recognize that. Do you seriously believe that you've never seen any images of distorted human forms which you thought were beautiful? Wow. I'm now wondering if you're even aware of how much imagery in the world is distorted, or if you have the visual capacity to recognize most deviations from how things look in reality.




All of that is subjective and/or collectivistic. People's ideas of what is beautiful or ugly evolve over time, just like fashion. Skin which appears to be "not healthy" to you would have been seen as the ultimate in beauty at different times in different cultures. Having a bluish pale tone, for example, can be seen as aristocratic (lack of exposure to the sun and lack of physical stamina can suggest that one has been so successful that one need not labor for a living).

People can be trained, in effect, by the subjective views of others, especially when the others are the majority. Those who aren't in the arts professions don't spend much time analyzing what they think is beautiful or why. They generally follow what is popular. They let society define what is beautiful, and then they claim that the collective opinion of "most people" that they're following is "objective."




And in other cultures and in other times, other people have seen large noses as beautiful.




Saville's point seems to be that women are covering themselves in makeup because they have been convinced by the pressure of the collective, subjective opinions of the masses that humans are naturally ugly. I think she has a good point. I think that anyone who views women as being so horribly ugly that they need to paint and disguise themselves is coming from a mindset of weakness and self-denial. It's an act of caving in to others' subjective tastes. And I think it's a sign of even greater weakness to argue that one's hopping on the bandwagon of common subjective opinion is "objective." You might as well argue that it is "objective" for women to "take advantage" of wearing burqas as a "corrective measure."

J

More subjective opinions and unsupported assertions. Will anyone who is claiming that their tastes are "objective" ever identify objective criteria to back up their assertions?

J

More subjective opinions and unsupported assertions. Will anyone who is claiming that their tastes are "objective" ever identify objective criteria to back up their assertions?

J

Wrong. Surrealism is art by Rand's definition and criteria, and she loved some surrealist paintings, especially those of Dali.

J

They most certainly are contradictory. Playing word games isn't going to change that.

J

Naturalism can show man as volitional. An artist can show people who are average and who have many limitations, but as still making choices which affect their lives. Naturalism doesn't necessarily imply a belief in determinism as Rand claimed. Personally I know of several artist friends who prefer Naturalism because they think that Romanticism is too close to fantasy. They see it in the same way that you or others might see a fairy tale: childish, too far removed from reality, fanciful, etc. Their preference for naturalistic styles has nothing to do with denying volition and supporting determinism.

Additionally, a determinist isn't limited to having the negative mindset that Rand suggested, or to creating naturalist art as she described it. A determinist might have a very positive view of the things that he believes mankind is destined to accomplish, and he might present an image of a man as fated to glory rather than defeat and despair. He might show a romanticized hero destined by God or fate to save all of mankind.

J

No, she didn't "identify" anyone's psychology. A person would have to actually meet and get to know another person in order to identify his psychology. She merely psychologized about people who like abstract paintings.




I like many abstract paintings, but, as an artist, I usually paint with a level of realist clarity that would qualify me as having one of the most focused minds in the world according to Rand's criteria. But I also sometimes create abstract paintings. So, using the childish method of pychologizing that you're using, I suppose that I'm a person of "mixed mindsets"? I apparently go from absolute clarity of mind to absolute lack of clarity of mind (despite the fact that I don't) because you say so, and because you know my mind better than I do based on my tastes in art? And you expect to be taken seriously?




I think she was coming from the same sort of limitations of knowledge that you were coming from when you thought that I was faking reality by explaining the perspective errors in a realist painting. When it comes to my being able to see things that you don't, it doesn't appear to matter if a painting is abstract or realist: If I see and understand anything that you can't, why, I must be making things up or faking reality!

It seems that it's very upsetting to certain people that others have knowledge that they don't, and that others have the ability to experience and understand things that they can't. Rather than recognize and accept their own limitations, they lash out at those who aren't so limited, and they claim that the knowledge that is being imparted is an act of faking reality. Pitiful.

J

No, she didn't "identify" anyone's psychology. A person would have to actually meet and get to know another person in order to identify his psychology. She merely psychologized about people who like abstract paintings.




I like many abstract paintings, but, as an artist, I usually paint with a level of realist clarity that would qualify me as having one of the most focused minds in the world according to Rand's criteria. But I also sometimes create abstract paintings. So, using the childish method of pychologizing that you're using, I suppose that I'm a person of "mixed mindsets"? I apparently go from absolute clarity of mind to absolute lack of clarity of mind (despite the fact that I don't) because you say so, and because you know my mind better than I do based on my tastes in art? And you expect to be taken seriously?




I think she was coming from the same sort of limitations of knowledge that you were coming from when you thought that I was faking reality by explaining the perspective errors in a realist painting. When it comes to my being able to see things that you don't, it doesn't appear to matter if a painting is abstract or realist: If I see and understand anything that you can't, why, I must be making things up or faking reality!

It seems that it's very upsetting to certain people that others have knowledge that they don't, and that others have the ability to experience and understand things that they can't. Rather than recognize and accept their own limitations, they lash out at those who aren't so limited, and they claim that the knowledge that is being imparted is an act of faking reality. Pitiful.

J

Which is why companies don't go around advertising the fact that they're gaining value even when you buy a product and then return it 28 days later after slightly using it. They don't mind that people think it's an issue of morality. They don't mind that people have mistaken ethical ideas or feelings which prevent them from taking full advantage of the contract or conditions they've been offered. Avoiding freeing people from their misconceptions means more money for the companies.




So, your view of your morality in regard to your business dealings with others is based on whether or not you can determine if each of your specific exchanges with them is profitable to them? If so, I'd think that you'd have to spend a lot of time investigating businesses' profitability before trading with them, and not just over the issue of their product returns policies. You’d pretty much have to know eveything about their businesses.

For example, if most book stores are selling a specific title for $12, and Jimmy’s Book Store sells it for $6, that should be enough to make you suspicious that Jimmy might be losing money on that title, and that you therefore wouldn't be trading fair "value for value" if you bought a copy from him. If you asked Jimmy how he could cut prices so low without losing money, and he told you that the book in question is one of his "loss leaders" -- an item set at a price which is intended to lose money in order to entice customers to come into the store and purchase other products at full price (or more) -- wouldn't Objectivists be immoral, by the theories being advocated here in the name of Objectivism, to take advantage of the loss leader price without buying additional, full-priced books, and without determining exactly how many full-priced books they'd need to buy in order to make up for Jimmy’s loss on their purchase of the discounted title?

Perhaps a truly moral Objectivist, as defined by certain people here, should always demand to see a store’s owner or manager before shopping, and insist that he charge the Objectivist full price on all items just to make sure all purchases are properly moral based on precise "value for value" exchanges?

And what about free samples handed out in grocery stores, or free all-you-can-eat snacks or snack buffets served at bars during certain hours? Is it immoral for Objectivists to eat even a single peanut if he or she doesn't first ask to speak to the establishment’s owners in order to clearly determine whether or not they will be getting enough value from him in exchange? In order to be a truly moral Objectivist, would a person have to secure a bar owner's explicit, fully informed consent to eat that single peanut if the Objectivist intends to eat it without buying any full-priced items?

Seriously, if someone here barks at me in the name of Objectivism that I had better stop eating free snacks while joining some friends at a bar, while not purchasing any full-priced items myself, because my doing so constitutes "lying" and "evading" and "fraud," then I'm probably going to pee myself with laughter.

J