Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Debating First Principles: Demos vs. Ayn Rand

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A strange debate... I like Harry and he's very intelligent, but I don't think either of them were good debaters. The Demos pissant was able to dance around and make silly attacks on him without Harry getting to the real issues. Harry allowed himself to get put on the defense when he could've done otherwise.

Harry is good with abstracts and facts, but not good at articulating philosophical ideas quickly in a easy to understand way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Binswanger made important points, I think clearly and memorably, for anyone who listened and was actually interested in freedom. (Force and mind, and force and freedom are opposites, and there's no middle ground. It's Either-Or on principle.)

I can't say the same of Benjamin Barber. All that I can remember from Barber is that there are no proper absolutes (Either-Or) — excepting of course his absolute rejection of absolutes as the essence of evil — and that he's an advocate of democracy, literally mob rule (even though he insisted that he's not), not rights (which would be Either-Or). He was all about the "freedom" for "us" to decide where in the middle of the road to travel as we compromise ourselves step by step on the road to tyranny. (We are all in this together and we can get along as long as we are willing to compromise on principles.)

There's no way, in such a context and in such a short amount of time to do much else than make a clear statement (which Dr. Binswanger did do) on an important issue, and make it clear that the issue is absolutely important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah his opening statement was his best. After that the opponent basically proceeded to attack Objectivism the entire debate, and not really freedom. And he did so by running a Gish gallop around all the usual accusations: black-and-white principals are equal to dogmatic authoritarianism, Rand was a Nietzschean who wanted the weak sacrificed to the strong, Objectivism supports anarchy in politics, etc.

The starkest moment was when Benjamin laid it all out clearly that what he wanted was for people to be forced into sacrificing their lives for other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The starkest moment was when Benjamin laid it all out clearly that what he wanted was for people to be forced into sacrificing their lives for other people.

I was hoping Binswanger would be able to do this himself, but Barber stuck his foot in the trap on his own. My jaw dropped when he said that so explicitly (that "all citizens should be forced to share in the sacrifice of war" or something to that effect), and yet hardly anyone in the audience noticed (it seemed, at least from the Livestream).

Overall a disappointing debate in terms of charisma from the Objectivist side. Binswanger did make great points, but he wasn't able be as on his toes as Brook - mostly I think because Brook has had tons of practice speaking extemporaneously. Even when Binswanger made a pretty good joke about investing in the stock market, he didn't have anyone with him in the audience. But the point of the debate is the ideas argued, and Binswanger won in that regard against the blowhard Barber.

Can't wait for John Allison, I love his talks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only saw part of the debate, but from the comments here, it is what I expected of Binswanger. I have seen him engage in discussions/debates before, and he is good in the abstract, and making opening speeches, but as soon as he's confronted with an opponent, he gets lost in the irrationality of the opponent's statements, and doesn't know how to handle it properly.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing in the debate that bothered me a great deal was Barber's routine physical movements into Binswanger's space. He would move from behind his podium towards Binswanger and he would wave his hand halfway towards Binswanger's face. It even looked to me (at least given the angle of the camera) that Binswanger was leaning away from Barber often. I think such behavior on Barber's part was highly inappropriate. Though perhaps it wasn't meant to be threatening, it was ambiguous in that regard. Had I been Binswanger, in those many moments I would be wondering if I might at some moment need to physical defend myself. Such shouldn't be part of an intellectual debate. If nothing else, given Barber's antics, the podiums should have been further apart.

Edit: punctuation

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link Trebor. So here's my summary of the debate:

HB did alright. He held his ground, did his thing. He's not as “ass whooping” as Yaron and I was expecting worse, but he did okay. He stuck mainly to the abstract points, defined his terms and explained them, and hit back at the essentials about force versus freedom, independence versus dependence. He gave the audience the alternative of force or the mind, and his opponent openly and explicitly chose force. Unfortunately HB did not take on some of the details and responses of his democratic opponent. I would have liked to see him point out the logical contradictions of the whole “humans are social animals, therefore collectivism” argument, and dismantle the Hobbesian references and social contract argument. But it's not true that he didn't know how to handle his opponent's obfuscations. He first pointed out that his opponent's statements are meaningless and undefined, and corrected the straw man that Rand was a Nietzschean and that she wanted to sacrifice others to self. HB spoke in his typical way, slowly and carefully, whilst Ben spoke fluently and much more articulately. Ben was raving, emotional, and personal, HB was calm, logical, and strictly on-topic.

A “blowhard” pretty much sums up his opponent. He trotted out quite a few straw men of Objectivism, Rand, and Binswanger's positions, which he attacked more than stating his version of what freedom is. Rand = Gordon Gekko = Nietzsche = Howard Roark and John Galt = sacrifice others to self and grind the little people under your boot = bad. (Yes, he actually said Gordon Gekko.) As far as his version of freedom goes, he thinks advertising invalidates your free will, he thinks the individual nearly doesn't even metaphysically exist, and insofar as the individual does exist, he is not free precisely because he is an individual, a la Marx. Only when he is integrated into the collective does he gain freedom through his sacrifice for the group, which is morally above and beyond his own life. The role of the state is to force the individual to sacrifice for the greater good, most nobly in the fires war, a la Hitler. Virtue is duty to the law at all costs, even if (especially if) the law is entirely arbitrary, a la Kant. The democratic majority magically turns force into legitimate force because a social contract says so. This social contract is valid because the majority says so. And if you can't understand that, you're wrong because we say so. We own everything, love it or leave it. Reason is what the majority says, unreason is what Rand and Binswanger say. Everyone is rational (yes, he says this), except Rand and Binswanger. Government intervention in the economy is capitalism, and laissez-faire is non-capitalist (have to go into Hegelian space to wrap your head around that one.) After all, I don't like the law of excluded middle (it's force) and nothing is absolute, except that sentence. And that one. And that one. And also nobody should take Objectivists seriously because they're extreme and Really Bad People.™

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link Trebor. So here's my summary of the debate:

You are welcome, 2046. Good summary. I too would have liked to have seen Dr. Binswanger shoot down many of the wild accusations and bald claims made by Barber. But in the context (it was a very short debate), which seemed somewhat poorly moderated, I think he did very well. Yaron, like Barber, likes to move about and seems more willing to drown out an interrupting opponent. Given that, perhaps Yaron would have come off as having put Barber (yes, a "blowhard") in his place in a way that would have been satisfying. In style or performance, Barber perhaps seemed to have had the upper hand. Not in substance.

For anyone wanting to watch the video recording of the debate on the Ayn Rand Center web site, NYC Debate 2, the debate starts at about 18:18 into the recording. That is when the participants walk on stage and the moderator introduces the debate, Binswanger and Barber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people may recall Binswanger's online written debate with "the Maverick Philosopher" in 2009, in which he had similar failings. He assumed that the person he was debating was actually open-minded and interested in the specifics of Objectivism. In reality, the guy only wanted to get HB on record making ridiculous-sounding statements, and HB obliged - e.g. stating that he only knows one person who is capable of easily translating between the Objectivist sense of a word and the popular sense. HB spent most of his time attacking other Objectivist commenters, calling them false representatives of Objectivism, telling them not to get involved in the debate - that it was a debate between "professional philosophers" - all the while the Maverick Philosopher was laughing at HB making a fool of himself.

In this discussion, HB similarly assumed that this was going to be an actual discussion of the proper formation of the concept of "freedom", that it was going to stay on topic, that his opponent was a reasonable individual who was interested in considering the ideas of Objectivism. I can only attribute this naivete to an inexperience with debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people may recall Binswanger's online written debate with "the Maverick Philosopher" in 2009, in which he had similar failings. He assumed that the person he was debating was actually open-minded and interested in the specifics of Objectivism. In reality, the guy only wanted to get HB on record making ridiculous-sounding statements, and HB obliged - e.g. stating that he only knows one person who is capable of easily translating between the Objectivist sense of a word and the popular sense. HB spent most of his time attacking other Objectivist commenters, calling them false representatives of Objectivism, telling them not to get involved in the debate - that it was a debate between "professional philosophers" - all the while the Maverick Philosopher was laughing at HB making a fool of himself.

Failings? I, for one, have no problem with how Binswanger handled that debate with "Maverick Philosopher," nor with his insisting that other Objectivists, less qualified, butt out. And I do not think that he made a fool of himself.

Group discussions and debates (and even online discussions on forums such as this) may be enjoyable, but they are not a great way to learn and understand Objectivism. They can be an adjunct, but they can also create more confusions than be helpful. I agree with Dr. Peikoff, in his "Philosophy of Education" mini-lecture, that lectures by knowledgeable individuals are the primary and proper means of education (assuming that one is learning from others in person), not class discussions engaged in by relatively ignorant participants. Even this forum, though it might be an adjunct in learning about Objectivism, should not be anyone's primary means of learning the philosophy. First is Miss Rand's own writing. It is after all her philosophy, presented thoughtfully and carefully throughout her writing career. Next is those who have studied and learned her philosophy well and are involved in teaching it. Sometimes it's important to simply shut up and listen to a whole argument presented by a knowledgeable expert, not jump in moment by moment with every seeming failed or unclear point.

I think that Binswanger (who is not stupid or foolish) knew what he was getting into not only with "Maverick Philosopher" but also with Barber in this recent debate. After all the BS of such debates is past, the in-the-moment attempts to best one's opponents by irrational means (not done by Binswanger), what's left is the actual arguments (Binswanger's with the "Maverick Philosopher" or Binswanger's with Barber in this "debate," etc.) there for anyone who is actually interested in thinking and understanding the issue (as opposed to the appearance of a besting in a "debate") to read or listen to in order to gain understanding. An honest individual will hone in on only the arguments and see through the BS. In the context of such "debates," that's about the best one can actually do. It's simply not possible to force an opponent or audience to think.

In this discussion, HB similarly assumed that this was going to be an actual discussion of the proper formation of the concept of "freedom", that it was going to stay on topic, that his opponent was a reasonable individual who was interested in considering the ideas of Objectivism. I can only attribute this naivete to an inexperience with debates.

There's no fault in assuming, or perhaps hoping, that a debate is to be a debate. And I doubt that Binswanger assumed that he was going to have a proper debate, knowing his opponent, knowing our culture. Binswanger stated the essentials clearly, and anyone actually interested in understanding what freedom means can easily grasp his argument and then think about it. Not so with Barber's "arguments." Given such contexts, it's the best one can do. There's no way to force an opponent or an audience to think. All one can do is present a reasoned argument for those who are actually interested in understanding the issue. Such debates, as far as I am concerned, are not for victories over one's opponent(s) or winning over one's audience, but a means of getting arguments "out there" so that rational people have an opportunity to consider them.

Edit: I am grateful and thank Dr. Binswanger for participating in both debates.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing in the debate that bothered me a great deal was Barber's routine physical movements into Binswanger's space.

Yeah, the guy seemed nervous and upset and all over the place. In fact at one point Harry makes a hand gesture then he flinches as though he was afraid Harry were about to toss something at him lol.

Also, I was annoyed Barber pronounced egoism like "eggo-ism", like he's talking about the philosophy of Eggo waffles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Don't forget the final debate “Is Capitalism Moral?” between John Allison and the evil Keynesian zombie blogger Ezra “Just call them racists” Klein, who thinks the constitution has no binding power on anything because it's “too confusing” due to the fact that “it was written more than 100 years ago,” is May 2 at 6 PM EDT.

Allison's remarks are posted on the site, along with some other random commie hack. Since our comments are solicited, you should go post an intelligent comment and defend individual rights:

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/apr/24/debating-first-principles-capitalism-moral/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent nearly twenty years as the CEO of one of America’s largest financial institutions, BB&T, and one of the things I saw again and again was that a businessman who abandons principle and tries to make money at the expense of others, although he may succeed in the short run, is doomed in the long run. Taking advantage of people is not truly selfish, it is self-defeating: people will not trust you. You might fool Fred and Suzie, but they will tell Tom, Dick, and Harry and no one will trust you. Being untrustworthy will put you out of business.

The reason BB&T has been so successful is because we help our clients achieve economic success and financial security. They voluntarily pay us for this service, allowing us to make a profit. Both BB&T and our customers are better off from this win-win relationship. On a free market, where you can’t seek favors or bailouts from Washington, business is about creating these types of win-win relationships--by figuring out ways to benefit your clients while making a profit doing so. (And, if you do defraud your customers or engage in some other crime, the government in a free market is there to put a stop to it.)

I love John Allison. I've seen him speak twice now; he's a great speaker and has an amazing ability to convey Objectivist ideas accurately and positively. He's also crazy smart and very knowledgeable. I can't wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with hosting the debate series, the site (WNYC) has a page, "Capitalism: Movie Clip Showdown," which pairs contrasting movie clips ("What Movie Scene Embodies Capitalism Best?"):

Grapes of Wrath vs Glengarry Glen Ross

Network (1976) vs The Graduate ("One Word: Plastics")

Trading Places (Final Scene) vs Lost in America (the interview)

Other People's Money: Gregory Peck's speech vs Danny DeVito's speech

A better video clip in my view is from Executive Suite (1954), the final scene, the showdown at a board meeting on the future of the company. Here's the clip on YouTube.

Edit: Clarity

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brutal... :dough:

Pretty much. Allison is not a debater, and he let Klein dance around with pragmatic facts without pinning him down on the moral issues. And about Klein: is it just me, or is he an arrogant, sniveling douche?

As an aside, I do really enjoy Allison's lectures. He's just not debater. I think they should've sent Epstein - he's quick thinking and gets everything down to the morality of a situation.

2nd aside: what was with the crowd? People on both sides were very rude.

Edited by Chris.S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I really love both Binswanger and Allison and they did good, but I don't think they're as good debaters as they are strict intellectuals/professionals in their area. Yaron is much better at it. He cut's through the b.s. and presents abstractions in a simple way. Pragmatist guy kept trotting out meaningless factoids to run the treadmill on then the discussion hung.

Klein is very much a douche, approaching the nihilistic Leftist mold. Not far underneath the cool exterior of the "practical" "pragmatic" middle-of-the-roader emerged an egotistical poser. Fake laughing, back talking, and interrupting to dominate the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the first two debates, but not this one.

Allison was not eager to talk about morality, and they went into discussions about what "works" and "doesn't work" for some undefined goal. I think at one time Demos said that "taxes work" and Allison merely responded with "no they don't work because of disincentives to produce blabla...." as if that was a relevant answer. The point of his appearance was to show that unregulated capitalism was moral and not that it "works better", I actually think he implicitly accepted society as the standard of value without realizing it, otherwise he would have chosen different answers and taken it back to morality. And then they started debating statistics, which was a waste of time.

I have the same opinion of Allison as those above, he is a great speaker but he does not debate well.

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...