Ban Communists?

[Betsy]

I don't think Objectivism fosters the kind of change you are suggesting. 

I've seen it happen. Of course, I have more often NOT seen it happen. The kind of dogmatic, concrete-bound, rules and commandments approach to values that almost everyone has long before they first encounter Objectivism is very hard to change.

Os beleive there is one answer, the correct one.  Personally, I share this belief particularly when it  comes to observing the uiniverse and in determining ethical beheavior.

This is a good example of a dogmatic, rules and commandments approach which was not Ayn Rand's method at all. Ayn Rand advocated ethical principles rather than rules. Principles don't give you one-size-fits-all answers about what you should or shouldn't do. Instead of a rule book, Objectivism provides a roadmap to reality which you can use, depending on the context, as a guide to how to achieve your own personal values.

I believe the difficulty arises when Os talk about values.  Judgement is a responsibily, but judgement properly belongs to the areas of Epistemology, Metaphysics and Ethics.  When judgements are extended to what others value, we are in very complex waters.  There can be no single answer, no right or wrong in this area, at best, one can is suggest that a value is questionable and should be reexamined. 

Here again, this expresses a non-Objectivist approach. Objectivists don't judge others by an Intrinsicist standard, as traditional moralities do, but by a selfish standard. Objectivists judge others in order to assess what values or threats they pose to the person making the judgement and therefore, if and how he should interact and deal with these others.

The reason it is usually a good idea to judge the values of others is because, since people are motivated to act by their values, it helps to predict how they will act in the future. If I am considering lending someone money, it is important whether he values honesty and keeping contracts.

An argument could be made, for example, that the value Ayn Rand placed on Mickey Spilane or her 'ricky-tick' music was misplaced.

WHY? And why is it a rational, selfish concern of anyone else?

She is, of course, forgiven, because of who she is, but a lesser figure in the movement will often be harshly centured for liking the wrong book or the wrong movie. 

WHY? And why is it a rational, selfish concern of anyone else?

Someone who takes a proper Objectivist approach to moral judgement doesn't condemn someone for simply liking the "wrong" thing. That sounds like an Intrinsicist judging something out of context.

When judgement is exercised and even an imperative in the realm of values, observers invariably conclude that Objectivism is dogmatic and employs thought police.

When would be Intrinsicists try to act like "thought policemen" they only manage to intimidate those who are not secure in their own values. Real Objectivists look at them, smile, and go about their business.

Also there are NO imperatives in the realm of Objectivist values. See Ayn Rand's essay, "Causality Versus Duty."

[BlackSabbath]

judging by the way all you guys (no girls? hardly surprising...) went off on your communist enemies I would say that that this group surpasses the socialist front in militancy and social coercion.  very sad boys, and also very pathetic.  still, i'm glad that everybody had a chance to go off on a strawman enemy. 

best regards

Translated into plain English, this means " Hello. My name is Troll. Troll McTroll. I have come here to troll. Troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll. I will say nothing positive about anything and only tell you what I'm against. I'm now off to eat Bilbo and the dwarves. Byeee!"

Quick question for everybody.

Would you debate with a Nazi if they came here and behaved or would you ban them straight away?

[aynfan]

The kind of dogmatic, concrete-bound, rules and commandments approach to values that almost everyone has long before they first encounter Objectivism is very hard to change.

You continue to insist that people bring these attitudes to O without any facts to support that opinion.

This is a good example of a dogmatic, rules and commandments approach which was not Ayn Rand's method at all.  Ayn Rand advocated ethical principles rather than rules.  Principles don't give you one-size-fits-all answers about what you should or shouldn't do.

This is not what I said. Either you do not understand or you are deliberately misquoting me. I talked about one answer in observations concerning reality and ethics, not about one 'should or shouldn't do'. If you mean there is room for debate about ethics, you are quite simply wrong. Something is either right or it is wrong, within a particular context.

Instead of a rule book, Objectivism provides a roadmap to reality which you can use,  depending on the context, as a guide to how to achieve your own personal values.

That is the theory, but that is not the way things work in truth. I may be older than you claim to be, so I have lived through this argument. I also have all the copies of TARL,ONL and the Objectivist I subscribed to in the 60s. The back pages of these publications are full of books, movies and plays we were told we should value. I also am aware of Barbara Brandon's account of the disappointment and alienation she felt when Ayn Rand told her she was wrong to find value in the novels of Thomas Woolf. This is why others consider Objectivism dogmatic and controlling of thought. It may be unfair to judge the practice rather than the theory, but that is the risk one runs when they do not practice what they preach. (to be continued)

[aynfan]

Objectivists judge others in order to assess what values or threats they pose to the person making the judgement and therefore, if and how he should interact and deal with these others.

"values or threats they pose" makes no sense. This sounds more like paranoid than Objectivism.

The reason it is usually a good idea to judge the values of others is because, since people are motivated to act by their values, it helps to predict how they will act in the future.  If I am considering lending someone money, it is important whether he values honesty and keeping contracts.

You are confusing values with valuing morality or ethics which is beginner mistake.

Someone who takes a proper Objectivist approach to moral judgement doesn't condemn someone for simply liking the "wrong" thing.  That sounds like an Intrinsicist judging something out of context.

You repeat the same error.

Real Objectivists look at them, smile, and go about their business.

If that were true there would be no 'heresy' or 'excommunications'.

Also there are NO imperatives in the realm of Objectivist values.  See Ayn Rand's essay, "Causality Versus Duty."

I know that essay well. It doesn't apply here. I said that there should be no imperatives or judgement about what people value, what Rand calls sense of life issues, but there are. Objectivism is so impowering that, perhaps, it leads some to beleive they are infallible, but they have forgotten die gustibus non disputandem est.

[Betsy]

You continue to insist that people bring these attitudes to O without any facts to support that opinion.

No facts? Just LOOK at how NON-Objectivists hold their values.

I talked about one answer in observations concerning reality and ethics, not about one 'should or shouldn't do'. 

If ethics isn't about what one should or shouldn't do, what IS it about?

If you mean there is room for debate about ethics, you are quite simply wrong.  Something is either right or it is wrong, within a particular context.

In Objectivism, right or wrong in ethics is a matter of principles.

I may be older than you claim to be, so I have lived through this argument.

I'll be 61 in October.

I also have all the copies of TARL,ONL and the Objectivist I subscribed to in the 60s.

Me too. I've been involved with Objectivism since 1962 and I have a copy of Atlas Shrugged that Ayn Rand inscribed to me that year to prove it.

The back pages of these publications are full of books, movies and plays we were told we should value.

Yes, I saw the recommended books etc. and saw the reason why they were recommended, but I guess I missed the part where where were told we should value them. Could you please quote something that was there to that effect.

My understanding was that these were books that someone interested in Ayn Rand might want to know about and read. I bought and/or read some which matched my own interests and values and ignored the others.

I also am aware of Barbara Brandon's account of the disappointment and alienation she felt when Ayn Rand told her she was wrong to find value in the novels of Thomas Woolf.

That's BB's version. Here is another account of Ayn Rand on the issue of person taste's in art:

Leonard Peikoff was asked about this in a live radio interview

conducted by reporters for a local newspaper while he was doing his daily

radio show. Here's what he had to say, transcribed verbatim, from my tape

of the interview:

"If it were true that Ayn Rand kicked out of her circle or denounced or

would not tolerate anyone who disagreed with her on things like music and

painting, I'd like you to account for my continued existence as a close

friend of hers for over thirty years plus being designated as heir.

"I loved Beethoven. I have a vast Mozart collection of which she knew

perfectly well. I love Somerset Maugham whom she hated. [ ...]

"She knew in great detail of the conflicts -- such conflicts or

disagreements as there were -- and as long as you could specify what

you liked in terms that were understandable in reason (and that were

not an assault on reason, as I indicated to you before) there's no such

thing. It's a complete, total lie."

[Spearmint]

a lesser figure in the movement will often be harshly centured for liking the wrong book or the wrong movie.

I can honestly say that I have never actually encountered this happening on any Objectivist discussion group I've visited, including this one. Perhaps it is different at conferences, or in the NBI days.

[Betsy]

Objectivists judge others in order to assess what values or threats they pose to the person making the judgement and therefore, if and how he should interact and deal with these others

"values or threats they pose" makes no sense.  This sounds more like paranoid than Objectivism.

It is a fact that people who are rational and productive have many values to offer me economically and socially. It is a fact that someone who wants to rob me is a threat to me. It is in my self interest to judge who is who.

The reason it is usually a good idea to judge the values of others is because, since people are motivated to act by their values, it helps to predict how they will act in the future.  If I am considering lending someone money, it is important whether he values honesty and keeping contracts.

You are confusing values with valuing morality or ethics which is beginner mistake.

Beginner? ME??

Not only have I read almost all of the Objectivist literature as it was published over the past 42 years, I've even written some of it. Look for the name "Betsy Speicher" on the bylines of articles in The Objectivist Forum and The Intellectual Activist. My name is even in the credits of "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life."

Someone who takes a proper Objectivist approach to moral judgement doesn't condemn someone for simply liking the "wrong" thing.  That sounds like an Intrinsicist judging something out of context.

Real Objectivists look at [intrinsicists], smile, and go about their business.

If that were true there would be no 'heresy' or 'excommunications'.

There is no heresy and there haven't been any excommunications.

People can and do declare wrong things and even say these wrong things are "objectivism." In response, Objectivists say they are wrong.

For all kinds of reasons, one person can and often does decide not to deal with another person both within and outside of Objectivism. That is ostracism or avoidance, not "excommunication."

I said that there should be no imperatives or judgement about what people value, what Rand calls sense of life issues, but there are.

Where and by whom? The fact that someone feels intimidated when someone disagrees with him about values, proves nothing.

If someone, even a fellow Objectivist, disagrees with me about my personal values, I ask him why. If he is so presumptuous and arbitrary to condemn me for what I value, I set him straight in no uncertain terms.

NOBODY attacks my values and gets away with it.

[Betsy]

a lesser figure in the movement will often be harshly centured for liking the wrong book or the wrong movie. 

I can honestly say that I have never actually encountered this happening on any Objectivist discussion group I've visited, including this one. Perhaps it is different at conferences, or in the NBI days.

There are some moralistic twits among people who claim to be Objectivists, but most Objectivists don't encourage them. I can't say that was the case in the NBI days, but the worst of the moralizing ended when the Brandens split.

[aynfan]

"I loved Beethoven. I have a vast Mozart collection of which she knew

perfectly well. I love Somerset Maugham whom she hated. [ ...]

Look I was making a point about how exObjectivists judge the way they were treated within the movement. If you want to feel threatened and defend bad practice like some mother hen defending her brood, fine. But you are fighting foos.

ps-I am older than you.

[aynfan]

I can honestly say that I have never actually encountered this happening on any Objectivist discussion group I've visited, including this one. Perhaps it is different at conferences, or in the NBI days.

The late days of NBI were not fun. But I have been trying to tell you all, what happens when professed Objectivists run through all of the theories and start meddling in sense of life issues. I repeat, it is a matter of taste, an area where our responsibility for judgement has no place.

[aynfan]

Beginner?  ME??

Not only have I read almost all of the Objectivist literature as it was published over the past 42 years, I've even written some of it.  Look for the name "Betsy Speicher" on the bylines of articles in The Objectivist Forum and The Intellectual Activist.  My name is even in the credits of "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life." 

Again you get it wrong. I said you made a beginner's mistake. Ethics are values yes , but all issues of value are not about Ethics.

There is no heresy and there haven't been any excommunications. 

Rothbard, Greenspan, 2 Brandon, Kelley and Bidinotto among others would disagree.

NOBODY attacks my values and gets away with it.

Of course not, but you are very well schooled in Ojectivist theory and can not be intimidated. The average person who works at it for a year or two is in a very different position. When met with constant criticism and facing supposed Objectivists who are forever telling them what is good and what is not, they give up in resentment. Again I attribute this to a sense of empowerment, that goes too fa

r.

[Betsy]

[Y]ou are very well schooled in Objectivist theory and can not be intimidated.  The average person who works at it for a year or two is in a very different position.  When met with constant criticism and facing supposed Objectivists who are forever telling them what is good and what is not, they give up in resentment. 

When I was just a few years into Objectivism and still had a lot to learn, I was beseiged and attacked by many "authorities" on Objectivism including Branden himself. My reaction was always, "WHY did he say that? WHY did he do that?" If I didn't get a sensible answer, my question became "What's wrong with HIM that he acts that way?" In no case did I ever doubt myself or my judgement without a reason.

I was always like that even as a very young child, according to my parents' accounts, and that may have been one of the factors leading me to Objectivism. I suspect that people who are easily intimidated were like that pre-Objectivism too.

[Betsy]

There is no heresy and there haven't been any excommunications. 

Rothbard, Greenspan, 2 Brandon, Kelley and Bidinotto among others would disagree.

Of course they would.

It's a lot easier for most people to blame someone else than face the real reasons why certain people don't want to associate with them any more.

[aynfan]

I was always like that even as a very young child, according to my parents' accounts, and that may have been one of the factors leading me to Objectivism.  I suspect that people who are easily intimidated were like that pre-Objectivism too.

I know you think I am just 'busting your chops', but it isn't the case. But I am again puzzled. What can one make of this quote? Are you saying that we are predisposed by temperament to become or not become Objectivists?

[aynfan]

Of course they would. 

It's a lot easier for most people to blame someone else than face the real reasons why certain people don't want to associate with them any more.

Many people associate with them. They still call themselves Objectivist and, except for Rothbard who is dead, they are making a living spreading Objectivist philosophy. Kelley and the TOC has opened a second location, a policy institute in Washington, D.C. They appear to do a better job of getting the word out than does ARI .

ARI calls them evil and wrong. I don't understand it.

But, getting back to the topic: I see no advantage in being cloistered. I am still convinced that we should ban trolls, but not ideas.

[Travis P.]

Many people associate with them.  They still call themselves Objectivist and, except for Rothbard who is dead,  they are making a living spreading Objectivist philosophy.  Kelley and the TOC has opened a second location, a policy institute in Washington, D.C. They appear to do a better job of getting the word out than does ARI . 

I don't know everything about all of these people. Rothbard claimed that the United States was a worse threat to world peace than the Soviet Union and wrote essays criticizing Ayn Rand and her followers as far back as the early 60s. No wonder some Objectivists wouldn't want to associate with Rothbard.

I might add that if you think TOC is doing better than ARI these days... well I don't know what to say. While I often see ARI op-eds (and sometimes advertisements) in major newspapers and regularly encounter ARI people on TV talkshows, radio, or campus clubs, I can't even remember seeing someone from the TOC. Nor for that matter, have I heard of anything interesting or new philosophically coming out of the TOC movement (they seem to spend a good portion of their time dogmatically attacking "ARI Supporters" as dogmatic or focusing only on politics/economics). At the same time, Peikoff and others have come up with some very interesting ideas involving the Problem of Induction, for example.

Furthermore, I'm unaware of TOC sponsoring major campaigns to get Ayn Rand's (or anyone else's) books into schools, which ARI has been doing. I am also unaware of any successful attempts by TOC to get their intellectuals into academia.

Why is this? A lot of it goes back to Kelley's "open system" and "toleration" (I use quotes because I'm not convinced the terms are correct to describe what he advocates). For information about what these people actually believe and have actually said, you should search the internet, if you care... I'm happy with ARI. I've never felt intimidated. I've gradually agreed with all the principles of Objectivism (for a while many of them made me uncomfortable, so I didn't accept them). I personally don't see the draw of a group of people whining that "ARI people" won't call them Objectivists too and who have nothing substantial to offer.

[aynfan]

I don't know everything about all of these people.  Rothbard claimed that the United States was a worse threat to world peace than the Soviet Union and wrote essays criticizing Ayn Rand and her followers as far back as the early 60s.  No wonder some Objectivists wouldn't want to associate with Rothbard.

I might add that if you think TOC is doing better than ARI these days... well I don't know what to say.  While I often see ARI op-eds (and sometimes advertisements) in major newspapers and regularly encounter ARI people on TV talkshows, radio, or campus clubs, I can't even remember seeing someone from the TOC.  Nor for that matter, have I heard of anything interesting or new philosophically coming out of the TOC movement (they seem to spend a good portion of their time dogmatically attacking "ARI Supporters" as dogmatic or focusing only on politics/economics).  At the same time, Peikoff and others have come up with some very interesting ideas involving the Problem of Induction, for example.

Furthermore, I'm unaware of TOC sponsoring major campaigns to get Ayn Rand's (or anyone else's) books into schools, which ARI has been doing.  I am also unaware of any successful attempts by TOC to get their intellectuals into academia. 

Why is this?  A lot of it goes back to Kelley's "open system" and "toleration" (I use quotes because I'm not convinced the terms are correct to describe what he advocates).  For information about what these people actually believe and have actually said, you should search the internet, if you care... I'm happy with ARI.  I've never felt intimidated.  I've gradually agreed with all the principles of Objectivism (for a while many of them made me uncomfortable, so I didn't accept them).  I personally don't see the draw of a group of people whining that "ARI people" won't call them Objectivists too and who have nothing substantial to offer.

I pretty much agree with you.

Your post, however, is what typifies a problem with this site. One gets suckered into tangents, side issues, ancillary concerns. Then when you've been dragged a far pace down that road, someone comes along, reads the last post, and reacts as if nothing came before it.

[Betsy]

Are you saying that we are predisposed by temperament to become or not become Objectivists?

No. I am saying that people who are intimidated by Objectivists into doing things they would otherwise not do were almost certainly intimidated by others BEFORE they encountered Objectivism.

So don't blame Objectivism or Objectivists.

[aynfan]

No.  I am saying that people who are intimidated by Objectivists into doing things they would otherwise not do were almost certainly intimidated by others BEFORE they encountered Objectivism.

So don't blame Objectivism or Objectivists.

I don't blame them. They are what they are. How can anyone place blame?

[AshRyan]

ps-I am older than you.

Yeah, and my dad could beat up your dad.

Are you for real?

Oh, and this gem is classic:

I don't blame them. They are what they are. How can anyone place blame?

You will probably tell me that I am taking that statement out of context, that you were simply playing Devil's advocate and didn't really mean it, or something to that effect--at least, I hope so. But the problem remains--there is no way to tell whether you mean it or not from the statement itself or from the context from which it is taken.

But the real problem is your constant harping on ARI supporters for such non-issues as "excommunicating" people for liking the wrong music. You simply repeat this assertion again and again and again without providing a shred of evidence for it.

If I hadn't been gone for the last couple of weeks, this problem would have already been taken care of--one way or the other. As it stands, since you still have not received a warning about this behavior, you should get one instead of just being banned outright. So here it is:

This is a warning. Drop the confrontational attitude and the straw man ad homs, or leave. Please.

P.S. I really love the implication of this statement:

But if any banning is done, David should do it.

Perhaps you were anticipating my return?

[stephen_speicher]

But the real problem is your constant harping on ARI supporters for such non-issues as "excommunicating" people for liking the wrong music.  You simply repeat this assertion again and again and again without providing a shred of evidence for it.

Check out the "Predation: Virtue Or Vice?, What's wrong with predation?" on the "Ethics" forum if you really want to see this character in action. Some "aynfan."

[Equality 7-2521]

If you know that someone is dishonest, what does that say about you that you are prepared to debate with them?

It says that you are sure that you have the truth on your side. Truth trumps lies, and will always win in the long-run.

[AshRyan]

Check out the "Predation: Virtue Or Vice?, What's wrong with predation?" on the "Ethics" forum if you really want to see this character in action. Some "aynfan." 

Oh, I saw it. That thread was more of the reason for the warning than this one.

[BlackSabbath]

It says that you are sure that you have the truth on your side.  Truth trumps lies, and will always win in the long-run.

Actually no, it says you are wasting your time talking to an idiot.

BTW, would people here ban somebody for being a Nazi or a Fascist?

[AshRyan]

BTW, would people here ban somebody for being a Nazi or a Fascist?

Well, that depends.