Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist's impotent debate tactics

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I’m aware that the following won’t apply to every person who considers herself an Objectivist but my experiences with Objectivists have almost always been perplexing for the following reasons and I wonder what any of you might have to say about this.

1. During every discussion I’ve ever had with an Objectivist, the Objectivist has always resorted to ad hominem. I’m not an Objectivist, I’m a philosophy student and I really enjoy debating ideas. Often times, when I raise an objection to something, the Objectivist will say something like, “You are being irrational,” “You are incapable of grasping reality,” “Your ideas are not consistent with reality” etc. Sometimes I’ll also get a real response included but that’s not guaranteed. This method employed by many Objectivists is counterproductive for two reasons: attempts at insulting the other’s intelligence do not, in any way, forward an argument because they fail to explain why the other’s argument is wrong or even why you feel compelled to insult the other, also, more importantly, these responses already assume that the Objectivist approach to reality is correct when that is usually the very thing being debated. It’s much like debating a fundamentalist Christian about the accuracy of her interpretation of the Bible and then the Christian rejecting your ideas because they are inconsistent with her fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

2. There is a weird repulsion toward non-Objectivist philosophers. This overlaps with #1 in that I will sometimes bring up an idea of another philosopher and then, in response, I get some quote of Ayn Rand insulting that particular philosopher. I find this problematic. It shouldn’t matter which philosopher said it, you should take the actual concept and its consequences into account. For example, we typically think of Hitler as a bad person but if he said that eating food is likely to keep one from dying, being Hitler wouldn’t make his idea incorrect. Also, most philosophers aren’t Hitler. Rand uses the same method that I described in #1 by already assuming that she is correct. This allows her to remove any responsibility she has to be honest by actually considering the ideas. Instead, she can just reject them immediately and toss in some ad hominem. For example, I’ve brought up some idea of Wittgenstein’s during a conversation. Instead of an actual consideration of the idea, the response was a quote by Ayn Rand which said something about Wittgenstein having fuzzy logic (which is ironic, considering he helped develop symbolic logic and invented truth tables).

3. Often times, if I know I’ve cornered the Objectivist, they will resort to ad hominem and then tell me to come back when I understand Objectivism better/have read more Objectivist books. I have a problem with this because, even if they mean this sincerely and not as a way to dodge a question, it isn’t at all convincing. Conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats debate a lot but it would be very strange to see one of them say, “You don’t understand my ideology, go read everything that I have read before you argue with me.” Or, if a fundamentalist rejects your skepticism on the grounds that you haven’t read the Bible cover to cover and haven’t read all of the theological works that she has read. It’s almost always the case that people involved in a debate haven’t read everything that the other person has read. It doesn’t follow that you shouldn’t be able to ask the other person to clarify one of their opinions. Yes, debates often center on a misunderstanding of the other’s view. For example, I might ask what exactly and Objectivist means when they use the word “reason.” Usually, Objectivists will answer this sort of question. But then, if I disagree with or find what I see to be a problem with their concept, they stop the argument. I think that here we need to distinguish between points in arguments that are either focused on understanding or are focused on critiquing. Arguments focused on understanding are the arguments one could resolve by reading more but, once the concept is understood and a critique is made, it doesn’t do any good to read more about that concept. After all, you understand it. Unfortunately, it always seems to be the case that, once the Objectivist and I have agreed upon and understand his/her concept, I will provide a critique, an argument for which it doesn’t make sense to “go read more,” and then the Objectivist will get mad and tell me to go read more.

Again, I’m aware that this doesn’t apply to all Objectivists. I have a close friend who is an Objectivist and this doesn’t apply to him. I think it does, however, apply to the more cultish aspect of Objectivism which is prominent or, at the very least, the most outspoken portion of the community. I think that the preceding can also be seen as some of the reasons that philosophy students and philosophers don’t take Ayn Rand or Objectivism seriously. I’m not saying any of this is a critique of Rand’s actual philosophical ideas. None of these are objections to the actual ideas of Objectivism. These are objections to the unreasonable tactics used by some Objectivists and, at times, Ayn Rand. The refusal to seriously engage with the ideas of other philosophers and the entry into an argument with the refusal to believe that any part of Objectivism could possibly be wrong, is what, I believe, turns off so many philosophers and often makes Ayn Rand a joke in the philosophy community. It’s difficult to take seriously the ideas of someone else if they refuse to acknowledge any one else’s ideas. That, in combination with the lack of popularity of Objectivism relative to other things perceived to be intellectually limiting, like fundamentalist religion, makes Objectivism very easy to ignore. I’m wondering then, for people who so proudly embrace ‘reason,’ why are these tactics used? It makes Objectivists look scared, not intelligent.

Edited by discussion-image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Often times, if I know I’ve cornered the Objectivist, they will resort to ad hominem and then tell me to come back when I understand Objectivism better/have read more Objectivist books. I have a problem with this because, even if they mean this sincerely and not as a way to dodge a question, it isn’t at all convincing."

I have encountered this many, many, many times. Inherent in this, I believe, is the assumption that those who read and understand Rand and her philosophy are obviously going to see that it's true. If you don't come to that conclusion, or if you struggle with certain concepts though you've read the materials, your disagreement is often conveniently attributed to one or more (or even all) of the following: irrationality, evasion, fear of facing the truth, inability to grasp the meanings of certain terms, intellectual laziness, inability to break out of conventional thinking, or a desire to be self-deluded. It's a handy defense, one that keeps the aura of superior intelligence intact.

Edited by Avila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we've all experienced this at some point or another, this is just part of general online debate. It's honestly better here than most places. I think we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that being an Objectivist makes you a super-human rational robot, nor should we assume most people know a lot of about philosophy, or even know that much about Objectivism, or are interested in academic debate. Unfortunately, I think it is also the case that a lot of the people who come in here to debate Objectivists are not interested in ethical argumentation either. When you have a guy who in the first thread calls Objectivism a cult and insults everyone, then it seems odd to hear complains about ad hominem when someone calls him a troll. People can use this as a device to insult everyone, then whine when he gets it back and play the victim. All parties involved need to argue ethically, but it's important to remember that whether or not any specific person does so has nothing to do with the philosophy itself (or in the case, we can say it directly contradicts the philosophy, since it is a variety of virtue ethics.)

Ayn Rand. The Argument from intimidation.

Debate and Conversation Mises Daily: Friday, August 05, 2011 by Henry Hazlitt

Abstract. Virtue theories have become influential in ethics and epistemology.

This paper argues for a similar approach to argumentation. Several

potential obstacles to virtue theories in general, and to this new application

in particular, are considered and rejected. A first attempt is made at a survey

of argumentational virtues, and finally it is argued that the dialectical nature

of argumentation makes it particularly suited for virtue theoretic analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Often times, if I know I’ve cornered the Objectivist, they will resort to ad hominem and then tell me to come back when I understand Objectivism better/have read more Objectivist books.

I'd be surprised to learn that this experience of Objectivists is much more than confirmation bias, and whats more, i don't believe that the essence of the response is entirely inappropriate. I've experienced this in argumentation with philosophically interested people in and out of objectivism equally but only if you're careful to keep careful track of the context. Ever try arguing with and advocate of AGW without being turned to literature?

Most often it seems to be more the result of youth and especially, a lack of complete(enough) knowledge on the immediate subject. So say for example, if I were a Kantian with my current mediocre familiarity with his writings, and we were involved in a debate, we would very quickly get to a place where I'd have to say, "I am personally satisfied that the categorical imperative is well validated but cannot reproduce his whole argument for you. You'll need to study his works if you have more questions." That, I think is perfectly fair. I'm not Kant after all and people do need to go to the source eventually or you end in arguing and defending what amount to little more than straw men and caricatures of broadly explained philosophical systems. Their are of course more and less politic ways of expressing that, and that would be an aspect of youth and inexperience.

Obviously, if you were dealing with an intellectual defender of the system, they should have their understanding integrated well enough to not need to resort to that kind of a response. That's a bare minimum of due diligence and the least we should expect. At a level of expertise in any field, you reach that point where you are familiar enough with the subject that you are aware of most of the difficult parts and in possession of several ways of resolving them. Seeming contradictions, leaps of faith and whatnot, so being questioned doesn't put you immediately on the defensive. My guess though, is that your basis for judgment consists in large part of what amounts to first year philosophy students with only the beginnings of a fully functional and philosophically mature outlook. Expecting a doctoral level of knowledge is unfair. I wouldn't even do that to a Kantian. ;) If you are talking about Peikoff, or whomever, then I'd need to see the specific interaction before commenting.

As far as the Democrats and Republicans being exempt from that sort of response, I'd not be surprised, mainly because neither have anything even resembling an integrated philosophy uniting their thoughts. Categorizing people is best done with care, and in this case, comparing a political party participant to a follower of a philosophy won't yield useful information about either. Regarding your religious people example, I have had them use that argument, but only if they are debaters and scholars of the subject, rather than proselytizers, which, I'd note, most aren't. A proselytizer's goal is to have you read everything that they have and become convinced but the tactic they employ is invite you with open arms to be in fellowship with them at bible studies and let you take your time to become convinced later. Their purpose is wholly different so avoiding insult or even defensiveness is paramount. Compare that to a young student of Objectivism who finally stumbled across a book that corresponds to their long held intuitions and views of the world. They've read 2 or 10 books and find her views to be immediately obvious and imagine that anyone else who they show it to will be as immediately swept away and what's more, appreciative of being given this leap forward in mental clarity and philosophical justification for what they already are.They have very little of an inclination to convince you and no reason to suspect that incredulity that one would expect if they were advocating eating the metaphorical body of a dead Jew to avoid being cast into fire and darkness, for example.

What those objectivists would do well to realize is that while their primary sense of life view of the world may hinge on justice, a reality independent universe model, fiscal conservatism or something else that jives well with objectivism, someone else may have their whole life view revolving around egalitarianism or subjectivism or any number of other things, so their response to objectivist ideas is anything but an "ah ha" moment.

But anyway, I'd recommend more patience with youth and clearer context based classifications for these sort of informal sociological studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'd be surprised to learn that this experience of Objectivists is much more than confirmation bias, and whats more, i don't believe that the essence of the response is entirely inappropriate."

Would you tell me what is meant by "confirmation bias"? And tell me just how, in plain but specific language, you see enough merit to deem that you don't believe that "the essence of the response is entirely inappropriate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'd be surprised to learn that this experience of Objectivists is much more than confirmation bias, and whats more, i don't believe that the essence of the response is entirely inappropriate."

Would you tell me what is meant by "confirmation bias"?

If you just read more of Ayn Rand's works, then you'd understand. ;) ....sorry...I couldn't help myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias It's the tendency keep track of answers that confirm your original view. I think that this is accomplished in this case by choosing groupings of people that are not equitable for comparisons. Comparing people from a philosophical movement, a political party, and a religion will bias the answer you find when examining a debate tactic, since those three groups have differing goals. This allows the OP to come to the conclusion that the response in question that he receives from objectivists is related to or caused by Objectivism as opposed to some other factor like age or philosophical movements at large. Comparing Libertarians to Democrats or Atheists and Jews to Christians, would be more accurate in forming a generalization.

And tell me just how, in plain but specific language, you see enough merit to deem that you don't believe that "the essence of the response is entirely inappropriate."

That's what I get for dicking around with double negatives. I meant to say "is not entirely inappropriate." Thanks for pointing that out and sorry for the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think much of what you're describing isn't unique to Objectivism at all. Pick any political or social movement and you are bound to find the same sort of people you are mentioning. Discussion techniques don't come automatically, and unfortunately, I don't think people often go out to learn how to lead productive discussions.

As for number three about having to read books, that may make sense depending on the context, in particular if you want to talk *about* something Rand wrote. If we were discussing Wittgenstein and you thought it was crucial I get a broader understanding of what he wrote, it would make perfect sense, depending on the concept under discussion, for you to say "you should read X before continuing this discussion". If there are issues with that, I would suppose there is a miscommunication of the sort where you're discussing a concept and what is true versus discussing what a philosopher meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a discussion about this with some friends who are visiting for the holidays and came to a few conclusions. Objectivism has become, in part, an activist movement. In any activist group there are people who have a combination of conviction, passion, inexperience and immaturity. Conviction is a feeling of certainty; passionate people are disproportionately vocal about their convictions. Inexperience creates situations where they do not completely understand their own position and creates difficulty in expressing positions they think they understand. Immaturity can cause defensiveness and abrasiveness. People who are new to movements want desperately to get out and make a difference, but they don't have the tools necessary to present their case while giving others a fair shake. This often leads to first impressions that poison future interaction.

When these people are also passionate about philosophy, unique problems arise. In political or religious discussions people are ready to encounter passionate, abrasive people, and therefore more willing to forgive a little rudeness. Philosophy, on the other hand, is dominated by academics that have very little tolerance for rudeness. This makes the inexperienced Objectivist activist more visible than the political or religious activist, who already has a visible and experienced network of leaders to proselytize for them. Objectivism is new enough that few people have access to coaching about outreach tactics.

Another thing that makes Objectivism unique philosophically is that it is individualistic. It asks people to do the work necessary to be certain, and to not be afraid to make value judgments about other people. Contrast this with Christian activists, who are sometimes coached to be a little mousey. Take Tim Tebow, for instance. He was brought up in a sub-culture that taught him to present his argument in an optimistic, benevolent light, and to be humble when challenged. This keeps any discussion genial and leaves an opening for later discussion.

Discussion-Image, you mentioned that every discussion you've had with an Objectivist has included these poor debate tactics. On the other hand, you say you have an Objectivist friend who doesn't do this. I have a couple of comments about this. One is that it suggests you are indeed falling victim to a confirmation bias. The other comment is that your statements are the type that might set off an inexperienced, immature, passionate person. Be wary of what you are doing in these discussions to try to mitigate any ill-tempered response. Nobody should have to walk on eggshells around other people, but sometimes that is the price we pay to have meaningful discussions with young, active minds.

Regarding the repulsion to non-Objectivist philosophers, it's useful to note that many people who are interested in philosophy read many different philosophers and like to discuss the things they like and don't like about them. Objectivists, on the other hand, were often introduced to philosophy through Objectivism and don't actually have an interest in other philosophies. Rand specifically mentioned two philosophers to which she owes an intellectual debt, but she criticized many others (like Kant). There are some people who read those criticisms but don't completely understand them. Some people will read the other philosopher to understand Rand's position. Some will lose interest and never discuss it, being satisfied with what they have. I suspect what is most irritating to you are those who just parrot what she said (it irritates me, too). In situations like these, it seems fair to ask the other person if they've read the philosopher to really gauge whether or not they understand Rand's criticism. Be prepared to have the same asked of you, though.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had this issue, but with people in general. In the trucking industry a lot of people listen to the radio, either NPR or Rush and friends, so I see this a lot. It's probably a product more of people being passionate without having their internal house of knowledge in order on the subject. When one accepts ideas on face value instead of inducting them into a heirarchy of provable knowledge, at some point that person is going to "wander off the reservation" when they can't back up their opinion. As a philosophy student, you have the ablity to get to fundamentals in a world that likes to play fast and loose with such things so your more likely to get that reaction. I know. I get the same thing at a higher frequency when I talk altruism with a "liberal" or faith with a "conservative", for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m aware that the following won’t apply to every person who considers herself an Objectivist but my experiences with Objectivists have almost always been perplexing for the following reasons and I wonder what any of you might have to say about this.

1. During every discussion I’ve ever had with an Objectivist, the Objectivist has always resorted to ad hominem. I’m not an Objectivist, I’m a philosophy student and I really enjoy debating ideas. Often times, when I raise an objection to something, the Objectivist will say something like, “You are being irrational,” “You are incapable of grasping reality,” “Your ideas are not consistent with reality” etc. Sometimes I’ll also get a real response included but that’s not guaranteed. This method employed by many Objectivists is counterproductive for two reasons: attempts at insulting the other’s intelligence do not, in any way, forward an argument because they fail to explain why the other’s argument is wrong or even why you feel compelled to insult the other, also, more importantly, these responses already assume that the Objectivist approach to reality is correct when that is usually the very thing being debated. It’s much like debating a fundamentalist Christian about the accuracy of her interpretation of the Bible and then the Christian rejecting your ideas because they are inconsistent with her fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

I tend to agree with you, but even though I’m relatively new here, for the most part I’ve found the people here are willing to discuss divergent or conflicting points. I’ve always found it somewhat silly to be too dogmatic on any point as they often change with time and experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of things first, as far as my analogies go, I'm not using them as perfect matches of what happens. They are analogies. I'm using them in the hopes that it will make my point clearer, regardless of their necessary imperfection as analogies. Featherfall, I mentioned that I'm aware that this doesn't apply to all Objectivists and the fact that I have an Objectivist friend to whom this doesn't apply should show that I'm aware of this. Saying that every conversation I've had was like this was obviously an exaggeration.

That said, thank you all for your responses. This does help make sense of why some of this happens. With regard to the reading thing, I would love it if anyone read more of the philosophy I like. I'm not surprised that Objectivists would also like it if more people read Objectivist literature. The problem that I have, which I may not have made sufficiently clear but I think that some of you caught on nonetheless, is not the simple recommendation of reading itself. It's one thing to say something like, "I don't know how to answer your question," or, "I don't want to have this discussion anymore," and then say, "maybe you could go read some more of the literature if you're interested." I would have no problem with this. It's respectful, polite and honest .What I have a problem with are the people that treat me like they are so far above me intellectually such that the only way I could possibly begin to comprehend them is by reading the literature. This is ridiculous. I've found ways to explain some of the most difficult philosophical ideas to people that have almost no exposure to philosophy. If you don't want to explain something, just tell me. There is no need to be rude. As you all have pointed out. This is, by no means, limited to Objectivism. There are definitely people like this all over. However, being involved in philosophy academically, I can probably count on one hand the amount of times I've seen borderline behavior whereas, with Objectivists, most of my interactions have been like this. I know that this philosophy claims to be individualistic but I don't see how it follows that one would be arrogant and disrespectful when explaining themselves. If anything, one who cares about themselves would care enough to recognize that they can probably learn a lot from others and should therefore be a bit more humble when discussing ideas. Confidence is a good thing; arrogance is not. The friend that I mentioned is probably the best defender of Objectivism I've ever encountered and this is, in large part, due to his patience and non-condescending attitude. Although I will likely never agree with much of what he has to say, I respect him more than most people. I sincerely thank you all for your comments.

On a side note, which were the two philosophers Rand wrote about as having influenced her. Were they Aristotle and Nietzsche? If so, that confuses me because both would definitely be disgusted by Rand's philosophy.

Edited by discussion-image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, being involved in philosophy academically, I can probably count on one hand the amount of times I've seen borderline behavior whereas, with Objectivists, most of my interactions have been like this. I know that this philosophy claims to be individualistic but I don't see how it follows that one would be arrogant and disrespectful when explaining themselves. If anything, one who cares about themselves would care enough to recognize that they can probably learn a lot from others and should therefore be a bit more humble when discussing ideas.

Well, as you pointed out, you're involved in philosophy academically. I would assume a prerequisite for engaging in academic philosophy would be encountering differing viewpoints and engaging the purveyor of that viewpoint with respect. Most Objectivists aren't academic philosophers. They are individuals of a multitude of other professions, usually students, who read her books and were inspired.

That being said, and being something of an exposition of the previous fact, Objectivism is "a philosophy for living on Earth." Ayn Rand did not direct her efforts towards the academics (I think she didn't consider them worth her time.); she directed them towards educated non-academics (She considered businessmen particularly important.). Ayn Rand wasn't putting forth a philosophy for academics to ponder upon; she was creating a philosophically founded cultural movement, something that would save the world from its current state of decay. This is because Ayn Rand recognized philosophy as a practical issue, not as a game to be played, and, as such, it should be understood by any one who wishes to live.

As a practical science, philosophy is absolutely essential to one's well being. Without a firm, reality bound grasp on it, at least implicitly, one is incapable of living. Since it's so essential to one's well being and Objectivism recognizes this, Objectivists, particularly those fairly new to it, are quite defensive when someone critiques some aspect of it, particularly since those critiquing it tend to have little to no respect for it. For an Objectivist who hasn't learned the finer points and subtleties of how ideas are handled, personally and/or socially, and/or, as has been said earlier, haven't engaged in due diligence, antithetical ideas are much like a personal attack upon one's own life.

As pertaining to "humility," it would depend on what kind of humility you are expecting. Humility as such is not a virtue in the Objectivist ethics. If you're expecting Objectivists to temporarily concede that you could be correct on a very essential issue, you shouldn't hold your breath. Objectivists aren't supposed to compromise their ideas, even temporarily, merely because someone else has one that differs. If, however, you are expecting Objectivists to attempt to understand and judge your position on its merits, that's something that's reasonable to expect, but it is likely something that will take more time than a single 15 minute or so discussion to take place. A lot of people don't have exorbitant amounts of time to study philosophical ideas in depth or the philosophical training to integrate ideas on the spot.

Another thing worth mentioning is that Objectivists don't regard dialectic as a valid means of knowledge, so they're not going to assume that having a debate with you is going to open up the purview of knowledge. That being said, a rational person should most certainly take ideas very seriously and try to understand the ideas that are around them. If the person is showing courtesy to and genuine interest in an Objectivist's ideas, I don't see any reason, barring time constraints and personal matters, for the Objectivist to be closed to discussion (I especially don't see any reason for them to be rude or short.).

On a side note, which were the two philosophers Rand wrote about as having influenced her. Were they Aristotle and Nietzsche? If so, that confuses me because both would definitely be disgusted by Rand's philosophy.

I know Aristotle was, and I know Nietzsche was in her early years. But she eventually discounted Nietzsche when she "found out what he was." Aside from that, I don't know how you could say that they both "would definitely be disgusted by Rand's philosophy." I don't know an extensive amount about either, but that still sounds like quite a claim, at least for Aristotle. Either way, whether it would be true or not, I don't see why it's important. Rand didn't base her approval of philosophers on whether they would personally like her's or not.

Also, this comment makes me suspect that some of the Objectivist's response to your approaches weren't entirely due to an error on their part.

Edited by Gramlich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gramlich, let me address each of your comments in turn. I’m disappointed that you chose to write with an air of superiority so don’t be surprised by the tone of my response.

Your assumption that respect is expected when dealing with philosophy in an academic setting is correct. I’m also well aware that most Objectivist’s are not academics. I’m aware of this for a few reasons: for the most part, Objectivism is not taken seriously at the academic level for a host of reasons, every Objectivist I’ve talked to who I’ve also asked about their life has not studied philosophy academically, the way that Objectivist’s discuss philosophy allows me to assume that they don’t study philosophy academically, and, more relevantly, I’ve read all the comments that people have posted here which sufficiently addressed my concerns. I think that if you read all of the comments, you would see the same and you would also understand that I was merely pointing out a difference that I find frustrating. If you want to debate the merits of respecting other human beings, that’s a different issue. Respect isn’t just something expected at an academic level; it’s something that most people expect of any competent person along with acknowledging that those who don’t show respect should not expect to be respected by the people they disrespect. Showing respect doesn’t mean that you’ve bowed down to academia; it shows that your social intelligence has matured past the level of a newborn baby.

You go on to talk about something completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread: Ayn Rand’s metaphilosophy. I mulled over various ways to respond to your second paragraph and since it was such a tightly knit ball of non-sequiturs that I’ve come to expect from Objectivists, I decided to just go sentence by sentence. You say that Objectivism is a philosophy for living on Earth. That’s great, so is every other philosophy. You say Rand didn’t direct her efforts toward academics. I’m aware of this. She also didn’t direct her efforts toward addressing serious criticisms made by anyone, including huge philosophers during or even before her time whose philosophies were already, in many ways, much farther along than her own. If you read my original post, you will see that this was one of my concerns which were addressed in this thread. I don’t care what Rand thinks is worth her time but if she wanted her philosophy to be taken seriously as philosophy or by any intelligent person who questions the things they hear, she probably should have considered spending some time responding to other important ideas instead of just using ad hominem and ignoring it. You say she directed her work toward non-academics. This is apparent and I wish that more philosophy was done this way, actually. However, it doesn’t follow that she ought not to respond to criticism or other ideas. There’s tons of popular philosophy that respects itself enough to respond to likely criticisms. She has a habit of just asserting things, sometimes explaining herself and then moving on without considering objections. If you think that this is necessary in order to reach the masses, it seems to me that you/Rand are more concerned with reaching people who are good at taking orders rather than questioning what they’re told. Your next sentence basically restates the one preceding but also tosses in a use of one of the annoying things about Objectivists that I pointed out in the original post. By saying that her philosophy was to save the world from its state of decay is to assume her correctness before actually assessing it. As for your last sentence in this paragraph, of course philosophy is a practical issue. Most philosophy can be used practically (incidentally. it can also be a ‘game’; something fun to do without any real consequences). I’m not sure what you mean though when you say that it’s something which should be understood by anyone who wishes to live. Do you mean specifically Objectivism? If so, that’s just hilarious. If you mean philosophy in general, I still have to disagree to an extent. Yes, even people who don’t study any sort of philosophy still live their lives with some sort of implicit philosophy. However, it doesn’t follow that they ought to develop that in any way. I love philosophy, that’s why I do it. I think that people who don’t like it shouldn’t do it. I think that everyone should respect philosophy. I don’t do science because I don’t enjoy it but I definitely respect science and it is definitely a very important aspect of human existence. Different people enjoy different things and I don’t think that any one area of study is, by its nature, more important to every individual. Basically, you just need the necessities of survival in some way. Most people wouldn’t call the acquisition of those things “doing philosophy.” Therefore, philosophy is definitely not necessary in order to live. It’s fun, I love it, it’s important and it might be necessary on a societal level but it definitely isn’t necessary on an individual level. I’m sure this is something for which you’ll be foaming at the mouth, anxious to give a response. If you choose to do that, I’ll probably ignore it since, again, your second paragraph was not very relevant to the topic of the thread. I’m not looking for a sermon on the importance of Objectivism, I’m looking to understand why so many Objectivists are bad at debating effectively and in very specific ways.

I’m responding to each paragraph as I read it and I see now that the third paragraph is a continuation of the second. So, for the reasons I mentioned above, I still disagree. It seems we agree that, at least on an implicit level, philosophy plays a role in everyone’s life. The most we can say then is that philosophy is a part of everyone’s life. It doesn’t follow that a specific ideology is necessary, only that the space filled by that ideology is necessary. For example, we agree that philosophy plays a role and, for some people, the space is filled by fundamentalism. Attacking that, as their philosophy, is not an attack against their very being; it isn’t a call to destroy the philosophical aspect of their being. It is a call to alter what inhabits that space. You seem to be implying that an Objectivist can’t separate the concepts of the philosophy itself and the role that that philosophy plays which could be played by countless other philosophies. This is kind of concerning just on the level of psychological health. So, it’s more than a little dramatic and hasty to say that an attack on someone’s philosophy is an attack on their life.

I agree with what you have to say in the following paragraph. I’m aware of the basics of Objectivism. I’m asking that people enter discussions with a critical eye. This means being critical even to your own ideas. If you can’t withstand that, you’re ideas are probably pretty weak. Being critical of your own ideas, accepting and responding to criticism is what allows you to hone and strengthen your ideas. Other people and things are the only way to do this which is why one ought to show a level of respect for the other person involved, acknowledging that you can’t possibly learn anything without something exterior to yourself (even if it allows you to confirm your previously held beliefs). This doesn’t seem like a concept that anyone should have difficulty in grasping and applying. If you care about yourself and your ideas, you will treat others with respect when discussing ideas.

What you say in the following paragraph is understandable, given what I know about Objectivism. However, when discussing the validity of the approach that the Objectivist takes, it doesn’t make sense to appeal to Objectivism. This was precisely one of the issues I posted about originally.

Your last paragraph was as a response to my question in the previous post. I can say that they would definitely be disgusted by Rand’s philosophy based on my knowledge of their philosophies. You seem most concerned about Aristotle. Aristotle would be disgusted for the simple reason that Rand and her philosophy explicitly denounce the kind of moderation and the teleology which Aristotle propounds. I can explain further if you’d like but, since this was a kind of off topic question I had, maybe you could message me about it if you’re concerned. Also, you’ll see that I never said it was important. I thought it was more ironic than anything that Rand’s philosophy was supposedly influenced by Aristotle and Nietzsche.

“Also, this comment makes me suspect that some of the Objectivist's response to your approaches weren't entirely due to an error on their part.” Your entire post came close and, at times, reached the levels of absurdity I mentioned in the original post. This last comment of yours clears things up for me as to why this was the case. You are the only poster here that felt the need to take a strangely snobbish tone. Every other person who posted here managed to be helpful. I don’t understand why you even posted if it wasn't to get some weird internet-argument head-rush by temporarily feeling better than someone.

Edited by discussion-image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. There is a difference between saying you are irrational (or even stupid) or that your ideas are false, and resorting to "ad hominem". Ad hominem means that you reject an idea as false, because there is something supposedly wrong with the person. This is a fallacy since there is no logical connection between the premise and the conclusion. Example: "You're a selfish capitalist, so your argument for capitalism is false". I don't think the use of ad hominem arguments is typical of Objectivists.

2. I have actually never witnessed this. Not even once. Not that it really matters, since it is true that this will not convince anybody of anything. I do not know if most Objectivists, ignorant of philosophy in general or not, "repulse" non-Objectivist philosophers. I know that many Objectivists admire, for instance, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Even if they don't agree with everything. That includes me.

3. I think the main reason Objectivists refer to the books is because they think it is only fair that if you really care about the position you are trying to argue against, then you should at least make some effort to understand the position you are arguing against. The simplest and fairest way to gain that understanding is to read the relevant literature. It just implies that you are not very interested, if you are not willing to make that effort. So why should one care to engage you?

I have had debates and discussions for over ten years now and I can only speak for myself, but after a while you get sick of *spoon feeding* the critics with information. For free. (What is really strange is that these critics seem to think Objectivism is wrong, yet they expect me to lecture them on the philosophy because they can't bother to do any reading of their own? Something is wrong with this picture.)

Your example of the Republican debating a Democrat is, by the way, not very good, because in that case, they are both relying on a massive context that they and the audience both can relate to. But Objectivism is, contrary to what you may think, a revolutionary philosophy. It is radically different from every other philosophy out there. Therefore, you can't as an Objectivist easily go into any discussion without first establishing a totally new context, which itself is pretty controversial. But this is time consuming and, often, without any reward. Especially when you are having this conversation in a chat room, where people can interrupt you all the time with ten new questions, sidetracks, or objections... long before you have been able to set up the necessary context for the discussion.

I would love to have a discussion with somebody who has seriously studied Objectivism. I love to hear good counter-arguments, good objections. That's why I love to play the Devil's Advocate with friends. But I refuse to waste time on people who can't bother to first study the ideas they are trying to refute.

Edited by knast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, there's a lot to read here. I'm sure a lot of good stuff, but for now

I'll stick to the OP, and its premise.

First reaction, yes, some valid points - personally I could be a much better debater.

Are other Objectivists any better? Self-evidently. Many here are terrific at posing an argument.

Next thought was hang on ... why? Why should one be a university graduate of philosophy

to speak up? Objectivism not only supplies the tools of principle and methodology, but also

the dictum to think for yourself - and that's what I enjoy doing, with people who know

what I mean. Am I out to persuade others? Sure, to a degree: my self-interest demands more rationality

around me in life.

But primarily, I'm in it for myself - proudly an amateur philosopher who would rather

live by his philosophy, than become an erudite scholar of it. (Though that's a great

secondary to work on.)

Ultimately Rand made the clearest and most telling argumentation.

(For which reason we refer her literature to those interested.)

I can rephrase and paraphrase, and show applications of much of it, but I decline the premise that it is my duty to do so, and convince anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"3. I think the main reason Objectivists refer to the books is because they think it is only fair that if you really care about the position you are trying to argue against, then you should at least make some effort to understand the position you are arguing against. The simplest and fairest way to gain that understanding is to read the relevant literature. It just implies that you are not very interested, if you are not willing to make that effort. So why should one care to engage you?"

I understood the OP to be making a somewhat different point. Of course, one should be familiar with the relevant literature, but what she is saying is that in response to specific questions, some Objectivists will simply say, "Read such-and-such..", instead of answering themselves. It does give the impression that they can't answer on their own, or, perhaps, they think the writing is so self-evidently true that if a person reads it, they are completely convinced -- voila! They don't seem to accept the reality that intelligent, sincere people can read Rand and not agree with all or parts of it. That would tend to explain the tendency to simply refer to her books over and over...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I base that comment on ten years of "discussions" with people who just refuse to read and study the works of Ayn Rand. Yet they insist on talking about it. They insist on bringing up objections, even though they don't understand the theory they are arguing against. Which is why most of their objections consist of nothing but straw man-arguments.

I think it's altruistic and, therefore, immoral of me to spend time on people who are not interested. Who are not willing to make any effort on their own. Who want me to spoon feed them, without getting anything out of it.

Now, I don't exclude the possibility that you can read it, be intelligent, and still not agree or understand. That's not the point. You see, I do NOT expect anybody to necessarily be convinced after reading the works of Ayn Rand. That's NOT why I refer people back to the literature.

No, the sole reason I think it's reasonable for me, and others, to demand that people read the works of Ayn Rand before having a conversation, is because it saves me a lot of time. Instead of having to give a small lecture, to just set up the context, we can spend our precious time on arguing or clarifying a specific point.

(As a side note, I want to say that I have *never* *ever*, not even *once*, met a single person who has actually read and studied the works of Ayn Rand, et al., and then told me: "I don't agree and here is why...". I am still waiting. Quickly skimming through an essay or two, does NOT constitute serious studying. It almost doesn't count as reading at all.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me also add that it can be hard to explain something in a satisfactory manner. I know people who have an "OK" understanding of the philosophy, but they refuse to talk about it, argue for it, etc. Not because they don't know the answer, but they just don't like to or feel comfortable when arguing for it in public.

I know this for a fact, because later when I have talked to them, they know what to say. But judging on how they formulated their answer, I can see why they are not comfortable speaking in favor of their point of view in public. Being bad at or feeling uncomfortable at clearly communicating ideas, means nothing.

How common this is, I don't know, but if these people prefer to refer people to the books, then I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't see how it would imply that people can't answer these objections. If they know the objections in question are explicitly dealt with in a certain book, then why not refer to that book?

Let's say you don't agree with Objectivism. Now, if you are serious about ideas, then you would like to hear the Devil's strongest case (for, in this case, Objectivism). Then why not hear it, formulated as good as possible? Why not read the books in question, instead of just assume that there is no argument? Seems like taking the easy way out.

Edited by knast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me also add that it can be hard to explain something in a satisfactory manner. I know people who have an "OK" understanding of the philosophy, but they refuse to talk about it, argue for it, etc. Not because they don't know the answer, but they just don't like to or feel comfortable when arguing for it in public.

I agree.

Coincidentally and related to this, Dr. Peikoff was asked, in his most recent podcast, Episode 197 — January 2, 2012:

04:50: "'I have noticed that whenever Ayn Rand and others, such as you and Yaron Brook, are interviewed or debated, they always know what to answer almost instantly. I may know the answer, but I would be completely unsure how to express myself, and I may have to think. How do you get to such a level where one can answer questions like that?'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. During every discussion I’ve ever had with an Objectivist,

You have never had a discussion with an Objectivist, with the possible exception of that single friend you mentioned. You have been beating up on various species of casual Ayn Rand fans.

Stick around here and pick on kids your own size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussion-image, I think Grames is right. These are probably casual fans you spoke with. To build on that point, I don't think there are any other philosophers with as many casual fans as Rand. So, relative to other philosophies, that increases the chances of encountering poor debate tactics and people who don't know what they're talking about.

The two philosophers to which I alluded were Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. Obviously, Rand didn't like everything they had to say. That's probably why you said they'd be "repulsed" by her. Incidentally, that kind of verbiage is something you can choose to avoid if you want to improve your chances of having a respectful exchange. You may not be aware, but the title you chose for this thread also invites responses that are less than polite. I suspect that you are playing a larger role in these encounters than you like to admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gramlich, let me address each of your comments in turn. I’m disappointed that you chose to write with an air of superiority so don’t be surprised by the tone of my response.

I didn't really think I was being too bad. Also, I think it's better to read a whole post and grasp the total context before critiquing each point, because my later points clarify previous ones (I even explicitly stated this in my post at one point).

Respect isn’t just something expected at an academic level; it’s something that most people expect of any competent person along with acknowledging that those who don’t show respect should not expect to be respected by the people they disrespect. Showing respect doesn’t mean that you’ve bowed down to academia; it shows that your social intelligence has matured past the level of a newborn baby.

I'm assuming "newborn baby" is hyperbole, because that's just factually incorrect.

Also, I understand that one should show respect to other people. What I was hoping to explain to you was why an "Objectivist" or "Ayn Rand fan" (This latter may clear some things up, because I was using "Objectivist" broadly as anyone who may be a student of Objectivism but still hasn't done an extensive amount of integration of the philosophy). My explanation unfortunately seems to have gone completely over your head (Maybe because you decided to debate each sentence I wrote on a point by point basis, without trying to grasp what the totality of my post was meant to accomplish).

Also to clear some things up, when I write words like "maybe" or "may" or any other word to express doubt, I don't mean it as a sarcastic jab. I'm explicitly stating what I think. The same goes for any "unfortunately"s and "hoping"s, etc.. I'm not trying to insult you in any manner. My words are what they are. Although, I will admit I'm having a bit more fun writing this response than I should.

You go on to talk about something completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread: Ayn Rand’s metaphilosophy.

It's relevant because it would explain why someone who adopts or attempts to adopt such philosophy would act in a particular way. That's what this thread is about: Why students of Objectivism or Ayn Rand fans act a certain way when confronted with conflicting ideas.

However, it doesn’t follow that she ought not to respond to criticism or other ideas. There’s tons of popular philosophy that respects itself enough to respond to likely criticisms. She has a habit of just asserting things, sometimes explaining herself and then moving on without considering objections.

Her goal was to present her philosophy. She doesn't have a duty to address every possible criticism an individual may have to it. Presenting a philosophy doesn't necessitate addressing criticisms, and not addressing them doesn't necessitate that a person is supposed to take the philosophy upon faith.

By saying that her philosophy was to save the world from its state of decay is to assume her correctness before actually assessing it.

This above assumption is false.

As for your last sentence in this paragraph, of course philosophy is a practical issue. Most philosophy can be used practically (incidentally. it can also be a ‘game’; something fun to do without any real consequences). I’m not sure what you mean though when you say that it’s something which should be understood by anyone who wishes to live. Do you mean specifically Objectivism? If so, that’s just hilarious. If you mean philosophy in general, I still have to disagree to an extent. Yes, even people who don’t study any sort of philosophy still live their lives with some sort of implicit philosophy. However, it doesn’t follow that they ought to develop that in any way. I love philosophy, that’s why I do it. I think that people who don’t like it shouldn’t do it. I think that everyone should respect philosophy. I don’t do science because I don’t enjoy it but I definitely respect science and it is definitely a very important aspect of human existence. Different people enjoy different things and I don’t think that any one area of study is, by its nature, more important to every individual. Basically, you just need the necessities of survival in some way. Most people wouldn’t call the acquisition of those things “doing philosophy.” Therefore, philosophy is definitely not necessary in order to live. It’s fun, I love it, it’s important and it might be necessary on a societal level but it definitely isn’t necessary on an individual level.

I disagree.

I’m sure this is something for which you’ll be foaming at the mouth, anxious to give a response.

Nope, and nope. I really don't want to go into something that requires such an in depth response, unless you're my baby's Mama. I've mostly been bewildered by your response to my statements.

You seem to be implying that an Objectivist can’t separate the concepts of the philosophy itself and the role that that philosophy plays which could be played by countless other philosophies. This is kind of concerning just on the level of psychological health. So, it’s more than a little dramatic and hasty to say that an attack on someone’s philosophy is an attack on their life.

Yes; I would be saying that an Objectivist who properly understands the philosophy, which may be a redundancy, wouldn't be able to separate his life from the philosophy, which I suggested in my original post as part of the problem with students of Objectivism and Ayn Rand fans. Acting as though a human being is just a container that philosophies drop into, and it doesn't matter which one occupies it, is just subjectivism, which is false and not supported by Objectivism. What students of Objectivism and Ayn Rand fans have to understand is how to listen to conflicting philosophies and understand them thoroughly while showing rudimentary respect to their proponents, if just for their own sake. They should understand that philosophy takes time and that, even if they don't understand how to respond to another philosophy, given thought, good premises, and hard work they will come to the truth, and the truth is never something to be afraid of, because it can only help them.

I agree with what you have to say in the following paragraph. I’m aware of the basics of Objectivism. I’m asking that people enter discussions with a critical eye. This means being critical even to your own ideas. If you can’t withstand that, you’re ideas are probably pretty weak. Being critical of your own ideas, accepting and responding to criticism is what allows you to hone and strengthen your ideas. Other people and things are the only way to do this which is why one ought to show a level of respect for the other person involved, acknowledging that you can’t possibly learn anything without something exterior to yourself (even if it allows you to confirm your previously held beliefs). This doesn’t seem like a concept that anyone should have difficulty in grasping and applying. If you care about yourself and your ideas, you will treat others with respect when discussing ideas.

I disagree. I think other people are invaluable to developing your own ideas but not absolutely necessary.

What you say in the following paragraph is understandable, given what I know about Objectivism. However, when discussing the validity of the approach that the Objectivist takes, it doesn’t make sense to appeal to Objectivism. This was precisely one of the issues I posted about originally.

This just confuses me. I was trying to explain why an Objectivist (student of Objectivism or Ayn Rand fan) wouldn't think talking to you is beneficial to him/her. I never said anything about the validity of Objectivism's method.

Your last paragraph was as a response to my question in the previous post. I can say that they would definitely be disgusted by Rand’s philosophy based on my knowledge of their philosophies. You seem most concerned about Aristotle. Aristotle would be disgusted for the simple reason that Rand and her philosophy explicitly denounce the kind of moderation and the teleology which Aristotle propounds. I can explain further if you’d like but, since this was a kind of off topic question I had, maybe you could message me about it if you’re concerned. Also, you’ll see that I never said it was important. I thought it was more ironic than anything that Rand’s philosophy was supposedly influenced by Aristotle and Nietzsche.

I've read some things on Aristotle's ethics, in particular his virtues of moderation, and I didn't see anything enormously divergent from Objectivism.

Your entire post came close and, at times, reached the levels of absurdity I mentioned in the original post. This last comment of yours clears things up for me as to why this was the case. You are the only poster here that felt the need to take a strangely snobbish tone. Every other person who posted here managed to be helpful. I don’t understand why you even posted if it wasn't to get some weird internet-argument head-rush by temporarily feeling better than someone.

I didn't write anything in a snobbish tone, and, unlike you, I never acted as though the person's philosophy I was having a discussion with was a joke. I think I was extraordinarily helpful. I posted to be helpful. Your assumptions are completely arbitrary.

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...