Discussing non-Objectivist opinions on OO.net

[KendallJ]

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.

Just the opposite is true. Short posts that neither meet a poster where they are at, nor address their particular issue with anything other than a Rand quote are sure NOT to get read. Posts address a persons question, starting with their context, don't condescend to them, and which may be longer (although even that idea is fallacious) are sure to get read.

Which of course begs the question, if you can easily detect philosophic issues, and have no desire to actually have a conversation with the poster, and you don't care much if you're actually read by those involved (since, not being objectivist, they are not your intended reader), what is your purpose to posting to a forum such as this anyway? Why not just blog?

Btw, I'm not sure when this thread flipped it's issue from one of allowing others with dissenting views to post their ideas to giving EC his due credit for being philosophically astute and socially ineffective, but can we please return to the real issue? Or have we morphed into the real issue?

Edited October 14, 2008 by KendallJ

[EC]

The rational thing to do is to learn how to make your own argument with your own words rather than being a second-hander.

While the first clause her is correct, there is nothing that make's one a "second-hander" by supplying a relevant quote before giving a brief explanation of why it is relevant.

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.

It can, but there is nothing wrong with a quote and explanation assuming it is in the correct context. So me where I use a quote out of context.

Or, it can convey that a person has misunderstood what they have read.

This is always possible, but it implies that the person a) is rational and has previously thought through the issues.

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.

Agreed. But, the discussions, for the most part, should be based on her principles.

More later I gotta go.

[RationalBiker]

While the first clause her is correct, there is nothing that make's one a "second-hander" by supplying a relevant quote before giving a brief explanation of why it is relevant.

Not automatically, no. However, when done frequently or consistently it can certainly be an indication.

So me where I use a quote out of context.

It's not a question of context, but one of understanding. One can have the context of the discussion correct and still interpret principles or information incorrectly. If you tell me that you have read, understood and integrated a particular idea, that means far less to me than when evidence or a demonstration of your understanding. It's the difference between the following two statements;

1) Yes, I read and understood that passage. Here's the passage (copy and paste).

2) Yes, I read and understood that passage and this is what I understand it to mean.. blah blah blah. This is how this passage applies to situation x .... blah blah blah.

Clearly the later method is more interesting to the reader, offers more evidence as to the connection between what is read and what is understood by the poster, and it far more likely to be persuasive in an argument or discussion. If I want to read Rand, I'll pull out one of my books rather than come to this forum. If I want to talk about Objectivism, I'll come to this forum.

This is always possible, but it implies that the person a) is rational and has previously thought through the issues.

Which is sometimes the case, and I suspect it is the case in the most recent discussion that probably sparked a renewed interest in the topic of this thread. One may certainly well be justified in asking if their opponent has already read the material that he is inquiring about. If one knows the person has not read it, pointing them in that direction could be an appropriate response. On the other hand, one should be careful in assuming that a person has not read it just because their ideas or argument are not in concert with the material as the reader understands it.

Agreed. But, the discussions, for the most part, should be based on her principles.

Well that actually leads to a broad arena of discussion. A discussion can be critical of a principle and still be based on that principle.

[KevinDW78]

Also to add to RB's two examples above - in a college philosophy course, the first example will get you a D, the second will get you an A.

[EC]

Also to add to RB's two examples above - in a college philosophy course, the first example will get you a D, the second will get you an A.

Which is why most college philosophy course's are usually BS. By the way, in mine I was the best student, aced every test, and got an A not a D on all my papers. By the way, this was right before I discovered Rand, and ironically in light of this discussion, on one of my papers, I almost did receive a D for NOT citing any sources or using quotations and writing completely off the top of my head. It was only when I finally proved that this was the case that I had that D flipped to the A it properly deserved.

[EC]

Also to add to RB's two examples above - in a college philosophy course, the first example will get you a D, the second will get you an A.

Addendum to the last post: That paper that I almost received the D on was a paper I wrote writing about how a system of ethics based on reason and objective reality was needed and possible; again this is before I had ever even heard of Rand or Objectivism.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I see nothing wrong with discussing the issues brought up by those not familiar with Objectivism or even those hostile to it (up to a point). What bothered me for a while on oo.net until I became more familiar with it, is that it seemed as if posters would bring up anti-Objectivist stances and no one really challenged them on it (this is what I was referring to as "the cancer"). This is very bad for the reputation of a forum dedicated to Objectivism. As some one very familiar with Objectivism, I can spot the flaw and point out what the correct way of thinking about the issue and even demonstrate the point to the poster. And I agree with others in this thread that presenting the case in a context brought up by an anti-Objectivist can help to further integrate Objectivism in one's own mind. But if such counter-points are not responded to objectively, then the forum reduces to a bull session between the anti-Objectivist and those not certain of how to answer them; which I am against, both as a participant and as a friend of Greedy Capitalist.

In my opinion, the oo.net forum has improved over the past few years, because anti-Objectivist non- sense gets answered more assuredly (often by myself and others knowledgeable about Objectivism). Sometimes, it is hard to decide if that is doing any good regarding making converts, though sometimes that does work. I think I agree with the policy of this forum as presented by the moderators that what we don't want is a lot of hit-and-run posts against Objectivism; as these can take over the forum very rapidly.

In short, I agree that one ought to be able to do more than quote from Ayn Rand, and if you find it difficult to do that, then it is a skill one ought to develop. having just a string of quotes in one's mind is insufficient (not that I'm saying that about EC or anyone else specifically on this forum). In order for it to be integrated, one must find one's own words as the application of the principles is fitting. Key terms may not have to be re-phrased, but to understand what you are quoting, you do need to integrate it with the rest of your knowledge, which requires finding the right words other than quoting Ayn Rand.

[JMeganSnow]

What bothered me for a while on oo.net until I became more familiar with it, is that it seemed as if posters would bring up anti-Objectivist stances and no one really challenged them on it (this is what I was referring to as "the cancer").

Can you think of any specific examples? It's been my experience that people usually get challenged as anti-Objectivist regardless. (I certainly do.) I think it's more important to do things like elucidate the necessary consequences of particular stands and by doing so *incidentally* show that a stand is not proper than to go around "challenging" people.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Can you think of any specific examples? It's been my experience that people usually get challenged as anti-Objectivist regardless. (I certainly do.) I think it's more important to do things like elucidate the necessary consequences of particular stands and by doing so *incidentally* show that a stand is not proper than to go around "challenging" people.

I think part of my dismay came from having cut my Objectivist teeth on Bob Stubblefield's OSG (Objectivist Study Group) and Harry Binswanger's HBL, where one could have been more assured that posts would be screened and the reading of those groups was, at least in some respects, like The Intellectual Activist (that Bob ran) and The Objectivist Forum (that Harry ran). I learned a lot about Objectivism nearly twenty years ago from these publications, and their forums reflected a certain professionalism that their periodicals had to maintain. That's not to say that more open forums cannot be beneficial, and if I thought the posts on the forum of oo.net was contrary to Objectivism, I wouldn't continue to post here.

As far as specific examples go, when I first began to pay attention to oo.net, there was a lot of bad-mouthing of Dr. Peikoff, especially his stance regarding voting for Democrats in order to defeat the Conservatives and their religious stance. To be fair to oo.net, other more open forums were also bad-mouthing him. I am not against criticizing Dr. Peikoff if one thinks he is wrong, but he was being called old and crazy, and almost senile, and had to be off his rocker to claim the Conservatives were more of a menace than the Democrats. So, that was not a good first impression of oo.net.

However, I think I have to realize that oo.net is populated with those new to Objectivism, so it is a different posting standard and quality. Especially for HBL, one doesn't see a lot of that, because Harry doesn't permit them to post unless he thinks what they are saying is important. The virtue of oo.net in that regard is that one can more easily see the mistakes being made by those new to Objectivism; on OSG and HBL, that information is filtered out, for the most part.

So, I think it was more of a learning curve as to what to expect on oo.net forums; and, in a sense, it is what you make of it by the quality of one's own posts and skills at making a good argument or a good presentation of Objectivism. Whereas Bob and Harry would point out the flaws in some of the wrong posts on their forums, that is left up to the participants on oo.net, rather than having a moderator who screens or pre-screens everything being posted.

Challenging versus discussing is a little more difficult to outline. I get the impression that some people 'round these parts think I might be a little too harsh, but I think a man ought to stand by his rational ideas as firmly as he stands by reality. How to handle those one disagrees with is dependent on the context, and how open to reason one thinks one's opponent is. And since I can spot the flaws rather easily, perhaps I assess them as not being all that rational before I reply to them; though that is a judgment call.

[JMeganSnow]

That makes a lot of sense. HBL this ain't. I think we strike a fairly good balance between strict professionalism and wild openness.

[softwareNerd]

...when I first began to pay attention to oo.net, there was a lot of bad-mouthing of Dr. Peikoff, ...

That one incident was an exception. I can see how that would give you the wrong impression, if you just started paying attention at the time.

Still, unfortunate as it was, it is not really what this current thread is about: i.e. about people who come here, and are quite polite, but are not convinced about certain (sometimes fundamental) aspects of Objectivism. Insults are easy to detect and police. The issue here is really about intellectual challenges.

Edited October 18, 2008 by softwareNerd

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Still, unfortunate as it was, it is not really what this current thread is about: i.e. about people who come here, and are quite polite, but are not convinced about certain (sometimes fundamental) aspects of Objectivism.

While I wouldn't say challenging Objectivism is a virtue, unless one does it rationally as a means of checking one's premises, I do agree that being challenged (within limits of time and opportunity) about one's ideas can be healthy, insofar as one needs to think the challenge through and see if one can answer them. I would much rather convert than to condemn, but, I don't know, maybe that is a hold-over from Catholicism It's the ones who are obviously self-contradictory that I find difficult to deal with, but maybe they just can't see it. And, of course, there are those who dare not care to think, but, frankly, I am surprised by how few of those show up here. Considering just anybody can get an account and post here, the forum is rather clean of anti-Objectivists, nihilists, pseudo-Objectivists, and non-Objectivists. Occasionally they show up, get challenged, and then disappear; and sometimes, even they get converted.

So, I don't know, it seems like a good mix; and without having a professional writer / Objectivist keeping tabs on everything, the forum stays rather rational for the most part. If I ran a forum, I'd probably be more strict about what was posted, and would probably even pre-screen posts, but it depends on what one is trying to accomplish. As I have said before, oo.net is a good place to discuss Objectivism and its applications.

I think the difficult principle to apply is the one mentioned on Criminal Minds:

The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone. -- Ayn Rand in her journals

So, at what point does one just leave them alone (possibly by kicking them out of one's life) -- especially if they are posting to a discussion forum regarding Objectivism?