Debater Criteria

Debates
1

I have a general question about topics in the Debate Forum. Isn’t there, and shouldn’t there be, an assumption that at least one of the two debaters on a particular issue will be an Objectivist, that is, someone who agrees with every element of Objectivism as far as he has studied and understood it?

Accordingly, isn’t setting up a Debate Forum topic to debate an issue between two non-Objectivists – as may be happening in the Determinism vs. Free Will topic – an inappropriate use of OO.net resources?

My understanding is that one of the main purposes in setting up the Debate Forum was to have a place where a non-Objectivist could advocate anti-0bjectivist positions without being expelled. (According to my reading of the Forum Rules, individuals advocating non-Objectivist positions should otherwise be banned from ObjectivismOnline.net.) This approach – permitting non-Objectivists to debate in a limited forum – will facilitate rather than undermine the purpose of helping Objectivist intellectuals prepare for debates in the wider world outside of ObjectivismOnline.net.

In conclusion, then, I have two questions:

  1. Should not every debate involve at least one Objectivist?

  2. Should not the debaters be required to make an explicit statement about their agreement – or not – with every element of Objectivism, as far as they have studied and understood it?

2

I agree that there should be some standard beyond what we have now for determining what sorts of debates are allowable, and I agree with Mr. Laughlin’s two suggested criteria. Perhaps later I will have more thoughts on what else, if anything, should be required.

I also think that the proposed debate on free-will is sensless and a waste.

3

Burgess, I have to say your questions are uncannily the exact same ones that I have myself been pondering. :glare:

Let me second both of them and state that I answer them both with “yes.”

4
  1. Should not the debaters be required to make an explicit statement about their agreement – or not – with every element of Objectivism, as far as they have studied and understood it?

I think this could be a great criteria, but I could use some clarification first. What would you say constitute the “elements” of Objectivism? How much understanding should be required? Finally, how much agreement should be required?

[Edit: I guess my overarching question is really what constitutes an “Objectivist.” If the rule would be that every debate requires an Objectivist, it should be stated explicitly what an Objectivist is.]

5

An Objectivist is someone who, as far as he has studied and understood it, agrees 100% with Objectivism, that is, with every element – concept, principle, theory, branch – of Objectivism, which is the philosophy that Ayn Rand created and published, both in her formal writings and in her lectures.

An example element is recognizing the fact of volitional consciousness (“free will”). Another example is Ayn Rand’s theory of concept-formation.

By “understanding” I mean do you get it or don’t you? If I study something but don’t grasp it, then I don’t understand it. If I don’t understand it, then I can’t say whether I agree with it or not. BUT, if I then proceed to advocate something contrary to that element, I have revealed disagreement – that is, I have revealed it to objective observers.

Keep in mind that deciding about agreement with Objectivism is initially up to each member of this forum. Do you or don’t you agree? If Mr. X says, “Yeah, I agree with every element of Objectivism,” and then proceeds to argue in favor of the Welfare State, surely the moderators and topic-participants won’t have a problem deciding the original statement of 100% agreement was FALSE. (At this point it doesn’t matter whether the statement was mistaken or dishonest – a non-Objectivist is a non-Objectivist.)

Here is another case. Mr. X says, “I have studied the first four branches of Objectivism and I agree completely with them. I have not yet studied her esthetics.” Fine. But if he then rejects a principle of her esthetics, such as that art captures a sense of life, then Mr. X is in fact rejecting an element of Objectivism.

Yes, these issues need to be discussed and spelled out. But these issues are just like all the issues addressed by the Forum Rules. At some point, a moderator or topic-participant must make a decision. We cannot fall into the trap of Platonizing Skepticism: The belief that we cannot perfectly understand the perfect Form of a thing, so all we can do is just shrug: “Who knows?” This sort of approach shows up in jury situations where a juror says, “Well, gee, I don’t really know what ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ means, so I guess I will have to vote for acquittal, to avoid convicting the wrong guy.”

There is a related pitfall that comes from Kant, particularly his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals – because we can’t really know people, we must be tolerant of their behavior. This is the approach that John Rawls popularized in his Theory of Justice.

Making decisions about these issues is possible. Yes, there are some confusing or borderline cases, but in my experience in this forum, such cases are very rare. And even then, they can usually be solved by asking simple questions of the suspected non-Objectivist. The most obvious question to ask is: “Mr. X, are you an Objectivist?” Another one is: “What is your purpose in participating in this forum (or topic or debate)?”

Answers to such questions can be compared to later or earlier actions and judgments can be made.

6

Burgess, I thank you for your response. It helped particularly when you elaborated on what you meant by “element” (“concept, principle, theory, branch”) and when you provided an example.

I think it would promote efficiency if some Objectivist members with a thorough knowledge of Objectivism devised an organized checklist of these elements so that each potential debater could merely quote the list and then add his (dis)agreement and understanding in his reply. Since your knowledge of Objectivism is much more thorough than mine, I am curious if you could forecast accurately how long such a task, done properly, might take for a very knowledgeable person(s) to complete. Knowing that would help in gathering volunteers.

7

Matthew,

First, please note that I am not a very knowledgeable person about Objectivism. Such a person would be someone like Harry Binswanger or Leonard Peikoff and a few others (more and more as time passes).

Can I now forecast accurately how much time would be required to write a complete list of every element – concept, principle, theory, branch – of Ayn Rand’s philosophy? No, not accurately, if that means close enough to sign a contract and do the work for pay.

However. I can offer an informed guesstimate (based on years of estimating writing, editing, and other publication projects). I would say: Several thousand hours, in other words, a full “man year.” The project would be huge, if it is to be complete in its first draft. Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand presents (in Dr. Peikoff’s interpretation) a selection of the elements of her philosophy he considers most important for a single-volume presentation. But of course there are many other elements, for example, in her epistemology, that he doesn’t discuss.

Writing a list would be easier than writing a coherent book (because the issue of presentation would be minimal), but it would still take thousands of hours of labor, at least.

If the moderators, as a general rule, have trouble deciding whether X is or is not an element of Objectivism, and if they really need a list (which I doubt), then why not build the list incrementally? You could start with the most obvious – and most frequent! – issues (they keep coming up again and again), and list them in hierarchical order, perhaps initially by branches (as major headings).

An example, perhaps under Epistemology (or even Theory of Man), would be:

“Consciousness is volitional. For the New Intellectual, p. 155 [hb], 127 [pb].”

A moderator can then see that determinism (which denies choice in human consciousness) contradicts this element and is therefore non-Objectvist. It is really that simple. However, possibly as an aid to efficiency in judgment, the list of elements might state negatives for each element of Objectivism. For example:

“Objectivism rejects determinism. Leonard Peikoff, ‘The Philosophy of Objectivism’, Lecture 1, as transcribed in ‘Determinism’, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 122.”

I am willing to wager that additions to the list will drop off very quickly after the first few months.

In addition to such a “living” list, there should be an ever-growing list of all the forms of indirect attacks on Ayn Rand as well as on her philosophy. An example is the bizarre notion that she was writing her novels as mental-health manuals (with John Galt as psychotherapist and Dagny Taggart as patient).

P. S. – Under certain conditions (which we should discuss privately), I would be willing to manage and write such a list. Some elements would need discussion before inclusion. I see that as good for students of Objectivism, including me, because it focuses on the philosophy which is the foundation of this forum.

8

What essential characteristics would separate this list from The Ayn Rand Lexicon? Would it include only direct-quote material from Objectivism?

Would the distinction be mostly organizational? (i.e. philosophically heirarchical instead of alphabetical, like the Lexicon?)

9

Burgess, I begin this response to your most recent post with a discussion of your original questions. I think this will help integrate that post into the larger issue.

  1. Should not every debate involve at least one Objectivist?

An affirmative answer to this would be formulated into a rule as follows: “Every debate must involve at least one Objectivist.” I see two issues with this rule. I will first discuss the minor issue because putting the major issue second will segue nicely into my discussion of question two.

First, “involve” must be defined. In the case of a pure debate between only two people, that’s easy enough. However, it might become more complicated when more than two people participate. When is one sufficiently “involved” to be involved? It may be that this issue, as a practical matter, does not or is unlikely to arise. If so, that should be stated and a course of or lack of action decided upon.

Second, and by far more important, “Objectivist” must be defined. What makes one an Objectivist? I know there has been ample discussion of this, and I do not recall whether any agreement was reached. I will investigate that. Regardless of any agreement in that discussion, in order for the rule to be useful for the debate forum, some definition must be decided upon. (I should state that I am not aware of how, if at all, Ayn Rand defined “Objectivist.” If she did, then that definition would certainly be instructive, and would probably close the matter.)

Since I think question two provides some insight into that definition, I will discuss that now.

  1. Should not the debaters be required to make an explicit statement about their agreement – or not – with every element of Objectivism, as far as they have studied and understood it?

Based on your most recent post, I am now unsure as to the interpretation of this question. On the one hand, you could be asking whether the debaters must make a statement about every element of Objectivism. That statement would likely be “agree,” “disagree,” “haven’t studied,” or “don’t understand.” On the other hand, you could be asking whether the debaters must make a statement about every element of Objectivism that they have studied and understood, and perhaps to what extent they have studied and understood those elements. Based on your most recent post, it seems the latter is the correct interpretation. I will ponder this and comment further as I think appropriate.

10

What essential characteristics would separate this list from The Ayn Rand Lexicon? Would it include only direct-quote material from Objectivism?

Would the distinction be mostly organizational? (i.e. philosophically heirarchical instead of alphabetical, like the Lexicon?)

One essential distinguishing characteristic of a moderator’s list of Elements of Objectivism is its purpose, in comparison to the purpose of The Ayn Rand Lexicon (or Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand). The purpose of a list of elements is to provided a checklist for moderators and others who are trying to decide whether a particular person’s philosophy is in agreement with Objectivism. The purpose of The Ayn Rand Lexicon is, in part, to tell readers (1) what Ayn Rand’s views are on included topics and (2) where to go to find more information about that topic.

An Elements of Objectivism list, if it were ever to be complete, would list all the elements of Objectivism but only as elements (for example, a definition of a single concept, such as “axiom”). It would not provide any of the explanation or argumentation that is provided in the excerpts in ARL (and the original sources).

By the way, ARL is organized alphabetically by topic, but pp. xiii-xviii list the topics by branch of philosophy (and then alphabetically within each branch). So, ARL is accessible hierarchically.

Also, ARL provides information about Ayn Rand’s views on fields outside of philosophy. See pp. xviii-xix. A List of the Elements of Objectivism would not do that, by definition of “Objectivism.”

11

Burgess, that is a good point. The entries, then, would be much briefer, since they only need identify the Objectivist view, rather than provide a full explanation or argument.

By the way, ARL is organized alphabetically by topic, but pp. xiii-xviii list the topics by branch of philosophy (and then alphabetically within each branch). So, ARL is accessible hierarchically.

This, then, could provide a good place for the author of the proposed list to start.

12

An affirmative answer to this would be formulated into a rule as follows: “Every debate must involve at least one Objectivist.”

Consider this as an alternative:

Every debate about Objectivism must have an Objectivist position as one side of the issue, and that position must be presented by an Objectivist (as distinct from “non-Objectivist”); and in every debate about a non-philosophical issue, at least one of the debaters must be an Objectivist (as distinct from “non-Objectivist”).

Matthew, as I suspect you know, making an essay, a forum rule, a state law, or a national constitution “bullet-proof” and “fool-proof” is impossible. But efforts such as yours, to make the rules more comprehensive and clearer, are certainly worthwhile.

By the way, here is a summary of what I mean by terms I have used:

  1. OBJECTIVIST (sense 1, as distinct from an advocate of another philosophy, such as Christiantiy, Kantianism, eclecticism, syncretism, or skepticism): one who agrees with every element of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, as far as he has studied and understood it.

  2. OBJECTIVIST (sense 2, as distinct from “student of Objectivism”): one who has expertise in Objectivism, that is, one who knows all the fundamentals and has at least a general knowledge of every field and subfield within the philosophy.

  3. STUDENT OF OBJECTIVISM: one who (1) has begun a study of Objectivism (for example, knowing only the four essentials or only elements of one branch), (2) agrees with everything he has so far studied and understood, and (3) wants to learn more.

To give an example:

I am an Objectivist (as distinct from Pragmatists or Christians).

AND

I am a student of Objectivism, and have been for 43 years.

13

Every debate about Objectivism must have an Objectivist position as one side of the issue, and that position must be presented by an Objectivist (as distinct from “non-Objectivist”); and in every debate about a non-philosophical issue, at least one of the debaters must be an Objectivist (as distinct from “non-Objectivist”).

One issue I see here is the uncertain status of philosophical debates about philosophies other than Objectivism. You have listed two areas of subject matter for debate. They are (1) debates about Objectivism, and (2) debates about non-philosophical issues. This seems to exclude debates about philosophies other than Objectivism. (I think this is where I’m supposed to cite some Latin phrase.)

Is that a desired result, i.e. consistent with the forum’s purpose? I can see the argument that it is not because debating any philosophy has value in that one’s understanding of and ability to analyze philosophy in general would be improved. I can also see the argument that it is, because this site should be focused on Objectivism and any discussion of other philosophies is only ancillary to that purpose. Of course, decisions about the purpose of this forum are not mine to make. Along those lines, I wonder where debate about non-philosophical issues fits in.

While I hope this discussion is helpful for those who will eventually determine the debate criteria, I’m having a blast just doing this analysis. It allows me to apply and to expand my understanding of statutory interpretation, which I find to be tons of fun.

14

One issue I see here is the uncertain status of philosophical debates about philosophies other than Objectivism.

What do you mean by “debates about philosophies other than Objectivism?” Could you provide concrete examples? Right now, there are just too many things that could fit that description for me to be able to understand what you mean.

15

One issue I see here is the uncertain status of philosophical debates about philosophies other than Objectivism.

You mean, for example, the (begun but now aborted) debate between Hal, a non-Objectivist, and me on the Epistemologies of Kant vs. Rand? I would say certainly that such debates should be not only permitted but encouraged. Remember, one purpose of the Debate Forum should be to prepare Objectivists for debate in the real-world out there. Debating other philosophies will do that.

Or perhaps you mean a debate about whether Plato meant X or Y in a particular dialogue. Sure, that too is helpful, though I doubt the participants would really need a debate environment for that. But if they do, because the issue becomes contentious, then why not? Lessons can always be learned about debate, regardless of the content of the debate.

A general observation, in line with my earlier comments about never expecting a rule to be fool-proof or bullet-proof: One can’t always anticipate all the permutations possible. So revising rules based on new experiences is always an option. But, you are right to try to head these problems off ahead of time.

P. S. – I am very glad you are a law student. I hope some day you will be a legal adviser to legislators – or a legislator yourself.

16

Writing a list would be easier than writing a coherent book (because the issue of presentation would be minimal), but it would still take thousands of hours of labor, at least.

The enormous complexity of Objectivism (the very large number of elements) is the reason why I think that even most of the people who think that they are Objectivists actually are not. Just imagine that one made such a list into a series of true/false questions where the questions were phrased in such a way as to avoid giving hints as to which was the “correct” Objectivist position. How many people could get 100% on such a test? Very few.

If the moderators, as a general rule, have trouble deciding whether X is or is not an element of Objectivism, and if they really need a list (which I doubt), then why not build the list incrementally?

This is a good idea. I suggest that it be a list of precedents – whenever a member is warned, banned, or disqualified from taking the Objectivist side in debate because he opposed an element of Objectivism, then that element should be added to the list (if not already on it). This list could be an appendix to the forum rules.

17

You mean, for example, the (begun but now aborted) debate between Hal, a non-Objectivist, and me on the Epistemologies of Kant vs. Rand? . . .

I agree with your assessment in its entirety (and thank you for the kind remark).

Inspector, the Plato example in Burgess’ post is what I was getting at. However, since I agree with his assessment (“Lessons can always be learned about debate, regardless of the content of the debate.”), I do not see that scenario as a problem.

18

The enormous complexity of Objectivism (the very large number of elements) is the reason why I think that even most of the people who think that they are Objectivists actually are not.

First, what do you mean by “Objectivist” here?

Just imagine that one made such a list into a series of true/false questions where the questions were phrased in such a way as to avoid giving hints as to which was the “correct” Objectivist position. How many people could get 100% on such a test? Very few.

“Objectivist position” means Ayn Rand’s ideas as recorded in her writings and lectures and those of individuals she sanctioned. Given that, I too am sure that very few “people” would answer correctly every question (even assuming the questions could be worded, at all times, to reflect the appropriate context within the philosophy).

So what? I do not know what your observation has to do with debater criteria or with excluding non-Objectivists from participating in OO.net, outside the two corrals for non-Objectivists: (1) debating in the Debate Forum and (2) asking proper questions in the forum for basic questions about Objectivism.

Just to have a number, let’s say there are 1000 elements of Objectivism. Let’s say I have studied 600 of them, understood 500 of those, and agreed with all 500 I understood. If I advocate only those 500 elements, in OO.net, and if my undestanding of them is correct, where would a problem arise?

If I talk about element X (one of the 500 I have studied, supposedly understood, and then ageed with), but actually my understanding is wrong, then someone in OO.net will correct me or point me in the right direction. If I persist in my misinterpretation and continue advocating the misinterpretation, then I have shown myself to be a non-Objectivist, and should therefore be excluded or, as now, segregated to the two corrals for non-Objectivists. So where is the problem?

19

First, what do you mean by “Objectivist” here?

I would revise your definitions as follows:

OBJECTIVIST: one who understands and agrees with every element of Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

It makes no sense to me to give a pass to those who have not studied an element or who do not yet understand it.

STUDENT OF OBJECTIVISM: one who has begun a study of Objectivism and wants to learn more about it.

If we required agreement to be considered a student, then neither I nor most members of this forum could even be called students of Objectivism. I think that in most of the disputes in the threads within the Philosophy subforum at least one side is arguing against Objectivism.

I do not know what your observation has to do with debater criteria or with excluding non-Objectivists from participating in OO.net, outside the two corrals for non-Objectivists: (1) debating in the Debate Forum and (2) asking proper questions in the forum for basic questions about Objectivism.

It goes to the point that if your suggestion were enforced, most of this forum would be made unavailable to myself and most other members which would defeat the educational objective of the forum. After all, the forum rules say “Agreement with Objectivism is not required for participation. Anyone interested in Ayn Rand’s philosophy may join.”.

I suggest that it be a list of precedents – whenever a member is warned, banned, or disqualified from taking the Objectivist side in debate because he opposed an element of Objectivism, then that element should be added to the list (if not already on it). This list could be an appendix to the forum rules.

This would give us a list of “sensitive” elements of Objectivism which members could avoid opposing. This would be a restriction which would be much easier to meet than avoiding opposing every element.

20

The point that Burgess made at the beginning of this thread remains valid, and while there has been some interesting discussion of what it means to be an Objectivist, I fear the discussion is starting to move away from the root question. A debate here, within the special “Debate Forum”, should always involve the Objectivist position and a non-Objectivist position. The question that that leads to is, how do you judge in advance whether some person is going to correctly represent the Objectivist position.

The answer is, you cannot. You have to make that judgment based on facts, especially what the person has posted previously. It is fair to say that Hal and Joynewyeary would not be good proponents of the Objectivist position – that’s a personal evaluation which I’ll defend with reference to fact if required, and not intended to be an insult. I make this judgment because I have read a number of their posts.

This is my concrete suggestion. A person may propose to advance the Objectivist position, and the mods and admins (who do a really good job of keeping this place running smoothly) can make a judgment by looking at the person’s posts, to see that there is clear proof that the proposer can coherently and correctly summarize Objectivism. If a newbie Billywithtwoells has a few trivial posts, there isn’t a basis for concluding that he can do what is required in this context. Or you may know that the person is anti-Objectivist. In any event, the matter can be dealt with discretely or publicly as may be most appropriate, by telling the person that he would not be an appropriate advocate of the Objectivist position. In other words, I’m proposing that we presume that the admins and mods are rational, capable people who can prevent a possible problem, should one arise. What this may entail is specifically watching the debate forum for proposed new debates.

And the problem, to reiterate, would be a person who purports to be presenting the Objectivist position, when the evidence indicates that they cannot do that.