Why Dont any Major Objectivists Participate in Online Forums?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

On 7/29/2011 at 5:38 PM, WeDontNeedGod said:

As far as I know, from my experience with OO.net, OL, and SOLOhq, no major (published books, articles, PhD, working for ARI/TAS, etc) Objectivist participates in these online forums.

Who says they don't?

 

When you create an account here, you can enter in almost anything you want as your personal information. You made your name "WeDontNeedGod" and Jonathan 13 used a picture of a dog.

 

Who's to say I'm not Harry Binswanger?

For the record, I'm not Harry Binswanger, but the point is that any one of us could be a major objectivist and nobody else would know.

And if I were Harry Binswanger, I certainly wouldn't say so. The mere fact of having that name above anything I posted would severely distract from its content; discussions would end up being about me, instead of anything I was trying to say (which would get very tedious, very quickly).

Again, though, I assure you that I am definitely not Harry Binswanger.

 

 

If anybody here was a major objectivist, my money would be on Dante.

 

On 7/30/2011 at 0:36 PM, Ninth Doctor said:

Beyond that, imagine if you could lose your paycheck for critiquing a statement like “Doctors who perform sex change operations are the moral equivalent of Nazi concentration camp doctors who experimented on inmates. Without qualification”.

... What?!???

 

On 7/30/2011 at 9:23 PM, TLD said:

This forum, quite frankly, is lacking sophistication. As I have noted on several occasions, participants do not stick to topic, mis-apply Obj.ist principles, ask too many questions without due diligence, etc.

On 7/30/2011 at 0:54 PM, Jonathan13 said:

I think OL is a good example of a level playing field. I've never had my posts there deleted by the owners simply because I posed challenges that Objectivists couldn't answer.

 

But, to be fair, lately OO has become a much more level playing field.

Speak for yourselves, brothers.

 

Yes, lots of people here like to spout nonsensical garbage; that's the price you pay for letting them express themselves, freely. I've also seen lots of people here make some of the most insightful and enlightening comments on the internet. Many times, the very same person will be nonsensical in one post and insightful in the next; I just assume they were having a bad day (or whatever) and try to focus on their success.

Furthermore, while I've seen many people on OL make allegations about the censorship that happens on OO, I really don't see it. We've got Christians, Libertarians, Open Objectivists (like myself) and the occasional Communist running around, saying whatever they feel like saying. I don't know what went on before I arrived, but I've been here for several years and the closest thing I've ever seen to censorship has been when a mod jumps into a flame war to say: "tone it down or else we'll do it for you".

 

In the grand scheme of the internet, I think OO takes a lot of unearned flak.

 

On 7/30/2011 at 1:04 PM, Dante said:

And no argument here about the McCaskey affair.

What was this affair that everybody seems to know about?

Edited March 26, 2016 by Harrison Danneskjold
I am not Harry Binswanger.

[Jonathan13]

On March 26, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Speak for yourselves, brothers.

Were you under the impression that anyone was not speaking for himself, or that anyone was claiming to speak for others?

 

On March 26, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Furthermore, while I've seen many people on OL make allegations about the censorship that happens on OO, I really don't see it.

How would you see it? The actions that moderators take against members here are done so in private. I've posted multiple examples of OO censorship over on OL if you'd care to look.

 

On March 26, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

We've got Christians, Libertarians, Open Objectivists (like myself) and the occasional Communist running around, saying whatever they feel like saying.

You're missing the point. The issue is not how many differing viewpoints are allowed on OO. The issue is only the differing viewpoints that the moderators can't answer. If a poster is pretty impotent in making an argument, it's easy for a moderator or other member to show him to be wrong. The problem comes when someone like me makes an argument that is so potent, rational, and factually accurate that a moderator can't answer it but wishes to cling to his mistaken opinion. Then the argument has to be evaded and blanked out of existence.

 

On March 26, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I don't know what went on before I arrived, but I've been here for several years and the closest thing I've ever seen to censorship has been when a mod jumps into a flame war to say: "tone it down or else we'll do it for you".

Then you're not aware of how the censorship works here. When my posts have been deleted, it has usually happened prior to most other members even having seen them. And that was before I was placed on moderation. Now my posts don't even make it onto the board until reviewed by a moderator. My posts need approval first. Your expectation or belief that you would see evidence of censorship is mistaken. You need to correct the logic or your "if I don't see it then it's not happening" mindset on how moderation works here.

 

On March 26, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

In the grand scheme of the internet, I think OO takes a lot of unearned flak.

What was this affair that everybody seems to know about?

Again, your judgment is based on a mistaken expectation that you would see, on OO, public evidence of moderation on OO. It doesn't work that way. Many people have offered up elsewhere their testimony of having been bullied and censored on OO. There are also many who have not commented on the abuse, but who have just laughed it off and gone elsewhere to post -- their brief experience here with young Objectivist moderators turned them off, and it wasn't important enough for them to even complain about it publicly. In short, you're not informed enough to come to a rational conclusion about how much of the criticism OO receives is earned versus unearned.

Generally, OO is a good place. A few of the moderators are intellectually and emotionally mature enough to handle rigorous debate and informed criticism, but there are one or two who lack that maturity. They're passionate about their beliefs, and they want to influence the culture, but they don't have the ability to win certain arguments without cheating reality.

 

As for your question about the McCaskey affair, here's a link:
http://www.johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html

The Objectivist "movement" has a long history of such silliness. Authority poses, power grabs, censorship, ostracization, un-personing, airbrushing/erasing history have been very common, and are the reason that the "movement" is a mere shadow of what it was in the past. It's dying, almost dead, and the passion and excitement isn't coming back until all of that nonsense goes away.

J

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Thank you for the link about McCaskey.

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan13 said:

Were you under the impression that anyone was not speaking for himself, or that anyone was claiming to speak for others?

No; I was amused by the disparaging comments about people who post on this forum - being posted on this forum. I only meant to underscore that (which I consider to be some funny shit); not to make any literal accusations.

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan13 said:

I've posted multiple examples of OO censorship over on OL if you'd care to look.

OL is a big place. If you could please provide a link (or point me in the general direction) I would like to take a look.

[Ninth Doctor]

 

On 7/30/2011 at 1:36 PM, Ninth Doctor said:

Beyond that, imagine if you could lose your paycheck for critiquing a statement like “Doctors who perform sex change operations are the moral equivalent of Nazi concentration camp doctors who experimented on inmates. Without qualification”

 

On 3/26/2016 at 4:16 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

... What?!???

 

http://www.peikoff.com/2010/12/13/is-it-proper-for-a-doctor-to-perform-a-sex-change-operation-for-a-patient/

[dream_weaver]

This portion of a Piekoff podcast ties in pretty well with the original post on this topic.

What is your opinion of Objectivist clubs and advocacy groups on the internet?

 

[JASKN]

On March 28, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan13 said:

Then you're not aware of how the censorship works here. [...] My posts need approval first. 

Many people have offered up elsewhere their testimony of having been bullied and censored on OO. There are also many who have not commented on the abuse, but who have just laughed it off and gone elsewhere to post -- their brief experience here with young Objectivist moderators turned them off, and it wasn't important enough for them to even complain about it publicly. In short, you're not informed enough to come to a rational conclusion about how much of the criticism OO receives is earned versus unearned.

[...]A few of the moderators are intellectually and emotionally mature enough to handle rigorous debate and informed criticism, but there are one or two who lack that maturity. [...]they don't have the ability to win certain arguments without cheating reality.

[...]

Authority poses, power grabs, censorship, ostracization, un-personing, airbrushing/erasing history have been very common, and are the reason that the "movement" is a mere shadow of what it was in the past. It's dying, almost dead, and the passion and excitement isn't coming back until all of that nonsense goes away.

If this is the content that is approved, imagine the goldmine that's being "censored"...

[dream_weaver]

From what can be gathered from the internet, many tonnes of raw material have to be processed in order to extract a single ounce of gold. Of course it has to be processed in accordance with methods which actually yield the desired results.

Hank and Dagny drove to Saginaw Bay, Michigan to look at an abandoned ore mine. It was the next day when Readen realized that he would have to wait until the Equalization of Opportunity Bill was scrapped saying: The man who could work that <Atlas Shrugged, page 263> mine, wouldn't need me to teach him. The man who'd need me, wouldn't be worth a damn."

Miss Rand graciously answered some questions during the 1976 'OPAR' lectures. Some of her comments, as she sifted through the written questions she held in her hands during the 6th lecture told me she had not had the opportunity to go through them earlier. In essence, even on the venue suggested,

If 'Major Objectivists' were here, the nature of the complaints would be why they chose to address this criticism vs. that criticism.

I'll admit I hold the materials I've purchased from ARI in high esteem. When I am in my mobile 'audio' library (my vehicle,) the speakers are either filled with one of the ARI presentations, or tuned into the local public radio classical/jazz radio station.

So, . . "Where do we go from here?" (Allen Parsons) . . . "now that (all) some of the children have grown up . . ." . . .?

A goldmine, as indicated earlier, has a vast amount of material to sift through in order to isolate the gold therein. Either the isolated gold is being offered as the value, or an explanation of how the gold was extracted from the evidentiary material is being offered in its stead. One gives the final product of distillation, the other provides insights to the method of distillation. Short of either of these—what is being offered in trade or exchange?

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by dream_weaver

[Jonathan13]

On March 29, 2016 at 5:11 PM, JASKN said:

If this is the content that is approved, imagine the goldmine that's being "censored"...

The above statement is illogical. OO has improved, and probably due to my and others having made public the irrational, anti-Objectivist silliness and bullying of some of the moderators. What is allowed now is not a valid gauge for imagining what was frantically not allowed in years past.

Here are a couple links to examples that I've posted on OL of OO moderators behaving highly irrationally:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?/topic/12335-objectivismonline-objectivist-opposes-objectivism/#comment-166739

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5754-heresy/#comment-51286

Many others have posted similar examples of bullying and irrational behavior. In fact, if I remember correctly, a few people may have added their stories of OO's abusive moderators on the two threads that I linked to above (I don't have time to reread them to be sure).

So, no need to "imagine" the type of content that's been censored: My simple reporting of reality, of truth, had been censored.

Also, I have copies and backups of all of my private correspondence with OO's moderators, as well as their abusive correspondence with others that has been shared privately with me. The abusive moderators don't want me to share those messages publicly, and for very good reasons. Their behavior was appalling. Would you like to see it? It's hilariously petty, snotty, childish and disproportionally angry. I'd be willing to share it publicly if people here insist on denying reality.

J

 

 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Jonathan13

[Jonathan13]

On April 1, 2016 at 10:33 PM, dream_weaver said:

Miss Rand graciously answered some questions during the 1976 'OPAR' lectures. Some of her comments, as she sifted through the written questions she held in her hands during the 6th lecture told me she had not had the opportunity to go through them earlier. In essence, even on the venue suggested,

Rand and her "heirs" have never faced sustained, informed criticism of Objectivism from philosophical experts. They've only invited some questions from amateurs, students and supporters.

At one public presentation of some of her views on aesthetics, she faced some minor criticism from John Hospers. She became enraged, and unfriended him. Excommunicated him. The questions he asked remain unanswered, including by her followers. Yet her followers, including high-ranking ones in the movement, insist that Hospers' minor criticism, which is standard at such events, was a horribly vicious attack, a monstrous betrayal and smear job. I've heard some of the questions that he asked of her, and they are valid.

(One question was that Rand demonstrate that realistic landscape paintings and still lifes can reliably comply with her criteria for art and objectively communicate a view of man's relation to existence. She couldn't do so. Many times I've asked her followers to do so as well, and they have also failed. Over and over again. I've done so here on OO. I've provided visual examples and asked countless Objectivists to follow Rand's requirements for art and identify the realistic paintings' subjects and meanings. None have succeeded. Several have even been incapable of recognizing that some of the greatest Romantic paintings in the history of art are realistically representational, and not abstract.)

Such incidents as the Hospers one are the reason, I believe, that the "heirs" and "leaders" of the "movement" avoid informed criticism of Objectivism, and only occasionally open themselves up to adoring and gullible followers, students, fledglings, neophytes and rookies. Fear.

 

Quote

A goldmine, as indicated earlier, has a vast amount of material to sift through in order to isolate the gold therein. Either the isolated gold is being offered as the value, or an explanation of how the gold was extracted from the evidentiary material is being offered in its stead. One gives the final product of distillation, the other provides insights to the method of distillation. Short of either of these—what is being offered in trade or exchange?

 

Objectivism is indeed a goldmine. It contains ounce after ounce, and ton after ton of gold. But it also has a lot of obvious pyrite mixed in, and a lot of Rand's followers, especially those who run the well-funder organizations which promote her views, don't want to have the pyrite identified and discarded. They want to pretend that it's all gold.

You ask, "what is being offered in trade or exchange?"

Do you mean, what is being offered to Objectivist "heirs" and "leaders" in exchange for facing criticism? If so, the answer is reality. Avoiding intelligent criticism under the guise that one needs to be paid or receive some sort of trade is a pose. It's the act of pretending that one is infallible, and that any criticism cannot possibly have merit, and therefore one is wasting one's time humoring wrongheaded little nobodies in exposing oneself to their criticisms. Such and attitude is bluff. Bluster. It's a tactic that is anything but Objectivist.

As I've said many times, Objectivism will continue to fade away until the cloistered, smug and evasive attitudes are no longer common practice among Objectivists, and are no longer used as a mask to hide the fear of having no answers to people who are much more intelligent than the amateurs who have been allowed to ask softball questions which the "heirs" can then knock out of the park.

No one's falling for it anymore.

J

Edited April 2, 2016 by Jonathan13

[dream_weaver]

Far from fading away, I've been seeing more advocates of Rand's Objectivism in the last few years. Maybe it's because I'm looking for them. But I consider this passage she wrote in For The New Intellectual instructive:

But the New Intellectuals have an inestimable advantage: they have reality on their side. The difficulties they will encounter on their way are not stone barriers, but fog: the heavy fog of passive disintegration, through which it will be hard for them to find one another.

Personally, I don't find a lack of criticisms out there. The folks over at Salon offer plenty of it without demanding a microphone be provided.

Edited April 2, 2016 by dream_weaver

[DonAthos]

1 hour ago, Jonathan13 said:

Such incidents as the Hospers one are the reason, I believe, that the "heirs" and "leaders" of the "movement" avoid informed criticism of Objectivism, and only occasionally open themselves up to adoring and gullible followers, students, fledglings, neophytes and rookies. Fear.

Obviously neither I, nor anyone else here, can speak on behalf of Ayn Rand or any of the "heirs"/"leaders" of whatever we consider the "Objectivist movement" to be.

But on behalf of myself and my relationship to this site, what I can say is that I welcome informed criticism, and hope that I can rise to the challenge to meet it, to the best of my ability. Insofar as I "moderate" here, my interest is in preserving and promoting a civil environment for the purpose of fostering discussion about Objectivism and related topics. I think that's a worthy goal.

But silencing those who have dissenting viewpoints? No. That's not what I do, and (whatever may have happened in the past) I do not believe that's what the other moderators on this board do, either.

[Jonathan13]

1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

Far from fading away, I've been seeing more advocates of Rand's Objectivism in the last few years. Maybe it's because I'm looking for them. But I consider this passage she wrote in For The New Intellectual instructive:

But the New Intellectuals have an inestimable advantage: they have reality on their side. The difficulties they will encounter on their way are not stone barriers, but fog: the heavy fog of passive disintegration, through which it will be hard for them to find one another.

Personally, I don't find a lack of criticisms out there. The folks over at Salon offer plenty of it without demanding a microphone be provided.

Really? Salon has offered criticism of the philosophy of Objectivism?!!! Where? I'd love to read it. Please post links to Objectivism's heirs and leaders addressing informed criticism from philosophical experts.

As for your bluff about someone demanding a microphone, no one is doing that. You seem to think that pretending that everyone wants a chance to be in the spotlight with Peikoff et al is going to be convincing. Heh. Well, Peikoff et al aren't in a spot light. They are not celebrities, or brilliant scholars. They're in hiding. They don't have a "microphone." A mere fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the population knows or cares who they are. They're small-time promoters who have a very small flock.

Um, they way that real philosophy works is that theories are proposed, and then criticism is offered, and then the theory is defended. Back and forth. If you want to be a real philosopher, you've got to move beyond the silly bluff that answering criticism is an unreasonable burden, and a demand from others to get something for nothing. Heh. "We're really famous and popular, and other people are just trying to take advantage of our famous "microphone" when criticizing it, so we're not going to answer because we'd just be getting ripped off!"

Silliness. Bluff and bluster. Not the mindset of serious thinkers.

J

Edited April 2, 2016 by Jonathan13

[Jonathan13]

32 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

Obviously neither I, nor anyone else here, can speak on behalf of Ayn Rand or any of the "heirs"/"leaders" of whatever we consider the "Objectivist movement" to be.

But on behalf of myself and my relationship to this site, what I can say is that I welcome informed criticism, and hope that I can rise to the challenge to meet it, to the best of my ability. Insofar as I "moderate" here, my interest is in preserving and promoting a civil environment for the purpose of fostering discussion about Objectivism and related topics. I think that's a worthy goal.

But silencing those who have dissenting viewpoints? No. That's not what I do, and (whatever may have happened in the past) I do not believe that's what the other moderators on this board do, either.

I agree. Personally, I think you're by far the best moderator here. You're eminently reasonable. You came along right about when OO needed someone like you the most.

J

[dream_weaver]

30 minutes ago, Jonathan13 said:

Really? Salon has offered criticism of the philosophy of Objectivism?!!! Where? I'd love to read it. Please post links to Objectivism's heirs and leaders addressing informed criticism from philosophical experts.

As for your bluff about someone demanding a microphone, no one is doing that. You seem to think that pretending that everyone wants a chance to be in the spotlight with Peikoff et al is going to be convincing. Heh. Well, Peikoff et al aren't in a spot light. They are not celebrities, or brilliant scholars. They're in hiding. They don't have a "microphone." A mere fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the population knows or cares who they are. They're small-time promoters who have a very small flock.

Um, they way that real philosophy works is that theories are proposed, and then criticism is offered, and then the theory is defended. Back and forth. If you want to be a real philosopher, you've got to move beyond the silly bluff that answering criticism is an unreasonable burden, and a demand from others to get something for nothing. Heh. "We're really famous and popular, and other people are just trying to take advantage of our famous "microphone" when criticizing it, so we're not going to answer because we'd just be getting ripped off!"

Silliness. Bluff and bluster. Not the mindset of serious thinkers.

J

Thanks, Jonathan. I needed a reminder of why we had to put clothes around the hay prior to mounting it on a stick out in the field.

[Jonathan13]

On April 2, 2016 at 6:02 PM, dream_weaver said:

Thanks, Jonathan. I needed a reminder of why we had to put clothes around the hay prior to mounting it on a stick out in the field.

Do you have no answers? You made statements. I then asked you to support them with evidence. You failed to do so. Instead you dodged my questions. Why is that? Is it because you're bluffing?

Objectivism did quite well while Rand was alive, as far as having cultural influence goes. It even did okay during the 80s and 90s. Then it started to fade. Comparatively speaking, the "movement" and its influence isn't even a shadow of its former self.

I think a big part of the problem is that no one ever learns. New generations come along and don't learn from the mistakes from Objecivism's older supporters. The longer that a new philosophy is in existence, the less likely that pompous smugness and evasion of criticism will work. Avoiding criticism, under the excuse that one doesn't want to "sanction" or give a "microphone" to opponents is a copout, and it screams weakness and insecurity.

Instead of hiding from criticism, and censoring it and banning it (or requiring something akin to loyalty oaths to join a site or forum), Objectivists should be seeking out criticism, inviting it, and accommodating it. They should eager to face all challengers on neutral or even hostile ground, especially those with the most potent arguments. That would be the strong, confident thing to do. Objectivism will continue to fade and fizzle culturally until the day that its proponents no longer cloister themselves due to fear.

J

[Eiuol]

7 minutes ago, Jonathan13 said:

Instead of hiding from criticism, and censoring it and banning it (or requiring something akin to loyalty oaths to join a site or forum), Objectivists should be seeking out criticism, inviting it, and accommodating it.

When it comes to moderation, while you might be right about the forum a long time ago, there hasn't been really a great deal of moderating at least since I have been moderator. Some people have complained to me about the exact opposite, about being too tolerant. The point I'm making is I think you greatly exaggerate the problems you are talking about. I think you neglected to mention how fundamentally different the world is nowadays, forums are not so big, social media is more a thing, and I think fewer people care about ideas than they used to. The result is fewer young people will care about Objectivism than in the past.

Rather than talking about  how bad everything apparently is, why don't you talk about ideas that would help change things? You seem to want more discussion, so how would you do that?    

[DonAthos]

59 minutes ago, Jonathan13 said:

Do you have no answers?

For completeness, I believe that dream_weaver did reply, albeit in another thread. Here's that post, in case you're only looking here:

On 4/3/2016 at 7:23 PM, dream_weaver said:

I am reminded of one of the reasons why this course is so instructive. Piekoff's selection of philosophers to cover, the identification of the developments of the main schools of thought over the centuries, the indications which tie into cultural trends the ideas bear close parallels to.

Miss Rand was not known for paying homage to the gatekeepers, publishing her works via the anointed scholastic philosophic channels, or going through the charade of pretending some of their questions were debatable.

Whether it be logical positivism, empiricism, intrinsicism, mysticism, etc., the key, to me, is to be able to identify the variant, and while I may not be able to explain what is wrong with it extemporaneously, at least know where to go for a refreshment on the point. It is in this way, I can serve as a signpost indicating the direction to go. A signpost cannot take you to your destination. It merely points the way.

In this sense, one doesn't need to become a philosopher in order to benefit from the philosopher.

While I wouldn't call for "paying homage to the gatekeepers," per se, I do sometimes wonder about the utility of engagement through... "normal channels," such as Universities or journals. It seems to me that there's potentially something important to be gained there, to the extent one desires Objectivism to penetrate the culture, even if it does require utilizing the existing procedures set up for such a thing.

59 minutes ago, Jonathan13 said:

Instead of hiding from criticism, and censoring it and banning it (or requiring something akin to loyalty oaths to join a site or forum), Objectivists should be seeking out criticism, inviting it, and accommodating it. They should eager to face all challengers on neutral or even hostile ground, especially those with the most potent arguments. That would be the strong, confident thing to do.

This is right. Whether or not one agrees with every decision to engage with specific criticism (a personal matter, based on one's context, and I don't believe anyone to be "duty-bound" in any event), the "spirit" of this sings to my heart.

I say to the world "bring it on," and not because I wish to appear "strong" or "confident" to those who are swayed by such things, but because I am confident in the strength of Objectivism, which is the philosophy of reason.

There exists no argument in the world that can show A to be not-A: so in any forum of contest or comparison, those beliefs consonant with reality can only look the better, to honest minds.

On 4/2/2016 at 3:30 PM, Jonathan13 said:

Please post links to Objectivism's heirs and leaders addressing informed criticism from philosophical experts.

Are we doing this? (I sincerely want to know.) I hope that we are. I hope that there's a literature being built, both in and out of academia.

The way I imagine it (which may not correspond with reality exactly) is that with every essay or blog post or speaking engagement, though it be a drop in the proverbial pond, there is a ripple effect -- and a chance to reach those who are perhaps at some crossroads or tipping point or on the verge of discovery.

And if those who evade such that they cannot be swayed by reason are forced into contortions to defend the indefensible, so much the better. They must cloak themselves in language so obscure as to be ineffectual; or they must reveal their hidden premises; or they must finally descend to insults, or even violence, and are thus fatally unmasked.

When it comes to physical violence, might makes the difference, and we cannot be guaranteed of victory. In silence or insult, too, bad ideas tend to flourish. Civil discussion is the arena where Objectivism stands to reign supreme. That is the ground we should claim as our own.

[dream_weaver]

3 hours ago, DonAthos said:

It seems to me that there's potentially something important to be gained there, to the extent one desires Objectivism to penetrate the culture, even if it does require utilizing the existing

In-roads into the universities are being made. I don't know this for sure, but I do not believe this occurred until after Rand's watch.

3 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Are we doing this? (I sincerely want to know.) I hope that we are. I hope that there's a literature being built, both in and out of academia.

ARI does monitor some internet content and picks and chooses which articles of this nature get replied to. I periodically run across responses of this nature, and ARI maintains links to them. Here's a link to their blog, although I'm not really motivated right now to search for a specific concrete at the moment.

Perhaps in addition to the "In The News" thread, one devoted to answered criticisms be initiated?

 

 

[JASKN]

On April 2, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Jonathan13 said:

OO has improved, and probably due to my and others having made public the irrational, anti-Objectivist silliness and bullying of some of the moderators. What is allowed now is not a valid gauge for imagining what was frantically not allowed in years past.

Decent Objectivists (some of whom you follow around on the internet) don't care about what you write because you do it in a rude way. Jerks (of those whom you criticize, if any) don't care what you think for obvious reasons. Newbie-Objectivists (the bulk of this forum's traffic) will brush you off for sounding loony. Echoing Eiuol, at some point criticism has to end and new action has to take its place.

[Ninth Doctor]

3 hours ago, JASKN said:

Decent Objectivists (some of whom you follow around on the internet) don't care about what you write because you do it in a rude way.

Well I suppose I'm either not Decent or not an Objectivist.  IMO he's not rude, but relentless.  He starts polite, and if you keep it polite he'll match your tone all the way.  He's certainly given a few wind-bags some badly needed deflating, particularly on the topic of aesthetic judgement.

[Plasmatic]

 I don't know the particulars of the beef on Oist aesthetics Jonathan is upset over, so this comment is not connected to that issue:

J13 said:

 

Quote

Avoiding criticism, under the excuse that one doesn't want to "sanction" or give a "microphone" to opponents is a copout, and it screams weakness and insecurity.

 

I take issue with this claim. To me the biggest issue between the Kellyist from OL and Oist anywhere is precisely over moral sanction/"tolerance" and the inversion of hierarchy in the "open" claims of Kellyist. For this reason I take the above as begging the question. 

By the way, I ain't one of these people you describe, the ones who shy away from debate. ( be it orthodox Oist academics who made an error, Kellyist, mods, or anti-Oist philosophers) I think reducing a person who deserves moral judgement arguments to absurdity is a good thing. One can do that without sanctioning them but one is not obligated to do so. I happen to enjoy the process of cultural activism on issues that pertain to my values....

 

Edit: The book Concepts and Their Role in Knowledge is a good example of engaging non Oist academics.

Also check this site for related info to Weavers claims.

http://www.checkyourpremises.org/author/bayer/

Edited April 5, 2016 by Plasmatic

[Harrison Danneskjold]

10 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Perhaps in addition to the "In The News" thread, one devoted to answered criticisms be initiated?

We could give it a whole section (like "questions about Objectivism" only "criticisms of Objectivism"). That'd be useful across multiple levels.

 

Firstly, it'd give every pissed-off Marxist an obvious place to go, when they come here to pick a fight. All the old threads of that nature could get moved there, which would clear up a lot of clutter.

Secondly, anyone who can't handle any serious criticism would learn to simply stay out of that section. Any Objectivist who came here to pick a fight could go straight there and have it out with the pissed-off Marxists.

Thirdly, I could see some entertainment value in that. With all of that compressed stoopid and a little bit of creativity...

 

I know there's a section devoted to "critics of Objectivism" but that'd be a weird place to post your own criticisms (c'est moi!) and I don't believe it's ever been that active. Might a new name and a bit of reorganizing suffice?

 

 

The Horror File?

 

---

 

Please don't misinterpret this as saying that Rand was never wrong about anything or that any problem anyone has with her is a priori invalid. On the contrary; I have problems with a few of her ideas. However, of all the criticisms that I've personally heard, upwards of 95% (at least) were obvious garbage, on their face.

 

And that which is epistemological garbage tends to be comedic gold.

[Jonathan13]

On April 4, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Eiuol said:

Rather than talking about  how bad everything apparently is, why don't you talk about ideas that would help change things? You seem to want more discussion, so how would you do that?    

How are you not understanding that that's exactly what I'm doing?!!!

I'm explaining to young, amateur philosophy hobbyists and unskilled promoters of Rand's ideas how to curb their irrational instincts, unearned and unwarranted hubris and zealotry, and improve their methods.

You're reaction seems to be quite defensive. Reread what I've written. I've said good things as well as critical things. I've written that OO is generally a good place, that it has improved greatly, but still has a lot of room for improvement, and the same is true of the "official" Objectivist organizations. They should be eagerly inviting criticism and debate on Objectivism, especially from academia, rather than running away from it and doing the best to prevent it.

The owners and moderators here should be doing the same thing, albeit on a smaller level. No insult intended, but you're not experts here in any of the relevant arts or sciences. When someone like, say, Daniel Barnes (from the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog) shows up here, celebrate it as an opportunity for intellectual smackdown, rather than snarkily impeding him behind the scenes and then banning him.

Do you have confidence in Rand's and your own ideas? If so, then act like it. Actions speak louder than words.

J

[Jonathan13]

On April 4, 2016 at 11:50 AM, DonAthos said:

For completeness, I believe that dream_weaver did reply, albeit in another thread. Here's that post, in case you're only looking here:

While I wouldn't call for "paying homage to the gatekeepers," per se, I do sometimes wonder about the utility of engagement through... "normal channels," such as Universities or journals. It seems to me that there's potentially something important to be gained there, to the extent one desires Objectivism to penetrate the culture, even if it does require utilizing the existing procedures set up for such a thing.

The value in engaging experts is that, more often than not, they know much more than you do, and you can learn from them. They often have deeper and broader knowledge, and think of valid criticisms which wouldn't occur to people with less knowledge and experience.

The phrasing about "paying homage" in the quote is bluff. It's a transparent copout, a sort of poisoning of the well, as a means of excuse-making. The issue at hand is not "homage," and it is dishonest to assert, without evidence, that all academics are motivated by evil -- that they're in it for homage. The reality is that they are usually incredibly deep thinkers who have gotten where they are on intellectual merit, and they question everything. The brightest minds in academia would bring up dozens, if not hundreds, of questions that have never occurred to Peikoff. They would demand evidence where he has never been challenged by followers to provide it. He would have a very hard time backing up some of Objectivism's assertions which he has accepted but never thought to consider whether they need backing up with proof.

 

On April 4, 2016 at 11:50 AM, DonAthos said:

This is right. Whether or not one agrees with every decision to engage with specific criticism (a personal matter, based on one's context, and I don't believe anyone to be "duty-bound" in any event), the "spirit" of this sings to my heart.

I say to the world "bring it on," and not because I wish to appear "strong" or "confident" to those who are swayed by such things, but because I am confident in the strength of Objectivism, which is the philosophy of reason.

Exactly. I'm also not about "appearing" to be strong and confident. I'm asking people to actually BE strong and confident. If they are truly confident, I'm asking them to behave as confident people do, rather than like people who are afraid.

 

On April 4, 2016 at 11:50 AM, DonAthos said:

There exists no argument in the world that can show A to be not-A: so in any forum of contest or comparison, those beliefs consonant with reality can only look the better, to honest minds.

Are we doing this? (I sincerely want to know.) I hope that we are. I hope that there's a literature being built, both in and out of academia.

The way I imagine it (which may not correspond with reality exactly) is that with every essay or blog post or speaking engagement, though it be a drop in the proverbial pond, there is a ripple effect -- and a chance to reach those who are perhaps at some crossroads or tipping point or on the verge of discovery.

And if those who evade such that they cannot be swayed by reason are forced into contortions to defend the indefensible, so much the better. They must cloak themselves in language so obscure as to be ineffectual; or they must reveal their hidden premises; or they must finally descend to insults, or even violence, and are thus fatally unmasked.

When it comes to physical violence, might makes the difference, and we cannot be guaranteed of victory. In silence or insult, too, bad ideas tend to flourish. Civil discussion is the arena where Objectivism stands to reign supreme. That is the ground we should claim as our own.

Objectivism is fabulous on many levels. But it also has some errors. They should be admitted to and corrected.  And eagerly and happily so! I've brought up many issues in which Objectivism is wrong in my personal area of expertise, art and aesthetics. I've raised issues and given countless Objectivists the opportunity to attempt to answer. Once in a while, on very rare occasions, Objectivists will admit that I've pointed out obvious problems, and that the Objectivist Esthetics needs to be thought through more carefully, and repaired. That's a good Objectivist response. Unfortunately, a much more common response among Objectivists is to deny the reality of the errors, to dig in their heels, and to twist themselves into pretzels (and censor and ban the criticism). It's as if they think that if they admit that Rand was wrong about anything, then her reputation will be destroyed. The reverse is true: When people see Rand's followers defending an obviously mistaken position, that's what destroys Rand's, and their own, reputations as thinkers.

J

[Jonathan13]

18 hours ago, Ninth Doctor said:

Well I suppose I'm either not Decent or not an Objectivist.  IMO he's not rude, but relentless.  He starts polite, and if you keep it polite he'll match your tone all the way.  He's certainly given a few wind-bags some badly needed deflating, particularly on the topic of aesthetic judgement.

Thanks! And, indeed, I'm not rude. I generally match opponents' tone. Here on OO, I'm usually much more polite than my opponents, especially when the opponents are moderators. They don't have a good history of leading by example, but have often initiated bad behavior, and then thrown gasoline on the fire.

It's all just a set of tactics to avoid substance or evade admitting to errors.

The Objectivists who call me rude are generally the ones whom I've defeated in arguments, and who are resentful that I've destroyed their poses as being brilliant and guru-like. It can be very upsetting for people to be shown to have been wrong, and on a very elementary level, after they were crafting an image of themselves as being very intelligent and important. They seem to become the angriest when, in a discussion, they end up inadvertently revealing how little they actually know (example: when they, say, don't recognize a very famous painting, and reveal that they've never heard of its creator, right after posing as a refined and cultured connoisseur of the visual arts). They start off by looking down their noses at anyone who doesn't share their inexperienced tastes and opinions, but then complain that they're being looked down upon when shown to be aesthetic novices -- they demand respect (if not homage), but then are very resentful to give it when shown that they are outclassed and eclipsed by an opponent.

J