Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Discussing non-Objectivist opinions on OO.net

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

*** Split from

another thread - sN ***

I think it is reasonably clear from Ifat's posting that she was just sharing her own take (and I see other posters, including softwareNerd, are already challenging her on it).

I've been told my point could be misunderstood so I'm going to flesh it out some.

Yes I know she was just sharing her "own take." That's the problem.

This forum is not a place to simply assert points of non-Objectivist personal opinion or even philosophical musings. It is perfectly fine to ask questions about ones musings from the perspective of Objectivism. I.e. "I was thinking x and y; how does this match up with Objectivism?" The problem is that Ifat phrased her own musings in the form of an answer to someone else's philosophical question/thread.

It is not that it is inappropriate as such to have ones own musings here or to discuss them. Such things are in fact welcome, in the proper context. It is that they should not be placed as an answer in someone else's thread which is asking a question about Objectivism. As stated per the rules, this is a place for questions and answers about Objectivism. If you are not speaking of Objectivism, then your questions may be desired but your answers are not (not per the rules, that is). As per the rules, this is not a place for people to give NON-Objectivist answers, personal opinions, or "own takes." All of those things are valid for discussion, but only within the proper context (i.e. as the person asking the question, not giving the answers). Which this is not.

If Ifat had her "own take" musings about the matter, it would be perfectly acceptable via the rules to start her own thread linking to this one in which she can present her own theories and ask everyone if they are valid or not. I don't see anything wrong with doing such a thing - but that is not what Ifat did. She simply presented her own theories as an answer to someone who had a thread asking a question about Objectivism.

I do not think that Ifat did anything malicious - I think it is simply a common and unfortunate misunderstanding that it is fine to put your "own take" musing up as a reply to threads here. I don't think that there is any cause to take action against Ifat, other than to split her commentary into its own thread and let her know of the correct procedures - which is why I reported her only after her own insistence that things proceed in that direction.

Edited by softwareNerd
Added topic-split annotation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is good - separating this.

Let's discuss this so everyone can be clear on what the rules in fact are. If they are not as I say, then let that also be clear. I seek clarity and for everyone to be on the same page here.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We introduced the "Questions, not statements" principle back in 2005 with the purpose of keeping non-Objectivists, and especially anti-Objectivists, from using the forum to make anti-Objectivist statements. An example for its application would be if the opening post in the water thread read, "Under laissez-faire capitalism, a giant monopoly can control all the water, therefore laissez-faire capitalism is not good, we need the government to save our lives, blah blah blah, period." The "Questions" rule allows us to deal with such posts--and posters--summarily.

At the time we introduced this rule, we were getting many new forum members, many of whom were anti-Objectivists or outright trolls, although the moderators often disagreed in their judgment of them. A great number of the Rules were written to "catch" these people--to serve as criteria for what constitutes an unwelcome person. The "Questions" rule is a prime example for this type of criteria. So one should keep in mind that it was written primarily with newbies in mind; once a poster becomes an established and respected member known to be a serious student of Objectivism, there is no longer a question of him being a potential disruptor and it can be assumed that he posts from an Objectivist perspective, so he is no longer within the rule's context of application.

If I counted the times I posted my own take on a matter as an answer, with quite an unyielding period at the end, I'd have had to ban myself several times over now. :blush: Of course, they were all from a thoroughly Objectivist perspective, but many of the specific ideas I expressed here were nowhere to be found in any of Ayn Rand's or Dr. Peikoff's books. And this is what all seasoned posters do, and I don't think anyone would wish it otherwise either. What would this forum look like if all we did was post quotations from Atlas Shrugged and OPAR? Sometimes, of course, it will happen that such a personal take is way out of line; the primary thing to do then is to discuss it--and, if it's from a recently-joined poster and really un-Objectivist, you might want to report it too, but as a rule of thumb, if it's from somebody with a post count greater than 50, don't worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF,

Oh by no means am I thinking that anyone should be banned!

Of course, they were all from a thoroughly Objectivist perspective, but many of the specific ideas I expressed here were nowhere to be found in any of Ayn Rand's or Dr. Peikoff's books. And this is what all seasoned posters do, and I don't think anyone would wish it otherwise either. What would this forum look like if all we did was post quotations from Atlas Shrugged and OPAR? Sometimes, of course, it will happen that such a personal take is way out of line; the primary thing to do then is to discuss it--and, if it's from a recently-joined poster and really un-Objectivist, you might want to report it too, but as a rule of thumb, if it's from somebody with a post count greater than 50, don't worry about it.

Oh, that's not what I'm saying. If you have what you're pretty sure is Objectivism or an application of Objectivism (the latter being something that definitely would not be found in a book) which just so happens to be incorrect, that is not something I see as butting heads with the rules as such. Certainly, the basic idea here is to give one's "own take," providing that that "take" is Objectivism or an application of Objectivism to the best of your knowledge.

The thing I saw with Ifat's post is that what she was presented was not Objectivism or an application of it - and she knew and said that it wasn't - and she put it as a reply to a thread (where the expectation is for answers from Objectivism or using Objectivism), rather than as a separate discussion in her own thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I saw with Ifat's post is that what she was presented was not Objectivism or an application of it - and she knew and said that it wasn't - and she put it as a reply to a thread (where the expectation is for answers from Objectivism or using Objectivism), rather than as a separate discussion in her own thread.

So?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So?

So, the rules are that things which are not Objectivism or an application of Objectivism are not to be presented as answers, only as questions or as debate in the debate forum.

If y'all want to change that, then that's your domain. Personally, I agree with it and think it should be that way (basically for the same reasons presented in LP's podcast and some of the discussion it generated here) but if you all say it isn't from now on then that is the end of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So?

I agree with what Inspector is driving at: I think it is antithetical to the purpose of this forum for members to be posting their take when it does not reflect Objectivism. At the very least, it confuses newcomers on the correct application of Objectivism, when ideas can be misconstrued (if they post a caveat that it does not reflect Objectivism and may be antithetical, that is fine, but I can't see that being a very common occurrence). If a poster hasn't really thought about the topic in question, or has half-baked ideas and are unsure whether their musings are congruent with Objectivism, they shouldn't be responding to a question whose sole function is to understand the philosophy and application of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they shouldn't be responding to a question whose sole function is to understand the philosophy and application of Objectivism.

(bold mine)

Right, and given the explicitly stated purpose of the forum, that's the exclusive purpose that questions are supposed to have here. That's in theory at least... we do have a number of topics that are not really in keeping with this stated purpose ("What is better: Batman or Superman?") and so I think people lose sight of this sometimes.

I don't know of any separate section of the forum which is a kind of "open bar" in which questions and topics can just be about anything and answers can be from any perspective. I suppose one could always be created; you can ask the mods I guess if you want one of those.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of any separate section of the forum which is a kind of "open bar" in which questions and topics can just be about anything and answers can be from any perspective. I suppose one could always be created; you can ask the mods I guess if you want one of those.

In my opinion, the chat feature is sufficient in this regard. The reason why I come to this forum as opposed to others is the specificity--it's too easy to find an open bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the rules are that things which are not Objectivism or an application of Objectivism are not to be presented as answers, only as questions or as debate in the debate forum.

Well, the Rules say: "The primary -- but not only -- form of trade will be information about Objectivism and discussion about its applications. [...] questions, discussion, and posting of new threads must not contradict the purpose of the forum."

What exactly does not contradicting the purpose of the forum mean? Section 1 under "Prohibited Behavior" elaborates on "Consistency with the purpose of this site." What it explicitly mentions as disallowed is: "to spread ideas contrary to or unrelated to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, 'moral tolerationism,' and libertarianism" as well as "rude or insulting comments about Ayn Rand [...]"

I take that to be an exhaustive list of what is considered incompatible with the purpose of the forum--so I think posting your own opinion as an answer to a question should be fine, provided that you make it clear that you are not speaking for Objectivism, and that your opinion is not some communist or libertarian etc. piece of garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take that to be an exhaustive list of what is considered incompatible with the purpose of the forum--so I think posting your own opinion as an answer to a question should be fine, provided that you make it clear that you are not speaking for Objectivism, and that your opinion is not some communist or libertarian etc. piece of garbage.

I took it to be non-exhaustive - that "ideas contrary to or unrelated to Objectivism" were entirely unwelcome - not just really terrible ones like communism or libertarianism, but also Joe Smith's not-Objectivism take on metaphysics, politics, or whatever. That the only solicited commentary was that either of Objectivism or an application of Objectivism.

It's up to David, I suppose. I'll operate under whichever interpretation/set of rules is in fact what is desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what Inspector is driving at: I think it is antithetical to the purpose of this forum for members to be posting their take when it does not reflect Objectivism.
West, Could you concretize a bit what you mean by things that do not "reflect" Objectivism? Do you mean things that are antithetical to Objectivism? Or even things that one might reach, using Objectivism as a launching pad?

My take is that Objectivism is the core philosophy as propounded by Rand. So, for instance, when people here have discussion about how exactly a free-economy's roads would be financed, or how tax can be replaced by voluntary donations, they are almost always (i.e. after the first brief sentence about Rand's statement on the subject), no longer discussing Objectivism, but rather the things they extrapolate therefrom. You can extend this example to so many threads: about music and sports and business and current day politics and in each and every one of those case one will be outside the province of Objectivism. Basically, the majority of the forum will go away.

We would end up with a forum where we might have each topic framed as a study group on (say) a chapter in Rand's book. There's nothing wrong with a forum like that; indeed, it might even be a useful thing. However, that definitely is not what this forum is or has been. A huge part of what OO.net is, is a place to discuss things that people are extrapolating from their reading of Rand, and doubts that they have about Rand's philosophy, and their own take of how they would apply Rand's philosophy, and -- in not a small measure -- to meet other people of similar mind.

I'm not trying to build up a straw man here. I'm just trying to understand what you in particular -- no one else -- mean by "reflect" Objectivism in the post above. I'm just trying to understand if you're suggesting that the forum be radically changed to be more like a book study-group, or if you're speaking of something else.

Do you mean examples like I mentioned should be disallowed, or do you mean that the forum should not be used as a platform to actually attack Objectivism and propound contrary ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[the majority of forum discussion is] no longer discussing Objectivism, but rather the things they extrapolate therefrom. You can extend this example to so many threads: about music and sports and business and current day politics and in each and every one of those case one will be outside the province of Objectivism. Basically, the majority of the forum will go away.

I'd like to point out as an aside (and not a reply to sN's post) for clarity that this is not what I am saying - thus my repeated use of the phrase "or applications of Objectivism." This is not a dichotomy of "only things from the books" versus "anything goes."

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not just really terrible ones like communism or libertarianism, but also Joe Smith's not-Objectivism take on metaphysics, politics, or whatever.

Oh, Joe Smith's metaphysics would definitely fall under "contrary to Objectivism." When I used the word "exhaustive," I was not referring to communism and libertarianism, but rather to the kinds of actions named: spreading un-Objectivist ideas and making insulting comments.

Perhaps our disagreement is on whether Ifat's post was actually un-Objectivist (i.e. contrary / unrelated to Objectivism)? I don't think it was; as I said, she has been a long-time poster and we know her to be a genuine student of Objectivism, so one would assume that she was trying to apply Objectivist principles, especially since she quoted Ayn Rand in her post. She may have overlooked some other principles of Objectivism or perhaps applied the ones she had in mind incorrectly, but if that was indeed the case, it should be presumed to be an honest mistake, not a deliberate introduction of a non-Objectivist angle that should have been phrased as a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps our disagreement is on whether Ifat's post was actually un-Objectivist (i.e. contrary / unrelated to Objectivism)?

Maybe?

I started from the point where she said "that is my take on it, I didn't actually read it in Objectivism anywhere," which refers to the basic premise of her post from which the rest is derived. The idea I see here is that her idea which she presents is not a part of Objectivism or an application of Objectivism to a field outside of what was covered by the philosophy (i.e. outside its metaphysics, epistemology, etc).

It's not really an issue of whether what she subsequently said ends up being congruent with Objectivism or not (an not a statement of the merit of her argument, which is unfortunately how she seemed to take it). The point is that she was presenting this not-Objectivism philosophical idea as an reply (i.e. an answer) in a thread.

Had she instead started her own thread and said, "here is my formulation of ethics and metaphysics; how does this stack up with Objectivism?" then it would have been an entirely appropriate post. Also, if she had said "this is how I think that the Objectivist ethics and metaphysics work on this issue" then it would have been appropriate (if not necessarily correct). But instead her formulation was "that is my take on it, I didn't actually read it in Objectivism anywhere."

Now if she meant by that that this was her take on how Objectivism answers the question then I don't see it as bumping against this rule (just incorrect). Which is not to say that this is all about Ifat's post - I would still like to know what the rules mean to other cases in which the poster is indeed giving a personal opinion which is not meant to be at all related to Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would still like to know what the rules mean to other cases in which the poster is indeed giving a personal opinion which is not meant to be at all related to Objectivism.
If a poster makes a habit of giving personal opinions which I judge to be of no detectable relationship to Objectivism, I will privately convey my concern to the poster if I find that the content is potentially destructive of the purpose of the forum. However, if a poster mistakenly believes, for example, that Objectivism sanctions vigilante justice and is able to set forth his position using reason, I am unlikely to smack the individual for his or her errors of logic or knowledge. It's only when a person directly asserts blatant falsehoods of the type "Objectivism holds that any man has the right to gun down criminals", especially refusing to provide actual evidence to that effect, that I would start looking for the hammer. In other words, I generally focus on the question of whether I am dealing with a rational animal, or an animal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just to finish this debate - I present your very own post, Inspector, from no other than today, in which you present plenty-full of your personal opinions, as an answer, none supported by quotes of Objectivism, or shown to be a direct application of Objectivism, non said by Peikoff or Rand.

Reason for lack of new energy innovations?

Some excerpts:

"To know this, you have to know..." (Was that an answer?)

"It takes a bit of research into the matter, but I think..." (You think? Is this supported by Objectivism in any way?)

And finally - "Yes, I agree with that." (Again expressing your own personal opinion, which was not shown to represent Objectivism).

Of course I am not presenting this as a counter-attack on you (that would be silly). I am just showing you what the forum would be like without those things you're trying to battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if she meant by that that this was her take on how Objectivism answers the question

That is how I read it.

Which is not to say that this is all about Ifat's post - I would still like to know what the rules mean to other cases in which the poster is indeed giving a personal opinion which is not meant to be at all related to Objectivism.
  • If it comes from an openly non-Objectivist poster as an answer to an inquiry about the Objectivist position on something, without clarifying that it is not meant to represent the Objectivist position, hit the Report button and we'll hit Delete.
  • If it's from an openly non-Objectivist poster as an answer to an inquiry about the Objectivist position, but making it clear that it's just a personal opinion, then you might want to notify us, especially if it is in a stridently anti-Objectivist tone, or if it uses insidious Toohey-like techniques to undermine Objectivist ideas, and so on--in one word, if it sounds like trolling. If it's in a civil and respectful tone, then you could just post a likewise civil and respectful response reminding the poster of the purpose of the forum.
  • If it is from a member with a good pro-Objectivist posting history, I'd say leave it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't necessarily agree with Ifat's conclusions, I think that when a poster clearly states that a position is his or her "take" on a subject, that they have adequately indicated that their answer is not necessarily based in Objectivism.

I also think there can be value of two distinct kinds to be gained from allowing other people to present their takes, even when such presentations are in response to direct questions about Objectivism, so long as sufficient disclaimer is given in such presentation, as was given by ifat.

The first value is that by presenting alternative takes, it allows Objectivists to examine such takes and rationally evaluate the validity or invalidity therein. Since it is true that, given the same premises with correct application of logical induction, the same logical conclusions will follow, then such alternate takes give us an opportunity to identify faulty premises or faulty logic, to elucidate the topic for the poster, so that a more rational position may be understood and accepted. (Naturally an IRRATIONAL person will reject such elucidation, but we don't have to deal with irrational people here, we can just ignore them.)

The second value is that we must always, I believe, allow ourselves to consider the possibility that we ourselves may be wrong. Not in first premises (the axioms) of course, but that our own reason may have missed something or been applied incorrectly. Even Ms. Rand may have been wrong about *something* (no matter how trival), so it behooves us to always test our premises and our logic to reaffirm our own convictions. We should never evade the challenge, in other words, for fear that we might find we have been wrong.

My $0.02, in gold. B)

Edited by Greebo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, Joe Smith's metaphysics would definitely fall under "contrary to Objectivism."
'ang on a minute there! What aspect are you stressing here?

Metaphysics? I could sort-of buy that, because it is hard to see how much exploration someone would do in the realm of metaphysics without being contrary to Objectivism. (Though, if one looks at the questions that are raised in the metaphysics forum, many of them do not have readily available answers in the Objectivist corpus.) In topics like epistemology, there are more things left to be thought about and discovered... many areas where one can postulate principles that are neither Objectivism, and nor contrary to Objectivism. And, when it comes to implementations in the arena of politics, there's even more.

Joe Smith? Are you, perhaps stressing that Joe Smith's extrapolations and personal detailing would be contrary to Objectivism, while those of a serious Objectivist philosopher would merely be outside of Objectivism?

The difference between "not Objectivism" and "contrary to Objectivism" is a crucial one -- completely different ideas. Therefore specifying what makes for one rather than the other is vital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This site supports discussion of, first, the principles of Objectivism, as defined by the works of Ayn Rand and supported by the Ayn Rand Institute; and, second, their application to various fields. Therefore participants must not use the website to spread ideas contrary to or unrelated to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

So what I get out of this is that what is wanted here is an exchange of ideas among those who already ascribe to Objectivism.

Fair enough, this place is the owners ball as it were he gets to decide what games are played, my only question would be how can you be sure that the philosophy can really stack up against a contrary opinion if you never allow an argument between two diametrically opposed ideals.

We can counter the argument for god/socialism/collectivism or any other easily amongst our selves but what if we weren't forced to try to argue from a fictional position of Devils advocate, how much more effective would it be to make our point against someone who truly believed?

There is no necessity to abandon rules of debate, or decorum. There would be no reason to tolerate a troll or someone who hurled ad homenim attacks.

The act of arguing against someone who honestly holds antipathetic views to those of Objectivism would or should strengthen the goal of this place not weaken it. To argue honestly is to more fully understand your own position.

If we disallow honestly held contrary opinion and reasonable debate on it then all we will do is spend our time here preaching to the choir.

Given the choice between a restrictive policy such as the one above and free speech, I personally will stand for free speech, even if that stance makes this place a little less monolithic and a little messier, because I think it will also make concepts clearer and the alternatives even more nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what I get out of this is that what is wanted here is an exchange of ideas among those who already ascribe to Objectivism.
I think that is a good statement regarding the basic purpose. What it means is, when there seems to be a conflict between two desiderata, value to Objectivists wins. Thus providing a relatively unrestricted public forum (meaning, something unlike HBL where posts have to be actively selected for inclusion) is less important than providing an intelligent forum for Objectivists to discuss Objectivism; educating the masses is less important than than providing an intelligent forum for Objectivists to discuss Objectivism.
my only question would be how can you be sure that the philosophy can really stack up against a contrary opinion if you never allow an argument between two diametrically opposed ideals.
Two answers. First, the purpose of this forum is not to provide combat training for Objectiviest intellectual warriors, so the presupposition is not valid. You're really describing HPO, not OO. Second, we have the debate forum.
We can counter the argument for god/socialism/collectivism or any other easily amongst our selves but what if we weren't forced to try to argue from a fictional position of Devils advocate, how much more effective would it be to make our point against someone who truly believed?
OTOH, you also want an intelligent and rational person who truly believes in some of the various intellectual evils. They resemble hen's teeth. Instead, we find too many random drive-by assaults by trolls who aren't actually interested in discussing Objectivist, and prefer to fill their hours with gratuitous insults such as that Rand "dropped the ball on the problem of universals".
There is no necessity to abandon rules of debate, or decorum. There would be no reason to tolerate a troll or someone who hurled ad homenim attacks.
How about a pack of people who decide to drop in for a few years and preach the gospel of Jeebus Cripes? As long as they are sincere and civil, would you say that the content of their posts should not matter? To me, it would matter vastly. I simply would have no interest whatsoever in spending my time on a Marxist or religious or nihilist board, even if they were polite and sincere. This is a major conceptual dividing line for many people -- does content matter? It does matter to me. Not to the point that my skin burns and my eyes water when someone utters things that are contrary to Objectivism, but I know from extended experience with HPO that it really matters if a forum has 3 Objectivists and 300 anti-Objectivists. There is simply no point in staying in a place like that, because it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation on any topic; and when you realize that, it's hard to justify staying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Smith, of course. I was referring to commonly-held ideas based on bad philosophy, the kind that Miss Rand gave examples of in her speech on Philosophy: Who Needs It.
Yes, I agree that Joe Smith's opinions are of little value. When he pops in occasionally, some people try advocating Objectivism to him, and if he's adamant about pushing commonly-held bad ideas, we either send him to the debate sub-forum, or ask him to read Rand, or to get with the program in some other way.

Anyhow, since this thread did not arise in the context of Joe Smith, discussing this will take us too far afield. Joe Smith is only relevant to this thread in a different way, because of the claim that he might go away with the wrong impression about Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, this place is the owners ball as it were he gets to decide what games are played, my only question would be how can you be sure that the philosophy can really stack up against a contrary opinion if you never allow an argument between two diametrically opposed ideals.

Because the 'net is a big place and there are PLENTY of other places on which to explore these other ideas. You know how some bars are like Biker Bars, some are Yuppie bars, some bars cater to Afro-Americans, and some bars cater to anyone who walks through the front door? The world is a big place and people survive well because of the many different options available to them. I don't expect to go on to a Marxist board and start going on about Objectivism, though on some Marxist boards that may be acceptable.

The existence of this board has a specific purpose and function for those who wish to contribute to it. That is perfectly logical and viable and it does not have to cater to any other purpose to save people from incestuous thought. There are other avenues to explore if they want to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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