Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2020 election

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 10/17/2020 at 12:12 PM, DavidOdden said:

Objectivists have a special position in my hierarchy of values, because of our shared values. The problem is that the facts and logic lead to just one conclusion, and clearly you must agree with me, so how can we tolerate someone in our own ranks who does not agree with us? Reason is a precise tool – it’s is man’s proper tool for survival – so reason can’t be at fault. Isn’t it therefore reasonable to think that the problem is that the other guy has abandoned reason? An Objectivist abandoning reason is a serious betrayal. Of course one has a strong negative emotional response to betrayal of fundamental principles.

[...]

The main effect of rifts is that it increases the noise to signal ratio, so that all you can hear is denunciations based on foundations, rather than reasons.

I would add that it's a giant waste of everyone's time. It's also embarrassing, ironic, and sad for a group of people supposedly dedicated to reason to instead engage in emotionalist nitpicking, worse still to justify their behavior in the name of others' supposed reason violations. I wonder how many Objectivists have actually "betrayed" reason, and what that even looked like. That's some serious Toohey-level shit I doubt most people are even capable of doing, and shouldn't the response then be a fierce focus on the faulty reasoning, not the person spouting the nonsense?

More likely, people are just in error, or not in error and simply arrive at different conclusions. Big surprise, Objectivists are people too, fallible. Objectivists are not equal - knowledge level and integrations are all over the place from person to person. One could almost argue that it takes decades of adult living for most people to gain the necessary experience to truly understand Objectivist principles, and even then, each person has only a singular life perspective and can still make errors even with the most sincere dedication to reason.

As far as I can tell, there are two types of people who associate with Objectivism:

1. Those primarily focused on emotionalism, who use Rand's philosophy as a righteous, pure justification

2. Those primarily interested in truth and reason

Oddly, I don't notice a lot of Objectivists primarily interested in independence.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A difference between paying a bribe and paying a fine is that a bribe is conditioned on the recipient performing an action, and charity is not. If I charitably pay your fine, you are free to thank me

Tony, this horse we children would ride out in the country belonged to that man I spoke of who went to school only through the third grade. He was the second husband of our mother. He was a cattle ran

Merlin, under the heading of this thread: Are you going to vote for the Trump/Pence ticket? The Supreme Court overthrow of Roe will have already been accomplished as far as that can be affected by get

Posted Images

On 10/17/2020 at 11:06 AM, Easy Truth said:

As far as ignoring goes, I can't simply ignore something Peikoff or Brooks said. I have to examine what I thought I didn't have to examine.

That's what is distressing to me.

Why can't you ignore it? What would happen if you'd never heard of either men?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JASKN said:

Why can't you ignore it? What would happen if you'd never heard of either men?

Ignoring is not impossible, it's just not preferred.
As in, it is not impossible to ignore them, I value their opinion.
Problem is, as you say they are human and they make mistakes.
Ogden's signal to noise ratio is my complaint.

I want them to cut the noise, the muddying the water, the confusion they insert in the discussion.
I wanted Yaron's speech on Wolf the socialist (and Wolf is frightening) but I meet people like Wolf all the time and I learn from Yaron how to counter things.
I also learn how distracting some of Yaron's emotional comments are (and to make sure to not include them).
Peikoff was a great teacher, far more engaging that Branden.
But I found Branden far more correct on psychological issues that Peikoff et. al.

Ignore (in this case ignore completely) implies that their input has not been helpful at all in my life, and that is not the case. So I would have missed out on some of the benefits I gained, some better understanding.
Kind of like, if this forum did not exist, would life go on, yes it would. But there is a wealth of knowledge here, there is concretization of concepts, explanations, different way of interpretation that one is exposed to. And clearing up of misunderstandings or confusion.

But participation is so small compared to the half a million Objectivists that I assume exist in the world. (arbitrary assumption on my part)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

But I found Branden far more correct on psychological issues that Peikoff et. al.

Of course, because Branden has a PhD in psychology and Peikoff does not. 

But more to the point of what you are saying, neither Peikoff nor Brook are good public speakers. They are not experts in politics. Brook is quite easy to ignore, both because he is no philosophy expert and also because he speaks poorly. Peikoff is great about making Objectivism easier to comprehend, and how to think better, but I think he's frequently incorrect about anything outside philosophy that he has talked about publicly (especially practical matters of your day-to-day life when he had his Q&A podcast). 

So, who really cares about what they say. More importantly, Peikoff really said nothing, so he didn't try to give an opinion. Brook has, which means that he is the one muddying the waters. And if he is muddying the waters, he is the problem. If you think the signal-to-noise ratio is worsening, the more reason you have to move onto more important political topics or speakers if that's your thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That and the primary purpose of most of these people is to channel new converts into the Objectivist lecture/books/course/conference/membership ecosystem, which is the primary monetization enterprise, aside from convincing rich people to donate money to them. I'd just recommend steering clear of them altogether, there's only a few of them that are even good at what they do.

Let's take a look at the following propositions that DO mentioned:

1. The facts and logic always lead to only one conclusion

2. If two people come to different conclusions, then one if them has betrayed reason

1 and 2 are false. So the conclusion (one possible way to arrange it) that "you must agree with me" and (paraphrasing) "we can't tolerate disagreement in our ranks" (who is this "we" and what "ranks" are these?) are also false. 

A lot of this discussion depends on taking these premises for granted, connected to the general idea that "two rational people are supposed to agree at all times." If 1 and 2 are not true, then that idea is also not true, if it's supposed to depend on 1 and 2. 

What's a very brief reason to believe 1 and 2 are false? S' knowledge that p depends on S' belief that p be epistemically justified. One form of that is the propositional interpretation of justification. This is the idea that it's the belief that bears the primary epistemic justification. Justification modifies p, not S. Another form is the personalistic interpretation, the person is the primary bearer of justification. S bears the justification in believing or inferring that p (p can be said colloquially to be justified, but technically in a derivative sense.)

If p and not S bears the justification, then the context of the knower holding or inferring p would be unrelated to the justification of p. This wouldn't make sense if knowledge is contextual and hierarchical, as well as held and achieved by an individual knower connecting his inferences to first-handed perception.

 

Edited by 2046
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2046 said:

That and the primary purpose of most of these people is to channel new converts into the Objectivist lecture/books/course/conference/membership ecosystem, which is the primary monetization enterprise, aside from convincing rich people to donate money to them. I'd just recommend steering clear of them altogether, there's only a few of them that are even good at what they do.

I was under the impression that you were an admirer because I see 2046 in the chat system.

2 hours ago, 2046 said:

Let's take a look at the following propositions that DO mentioned:

1. The facts and logic always lead to only one conclusion

2. If two people come to different conclusions, then one if them has betrayed reason

Agreed

2 hours ago, 2046 said:

1 and 2 are false. So the conclusion (one possible way to arrange it) that "you must agree with me" and (paraphrasing) "we can't tolerate disagreement in our ranks" (who is this "we" and what "ranks" are these?) are also false. 

Rand herself started this with the excommunications that would routinely happen. And then it continued with the institute. But I have discounted that, as I believe most of us have. The work that she has done stands on its own. In that sense I would agree, one can ignore the noise around her.

Having said that ... how would any of us have known that she had major character flaws if we had ignored all those people around her. The reason I bring this up is that we have no choice about "when the quality information will come your way". You sort of have to be receptive and open. Ignoring means close the door.

You claim to be dismissive, yet you pay attention and you participate. So what you are saying (steer clear) is more nuanced than how it comes across.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

So, who really cares about what they say. More importantly, Peikoff really said nothing, so he didn't try to give an opinion. Brook has, which means that he is the one muddying the waters. And if he is muddying the waters, he is the problem. If you think the signal-to-noise ratio is worsening, the more reason you have to move onto more important political topics or speakers if that's your thing. 

I honestly wish I could do it, because it is nerve wracking for me. I just question the wisdom. You may have more sources of information than I do, that may allow you to be less "dependent" in a sense.

I really learnt alot from the Wolf program from Yaron, but his comments about "look at how he sneers", " he's a horrible person", I ignore. But all in all, I have also learnt a lot from Wolf in his Libertarian debate at Soho, about the problems with Crony Capitalism. So I feel "ignore" has to be carefully qualified. Ignore when you see X, Y and Z. Rather than stay away, you can figure it out on your own.

 

Link to post
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...