Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist sympathizer here

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know about you Daniel, but if I am interested in studying a philosophy, and the proponents of that philosophy show dislike for my ideas, my first goal is to figure out why. If Vernunft was interested in Objectivism, he would have asked why we don't like Kantist's, not yelled YOU JUST CAN'T UNDERSTAND KANT or YOU ARE DOGMATISTS, without giving any indication of why. And like I said, the dogmatist claim was clearly in his mind as he made his first post (you know, before he was accused of trolling).

Also, you should note that my first post showed an interest in what he had to say and mentioned that insulting comments were not called for at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Halley, your first posts were totally appropriate, which is why I was surprised to see you say Vernunft was a troll. I just looked back at it, and when I first went back and reread the thread, I must have overlooked the following paragraph:

Vernunft says to Halley:

I'm also disappointed to see that dogmatism showing through. It's assumed at the outset that I am wrong and that objectivism is right. You assume that I am wrong and that you will simply show me how. Perhaps you might want to consider that someone other than you may know the truth, or some part of it at least (however small), better than you do. You may learn something.

I can certainly see why you were offended by that. You were right to be, and you responded quite civilly. I think if others hadn't jumped in and started flinging insults, there might have been an interesting and possibly productive discussion about Rand and Kant.

Anyway, sorry if it seemed like I was supporting what he said in that paragraph. I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The post MinorityOfOne quotes is precisely the moment where it becomes obvious that Vernunft was indeed a troll. In response to a post which first defended him against insult, and then asked for rational discussion, he accuses the poster of being a dogmatist. If that is not an attempt to avoid a reasonable debate, I'm not sure what could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether he was really a troll or not is beside the point right now. He has succeeded in wasting a lot of our time and making us argue amongst ourselves about something. Maybe this is a new tactic among the trolls. Make them argue about whether or not we were a troll and they won't have time for anything else. :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a philosophy major in an undergraduate university, I am quite disturbed by the reaction of some of you to a person genuinely interested in rational discussion and debate. I see absolutely no reason to conclude that Vernunft's intention was to anger and annoy the people in this forum, but rather, he was genuinely interested in learning more about Objectivism and the potential holes in his own knowledge of Kant.

There are certainly a large number of reasons for disliking Kant's philosophy as well as disliking those people who claim to hold to any part of Kant's philosophy.

However, the fact that one professes some agreement with a philosopher that is opposed to Rand is certainly not grounds to accuse that person of being a troll. Specifically, this charge by member Black Sabbath only after Vernunft's first post was totally out of line. I think that most of Vernunft's anger to this arbitrary accusation was quite justified. I agree with this completely:

Vernunft's reaction, though mistaken, is perfectly understandable given the responses he received. First, he was insulted and judged without any evidence on which to base a judgment. Richard Halley indicated that judging was called for--yet nobody ever gave Vernunft any grounds for our having a negative judgment. If you're going to say something negative about someone for appreciating Kant, you'd better be prepared--not down the road, not tomorrow, but at the same time as the judgment--to give sufficient evidence. Otherwise, the likely reaction on the part of the person being judged is to see you as a nutcase, as Vernunft ended up doing. I think Vernunft actually put up with you people for an admirable amount of time.

This kind of arbitrary dismissal of individuals that do not fully agree with Objectivism will NOT be tolerated on this forum. As an administrator, I will take action against any such arbitrary accusations and unjustified name-calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the fact that one professes some agreement with a philosopher that is opposed to Rand is certainly not grounds to accuse that person of being a troll. Specifically, this charge by member Black Sabbath only after Vernunft's first post was totally out of line.

I agree with this. Sabbath was out of line in his first posting.

However one should note that Vernunft ignored my proddings toward moving the discussion into philosophy for quite some time. And when someone stated:

"Tell us what precisely Kant said and what you agree with and why," Vernunft's next post was one calling us "raving lunatics," "arrogant and dull dogmatists," and of having "eyes wired shut" and "heads in our asses." He gives no justification for any of this and it becomes clear that he was uninterested in talking rationally.

Turns out, Sabbath got lucky and guessed right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, Richard_Halley, Vernunft's final response came after a long number of many other arbitrary accusations similar to that of BlackSabbath's original response.

While Vernunft's final post was uncivl and a bit uncalled for, I sympathize with him greatly. If there is anything I hate more in philosophical conversations it is being dismissed out of hand for holding an unfavorable viewpoint.

While everyone was quite justified in being cautiously suspicious about a person who professes agreement with Kant, that does not give one the ability to conclude that that person has the intention of harassing our forum members or that they are obviously evading.

If, this guy had given us arguments for his beliefs, in which evasion or irrationality were noticed, that would have been grounds for condemning him in the respect that occurred here. However, this was certainly not the case. This guy mentioned that he is interested in Kant, and it was ASSUMED that therefore he must be irrational, evading, and has the intention of being a troll.

That is EXACTLY the kind of dogmatism that Vernunft was afraid of, and certain members of this forum delivered exactly that. That WILL NOT be tolerated here.

P.S. Thanks Matt, I try :nerd:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That WILL NOT be tolerated here.

First, I want to be clear that I am not arguing with this point. I agree that arbitrary accusations shouldn't be tolerated.

But you are ignoring two things:

1. The early attacks Vernunft made toward me. Which were completely uncalled for, as I came out early in his defense.

2. The fact that Vernunft's attacks on each individual were directly related to that person's attempts to get him to explain himself. The timing of his last attack was specifically interesting, as it came immediately after a direct statement indicating: "tell us why."

Also, it is important to remember that Vernunft brought up dogmatism in his first post, and dogmatism was his only coherent accusation-I don't count "heads in your asses" as a coherent accusation--throughout the entire discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard Halley,

But you are ignoring two things:

1. The early attacks Vernunft made toward me. Which were completely uncalled for, as I came out early in his defense.

2. The fact that Vernunft's attacks on each individual were directly related to that person's attempts to get him to explain himself. The timing of his last attack was specifically interesting, as it came immediately after a direct statement indicating: "tell us why."

1. I do not think that Vernunft was attacking you personally in his responses. I think there was a disagreement on the nature of the term 'sympathizer,' but I do not think he was trying to attack you.

2. I see it more likely that the reason why he was not answering your questions was due to the hostile nature of the discussion. I believe he was attempting to solve that hostile nature before moving on into actual discussion. As for his dogmatist statement, I believe that he was not personally stating that everyone on this board is a dogmatist, but rather, that he was hoping to avoid people making assumptions about him before saying anything.

But as a side note, I do not think that you were responsible for the hostile nature of the discussion. In fact, you came out early in defense of him and against the uncivil and childish statement of BlackSabbath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there was a disagreement on the nature of the term 'sympathizer,' but I do not think he was trying to attack you.
That is not what I was talking about. He accused my "dogmatism of showing though."

As for his dogmatist statement, I believe that he was not personally stating that everyone on this board is a dogmatist, but rather, that he was hoping to avoid people making assumptions about him before saying anything.

I would have thought the same thing, had he not then gone on to accuse the entire board of being "raving lunatic dogmatists" and the like. Perhaps he was merely upset. Either way, he looked past the attempts at a rational debate in favor of trading insults, and, as such, is not someone I am interested in debating with (troll or not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I emailed him Vernunft, and he seems to be genuinely interested in discussing ideas. I get the impression he's had some bad experiences with hostile Objectivists in the past, and he was quite disappointed when this forum was not an exception.

I'm looking forward to discussing Kant with him. Hopefully, we'll both learn something in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, good work. I agree with what RationalEgoistSG has said so far, but I wanted to put my own emphasis on this point:

If there is anything I hate more in philosophical conversations it is being dismissed out of hand for holding an unfavorable viewpoint.

This has happened to me, as well. And I'm sure we're not the only ones here. We cannot hold a double standard. If we want respect, we have to show it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to discussing Kant with him. Hopefully, we'll both learn something in the process.

Did Vernunft indicate whether or not he'd be returning? I have a particular interest in Kant given Rand's dislike of his philosophy. I'm still curious as to how he agrees with points from both and sees those aspects as noncontradictory. It could make for interesting and useful discussion. I'm glad you and RE have made your viewpoints known as far as the content of this thread is concerned :rolleyes:

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...