Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Discussing non-Objectivist opinions on OO.net

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'd just like to add the comment that I don't think it matters whether something in a thread is posed as an "answer" or not because none of the "answers" on this site are definitive. There are no "authorities" on this board who can speak for or claim to speak for Ayn Rand, and thus every response to a thread is exactly someone's "own take". The person asking the questions or starting the thread has to use their own mind to determine whether one of the posters actually provided an answer or whether more thought is required.

Complaining that a questioner may go away with wrong ideas about Objectivism presumes that the purpose of this forum is to *educate* and that there are *educators* here. I don't think so. The purpose of the forum is discussion and dissemination of ideas. (Dissemination in the sense of "increasing awareness of the existence of Objectivism" not "teaching people about Objectivism".) That's why when people ask broad, sweeping questions, they are told to read the pertinent books/essays and come back when they have at least some grounding in the subject matter.

If someone posts something you think is incorrect, then refute them. (If you're arguing about something that's core to the actual philosophy, then the discussion belongs in the debate forum.) The process will be good for you, because you'll be forced to exercise your brain in the effort of understanding the issue. That's the real benefit that everyone can take away from the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Actually, I believe you're missing the fact that there is a debate forum which is set aside for arguing against Objectivism. The idea is that the rest of the board is for people to ask questions about Objectivism and for others to provide and discuss answers about Objectivism and the application of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more, Jenni -- on both points.

While the forum rules tell newbies to ask questions, that's not an invitation to them to come here and proselytize about some anti-Objectivist ideas as long as they are smart enough to frame key sentences as questions. That does not fit with the purpose of the forum -- there are other places on the web for that. OTOH, when it is clear that someone is not trying convert people to some philosophy of their own, but trying to explore their own understanding of Objectivism, then it is really pointless to instruct them to pepper their thinking with question marks, if where they are coming from is otherwise clear.

As for newbies getting the wrong impression, I think that fear is overblown when it comes to particulars about what Objectivism says on a topic. To anyone who is concerned about such newbies, I simply say: put yourself in their shoes. Do not assume that this newbie is some less intelligent person, nor that he is lazier than you; do not assume that he will not do any reading of Rand; do not assume this is his only source of information. Really, someone who does not plan to do any reading on their own isn't going to get Objectivism from a forum anyhow. Further, the impression that newbies get is more than simply about the stances of the philosophy. They also get some flavor of the epistemological approach and thinking of members who claim to be Objectivists.

If one is worried about what newbies think, then one ought to be concerned about demonstrating that one can hold one's own in an intellectual argument, without resorting to blowing an out-of-bounds whistle at every turn. Since, our primary purpose is not to educate all comers, moderators may well blow the whistle. However, while this helps us not waste time, it does actually give newbies the wrong impression. This is well supported by the experience of newbies who come to forums, leave disappointed, and then end up as Objectivists anyway. Seldom does one find a newbie like that who will complain about the non-factual information they were given; but, frequently, they will explain how they were put off by the dogmatic approach. (Of course, if one's strategy is to piss off such newbies so that they go do some reading on their own, that might be a topic for a separate discussion.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea is that the rest of the board is for people to ask questions about Objectivism and for others to provide and discuss answers about Objectivism and the application of Objectivism.

No, it is not, because NO ONE on this forum is qualified to PROVIDE answers about Objectivism. Everyone can posit answers to questions, but only ONE forum is actually devoted TO questions. The rest of the board (except the Debate forum) is devoted to discussion of Objectivism and I think that everyone should feel welcome to post the results of their own thinking even if it is quite outre as long as they "show their work" or state where they are coming from (such as "this is my opinion"). It is the responsibility of the reader to think about the posts on a given topic, and as an admin, at least, I don't like the idea of being press-ganged into the position of protecting the supposedly weak and confused from exposure to erroneous opinions. Forum members are not children and should not be treated as such by anyone.

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?

Naturally, you've picked a thread in which the question itself is not about Objectivism per se. But implicit in the question is that the poster wants to know about the political - i.e. philosophical aspects of the issue, which in a roundabout way is asking for how Objectivism is applied to the politics (and, to a large extent, economics) of this particular current-events issue. The answers I provide are very much how Objectivism is applied to this current events issue. Now if you don't think that it is a proper application of Objectivism to the issue at hand then by all means post a reply which identifies the error that I make.

My objection to your post has nothing to do with the fact that it's your personal take (and it is also not a slap against you or any kind of statement that what you said isn't interesting or valuable) - it has everything to do with the fact that you said that it wasn't Objectivism (Or that you weren't sure of its status vis a vis Objectivism? I'm not sure I caught your meaning right but you forbade me from follow up discussion) and you were attempting to provide it as an answer to another poster, rather than as a question. As I see it, via the rules, if what you are saying isn't Objectivism or an application thereof - or you aren't sure if it is - then you shouldn't post it as an answer. You are of course welcome to post it as a question. Of course, this thread will bear out if the rules work that way but this will hopefully explain to you the basis on which I was operating at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naturally, you've picked a thread in which the question itself is not about Objectivism per se.
I have two question. First, why you you claim that it is "natural"? Second, why do you believe that it is relevant that the original question in the "energy innovation" threat wasn't expressly "about Objectivism?".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forum members are not children and should not be treated as such by anyone.

I don't think that that is either implicit or explicit in the position that the answers solicited on the board are exclusively those which the answerer is reasonably certain are of Objectivism or the application of Objectivism.

I have two question. First, why you you claim that it is "natural"?

Because her goal was to come up with a way in which I had violated the rules. But I suppose that's an inflammatory way of putting it so I withdraw that expression.

Second, why do you believe that it is relevant that the original question in the "energy innovation" threat wasn't expressly "about Objectivism?".

As I subsequently showed, the answer is still an application of Objectivism. It's just that because the question isn't expressly about Objectivism, it may be less "on the surface" that the answer was such an application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is how I read it.

If that's the case, then it's something other than what I read it to be. That just leaves the question of the meaning of her aside that it wasn't in Objectivism: does that mean that she was uncertain of how it stacked up against Objectivism or was it one of those disclaimers along the lines of, "I'm not Ayn Rand so what you hear is not Objectivism but my own best attempt at it." If the latter then it is entirely outside the scope of what I'm addressing here. If the former, then it does fall into my concern that if you are not reasonably sure that what you're saying is Objectivism or an application of it, then it should be a question here and never an answer in someone else's thread. (that rule, of course, being what is in question here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I subsequently showed, the answer is still an application of Objectivism. It's just that because the question isn't expressly about Objectivism, it may be less "on the surface" that the answer was such an application.
The thing that I'm puzzling over is the possibility that you hold that there should be one set of rules for threads that start with some question "about Objectivism", versus threads where "the question itself is not about Objectivism per se". I'm suggesting that the entire content of that sentence which I asked about is implicationally false. That "question originally about Objectivism" is a red herring.

I'd like to know what you have in mindSince you are apparently not happy with the existing rules and their enforcement, as a correction. Here's a proposal -- tell me if this is what you have in mind:

"No participant may post their own conclusions, unless they are explicitly represented by the participant as being the Objectivist position".

I am trying to untangle your variable focus on whether a person represents a conclusion in a particular way, versus is judged to have accurately presented an application of Objectivism. I can't tell whether you are objecting to the content, or the prelude (and if it is the prelude, is it the failure to assert that the conclusion "is (consistent with) Objectivism" or is it the error of saying "this is my conclusion" -- i.e. does silence on the matter immunize a person from criticism). What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for punishing posters which you have in mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that I'm puzzling over is the possibility that you hold that there should be one set of rules for threads that start with some question "about Objectivism", versus threads where "the question itself is not about Objectivism per se". I'm suggesting that the entire content of that sentence which I asked about is implicationally false. That "question originally about Objectivism" is a red herring.

The sentence is meant to address not a difference in sets of rules, but rather Ifat's confusion about the fact that my response did not consist of direct references to texts. Since the question in the thread was not about Objectivism per se but rather implicitly (by its presence here) about the application of Objectivism, then that is also the nature of the answer.

I'd like to know what you have in mindSince you are apparently not happy with the existing rules and their enforcement, as a correction.

I am happy with the existing rules, at least as I understand them. What the proper understanding of them is - that is the topic here.

Here's a proposal -- tell me if this is what you have in mind:

"No participant may post their own conclusions, unless they are explicitly represented by the participant as being the Objectivist position".

First, I'd like to point out that it is not exclusively the Objectivist position that I had in mind, but also any application of Objectivism to questions as well.

Second, I didn't ever say anything about the participant being required to explicate every time that their post be the Objectivist position - it would be fine if this was implicit, so long as it was in fact the poster's intent. Ifat's post drew my attention since she seemed to be explicating that her post was not the Objectivist position. Had she not made that statement, I would probably have assumed that she had meant to be presenting what she thought was Objectivism or the application thereof and thus wouldn't bump against the rule I had in mind. (it's not a matter of whether the poster is correct in thinking that their position is Objectivism or an application thereof - I only see it as requiring that they honestly and reasonably believe that it is. If it isn't, then that is what the discussion is for.)

I am trying to untangle your variable focus on whether a person represents a conclusion in a particular way, versus is judged to have accurately presented an application of Objectivism. I can't tell whether you are objecting to the content, or the prelude (and if it is the prelude, is it the failure to assert that the conclusion "is (consistent with) Objectivism" or is it the error of saying "this is my conclusion" -- i.e. does silence on the matter immunize a person from criticism). What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for punishing posters which you have in mind?

The reaction to silence on the matter would depend on the context. You'd have to use your best judgement of whether the poster is intending to present non-Objectivism as an answer or whether they are mistaken in their understanding of Objectivism. The only time that someone would bump against the rule would be if they are intentionally presenting non-Objectivism (or application thereof) or that which they aren't at least reasonably certain is Objectivism or a correct application thereof. In many cases it might be appropriate to ask the poster if they think what they wrote is Objectivism or the correct application of Objectivism and if so why. If they say that it isn't or doesn't need to be or they don't know whether it is, then you can be sure they are in violation of the rule. If they know that what they say is not Objectivism or an application thereof then it has no business being presented as an answer here. If they don't know whether it is or not, then it still has no business being presented as an answer - although it might be welcome as a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, there is a huge difference between:

1. expressing an opinion which is contrary to Objectivism, and stated as such; and,

2. using "the website to spread ideas contrary to or unrelated to Objectivism" (from Forum rules)

Secondly, short of the quotes, most of what is posted to the forum is someone's take on Objectivism. In the case of the "water" thread, reading Ifat's post it is clear that she was not even saying her position disagreed with Objectivism. Rather, what one sees is a tentative proposition of an answer. Given how she framed it, and given that we know she is not a troll, it is reasonable to assume that she merely being cautious as to whether her position was consistent with the other positions she holds, i.e. with Objectivism. Her warning saying "that is my take on it, I didn't actually read it in Objectivism anywhere", reflects her honesty in alerting the reader that they should not assume she's got this out of some Objectivist text.

Finally, no reasonable person should expect that the person they are discussing something with -- whether Ifat or anybody else -- has more intellectual allegiance to Objectivism than to the truth. It is not relevant that you know that there is no such dichotomy. It is insulting to the other person to think that -- if they spot the hint of such a dichotomy -- they should abandon a particular line of thought, because it takes them into dangerous waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not relevant that you know that there is no such dichotomy. It is insulting to the other person to think that -- if they spot the hint of such a dichotomy -- they should abandon a particular line of thought, because it takes them into dangerous waters.

To the contrary, it is entirely relevant. And the idea of "abandon a particular line of thought" is completely beside the point of everything that I have presented in this thread and represents a profound departure from my point.

NOWHERE is it suggested or implied in any way in what I have said that the rules require a poster to "abandon a particular line of thought" - only that they should not present that line of thought as an answer but rather as a question or, if it is directly contrary, as a debate in the debate forum.

The only insulting thing present here is the idea that what I have phrased suggests that a poster is or ought to be required to "abandon a particular line of thought" and I take exception to the suggestion that I have ever said or implied any such thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sentence is meant to address not a difference in sets of rules, but rather Ifat's confusion about the fact that my response did not consist of direct references to texts. Since the question in the thread was not about Objectivism per se but rather implicitly (by its presence here) about the application of Objectivism, then that is also the nature of the answer.
So I conclude that it is completely irrelevant whether the original post poses a question about Objectivism, or says something else. Whatever we conclude about a post, it's just about the post itself and not the post in relation to the initial post.
What the proper understanding of them is - that is the topic here.
The rules are quite clear to me. There is no serious question of someone recently violating forum rules (publically or via a report).
Second, I didn't ever say anything about the participant being required to explicate every time that their post be the Objectivist position - it would be fine if this was implicit, so long as it was in fact the poster's intent.
In other words, you would object if someone were to set forth a conclusion and in some way indicate that they are not certain that this is the Objectivist position or derives from Objectivist principles, correct? You would prefer that we prohibit intellectual honesty, in favor of unspoken and thus unchallengeable assumptions? If, for example, someone were to say that ethics is based on the nature of humans and on the nature of the world but furthermore say "that is my understanding, I'm not saying that is what Objectivist holds", then that person has done something objectionable? I might agree, if your objection is their failure to grasp that that is correct from the Objectivist POV. Still, I don't think we should be punishing people for being right and not realizing it, while allowing people who are wrong to get off scott-free.
The only time that someone would bump against the rule would be if they are intentionally presenting non-Objectivism (or application thereof) or that which they aren't at least reasonably certain is Objectivism or a correct application thereof.
No, there are only two relevant principles to consider. First, is a poster being intellectually dishonest? If so, whack. Second, is a person abusing and disrupting the forum as a means of advocating ideas contrary or orthogonal to Objectivism? If so, whack. I think the problem is that you've misidentified the "purity" requirements. They do not require, in Jeopardy-like fashion that all statements be phrased as questions unless the person asserts their certainty that the statement is an instance of Objectivism. They do not, as in the present case, prohibit expressions of doubt as to whether a particular conclusion is consistent with Objectivism. The rules pertaining to intellectual honesty, in fact, require such disclaimers when appropriate.
If they don't know whether it is or not, then it still has no business being presented as an answer - although it might be welcome as a question.
Are you certain that you haven't violated the rules by proposing that answer? I want to see you derive that statement from the writings of Rand and Peikoff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I conclude that it is completely irrelevant whether the original post poses a question about Objectivism, or says something else. Whatever we conclude about a post, it's just about the post itself and not the post in relation to the initial post.

If I understand you correctly, then yes - so long as the original post is actually in some way actually a question about Objectivism or the application thereof in some fashion. My comment about the nature of the original post was simply that it made the relationship somewhat less obvious, not that it changed the nature of the rules.

In other words, you would object if someone were to set forth a conclusion and in some way indicate that they are not certain that this is the Objectivist position or derives from Objectivist principles, correct?

Only if they presented it as an answer - "Well, I don't know what Objectivism says but here's my take..." The objection is - Objectivism Online is not a place that solicits answers from a non-Objectivist perspective, so it represents an unwelcome assertion. If they want to ask a question "Here's my take - is that square with Objectivism?" then I wouldn't object, since that is not an assertion of non-Objectivism so much as it is a question about Objectivism and how to understand it.

You seem to be introducing the third possibility - that someone wants to answer from Objectivism but isn't really sure if they have it right. I'd say that it would be best to phrase it as a question or to put a "is that right?" at the end - something to indicate that the purpose of this uncertain person is not to make assertions from ignorance but rather to gain knowledge. In which case no I don't see that as bumping against the rules.

You would prefer that we prohibit intellectual honesty,

Hardly - that is not what I said or anything close to a reasonable interpretation of what I said.

They do not require, in Jeopardy-like fashion that all statements be phrased as questions unless the person asserts their certainty that the statement is an instance of Objectivism.

Again - nowhere did I say that they have to assert it openly with every post. It is fine that it is implicitly understood that the only kind of answers expected here are those from Objectivism or an application thereof - so long as that is what the poster is reasonably sure that's what they are doing.

Are you certain that you haven't violated the rules by proposing that answer? I want to see you derive that statement from the writings of Rand and Peikoff.

You're playing a "gotcha" game here and I won't play along. I shouldn't have to explain that discussions of website policy are separate from intellectual discussions and you know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ifat's post drew my attention since she seemed to be explicating that her post was not the Objectivist position. Had she not made that statement

First, I think it is important to take action on a rule violation only when one has been established to have occurred. The word selection (alone) she used in prefacing her comment does not establish that she actually has violated a rule. What I mean by this is if one were to say "I don't know the Objectivist position on this, but here is my take..." and then go on to make a statement which IS compatible with Objectivism and its principles, then I can't see that as a violation of the rules. In fact, it would be more productive to illustrate to the person that their statement was consistent with Objectivism. Unless I have missed it, you have not actually demonstrated that her position was not consistent with Objectivism, regardless of whether or not it was "her own take". You merely took her statement "as is" and cried foul.

I am not going find a violation of the rules in wording alone (in this context), and I doubt the other mods/admins will either.

Ifat and I have had differences in the past, but I do not see a violation on her part this time. What she advocated (broadly) was for the person to consider some of the consequences to a course of action in deciding what course of action would actually be in his self-interest. This sounds WHOLLY consistent with Objectivism to me. One may disagree with her conclusions, but the underlying principle seems to hold up in my opinion.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ifat and I have had differences in the past, but I do not see a violation on her part this time.

I've no objection; it only ever came to moderation because she insisted that she wouldn't even discuss her post with me and that the moderators would have to be involved. I'm far more interested at this point in what the operative principle of the rules is here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if they presented it as an answer
Well, at any rate, that is a misunderstanding on your part of the facts. There is no rule regarding what you can say or how you may say something "as an answer" as opposed to "as something else". The rules regard facts of reality, and not rituals of form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I have missed it, you have not actually demonstrated that her position was not consistent with Objectivism, regardless of whether or not it was "her own take". You merely took her statement "as is" and cried foul.

What if a position is not compatible with Objectivism in some way, but is compatible only in part?

Suppose a student of Objectivism, using knowledge of Objectivism reaches a different conclusion than, say, Peikoff regarding some subject. And the person proceed to present how they came to that conclusion by using Objectivism and reason, and challenging the "official" position. Does such thing belong only in the debate forum?

For example, there was a short essay from the Ayn Rand Institute a short while ago about owning a tank. Does it mean that now whoever reaches a different conclusion on the question of owning a tank than what is stated in the essay be restricted to debate forum for discussion of the topic (assuming they are a student of Objectivism and debating their position using reason and not arbitrary assertions)?

By sNerd's reply below, I take the answer to be "no" - that such debates are welcome anywhere on the forums.

By RationalBiker's words, I am not sure the answer is the same.

(see bottom of this post for sNerd's reply which I am referring to)

I think there is a need for better distinction between opinions that belong in the debate forum and those that can be debated outside. (This is without any relation to Inspector's claims, but a relevant question to this thread in light of what was said later on by others).

Like sNerd stated, there are plenty of topics on which Ayn Rand (or some other official representative of Objectivism) did not write or state an opinion on. Also, there are topics over which people are in disagreement about the interpretation of Ayn Rand's words. Those topics require application of Objectivism using one's own reasoning.

I don't think there is any doubt that such topics can and should be debated outside the debate forum (maybe Inspector would disagree).

My question is about topics in which one uses knowledge of Objectivism and reaches a conclusion different (or opposed to) a conclusion of Objectivism.

Most of the topics are discussed outside the debate forum. So if my take is only partially consistent with Objectivism (in the way I explained - using knowledge of Objectivism yet reaching a different final conclusion) am I allowed to express it on the thread? Or should I open a new thread on the same topic on the debate forum to discuss the same topic?

Firstly, there is a huge difference between:

1. expressing an opinion which is contrary to Objectivism, and stated as such; and,

2. using "the website to spread ideas contrary to or unrelated to Objectivism" (from Forum rules)

...

Finally, no reasonable person should expect that the person they are discussing something with -- whether Ifat or anybody else -- has more intellectual allegiance to Objectivism than to the truth. It is not relevant that you know that there is no such dichotomy. It is insulting to the other person to think that -- if they spot the hint of such a dichotomy -- they should abandon a particular line of thought, because it takes them into dangerous waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any doubt that such topics can and should be debated outside the debate forum (maybe Inspector would disagree).

Actually, I agree - discussions about what is or is not Objectivism should be debated outside the debate forum.

Most of the topics are discussed outside the debate forum. So if my take is only partially consistent with Objectivism (in the way I explained - using knowledge of Objectivism yet reaching a different final conclusion) am I allowed to express it on the thread? Or should I open a new thread on the same topic on the debate forum to discuss the same topic?

If you reach a different final conclusion from Objectivism (i.e. the recorded philosophy of Ayn Rand as opposed to the things produced by Peikoff, the ARI, or any other scholar) then yes that would be a matter for the debate forum. Even if you believe that you are coming from the same place as Objectivism in terms of the premises you used to draw that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose a student of Objectivism, using knowledge of Objectivism reaches a different conclusion than, say, Peikoff regarding some subject. And the person proceed to present how they came to that conclusion by using Objectivism and reason, and challenging the "official" position.
Ayn Rand is the author of the official position; since Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Rand simply cannot be mistaken about what is Objectivism is. Leonard Peikoff is Rand's "intellectual heir", and hypothetically speaking, he could be mistaken. But speculating about that possibility is just plain arbitrary and we don't do it. If he starts articulating the position that the mind creates the universe, and hell has frozen over, then you could make that argument. More to the point, it is a value to present your argument for public dissection, because you probably are not the only person to make that mistake. For instance, you might cook up some reason to think that Peikoff's explanation of certainty is at odds with Objectivism, and you could present your argument (assuming it was a skillfully-executed argument). We would then be happy to demolish the argument for you, and you will have learned a lot about epistemology and Objectivism in the process.
Does it mean that now whoever reaches a different conclusion on the question of owning a tank than what is stated in the essay be restricted to debate forum for discussion of the topic (assuming they are a student of Objectivism and debating their position using reason and not arbitrary assertions)?
Start with the primary statement in the rules: "This website facilitates trade among Objectivists and students of Objectivism." That defines the standard for evaluating actions, just as the choice to exist defines the standard for a person to evaluate their actions. Your question must be answered with respect to that standard: if ARI publishes an editorial which in fact contradicts the principles of Objectivism, is there actual trade to be had in discussing that matter, or would it be just pointless vandalism and destruction of value to talk about that? Clearly, there is a value to be traded in such a discussion. Next, it states "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". This does not mean that disagreement with the editorials of ARI is prohibited (note also the statement "Agreement with Objectivism is not required for participation"). What is prohibited is discussion that contradicts the purpose of the forum. The rules state that "This forum will not tolerate rude or insulting comments about Ayn Rand, her philosophy of Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute, the representatives and supporters of the Institute, or the adherents of the philosophy". This does not require unquestioned acceptance of the statements of Ayn Rand, the Ayn Rand Institute, the representatives and supporters of the Institute, or me. Civil, ration disagreement is not insulting.
I think there is a need for better distinction between opinions that belong in the debate forum and those that can be debated outside.
I personally am not happy with the way the debate forum has worked out, because it has completely wandered from the original intent. Debates actually have structure -- they aren't just stream-of-consciousness shotgun battles. But that's the way it goes.
My question is about topics in which one uses knowledge of Objectivism and reaches a conclusion different (or opposed to) a conclusion of Objectivism.
I don't see how that could arise, although I sort of abstractly understand the words you used. If you mean, could you reach a difference conclusion from Inspector, both of you starting from Objectivist principles, then certainly you could. But you couldn't both be right. Use of reason should reveal how many of you are wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at any rate, that is a misunderstanding on your part of the facts. There is no rule regarding what you can say or how you may say something "as an answer" as opposed to "as something else". The rules regard facts of reality, and not rituals of form.

It's not about a ritual of form, David. Let's take your example: "...if someone were to set forth a conclusion and in some way indicate that they are not certain that this is the Objectivist position or derives from Objectivist principles"

Suppose that someone said "I'm not sure how Objectivism deals with this topic but to answer the poster's question, I conclude X because of [argument]" versus someone saying "I'm not sure how Objectivism deals with this topic but I would like to learn it. I conclude X because of [argument] - is that a correct application of Objectivism?" This is not a matter of empty form - the former and latter examples each have an entirely different set of assumptions operating about what the purpose is here and what kinds of commentary are invited. The former says: "I'm ignorant but I'm going to try to answer the question anyway - even though I'm ignorant my opinion is valuable anyhow" while the latter says "I'm ignorant but I would like to learn so I'm going to lay out my reasoning for critique and discussion."

But if you're basically saying there is no such rule and that people can make all the ignorant assertions they want with the idea that they will simply be debated on those assertions, then that's fine - it's just a different sort of decorum than I'd thought was the idea here. As I said, it's up to you all to decide.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Start with the primary statement in the rules: "This website facilitates trade among Objectivists and students of Objectivism." That defines the standard for evaluating actions, just as the choice to exist defines the standard for a person to evaluate their actions. Your question must be answered with respect to that standard: if ARI publishes an editorial which in fact contradicts the principles of Objectivism, is there actual trade to be had in discussing that matter, or would it be just pointless vandalism and destruction of value to talk about that? Clearly, there is a value to be traded in such a discussion.

OK. See what bugs me is the following few things:

1) When I just joined Objectivism online, I participated in a thread discussing use of weapons of mass destruction against population. I used my knowledge of basic principles of Objectivism, and arrived at a different conclusion than that of Peikoff (Ayn Rand's words on the subject are too few for me to make out if I am in disagreement with her position). But anywho, I then presented my line of reasoning that challenged the position held by most members, who proceeded to calling me an altruist. A moderator demanded that I take my "altruist ideas" to the debate forum.

To quote:

Now, I'm putting my moderator hat on. You have been given significant leeway to argue against Objectivist principles, something typically not permitted outside the debate forum. In essence, you have been allowed to try to present an argument, even though it's outside of the forum rules. From this point on, unless you can 1) present a rationally self-interested argument as to why one should act in the manner you think is morally correct, 2) stop repetitiously drawing fallacious analogies, and 3) stop promoting your altruistic ideas, then I (or one of the other mods/admins) will take whatever action is necessary to accomplish what you choose not to do.

For anyone wishing to get the full story: May countries that do not respect rights be wiped out?

So now, is that considered arguing against Objectivist principles, if I use some principles of Objectivism, and arrive at a different conclusion about targeting civilians?

2) Since that time, I have, from time to time, expressed a view which was opposed to Objectivism outside the debate forum, offering it for "demolition" by other members (to use your wording, which I like). Of course, this was always based on some principles of Objectivism with application of reason on my part, not some wacky "communism is justice" kind of assertion. But I was unsure (due to incident #1 I describe above) if I am allowed to say what I have outside the debate forum.

If you want an example for such a thing, think back to my debate with you (David) about volition and determinism, which was quite lengthy and was outside the debate forum.

So while your answer provides a helpful guideline to judge what is welcome here and not, I can still not resolve the two cases above.

If I am required to post some things on the debate forum I will. But I would like to know which things I should and which I shouldn't.

Addition after editing: About the reasons for bringing this up are twofold: one: the injustice bothers me to this day. Two: This is not something that applies just to me. Any day now a newbie to Objectivism may come along, which is in disagreement with some of Ayn Rand's ideas while honestly trying to integrate all he knows, and get pushed out in the same manner.

There is a need to clarify when someone is here promoting ideas contrary to Objectivism, and when someone is merely a student of Objectivism with different final conclusions about some topics.

Thanks for the time of whoever decides to answer this.

Edited by ifatart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point of saying this? Is there a reason to present your overall impression of me over time in this topic?

First, it is not an "overall" impression of you. Other than that, it says what it says. We have factually had differences in the past, and I do not see a rule violation this time whereas in the past I have. One thing that it can communicate is that you have improved in your ability to stay within the forum rules. Of course one can also get defensive and read more into it than is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) When I just joined Objectivism online, I participated in a thread discussing use of weapons of mass destruction against population. I used my knowledge of basic principles of Objectivism, and arrived at a different conclusion than that of Peikoff (Ayn Rand's words on the subject are too few for me to make out if I am in disagreement with her position). But anywho, I then presented my line of reasoning that challenged the position held by most members, who proceeded to calling me an altruist. A moderator demanded that I take my "altruist ideas" to the debate forum.

(snip)

Thanks for the time of whoever decides to answer this.

Because in that situation though you thought you were applying Objectivist principles, you were not, you were being told and demonstrated why you were not, and you continued to press on. You are bringing an apple into a discussion about the consistency of oranges here.

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...