27 minutes ago, 2046 said:
Is that all it takes to make someone a philosopher: followers that are willing to pay for wisdom? Following Socrates’ distinction, that may make one a Sophist, but not a philosopher.
It might be funny to start calling him a sophist. But nobody really uses that word anymore, not to describe teachers.
Cool
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:
n the final edition of The Ayn Rand Letter_, she wrote that Dr. Peikoff’s 1976 course was "the only_ authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism, i.e., the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate." It doesn’t mean that Peikoff’s word is Objectivism–just his course.
This is a quite different statement from the ones she made about Branden. She approved works of Peikoff that she had already seen. By contrast, she said Branden’s word was Objectivism and that she approved his future statements in advance. (Come to think of it, “intellectual heir” has a meaning after all, namely this blank-check endorsement that she did not give to Peikoff.)
On 7/11/2019 at 6:14 PM, merjet said:
I observed a few minutes of a few videos here. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8iOCGZj09rvCXhXeya4vkw My impressions were not favorable. In one video he called the session with Jordan Peterson at OCON 2018 a disaster. I was there, and the audience surely didn’t judge it a disaster. His Why Socialism Fails based an an analogy with computers was poor. Hayek’s explanation was far better.
In another video he talks about mathematics. I don’t remember which one. He prefaced his remarks with his not being a mathematician, but what he said about math did not sit well with me. As I recall, he said mathematics is about reality. Yes and no. It is also about our concepts. Show me a matrix, differential equation, integral or complex number in reality that wasn’t written by some human being, then I will reconsider.
Merlin
For a more in-depth treatment of Math being about the world (nothing to do with Tew) see Robert E. Knapp’s book.
https://mathematicsisabouttheworld.com/
I’m slowly making my way through it. In the first chapter I find his style awkward and repetitive (this might change in later chapters) but the substance so far, once distilled, is illuminating.
I can’t wait to get to the chapter on group theory.
56 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:
Merlin
For a more in-depth treatment of Math being about the world (nothing to do with Tew) see Robert E. Knapp’s book.
https://mathematicsisabouttheworld.com/
I’m slowly making my way through it. In the first chapter I find his style awkward and repetitive (this might change in later chapters) but the substance so far, once distilled, is illuminating.
I can’t wait to get to the chapter on group theory.
Thanks. I ordered the book from Amazon and expect delivery in 3 days. I will try to put any comments I have upon reading it in the Math and Reality thread.
5 hours ago, merjet said:
Thanks. I ordered the book from Amazon and expect delivery in 3 days. I will try to put any comments I have upon reading it in the Math and Reality thread.
Well now… that was fast… and without even a glowing review from me.
Have you read any of the following by Tara Smith?
Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: the Virtuous Egoist
Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality
They are as good, if not better, than anything from anyone who has written on Objectivism.
IMHO she is an extraordinary thinker and communicator.
21 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
I’m not asking anyone to accept my view without doing their own due diligence. Did I miss something?
Only that I was referring to Tew’s views, not yours. The people that listen to Tew have to judge Tew’s claims for themselves.
To judge your views about if Tew’s views are or are not in accordance with Rand’s views only adds an additional layer of complexity.
Is there something else being missed here?
30 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:
To judge your views about if Tew’s views are or are not in accordance with Rand’s views only adds an additional layer of complexity.
Is there something else being missed here?
Tew actually doesn’t talk much about Rand’s views in these particular videos. I address his own arguments. Besides, in Part 2 where he does relate his moral views to Rand’s, he admits that she’d condemn him. So readers don’t have to judge my view there. They have to judge Tew’s.
In response to Tew’s criticism of him, Rucka made a comment on YouTube.
Tew had claimed that Rucka defended Charles’ harshness “on the grounds that spreading Objectivism doesn’t matter that much.” Rucka, however, denies saying this, which, if true, fatally undercuts Tew’s argument. Without evidence, Tew’s accusation is arbitrary. Furthermore, he fails to mention the issue in a follow-up video, so perhaps he has conceded the point.
Rucka also accuses Tew of “unbelievable cowardice” for “unload[ing] without [him] there to defend [himself].” This is the only part of Rucka’s response that Tew directly acknowledges. However, he doesn’t start doing it until thirteen minutes into the video called “Updates.”
He says: “if you took what [Rucka] said at face value…you would not have guessed that I notified him in advance of putting either of those last two podcasts up, and that he approved of my doing so.” This claim is at least half-absurd. Why wouldn’t we have guessed that he gave Rucka advanced notice, when he told us he would do exactly that in the video on which Rucka commented? Regarding the second half, Tew suggests that Rucka calls him cowardly for doing something of which Rucka approved in a prior email exchange. However, note that Rucka calls him a coward for “unloading” without Rucka being present, not for merely posting a “critical” video like he said he would. Rucka indicates his problem with the degree or kind of criticism, which he believes warranted a face-to-face chat. And, furthermore, since he had not seen Tew’s video beforehand, he could not know or approve its highly estranging content. Besides, what control does Rucka have over Tew’s actions? Should Rucka have begged for a one-on-one discussion, even after Tew had rejected that request in the emails?
Tew says that he “gives people the benefit of the doubt. I assume good things about people until I am proven wrong. And I think that’s valid.” Yet here he could not see a possibility in which Rucka spoke earnestly. “In my view, that response is conclusive evidence, proof, that Rucka is a fundamentally dishonest person.” Tew also declares Rucka “irredeemable” and “worthless,” apparently on account of the “cowardice” remark alone. For, up until that point, he still expected to speak with Rucka about him creating “nihilistic filth,” not caring about the spread of Objectivism, and acting “worse than an enemy.” But then after the comment was made, he wanted to have nothing to do with the guy.
It is curious that Tew could not identify a supposedly “essentially dishonest” person over the course of many multi-hour interactions, until, of course, Rucka called him yellow. Perhaps Tew doesn’t understand people, or maybe Rucka is a phenomenal liar. I suspect that the former is more likely.
Tew uses his judgment to justify ignoring Rucka’s other responses. “I don’t care about, or pay attention to, fundamentally dishonest people. So I haven’t looked at anything else he said on the issue past that comment.” First of all, if he doesn’t pay attention to his opponents, honest or not, then he blindly exposes himself to their attacks. It’s not a rational policy to evade what people publish about you, even if you intend not to respond. You should at least determine whether an attack poses a real threat to your person or reputation, which you can’t do without looking at it. And second, if Tew insists on appealing to his personal judgment of Rucka, without giving us adequate evidence for his conclusion, then we might want to gauge the reliability of his judgments. So let’s do a bit more of that now.
When Tew needs to explain his initially high regard for Rucka, he claims that Rucka “deceptively presents himself as very reasonable. That is the overwhelming vibe, feeling, you get from him. He’s just very measured in his mannerisms, and his tone, and his speech. And so you get the impression of somebody who is supremely reasonable and willing to talk things through.” However, when Tew needs to justify his current, very negative evaluation, suddenly Rucka becomes a mixed-up “hothead”: “Now, it didn’t take long, in fact this was obvious in our first conversation that this was, to some extent, an affectation, because he almost immediately revealed that he was highly irrational and emotionalistic in the short-term.” We’re given a tale of two Ruckas, depending on the needs of Tew’s different points. In one breath Rucka is “supremely reasonable” and “measured in manner and speech,” but in the next breath he’s “obviously irrational” and “emotionalistic.”
How does Tew explain his contradictory assessments? Well, he must have been hoodwinked by a dishonest nihilist. “Even though [Rucka] was irrational, hotheaded in the short-term, in the long-term he seemed to be rational. But, eventually, I realized that that too was insignificant. It was superficial and also an act, because, yes, he calms down, but not in a way that he ever learns from what he did.” Tew perhaps forgets that earlier he argued for Rucka’s “deceptively reasonable vibe” and “measured mannerisms, tone, and speech.” Those are not long-term qualities of an individual. So not only do we have two Ruckas, we have them at the same time: in the moment, in the short-term. Tew doesn’t make sense. And it’s unfair for him to condemn someone while providing such a wildly inconsistent description of their character.
I conclude that Tew greatly exaggerates Rucka’s alleged flaws in order to maintain the delusion that he’s “worthless.” Basically, Tew has built a straw Rucka in order to avoid facing the real Rucka.
After discussing Rucka, Tew starts talking about himself, about his own psychological issues which might have caused audience members some confusion. “I’m not critical to a fault, I’m generous with my praise to a fault, because I am desperate to find good people. I blow out of proportion anybody’s good attributes, because I really want there to be good people.” Perhaps he’s being sincere, but this attitude doesn’t match with his admitted disinterest in sanctioning evil. Recall that, for him, sanction is about finding good people. But “[his] kind of people don’t exist, so it’s hard for [him] to care very much about sanction.” So, if good people don’t exist, why then does he desperately seek them? And, on the other hand, if they do exist, why doesn’t he care about sanctioning evil? I question whether he actually wants to help people get better by offering objective criticism. He seems more interested in dreaming good people into existence through the power of undue praise. “I do overemphasize people’s good qualities early on. I did this with Ben Shapiro, [and] with Jordan Peterson.”
In his videos, Tew periodically compares himself to characters in Ayn Rand’s novels. While pondering his pessimism, he says he’s like Dominique Francon. While thinking about his tolerance of evil, he’s like Gail Wynand. And while explaining his drinking, he describes himself as most like Leo Kovalensky. I can think of another potential match: Ellsworth Toohey.
Toohey also has a penchant for “praising to a fault.” But he doesn’t do it hoping to find good people. He does it hoping to hurt them. He overly praises Peter Keating, to ruin Howard Roark. Toohey represents an actual nihilist. From Journals of Ayn Rand (p.193): “It would be Toohey who’d find philosophical significance in Donald Duck. Why? It’s not Donald Duck that he’s boosting. It’s philosophy that he’s destroying.”
Similarly, it would be Toohey who’d find a model Objectivist in Rucka Rucka Ali. Why? It’s not Rucka Rucka Ali that he’s boosting. It’s Objectivism that he’s destroying.
The nihilist aims to crush values, and thereby gain crushed followers. “Toohey is out to destroy and discredit–philosophically and practically–all happiness. Unhappy people look for a yoke–and they come to him.” (Journals, p. 210)
Charles Tew says that his particular flaw, “praising to a fault,” is “a common mistake with better Objectivists.” I say, no, it’s a common fault among anti-Objectivists, and I think Tew realizes this. Notice here how he catches part of his self-deception (at 27:10-40): “Because [better Objectivists] want to find good things in the world, they’ll overstate its value, not in an attempt to deceive anyone, but, well, except for themselves really.” Is this Tew admitting his self-deception? If so, why put his audience through all that nonsense about being honest and objective? “Some people are saying that I was being dishonest and misleading people, but that is not the case.” Actually, it sort of is, according to his own statement.
So, which is it: is Tew deceiving himself or being honest? Maybe he’s lying to himself and telling the truth to everyone else, but I don’t see how that would work. And I’m about done entertaining his nonsense.
Throughout this critique, I have been, in an indirect way, charitable to Mr. Tew. I have left out several “uhs” and “ums” from his quotes that I transcribed. But in this final quote I need to include them all, in order to convey his evasive mental action after recognizing his self-deceptive method of moral judgment. Note how many filler words he cycles through before latching onto a concept that is not self-deception. “And, uh, so, you know, it’s a kind of understandable, uh, irrationality, but it is still irrationality. It is a form of emotionalism, and therefore evasion, and therefore immorality.” Yes, he spits up several words there, but not dishonesty, because that would put him in the same category as Rucka. He would then need to explain how Rucka is “essentially dishonest,” while he is not, despite the revelation that his immorality begins with deceiving his own self.
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:
Toohey also has a penchant for “praising to a fault.” But he doesn’t do it hoping to find good people. He does it hoping to hurt them. He overly praises Peter Keating, to ruin Howard Roark.
This is an interesting connection. I doubt it is done quite directly. Sort of like “let me show you what it’s like to have hopes in life and have them destroyed by someone”, but only implicit. When someone struggles to find meaning in their own life (even if they abstractly know what the meaning should be), they might attach meaning onto someone else. Then imagine that being worse when it is accompanied by self-hatred like the kind of depression that Tew described about himself. But then when the darkness and hopelessness of reality becomes apparent again like it was for themselves originally, the same pessimism and self-hatred would be directed to someone else.
This is even an interesting case study about psychological health as related to one’s philosophical views. We have Tew expressing his own thought processes so we don’t you to make assumptions about what he thinks. We have some evidence of symptoms of depression, and some evidence of alcohol abuse (confusing rationalizations, outright denial of wrongdoing, sabotaging stable and healthy social relationships).
On 7/13/2019 at 2:35 PM, MisterSwig said:
Finally, Tew wants us to believe that swearing is obviously nihilistic. “Every child knows what’s wrong with swearing.” If that’s true, then why couldn’t he utter this basic fact to Rucka when asked about it online? Does drinking, or live-streaming, reduce his mental agility below the level of a child?
Yeah. He’s perfectly comfortable calling it self-evidently evil when he’s just talking to his audience, but when one of his buddies asks “why” he just can’t give a reason (probably because there never was one).
I, for one, have taught MY child that being afraid of a word is much more dangerous than any fucking amount of obscenities could ever be. And I’m drinking right now, to boot.
I can’t stand Charles Tew. He uses all the right principles as convenient buzzwords and seems incapable of actually applying a single one.
He’s an O’Poser.
On 7/14/2019 at 7:26 AM, MisterSwig said:
I have a deep interest in the health of the Objectivist movement.
Ditto. So much so that I made a public thread about it and then left this forum for a year or two when I doubted the validity of the views I was posting. And thank God someone else thought to call Tew out for me in the interim! 
I really like Rucka. He certainly isn’t a “model Objectivist” (hah!) but his heart’s in the right place.
I distinctly remember watching a conversation between the two of them in which Rucka suggested that Tew should sign up for Toastmasters (because “carpe diem, man”). Tew shut the whole idea down because the world is basically “tew evil” for good people like him to have fun.
That does not seem like a rational attitude to me. In fact, I don’t think that anyone who feels that way should talk to anyone whatsoever about Objectivism.
45 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:
I really like Rucka.
Did you see my thread on Rucka? So far I have reviewed “Am I Gay?” and “Prince Ali Obama.”
1 minute ago, MisterSwig said:
Did you see my thread on Rucka? So far I have reviewed “Am I Gay?” and “Prince Ali Obama.”
Oh, man. The reviews will be forthcoming presently…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc6kRq1a74w
“The point of women is to provide men with an external vantage point from which to view their own achievements”
On 7/11/2019 at 5:17 PM, Eiuol said:
So it’s not drunkenness per se, but the attitude that leads him to drink in the first place. He literally seeks to dull the anger that he feels all the time towards the world. It’s a classic reason for people to abuse alcohol.
There is the slight off chance that he was genuinely in a situation where he constantly felt angry at everyone around him. Such things can happen. But the point then should be to leave that situation and try to fix whatever problems are bothering him so much.
The excuse that “I need to drink in order to deal with my anger” is not an excuse at all; it just raises the question of what’s making you so angry and why you haven’t dealt with it yet.
And by the way (just on the off chance that he ever reads this): you don’t actually have to justify anything at all.
You are an adult. Nobody here is the boss of you. If you feel like drinking (and it’s got nothing to do with anger or repression) you can just say “I want a drink and so I’m having a drink”; that was always allowed.
Just don’t try giving us some sort of speech about how it’s actually a good thing and totally what Ayn Rand would’ve endorsed. That’s all.
Also, please bring the beard back. The beard was doing you so many favors.
On 7/13/2019 at 2:35 PM, MisterSwig said:
Tew continues his comments about Rucka in this next video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDhyhuNhs\_0
There is a lot to cover here, so for now I’ll focus on his initial discussion about swearing. His main problem with Rucka’s music seems to be the profanity. “Swearing promiscuously is nihilistic. The reason people do it is to be ugly for its own sake.” Then he catches his overgeneralization and adds: “It’s also possible that you’re doing it out of cowardice.” Basically, some people use bad words to fit in with their potty-mouthed friends. Then Tew quickly abandons the nuance and returns to the overgeneralizing: “That’s the thing with swearing: it’s just an attempt to destroy standards.” This confusion takes place over the first four minutes of the video. Then he puts the cherry on top of his imaginary sundae. “So swearing really is about tearing down standards and promoting subjectivity.”
Being nihilistic. Check.
Destroying standards. Check.
Promoting subjectivity. Check.
But, hold on, I thought this was about Rucka. Did Tew forget that particular people swear for particular reasons? It’s almost like he has some ideal reason for why people swear, and then each individual who swears must be a mere reflection of that ideal. The only potentially objective case he touched was the example of the coward, and then he dropped that idea like a hot potato.
Tew claims to be following in Rand’s and Peikoff’s footsteps. I wonder if he even tried googling them on this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JEhp\_VAEZs
Notice how Peikoff tries to relate swearing to an objective world. He takes the fact that some people curse like a sailor, and then he tries to explain generally what’s going on in such a person’s mind, because, you know, words start in the mind before coming out the mouth. He argues that it’s a form of deception. These people are trying to fool themselves and others into believing that they’ve said something with meaning, when really they’ve got nothing to offer but obscene impotence. If Tew had focused on his thought about cowards, he might have arrived at a similar conclusion: that cowards swear profusely to fit in with the group, and they have to do this because they’re trying to fool the group into believing that they have something to contribute, that they’re part of the group. The coward believes that if he spoke his true beliefs without cursing, the group would reject him as a non-conformist.
This might be a stretch, but I suspect that Tew’s trademark snickering laugh is his form of swearing promiscuously. He seems to do it when he has nothing to say, yet wants to indicate that he’s got a brilliantly funny thought in his head. I don’t know any comedian who laughs at his own thoughts that much.
Finally, Tew wants us to believe that swearing is obviously nihilistic. “Every child knows what’s wrong with swearing.” If that’s true, then why couldn’t he utter this basic fact to Rucka when asked about it online? Does drinking, or live-streaming, reduce his mental agility below the level of a child?
Both of these strike me as attempts to define negative consequences into an issue that objectively has very little impact on anyone’s life. Peikoff’s of course being the far less egregious (and he qualified it to be sure that he wasn’t talking about all swearing, of any degree or frequency).
The way you would answer a moral question in Objectivism would be to relate the question to someone’s life, and the consequences it will have on their life. This can be done trivially in the case of drinking or addiction, but not with swearing - which should tell us something.
There’s also been a scientific correlation that’s been found between swearing and openness/honesty, which suggests that people who swear more frequently are less likely to try to lie. But that’s also just as irrelevant to the kind of life a person leads as everything else that’s been mentioned on the topic.
Don’t swear at a fucking job interview and you’ll be fine.
1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc6kRq1a74w
“The point of women is to provide men with an external vantage point from which to view their own achievements”
There is the slight off chance that he was genuinely in a situation where he constantly felt angry at everyone around him. Such things can happen. But the point then should be to leave that situation and try to fix whatever problems are bothering him so much.
The excuse that “I need to drink in order to deal with my anger” is not an excuse at all; it just raises the question of what’s making you so angry and why you haven’t dealt with it yet.
And by the way (just on the off chance that he ever reads this): you don’t actually have to justify anything at all.
You are an adult. Nobody here is the boss of you. If you feel like drinking (and it’s got nothing to do with anger or repression) you can just say “I want a drink and so I’m having a drink”; that was always allowed.
Just don’t try giving us some sort of speech about how it’s actually a good thing and totally what Ayn Rand would’ve endorsed. That’s all.Also, please bring the beard back. The beard was doing you so many favors.
A few questions, purely out of curiosity.
First, was there a particular reason why you wanted to revive this rather old thread? I just mean, was there some inciting incident?
Second, is the quote you took from Tew’s video supposed to connect to the alcoholism you talk about after? If so, I didn’t see the relationship.
And finally, does Tew identify as an incel or is it just left to the intelligence of the viewer?
On 7/16/2026 at 7:02 PM, Jon C said:
First, was there a particular reason why you wanted to revive this rather old thread? I just mean, was there some inciting incident?
Apparently he left the internet for a while and has recently come back again, according to some of the viewers of the Yaron Brook show.
On 7/16/2026 at 7:02 PM, Jon C said:
Second, is the quote you took from Tew’s video supposed to connect to the alcoholism you talk about after? If so, I didn’t see the relationship.
No; sorry. That was more in response to @Eiuol’s summary of something he said in a video from several years ago. I definitely should’ve made that much clearer than I did.
On 7/16/2026 at 7:02 PM, Jon C said:
And finally, does Tew identify as an incel or is it just left to the intelligence of the viewer?
I don’t believe he does. I’m fairly confident that he thinks of these ideas about women as a straightforward application of Objectivism.
It’s a whole can of worms to get into, but if I turn my head and squint I can see some similarity between some of the things he said about women and things Ayn Rand said about the metaphysical relation between the sexes. It’s pretty clearly misapplied (Ayn Rand was not an incel) but it’s not completely out of left field, either. But gender roles aren’t really a subject I care to delve into disentangling right now, even if it does involve Ayn Rand, and clearly separating the original meaning and intention from Tew’s rehashing is likely to be a rather involved process.
Women: What are They Good For?* 
*THIS IS A JOKE!*
