Discussing non-Objectivist opinions on OO.net

[JMeganSnow]

Something also to remember: if you are in doubt about the direction a thread is taking, use the report function! Don't wait until you're angry and upset! The moderators and admins don't read or want to read every single thread. If we've made a ruling about something, I think we usually publicize that fact. Otherwise it's better to assume that we don't know about something *at all*.

[softwareNerd]

*** Moved from another topic - sN ***

It's better than doing nothing. But if people are at least pointed in the right direction of the correct ideas it is MUCH better than do nothing. The best thing to do is tell others when they are wrong and point out where they can find the correct answers. Going through long complicated answers to others statements does nothing but show that you can write eloquently. Why not just point them to the original even more eloquent answers?

You cannot simply point people to the right source, because they have limited time, and spend it accordingly. Consider the evangelical Christian who hands you a free bible and says it contains a truth that will change your life. One would probably dismiss him. What about the Marxian who hands you Das Kapital? Or the professor who hands you a book by Sartre or Kant or whoever. Each one of these thinks they know the truth, but you might not read what they offer you, because you already have an opinion about what they are offering you. Similarly, people already have opinions about Capitalism, free-markets, Ayn Rand, altruism, and so on.

It is simply false that every honest person will follow up every recommendation and link.

Take an example that you raised in another thread. Suppose someone blogs about the sacrifice that parents lovingly make for their children; and, suppose, you wish to respond. Now, suppose you respond by stating that they're wrong and Rand has resolved the issue, and they should read "Virtue of Selfishness". What are the odds that an honest person will take you up on that? An honest person knows that around every corner, down the centuries, there have lurked sellers of "silver bullets" that resolve all issues. They don't have the time to follow every lead unless they have a reason to do so. If you are a stranger, there is absolutely no reason for them to do so; indeed, it would be quite irrational for them to follow-up without a decent reason to do so.

To expect that an honest person will follow every lead, without being offered any intellectual motivation for doing so, is to ask for a contradiction. If the human being is not an equal-opportunity information-processing machine, then he makes decisions on what to follow-up and what to ignore. He does so based on his evaluation of the lead. Providing him with enough information to influence this evaluation is termed "motivation". Even a teacher with a captive audience has to provide some degree of motivation if the students cannot see it -- i.e. if they cannot yet see the relevance of this topic to their lives and values, the teacher has to provide some hints. Men are beings of self-made soul, and this self-driven nature must be turned on by the sight of value. The activist often does not have that captive audience. Therefore, he has to provide much more motivation. Otherwise, he will simply be ignored, or worse.

Edited October 13, 2008 by softwareNerd

[EC]

You cannot simply point people to the right source, because they have limited time, and spend it accordingly. Consider the evangelical Christian who hands you a free bible and says it contains a truth that will change your life. One would probably dismiss him. What about the Marxian who hands you Das Kapital? Or the professor who hands you a book by Sartre or Kant or whoever. Each one of these thinks they know the truth, but you might not read what they offer you, because you already have an opinion about what they are offering you. Similarly, people already have opinions about Capitalism, free-markets, Ayn Rand, altruism, and so on.

To expect that an honest person will follow every lead, without being offered any intellectual motivation for doing so, is to ask for a contradiction. If the human being is not an equal-opportunity information-processing machine, then he makes decisions on what to follow-up and what to ignore. He does so based on his evaluation of the lead. Providing him with enough information to influence this evaluation is termed "motivation". Even a teacher with a captive audience has to provide some degree of motivation if the students cannot see it -- i.e. if they cannot yet see the relevance of this topic to their lives and values, the teacher has to provide some hints. Men are beings of self-made soul, and this self-driven nature must be turned on by the sight of value. The activist often does not have that captive audience. Therefore, he has to provide much more motivation. Otherwise, he will simply be ignored, or worse.

I absolutely agree with all of the above in general, just NOT in the specific context of this forum. As this is a forum for Objectivists, showing how Miss Rand answered a question is not the same as some random Marxist or Christian handing me literature about their respective philosophy's in a public environment.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Here it should be taken as a given that the members have either, a) read Rand's writings, or are interested in doing so. When someone hands you some type of literature randomly on the street it is in a completely different context.

While it is fine--at times--for Objectivists to debate when, what, and how O'ist principles should be applied in different circumstances, it is not okay for non-Objectivists, or people who in the past have shown that tendency, to "discuss and debate" non-Objectivist positions outside of the debate forums. Wasn't that the purpose of their creation? Isn't it against the rules and counterproductive to the forum's purpose as a place specically created for the discussion of Objectivist ideas between Objectivists, and/or the introduction of it's ideas to the already interested.

If any random discussion is allowed in an attempt to be "open-minded" and "courteous" to all doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a specifically Objectivist forum? How is it just to the true Objectivist's of this forum when their interests are punished for the the sake of those who, either, do not fully prescribe to the philosophy or do so inconsistantly?

[JMeganSnow]

This is not a forum for "Objectivists". This is a forum for people to *discuss* Objectivism and related issues. We only ask that they stay in the debate forum if their primary interest is *arguing in favor of* an idea that is demonstrably contrary to Objectivism. There is no requirement that members read particular books or reach a certain educational proficiency with Objectivism before posting. It is simply not required of any *other* member that they spend time educating the ignorant. Granted, the truly ignorant usually end up booting themselves by complaining about the lack of free education in an abusive manner, but they're still welcome if they can manage to be polite.

If you want to be on an Objectivists-only forum, I suggest you go elsewhere.

[EC]

This is not a forum for "Objectivists".

If you want to be on an Objectivists-only forum, I suggest you go elsewhere.

This is good to hear from one of the forum's admins. It has become increasingly obvious that this is the case every day since the rule change a few months back. I'm just glad that it has now been openly admitted.

It's like slowly watching someone die from cancer very slowly though, it sickens my stomach.

[softwareNerd]

While it is fine--at times--for Objectivists to debate when, what, and how O'ist principles should be applied in different circumstances, it is not okay for non-Objectivists, or people who in the past have shown that tendency, to "discuss and debate" non-Objectivist positions outside of the debate forums.

I think this is ground already covered in this thread. In my personal opinion it is not just okay, but of value, for such topics to be discussed, if they are discussed honestly and with no intent to troll. It may not be of value to all members, but it surely is to some.

Wasn't that the purpose of their creation? Isn't it against the rules and counterproductive to the forum's purpose as a place specically created for the discussion of Objectivist ideas between Objectivists, and/or the introduction of it's ideas to the already interested.

I do not see it as contrary to the forum's rules for someone to honestly question some particular position, no matter how fundamental, as long they are intelligent and their intent appears honest.

If any random discussion is allowed in an attempt to be "open-minded" and "courteous" to all doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a specifically Objectivist forum?

It is not about open mindedness or courtesy. I simply recognize a fact: knowledge is not intrinsic, nor is integration enabled by the mere exposure to facts and argument; each person has to chew things in a different way.

How is it just to the true Objectivist's of this forum when their interests are punished for the the sake of those who, either, do not fully prescribe to the philosophy or do so inconsistantly?

I do not see how it punishes those who are already in total agreement with Objectivism and only seek to discuss its implications, etc. Those types of discussions are usually separate threads. Now, if someone came into the "American Financial Crisis" thread and started advocating socialism, that would be disruptive. At minimum, we would want to keep that type of discussion separate. However, as long as the topics are clearly separate, I see no sense in which they are a punishment to those who wish to ignore them.

In summary, I think this thread has been over most of this ground already; so, I'm not sure I will reply to a follow-up. My attitude about any supposed rule-change is: this is what it is. If it is "cancer", act accordingly.

[KendallJ]

It's like slowly watching someone die from cancer very slowly though, it sickens my stomach.

Cancer, huh? Where's the damage exactly?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Now, if someone came into the "American Financial [Mess]" thread and started advocating socialism, that would be disruptive. At minimum, we would want to keep that type of discussion separate. However, as long as the topics are clearly separate, I see no sense in which they are a punishment to those who wish to ignore them.

When I first started to participate on oo.net, these non-Objectivist positions really bothered me, and I, too, saw it as a cancer in the sense that they could take over the forum, and seemed to at times.

I think the policy of moving such threads to the debate forum is a good one, especially from an established thread that is a serious discussion of the financial mess and how to resolve it. Obviously, we are way out numbered as to what caused the mess and how to eradicate the cause.

However, I did not receive any notification that part of that thread had been moved to the debate forum, and it was only by me also being a subscriber to this thread that I found out. Has anyone informed that participant that her entry was moved? Otherwise, she might just think it was erased.

It was one of my suggestions that when a thread is split that all participants in the thread get notified, but evidently that is not a part of the software being used by oo.net forums.

[KevinDW78]

I would like to add that being able to debate for Objectivism with non-Objectivists is going to be the best way to really develop one's understanding of the philosophy in the first place. I would think it would be very difficult to ever achieve a level of understanding like the pros I see on this forum without that excercise. Such debates are going to be most productive here on this forum via the help of other more understanding Objectivists. Sure I could go debate Objectivism in a socialist forum, but I doubt it would be very productive and I would quickly find myself outnumbered and unprepared.

[JMeganSnow]

I fail to see how this situation could be considered "cancer". My understanding when I joined the forum *more than three years ago* was that David wanted to create a site where people of all stripes (provided they maintain a certain level of decorum) could explore and communicate about Objectivism. I certainly didn't have nearly the understanding I do now at the beginning. My interest in deeper understanding was largely fueled by my discussions with a catholic friend whose questions revealed that I didn't know nearly as much as I thought I did.

If the only thing you want from other people is vapid "me-tooism" then go find your own corner to huddle in, I'm sure there are plenty available. I like Oo.net the way it is. Sure, it's more work this way, but nothing worth having is easy.

[01503]

I would like to add that being able to debate for Objectivism with non-Objectivists is going to be the best way to really develop one's understanding of the philosophy in the first place.

As with anything else. To learn how to argue against all talking points, from the most intelligent, to the dumbest (and yes, they get VERY dumb sometimes). But, as Kevin said, debate promotes our understanding of Objectivism, and philosophy in general. And, as opposed to other places, if you are losing a debate from lack of knowledge (given that you are correct, however), there are always people to back you up, which not only shows you that your point of view is correct, but how to argue it.

[EC]

Why is "learning how to argue" considered a virtue here? What's wrong with just taking arguments that have been successfully argued in the past by yourself (or others) and have thus rationally found to be true as the "given", and then going from there.

[softwareNerd]

Why is "learning how to argue" considered a virtue here?

I recommend Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" lecture, for an answer. I won't repeat it here

[KendallJ]

Why is "learning how to argue" considered a virtue here? What's wrong with just taking arguments that have been successfully argued in the past by yourself (or others) and have thus rationally found to be true as the "given", and then going from there.

Because what you're describing goes by a name: faith.

Arguing, which is essentially the process of unpacking a concept in the context of a concrete and making sure one understands how that concept or principle applies in this situation is part of the process of integration, in the same way that applying those principles in your daily life requires you to unpack them, and make sure you understand how they would be applied. Interation is key to the process of understanding. This is what is referred to in Objectivist circles as "chewing" on an idea, and it's critical to real understanding.

I've always found that most people who do not go though this process can spout the canon, but really don't have a sense of how to apply it in particular situations.

[FeatherFall]

I feel rewarded after helping someone to understand something. Pushing away people who don't understand Objectivism seems pretty self-defeating to me.

[KevinDW78]

Why is "learning how to argue" considered a virtue here?

Because some of us here aspire to being more than just a "Randroid"

[Zip]

Why is "learning how to argue" considered a virtue here? What's wrong with just taking arguments that have been successfully argued in the past by yourself (or others) and have thus rationally found to be true as the "given", and then going from there.

To paraphrase J.S. Mill "a clearer perception and livelier impression of truth is produced by its collision with error."

[EC]

Because what you're describing goes by a name: faith.

Not at all; I specifically said rationally found to be true. Imagine, you were at, say, the university level of eductation (or higher), and simply took as the given that you know elementary or high school level reading, spelling, algebra, or whatever. There is no faith involved at all when you take this lower level knowledge as true and understood and use this knowledge as a given base on which you make more abstract arguments. You don't (and also don't expect to be constantly expected to) constantly rehash basic knowledge over and over again every time you make an abstract statement of principle.

It's funny that I have been criticized for quoting Rand here. For some reason I keep getting negative comments from others for essentially having the ability to access the whole basic O'ist corpus almost instantly from memory (or at I know where to look to get the answer, and I've lost my research CD-ROM a few years ago) and apply it in the correct context on a wide variety of issues.

I think what many here don't understand is huge variety of topics that I provide the correct (while it admittedly short and concise) commentary on. Most posters here limit themselves to one or two topics of interest. Virtually everything interests me. If I took the time to type out long complicated posts starting from first principles on everything I comment on, I would have no time for anything else. So, I usually limit the length and thus implicitly expect a certain level of understanding and rational acceptence of the priniciple while simply commenting abstractly using the antecent principles and concepts as the given, within the context of this being an Objectivist forum. What I think is that certain people here are not giving me credit due intellectually to be able to quickly break an argument down to what is essential, ignore the rest, and respond precisely with either, a) the correct response or the ability to point out where that info. can be obtained. I find no reason to argue or debate that which I already know to be true.

None of this implies the use of "faith", unless the reader of one of my responses has never thought through the issues previously themselves and accepted them as true. But these people aren't my intended reader; those that have done the above already are.

[KendallJ]

Not at all; I specifically said rationally found to be true.

Rationally, by whom?

What I described to you, IS the process of rationally finding something to be true. Everyone has to go through similar processes. To accept something as true without it is using faith. Why are you so keen to deny that process to someone else simply because you feel you've completed it?

[DavidOdden]

None of this implies the use of "faith", unless the reader of one of my responses has never thought through the issues previously themselves and accepted them as true. But these people aren't my intended reader; those that have done the above already are.

It's perfectly fine to restrict yourself to preaching to the choir. I think I have a somewhat different intent from you -- I'm hoping to both learn and educate. If you don't want to deal with people who don't know Objectivism 101, then you don't have to.

[KendallJ]

I find no reason to argue or debate that which I already know to be true.

Then why do you feel compelled to do it? Simply refrain from participating in the conversation.

[EC]

Because some of us here aspire to being more than just a "Randroid"

I don't believe any such person exists. As I stated above I have read all I read and integrated it rationally and can access it at will, my comments are for those that also have done so. Anybody who accepts anything on "faith" as the silly "Randroid" term implies would be a contradiction in terms if they truly claimed to also be an Objectivist. By the way, I respect Miss Rand as one of the best writers and conveyors of ideas in history (although, I doubt I would have gotten along with her personally), and I know that my own writing skills are average. So given that fact, what is the more rational thing to do; reword what has already been brilliantly said, or provide the actual words, and then my own short interpretation of why they are relevant to a given topic?

[EC]

Rationally, by whom?

What I described to you, IS the process of rationally finding something to be true. Everyone has to go through similar processes. To accept something as true without it is using faith. Why are you so keen to deny that process to someone else simply because you feel you've completed it?

None of this implies the use of "faith", unless the reader of one of my responses has never thought through the issues previously themselves and accepted them as true. But these people aren't my intended reader; those that have done the above already are.

By the reader and previously by myself as quoted above. And this isn't "preaching to the choir" it is just assuming a basic level of knowledge given the context of an Objectivist forum. In other (most) contexts more explanation is needed, I assume it here and don't feel like typing up long posts that probably have a much higher chance of NOT being read, thus defeating the purpose of posting to a forum in the first place.

[EC]

Then why do you feel compelled to do it? Simply refrain from participating in the conversation.

I don't--I usually just say whatever it is that I have to say and am done with it. It is only when I think someone is explicitly, or--usually--in some underhanded way insulting me or incorrectly attacking my position that I then respond in kind--or occationally worse--depending on my mood and the subject.

[RationalBiker]

So given that fact, what is the more rational thing to do; reword what has already been brilliantly said, or provide the actual words, and then my own short interpretation of why they are relevant to a given topic?

The rational thing to do is to learn how to make your own argument with your own words rather than being a second-hander. If for no other reason, it can convey to the reader that a person has processed and understood what they have read, moreso than the mere claim one makes. Or, it can convey that a person has misunderstood what they have read. But the purpose of this forum is not to be a redundant copy of the writings that Rand has already placed on the printed page. To me, there is something about the word 'discussion' that goes beyond the regurgitation of the source material being discussed.

For my own purposes, if I think I cannot competently relay an idea in my own words, I question whether or not I truly understand the idea. On several occasions I have actually discovered I was mistaken in my understanding of something I read and someone was able to point out where I had gone off track.

Let's face it, Rand has already done the heavy lifting for us. I would think at minimum we have a responsibility to ourselves to learn how to flesh out these ideas with our own thoughts and words.