Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why Dont any Major Objectivists Participate in Online Forums?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Oh hey. Johnathan13's post that I downvoted got voted back up to 0, and my post got downvoted to -3. Someone who insults expert Objectivists has his comment upvoted, while my post is downvoted by three separate individuals. A person cannot vote on their own posts, so someone besides Johnathan13 thought his post was good, and a minimum of two people besides him thought my post was bad enough to vote down.

I voted you down.

Dagny Taggart and and Hank Rearden could've had a positive impact on the community if they continued to work rather than strike.

Why would prominent (and probably busy) Objectivists find it in their self-interest to come to these forums?

First you make a comment revealing that you have not quite fully comprehended the point of Atlas Shrugged.

That plus the juxtaposition of the comment about the absence of prominent Objectivists which created the association that they are not here because they are on strike against OO.net. Those two sentences are contradictory to each other. It is just an outrageously incoherent casual "drive-by" post, badly composed and creating confusion. I voted you down for form as much as content.

As to the rest of you post, define "insult".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule on this site about not coming here to insult Objectivism is what preserved this site for so long. Insulting Objectivism's experts is basically a loophole to that rule. If you're going to allow people to insult the experts, at least allow the better, more consistent Objectivists on this site to stand up for them.

You are not being restricted in any way from standing up for anyone, nor is any other member. You are free to make your case in support of any of Objectivism's experts, and I'm baffled as to why you think you aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you assume that an Objectivist "expert" knows more about any subject than anyone else, and that anyone who disagrees with the "expert" must be mistaken? We haven't even brought up any specific issues, yet you're position is that the only proper action of anyone who disagrees with an Objectivist "expert" is try to understand his own mistake? And daring to suggest that an "expert" might be wrong is an "insult"?

In other words, you're saying that the Objectivist "experts" are infallible -- that they are always right, and those who disagree with them are always wrong (and therefore need to "try to understand their mistake"). So, what I'm wondering is how does one get promoted to Objectivist "expert" status and therefore achieve infallibility? Does one somehow demonstrate one's infallibility? If so, I'd be eager to learn how, since, as I've said in an earlier post, the overwhelming majority of Objectivist "experts" have not faced peer review or rigorous scholarly criticism of their work or their beliefs.

I think Peikoff deserves criticism. And I think Rand would agree if she were alive. I think she'd be outraged at some of the things he's said and done in the name of Objectivism.

Assuming you are talking about philosophical topics, I would conclude that only Peikoff is a true "expert."

This conversation is too loose, and you need examples of his supposed contradictions/errors if you are to so challenge him.

Peikoff cannot name a successor to him because he is not convinced that anyone else has his expertise. However, there are many who still make so few errors that they generally do not warrent the criticism from more amateur Obj.ists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peikoff cannot name a successor to him because he is not convinced that anyone else has his expertise. However, there are many who still make so few errors that they generally do not warrent the criticism from more amateur Obj.ists.

Peikoff should not name a successor because the idea is ridiculous. Experts on Objectivism should be identified by the independent judgment of each listener, and there is no reason to have one as the 'head' of the movement now that Rand is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peikoff should not name a successor because the idea is ridiculous. Experts on Objectivism should be identified by the independent judgment of each listener, and there is no reason to have one as the 'head' of the movement now that Rand is gone.

Yes, there is a valid reason. Rand selected him as the "owner" of the philosophy, and he has been given the right to do the same.

Hierarchy at the "top" is important to guide the spread of the philosophy, to identify the errors of others, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there is a valid reason. Rand selected him as the "owner" of the philosophy, and he has been given the right to do the same.

Hierarchy at the "top" is important to guide the spread of the philosophy, to identify the errors of others, etc.

I second Dante's judgement. A leader, if there ever was to be one, would be identified by individuals for the excellent intellectual work he has already achieved.

I don't know enough about the reasons Rand decided to even designate Peikoff as an "intellectual heir" at all, but practically speaking, all it accomplished was a public record of Rand's assessment of Peikoff's intellect. Even if other people agreed with her, his intellectual performance would still have to be continually evaluated for him to retain a title like that.

Furthermore, you can't "own" a philosophy that someone else formulated. You can integrate, agree with, and add to it (not calling it by the same name), but you can't have literally come up with the same ideas that someone else has before you. And while it is important it identify errors, why you think there should be a "top" authority-type figure to do this, especially for a philosophy based on individualism, is confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh hey. Johnathan13's post that I downvoted got voted back up to 0, and my post got downvoted to -3.

So the number in red in the lower right corner means that people voted against a post, and a green positive number means people voted in favor? This makes me think of a scene with Peter Keating. 40 seconds in.

EDIT: Can we raise the negative vote quota to more than one per day? I'd like to downvote all of Jonathan13's posts in this thread instead of just one.

So how does this up vote down vote business work? You get one vote every 24 hours? Can you vote up and down the same day? I’d like to know, since I’m debating whether to vote up #’s 27 or 28. Chris Rock’s bit about bullet control now comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about the reasons Rand decided to even designate Peikoff as an "intellectual heir" at all, but practically speaking, all it accomplished was a public record of Rand's assessment of Peikoff's intellect.

Did Rand designate Peikoff her "intellectual heir"? My understanding has been that she did not, but only designated him heir of her estate. I've heard Objectivists saying that Rand made no public statement about Peikoff being her "intellectual heir." If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it, and I'm sure a lot of other people would as well.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second Dante's judgement. A leader, if there ever was to be one, would be identified by individuals for the excellent intellectual work he has already achieved.

I don't know enough about the reasons Rand decided to even designate Peikoff as an "intellectual heir" at all, but practically speaking, all it accomplished was a public record of Rand's assessment of Peikoff's intellect. Even if other people agreed with her, his intellectual performance would still have to be continually evaluated for him to retain a title like that.

By making him her hier (which she had plenty of reason to do), she essentially put him in a position to be evaluated in the same manner as she. And he has not been rationally criticized for holding philosophical views in contradiction to Rand's.

Furthermore, you can't "own" a philosophy that someone else formulated. You can integrate, agree with, and add to it (not calling it by the same name), but you can't have literally come up with the same ideas that someone else has before you. And while it is important it identify errors, why you think there should be a "top" authority-type figure to do this, especially for a philosophy based on individualism, is confusing.

That's what "hier" means here; her ideas are property that can be transferred.

If you question his title (as described), than you would have to question her title as creator and owner of Obj.ism; and I don't expect you would do that.

I gave just 2 reasons why some hierarchy is of value.

Again, if someone wants to question Peikoff as top Obj.ist expert, then be specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what "hier" means here; her ideas are property that can be transferred.

Her books are, but not her philosophy. It's ridiculous to attempt to put any sort of monopoly on her philosophy beyond her explicit writings and statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Rand designate Peikoff her "intellectual heir"?

Hmmmm... I had an assumption here, I guess. I can't find reference to it on the net except from Peikoff's writings. It's on his site, in forwards to his essays, and even in his bio on the ARI site. However, all of those could have been based on his designation only. So, I'm not sure.

TLD, you're just rationalizing, and you didn't address the errors I pointed out in my last post. And: If I question him I am also questioning her? "Heir" can apply to ideas which can be property which can then be transferred?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jonathan13

What does the concept of "expert" refer to? People who know more about their subject than most others. If you go so far as to call someone "the expert", then they do know more about that subject than anyone else. The concept of expert implies, you know, expertise.

I'm not saying they're infallible. But if a student of Objectivism has a disagreement with an expert in Objectivism, he should at least try to find out why the expert thinks differently. It's more likely the student made an error than the expert. But the expert still must appeal to the judgment of the student of course.

If Rand were alive, people like you would be insulting her too. I'm pretty sure Peikoff isn't the only Objectivist who has ever said "If you don't [X], you're not an Objectivist." Rand did it as well.

@Grames

In my followng post, I clarified what I meant by my reference to Atlas Shrugged. Why should any expert in Objectivism come to a place they're not going to be treated with respect by anyone who disagrees with them? It would be selfless to try to teach Objectivism in such a setting.

@Dante

This is controversial. But I've already made the topic controversial, so I might as well bring it up. Dwayne and Carl both defended Peikoff in the chatroom. One was asked to leave this site, and the other doesn't talk much anymore in the chat. From what I've observed, they both have very strong opinions and aren't afraid to voice them, which I consider a virtue. Carl has mentioned before in passing that he is required to practice tolerance as a virtue in the chatroom now. The context I have suggests that people who insult Peikoff and other experts of Objectivism are expected to have their opinions respected in the chatroom, while those who most strongly defended those experts are made fun of precisely for the virtue of having done so.

@Ninth Doctor

Are you suggesting I'm second-handed like Peter Keating? An up or down-vote on a post represents individuals' value-judgments of the post. I was pointing out that people on this forum value posts that insult Objectivist experts and people on this forum dis-value posts that call them out on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TLD, you're just rationalizing, and you didn't address the errors I pointed out in my last post. And: If I question him I am also questioning her? "Heir" can apply to ideas which can be property which can then be transferred?

So where is the rationalization?

You know I was only referring to titles: as intellectual hier (which Peikoff did not make up), Peikoff deserves the same respect as Rand until proven unearned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm... I had an assumption here, I guess. I can't find reference to it on the net except from Peikoff's writings. It's on his site, in forwards to his essays, and even in his bio on the ARI site. However, all of those could have been based on his designation only. So, I'm not sure.

As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s easy to demonstrate that Rand did name an “intellectual heir”, see the “About the Author” section of Atlas Shrugged, any printing pre-1968. Where’s the comparable replacement statement of designation?

Are you suggesting I'm second-handed like Peter Keating?

Not necessarily you specifically, but it’s my immediate impression having recently noticed the feature. It looks like something out of a Junior High School popularity contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s easy to demonstrate that Rand did name an “intellectual heir”, see the “About the Author” section of Atlas Shrugged, any printing pre-1968. Where’s the comparable replacement statement of designation?

Not necessarily you specifically, but it’s my immediate impression having recently noticed the feature. It looks like something out of a Junior High School popularity contest.

I'd "vote your post up" if it wasn't anonymous.

I grant you a green button.

There is hierarchy in Objectivism as Ayn Rand stated, first her own fiction works, her novels, everything's in there. Then her own non fiction work, which, I might remind it contains collaborations with some non ARI Objectivists, or some non Objectivists, Branden, Greenspan.

Then there is Ayn Rand's legal wish to appoint a specific person both in charge in her estate and as a living point of reference to her.

I suspect prolonging these political disputes is in detriment to the SOURCE which is the object of our respect, Ayn Rand's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are Major Objectivists considered to be celebrities? The owners and/or members of online forums could provide some incentive, or structured event to attract them. Was Ayn Rand reimbursed for her time during her speeches at the Ford Hall Forums? Did she see a considerable increase in book sales after the event? Were tickets sold for entry? Paid entry significantly raises the quality of participants. A questionnaire for participants to fill out will also raise the quality participants. A previous submission of questions could be organized in a way to prioritize the time. Would there be enough members here willing to participate in order to make it a viable event?

Are Major Objectivists rewarded for their participation in the annual Objectivist Summer Conferences? Are the owners of Online forums treating their cyber-space as a charity or as a business? An Objectivist Summer Conference seems to cost about $2,000. Are the owners of online forums willing to spend that in order to make connections with dedicated Objectivists who would make this a more attractive environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are Major Objectivists considered to be celebrities? The owners and/or members of online forums could provide some incentive, or structured event to attract them.

This place does have a moribund "Premium" forum, so the elements are in place for a structured event. Maybe sell a subscription to a single forum with a single thread in it, in which the ah "celebrity" chooses his own topic and answers questions about it. Site owner and "celebrity" can split the proceeds. Actual academic papers probably have some restrictions on the copyright of the original papers, but they can't restrict side discussions. Materials made for the various O'ist conferences can get a second airing in such a forum, and might spur the sales of more copies of the original lectures as well.

This marketplace needs more market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is controversial. But I've already made the topic controversial, so I might as well bring it up. Dwayne and Carl both defended Peikoff in the chatroom. One was asked to leave this site, and the other doesn't talk much anymore in the chat. From what I've observed, they both have very strong opinions and aren't afraid to voice them, which I consider a virtue. Carl has mentioned before in passing that he is required to practice tolerance as a virtue in the chatroom now. The context I have suggests that people who insult Peikoff and other experts of Objectivism are expected to have their opinions respected in the chatroom, while those who most strongly defended those experts are made fun of precisely for the virtue of having done so.

Pretty much. The issue is that anyone can get away with attacking anyone that they like , on any terms ( at least as far as I know) they like : as long as that person is not in the chat at that time/a member of the forum. But if someone in the chat wishes to condemn someone in the chat and to speak to them in a way which can be viewed as insulting , then that person is in the wrong. Regardless of whether or not that person objectively deserves to be treated in such a way and regardless of how doing so may be a just(ified) action. Though there has been at least one exception to this that I know of. The excuse is partially something to do with the fact that treating people in such a fashion drives some of them away and reduces traffic ( I think ), but it is nonetheless a policy which is going to drive away a lot of people with strong opinions and those that refuse to refrain from treating certain sorts of people as they deserve to be treated. So in as far as it does that, it is partially self-defeating.

Not necessarily you specifically, but it’s my immediate impression having recently noticed the feature. It looks like something out of a Junior High School popularity contest.

That is a pretty absurd generalization. Sure, some people will be bound to treat it that way. However it does have valid purposes : Such as bringing certain posts to the attention of others and serving to try to indicate that certain members are considered to post better or worse posts, which may be worth considering in some instances.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

This is an old discussion, but I have a relevant comment.

I subscribe to the Harry Binswanger Letter, which includes both a forum and a regular email sent out by Dr. Binswanger containing the best posts from the forum. The main difference I have noticed between this forum and HBL is that, on HBL, everyone is required by the rules to start with the assumption that the person they are talking to disagrees with them based on an honest mistake. People who are rude lose their posting privileges pretty quickly.

If you compare that with the finger pointing evident even in this thread, it should be pretty easy to see why a major Objectivist would prefer to post there rather than here in their limited time, in addition to the other reasons people have pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is relevant to something I was thinking about recently.

When I first joined this forum I was dismayed and baffled at the trend of the most competent members posting very rarely or already having vanished entirely, even though I was aware of a number of them definitely still being supportive of Objectivism and interested in things related to it. If it was just a couple people for a while, I would think people probably were just busy. It was too many people for too long to seem likely that was the case though.

The other day, I was watching something crappy. (I do have a point, bear with me here for a moment.) A character was looking for a new group to learn about something from which she had recently started studying. To get accepted to this group, she had to demonstrate having some level of knowledge and skill established on the subject first. She did her demonstration, but it turned out that what she demonstrated was already well above what the other people in that group knew and could do. She was no longer interested in this group, but they asked her to stay and teach them how to do what she had just done. She told them basically that she had come there to learn, not to teach, and marched off. My thoughts at this were, "Yeah, screw teaching. Teaching sucks."

It occurred to me that that might have a lot to do with the trend I mentioned earlier: we came here to learn, not to teach. Learning is a lot more fun and less work than teaching, especially in philosophy, assuming we're not talking about formal settings with tons of tests and papers and projects involved. Being a student as opposed to a teacher in philosophy mostly involves reading and asking questions when you don't understand something while a teacher does most of the writing and answering of stuff that is old news to them. Teaching obviously can be very beneficial for the teacher too, but in a less direct and less guaranteed way. So, I think when people get to where they feel like they're doing more teaching than learning, they often get pickier about when, where, how, and who they'll teach, aiming to get the most bang for their buck out of their teaching efforts.

As it relates to the main thread issue, that may mean less posting in general due to switching from posting abundantly while learning to more sparsely while teaching, but also when they do teach, people may start tending toward teaching (usually it just so happens to take place in private) people they personally know because those people have a greater impact on their lives and/or seeking public platforms that reach as many people as they possibly can. This forum is public and does come up prominently if people search online for places to discuss Objectivism, but many threads and topics are by a small number of strangers and are closely related to topics which have already been discussed pretty thoroughly elsewhere on the forum before. People looking on the forum probably can just go check those older threads instead of seeing posts in the new thread, so those new threads are likely to get less traffic, to have less impact.

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...