Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Capitalization

Rate this topic


Vetiver

Recommended Posts

I'm interested in a response that explains why people focus exclusively on Ayn Rand and Objectivism, as opposed to the thousands of other grammatical mistakes. Further, not capitalizing Ayn Rand or Objectivism is taken as a sign of treason:

This is an error. Your views are not Objectivist . 'O' must be capitalized.

This is from another thread I was reading just one minute after posting this thread. "'O' must be capitalized" is the first warrant to "your views are wrong". Refusing to capitalize is proof that the rest of your views are clearly not Objectivist.. like some condescending bible school teacher whose interest is not the preservation of grammar but the preservation of God's holiness as a divine figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no police force here. You are free to leave at any time. This being private property, you may also be required to leave, if you violate the rules to a sufficient level. Learn the basics of Objectivism and you may understand why we are not primitive savages and anarchists. Learn what the purpose of the board is, and what Objectivism is, and you will learn why I consider your snarky comments to be at best highly annoying. I will, in fact, probably propose a change in the forum rules that prohibits any raising of these utterly stupid "is Objectivism a religion" questions. If you have something real to contribute, please contribute it. Otherwise, please lavish your attentions on HPO. The purpose of this board (which you seem to be unfamiliar with) is to facilitate serious discussion of Objectivism, which is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Your question boils down to saying "What right do you have to exist". Meh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will, in fact, probably propose a change in the forum rules that prohibits any raising of these utterly stupid "is Objectivism a religion" questions.

In this instance I feel there's good reason to ask why this particular behavior is so similar to religious mysticism. You didn't even address the question at hand, which is why people choose to make corrections to two words out of thousands that are incorrectly capitalized (and I hardly imagine that capitalization is the only grammatical problem on this board).

If you have something real to contribute, please contribute it. Otherwise, please lavish your attentions on HPO. The purpose of this board (which you seem to be unfamiliar with) is to facilitate serious discussion of Objectivism, which is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
My contribution is inquiry into the behavior of self-proclaimed Objectivists. This was not a casual Marxist posting "LOLZ YOUR ONE BIG CULT OF GREEDY BASTARDS".

Your question boils down to saying "What right do you have to exist". Meh.

Not unless inquiries into action mean asking why you exist. I think people here are a great source of information, argumentation and humor. That doesn't mean any criticism needs to be cast off as "Objectivists must die" or some sinful act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

veeteevir,

Your original question was framed in a "When did you stop beating your wife?" style. Instead of assuming police force and religion, whatever they mean, figure out a way to ask the question in a way that shows it to be a question rather than an accusation, and you're likely to receive a polite reply. The way you framed your question implied that you already had the answer. In that case, why ask, unless you really meant to accuse. You see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there a police force here that strictly enforces objectivism and ayn rand as Objectivism and Ayn Rand?

Loaded question aside, all proper names are capitalized. That's a basic rule in all languages I know. Writing a name in lower case is disrespectful.

Some names of things are capitalized. trademarks, for example, religions, the names of various kinds of organizations (unions, clubs, government departments and branches, etc). Philosophical, political or economical systems are often capitalized as well. Not always, but usually.

And that's all the reason there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this instance I feel there's good reason to ask why this particular behavior is so similar to religious mysticism.
I don't know if there is any possibility of ever explaining to you how totally misguided you are, but perhaps we can start with this sentence. Do you know why that particular sentence of yours is meaningless? Until you discover how to ask a question with meaning, you can't expect an answer. I will give you one clue, as a starting point. Look at the words you used; determine what their referents in reality are; see why this is not logically possible. From a broader perspective, apply the same procedure to the question "why are you asking these questions?". In which case, try to integrate the concepts of "method" and "goal" in evaluating your actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like others said, there is no "strict enforcement" of capitalization on this board. If someone doesn't capitalize Rand, they wouldn't be hated or anything. But in general, people's names are capitalized because they are proper nouns. But you're certainly not going to hell if you don't choose to obey this grammatical rule...unlike the religious reference you made about not being "acquit[ed]" and whatnot.

Edited by Mimpy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like others said, there is no "strict enforcement" of capitalization on this board.
tHIS IS BASICALLY TRUE! IN THAT. WE ARE NOT, TOTALLY STRICT; hOWERVE THERE IZ UH ROOL obawt spelling, punctuation and style. So following the grammatical rules of English (not "english"), Objectivism, which is a proper noun, should be capitalized. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has been banned or warned for failing to capitalize Objectivism. Anybody who fails to get a clue should be enlightened. I will feel free to enlighten an ignorant person, and you should feel free to enlighten the ignorant. I am much more willing to put up with the minor ignorance of people not being aware that Objectivism is a definite noun and not a generic description, than I am tolerant of the illiterati who blither no-caps sms omg lol rotflmoa cu jkass msgs. Yikes, how can any person not know that personal names are capitalized in all languages using the Greek alphabet or its derivatives?
But you're certainly not going to hell if you don't choose to obey this grammatical rule...unlike the religious reference you made about not being "acquit[ed]" and whatnot.
That, though, by dint of the fact that there is no hell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this instance I feel there's good reason to ask why this particular behavior is so similar to religious mysticism. You didn't even address the question at hand, which is why people choose to make corrections to two words out of thousands that are incorrectly capitalized (and I hardly imagine that capitalization is the only grammatical problem on this board).

To answer your question, as I understand it, I have noticed that there are 2 main occurances where people are corrected on this matter. The most often is that someone may think that an individual is new to objectivism and may honestly not be aware of the differentiation that capitalizing or not means in the context. That an Objectivist is one who completely agrees with Ayn Rand's writing(and speeches). Whereas an objectivist or student of Objectivism may agree with some essential principles but not the full philosophy. The same applies to Libertarians and libertarians.

As to why it is noticed more then other grammatical mistakes, it is probably because the names attract more notice. If I were to write Ann Rand, for example, it would immediately catch your eye.

The second is usually when people are openly hostile to Objectivism and it may be part of a hostile response to them if it is thought that the uncapitalized name was written with the intention to detract from it's subject.

I know that I have not captilized both names numerous times here(possibly even in this post, though I tried very hard) and have not been corrected by the "police". I assume this is because the context of my statements do not come across as antagonistic to Objectivism. So people chalk it up to me being a grammatical semi-literate moron rather then a veiled attempt at belittlement of Ayn Rand or Objectivism.

Make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there a police force here that strictly enforces objectivism and ayn rand as Objectivism and Ayn Rand? Reminds me of "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

Personally, I don't think in informal discussions, it is "evil" to not use capitals by mistake.

Loaded question aside, all proper names are capitalized. That's a basic rule in all languages I know. Writing a name in lower case is disrespectful.
One question I have is: Why should I give my respect to Ayn Rand?

If I do not give my respect, what is wrong in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't think in informal discussions, it is "evil" to not use capitals by mistake.
If it's a mistake, and assuming it's not sloppiness, how can it be evil, whether the discussion is formal or informal? I don't think anyone said that a simple mistake was evil.

At the start of this thread, a post was quoted as an example. This was the relevant portion:

This is an error. Your views are not Objectivist . 'O' must be capitalized. It is the name of the philosophy. If you disagree on capitalism, then you are not O'ist, b/c it is part of the philosophy.
Olex was not implying that the bad grammar indicated that the person was evil or non-Objectivist. If one clicks on the arrow symbol in the quote above, one can see the post in it's original context. It is clear that Olex is providing reasons why the person is not an Objectivist. Even in the quoted portion above, note the placement of "because". The grammar-correction was parenthetical.

One question I have is: Why should I give my respect to Ayn Rand? If I do not give my respect, what is wrong in it?
Well, we're talking about forum posts here. So, the question is not whether one respects Rand, but whether one shows such respect in forum posts. There's a huge difference. If I were to go debate on a Kantian forum, and I weren't merely trying to get under their skins like a troll, would I be spelling kant wrong?

As for the whole topic of capitalization:

  • As far as I know, nobody has been warned for bad spelling or wrong capitalization if the facts indicate that it's not a pattern or willful (also, being "told" is different from being "warned")
  • People have been warned about repeated spelling and grammar errors when there was nothing specific about the spelling of Rand or Objectivism, just regular bad spelling and grammar that was distracting, or showed an insultingly casual approach toward those who had to read their posts
  • It's quite normal for someone to notice when I spell their name wrong, but not notice some other common word being spelled wrong. It's also quite normal to be a mite more rankled when someone spells one's own name wrong, or that of one's kids, or people one values. Obviously, one isn't going to judge a person by a mistake like that, but one might well correct someones mistake there, but allow some other misspelling to go by
  • As for the capitalization of "Objectivism", that rule is the symbolic result of a very specific debate. People often use a smaller "o" and nobody ever warns them. Still, this is the one spelling mentioned in the forum rules. For those who aren't familiar with the debate, it usually includes the question "is Objectivism a closed system", as in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should if and only if you respect her contributions to philosophy. However, if you feel an urge to express disrespect, you should do so somewhere else.
This is a big doubt for me: is repecting Ayn Rand as a person more important than intellectually accepting the tenets of her philosophy. For instance, if I think that she may have done some 'X' thing wrongly, is that bad? After all, I like her philosophy.

Also, where exactly do you draw the line between personality clashes and philosophical disagreements? If they are equated, then I would say that there is something wrong with the whole situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a big doubt for me: is repecting Ayn Rand as a person more important than intellectually accepting the tenets of her philosophy.
No, but surely you understand that disrespect will be dealt with. Acceptance is not the goal: recognition of reality is. I'm sure that that is what you meant, though.
For instance, if I think that she may have done some 'X' thing wrongly, is that bad?
It's bad if you're wrong, it's good if you're right. If you have identified what you think is an error in her philosophy, you can explain your argument and there's a 50% chance that through reason, we can show you your error :).
Also, where exactly do you draw the line between personality clashes and philosophical disagreements?
I don't understand what a personality class has to do with it. I never met Rand so there is no personality clash. I guess, if you mean "Is the problem that member X is being a total jerk, or that there is a philosophical difference?", then all I can suggest is not thinking that jerkishness is an aspect of philosophy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but surely you understand that disrespect will be dealt with.
In what way?

Acceptance is not the goal: recognition of reality is.
What is the difference between intellectual acceptance and recognition?

It's bad if you're wrong, it's good if you're right. If you have identified what you think is an error in her philosophy, you can explain your argument and there's a 50% chance that through reason, we can show you your error ;).
Ok. :) I was talking about not accepting anything unquestioningly.

Why the 50% chance though?

Well, we're talking about forum posts here. So, the question is not whether one respects Rand, but whether one shows such respect in forum posts. There's a huge difference.
In what way is respecting Rand different in forum posts compared to outside forum posts? Again, I am wondering about this whole thing about "repect" and in what way is it philosophically relevant especially when repect is demanded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a big doubt for me: is respecting Ayn Rand as a person more important than intellectually accepting the tenets of her philosophy.
The only thing that matters, really, is: what is the truth?

One may respect a person for teaching one about reality, or for some other virtue; but, that's an end-result, not a goal in this situation. If one respects Ayn Rand, it would be for something about her, something that one has evaluated and judged as a virtue. In no way does respect mean that one thinks the other person is flawless.

In what way is respecting Rand different in forum posts compared to outside forum posts? Again, I am wondering about this whole thing about "respect" and in what way is it philosophically relevant especially when respect is demanded.
The forum does not require members to be Objectivists, so it does not require members to respect Ayn Rand or to like her in any way. Rather, it's about politeness: i.e. showing respect in one's posts. Think about the way a cop might address a person as "sir", even though he's pretty sure that the guy's a theif. The forum rules are about one's posts. The forum rules do not say: "Do not post if you're insulting to Ayn Rand in your outside life". The rules are simply about politeness on the forum. Even within the forum, nobody is demanding any great show of respect. All we're saying is: get the name right. It's just an itsy bitsy modicum of politeness; that's all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way?
Depending on how disrespectful a person is. Certain vulgarities will result in an enforced request to depart. The main point is, we're supposed to be civil here.
In what way is respecting Rand different in forum posts compared to outside forum posts? Again, I am wondering about this whole thing about "repect" and in what way is it philosophically relevant especially when repect is demanded.
The only thing to care about is what you do here. The conduct that typifies HPO isn't tolerated here, because it is disruptive. Assuming that you understand the purpose of this forum, all one has to do is not work against the purpose of this forum here. There's no requirement that you actually agree with Objectivism, just that you not use the forum as a platform for launching attacks on Objectivism, or otherwise promoting anti-Objectivist ideas. That is what HPO is for. We are here to give serious discussion to the philosophy.
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...