A Bold New Step for Objectivist Scholarship


Dennis Hardin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You should judge the comments themselves and if they are thoughtful, reasonable, not the person.

How does one separate a person from his comments?. A reasonable person may occasionally make unreasonable comments, so a distinction can sometimes be made. But if someone frequently makes unreasonable comments, we are justified in calling the person himself "unreasonable."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should judge the comments themselves and if they are thoughtful, reasonable, not the person.

I do. And often enough I decide that the comments seem to reveal a depth of ignorance or misunderstanding about the subject at hand that I suspect would make any efforts on my part to educate the commenter quite futile - or, at least, frustrating and unpleasant.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should judge the comments themselves and if they are thoughtful, reasonable, not the person.

I do. And often enough I decide that the comments seem to reveal a depth of ignorance or misunderstanding about the subject at hand that I suspect would make any efforts on my part to educate the commenter quite futile - or, at least, frustrating and unpleasant.

JR

This would certainly apply to a PM exchange--I've spiked a few for that reason--but there is an audience here.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol,

"Visa-versa".

That has got to be the gentlest correction I have ever received. What a terrific teacher you must be.

Thanks.

Who knows, maybe one day "visa versa" will be officially accepted as an Angloamerican variant of "vice versa".

There you go again, switching objective, for subjective, and visa-versa, at the drop of a hat.( :rolleyes: )

The man gives in "to the wishes of his mother",(AR) not to his "value of his mother"(Xray).

You have conveniently changed the context.

I was merely applying Rand's own premises to an example in TVOS. The point was that per Rand's ethics, what one does for a person one loves is not a sacrifice.

So suppose the son gives in to the wishes of mother because he loves her (and, as Rand said elsewhere: to love is to value) it would not be a sacrifice, but for the son who does not love (= not value) his mother but only gives in grudgingly to her wishes, it would be a sacrifice.

Are the WISHES of his mother his long-term value? No.

What is his mother doing by SUBJECTIVELY insisting on another career, anyway, contrary to the son's OBJECTIVE value in his choice of career?

The problem here is: since we cannot know what long-term value our decisions will have in the future, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to make predictions here.

Suppose Jane persuades John to agree on having a child, and he finally gives in although it goes against his wish, John cannot predict anything about the long-term value of his decision. Giving in to Jane may turn out to be the best decision he ever made.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go again, switching objective, for subjective, and visa-versa, at the drop of a hat.( :rolleyes: )

The man gives in "to the wishes of his mother",(AR) not to his "value of his mother"(Xray).

You have conveniently changed the context.

I was merely applying Rand's own premises to an example in TVOS. The point was that per Rand's ethics, what one does for a person one loves is not a sacrifice.

So suppose the son gives in to the wishes of mother because he loves her (and, as Rand said elsewhere: to love is to value) it would not be a sacrifice, but for the son who does not love (= not value) his mother but only gives in grudgingly to her wishes, it would be a sacrifice.

Are the WISHES of his mother his long-term value? No.

What is his mother doing by SUBJECTIVELY insisting on another career, anyway, contrary to the son's OBJECTIVE value in his choice of career?

The problem here is: since we cannot know what long-term value our decisions will have in the future, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to make predictions here.

Suppose Jane persuades John to agree on having a child, and he finally gives in although it goes against his wish, John cannot predict anything about the long-term value of his decision. Giving in to Jane may turn out to be the best decision he ever made.

Again, you fail to distinguish between subjective and objective. Only objective values can be sacrificed, or upheld,

In the case of a career, an objective decision may turn out to be 'wrong' for varied reasons; but lacking omniscience, to arbitrarily relinquish this value, is a sacrifice.

To love, is to value objectively, primarily. If a relationship is based on the arbitrary, floating abstractions, of "wishes", then anything goes, with false 'sacrifices' the order of the day, from both parties.

imo, only an altruist and subjectivist, with not much self-regard, could have the chutzpah to seek proof of love from a son or spouse, by demanding acquiescence to their "wishes".

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure you, Xray, can properly objectify objective value in the Randian sense before refuting it--

It depends on what exacty you mean by "properly objectify". I can objectively quote from Rand's writings, objectively describe what she means by certain terms, but "objectify objective value" what is this supposed to look like? Could you provide an example for demonstration purposes? TIA.

... as opposed to what seems to be a bad example or two from Rand.

There is no shortage of other examples, like e. g. her stating in an interview that friendship and family are not of primary importance in mans's life. (I'm paraphrasing since I don't have the exact quote handy).

Now I ask you: isn't it obvious that Rand made the mistake of declaring her own subjective preferences as of objective value?

While no doubt we all would like others to value what we subjectively prefer, to treat a personal value judgement as if it constituted an objective value is a methodical mistake.

That is, as a good debater do a good job arguing the contrary to your own belief. Then move in for the kill!

I see, you want me to play devil's advocate. ;)

Every act we perform is gain-oriented in some way, so if I may ask: what do you expect to gain from my playing devil's advocate?

Peikoff, Q-A of Lecture 9 of his 1976 lectures on "The Philosophy of Objectivism."

(quote provided by Roger E. Bissell):

Question: The February 1966 issue of The Objectivist mentions a speech you were to give etitled “The Meta-Ethics of Objectivism.” What does this refer to?

Answer [L. Peikoff]: “Meta-ethics” is the name given by 20th century philosophers to the part of ethics which is concerned with: how do you validate ethical conclusions objectively? How do you establish the foundations of ethics? How do you derive values from facts? And when you have completed that, it’s like the methodology of ethics, laid the base, thereafter they call what remains “normative ethics,” namely, working out how you should live, now that you have a foundation. It is an unnecessary concept.

"How do you derive values from facts" - Peikoff makes it sound as if there were no "OUGHT" from an IS" problem, (which is wrong - the problem is huge actualy) and that "metaethics" is about learning the correct method of deriving an ought from an IS. (And it goes without saying that he thinks Objectivism teaches how to derive the 'correct moral values' from facts).

[Roger E. Bissell]: I recall, on a list long ago and in a galaxy far away (1997, Objectivism-L), a gentleman named Dave Saum posted an essay "Rethinking the Essence of Objectivism." He defines "meta-Objectivism" as: "the view that Objectivism is essentially an objective method of analyzing concepts, and not essentially a philosophic system."

Going by this, one could almost get the impression that meta-Objecivsis is some branch of linguistics. :)

How do we know when new work qualifies as Objectivist, since Rand is no longer around to give it her stamp of approval?

This is pretty odd statement when you think about it. I never heard e. g. a Kantian or Popperian say that since Kant (or Popper) is no longer alive to give his stamp of approval, it can't be known whether a new publication is based on Kantian (Popperian) premises.

"[N]ew Objectivist work must first and foremost be characterized by some application of Rand's objective method."

But IS Rand's method objective at all? Where is the objectivity in deriving a normative "ought" from an "is".

Why is it extremely problematic to base a moral code on an organism's life as the "standard of value", and to declare: "that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" (Rand, TVOS, p. 17)?

For example, it collapses the Randian argument against "parasites". For not only are parasites extremely successful as organisms when it comes to survival; per Rand's own premises, she would even have to regard as "evil" that which threatens the life of the parasite (which, as a well-functioning and perfectly adapted organism is in no way different from the human organism who feeds on other life as well).

As for human 'parasites' (the term being used in a connotative sense here): they too can thrive and prosper.

[George H. Smith]: I don't like the term "meta-philosophy" (which I have seen used by other writers) at all. Philosophy, in my view, deals with fundamental concepts and principles, so the term "philosophy" is all we need.

I also dislike the term "meta-Objectivism." I can't say that I really understand the point that Saum was making. Or, more precisely, I don't understand why he regarded his point as important enough to dub "Meta-Objectivism."

I dislike all terms which cause more confusion than clarity, and imo "Meta-Objectivism" belongs to that category.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

Why didn't you respond to my substantive arguments? I took the time to give a reasoned argument on an issue you claim to have a lot of interest on.

If they were wrong you could have pointed out how, right?

Phil,

It isn't that what you said was wrong. What you said amounted to side-stepping the issue. It is common sense to say that something is wrong when a living entity chooses not to live. That's not the issue. The issue consists of explaining whether that choice is a moral issue, and, if not, how a person can be morally exonerated when they throw away their life.

To repeat what I said in an earlier post, I do not have a lot of time for back-and-forth exchanges on this. If you read my earlier article on the topic, it might give you a clear picture of the issues. Unfortunately, your reply will likely say that you did address the issue--which is why I want to avoid endless back-and-forth exchanges. They are unproductive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you fail to distinguish between subjective and objective.

Tony,

I think it is important to stay precise in order to avoid terminological confusion.

It is also crucial to check the premises.

Ayn Rand gave the term "subjective" only negative attributes: "The subjective means the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional." (Rand), which many Objectivists accept uncritically.

Now from a premise which attaches such a negative label to everything 'subjective', it logically follows that the values propagated by this philosophical system are regarded as "objective".

But all this says nothing about whether the premises on which the system rests are correct or false. That's why checking premises is so fundamental.

The term objective refers to the realm of the factual. It is an objective fact that human beings are goal-seeking, valuing entities. As for objective value: Rand herself correctly pointed out that it is always "value to whom and for what purpose". Which means that without a valuer and a context in which something becomes of value to the individual, there can exist no value as such "out there", independent of a given context.

Something becomes of value in respect to a goal, and since goals differ, so do the values.

For example, sandals are no value when the goal is to climb Mount Everest, but they are a value on a warm Summer day when you want to sit out on the porch.

Values differ depending on the goal, the end to be achieved. The same goes for "good" and "bad". "Good" = suited to purpose.

Rand concedes this when she writes: "that which furthers its [an organism's] life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" (Rand, TVOS, p. 17)?

So from the perspective of the potato beetle, the pesticides the farmer puts on the field are "bad". For the roundworm, the nourishment provided by the body of its human host is "good" since it furthers the survival of the worm's organism.

Imo any ethical system based on an organism's need for survival shoots itself in the foot, because "life as the standard of value" applies to all organisms, i. e. also to those which are detrimental to the human organism.

In the case of a career, an objective decision may turn out to be 'wrong' for varied reasons; but lacking omniscience, to arbitrarily relinquish this value, is a sacrifice.

It is indeed often in hindsight only that we are able to judge the consequences of a decision, and that's when people often complain that they made a "sacrifice" which was not worth the effort because they did not get what they bargained for.

"I sacrificed the best years of my life to (...), and it was all for nothing,." someone might complain, "If I had known the outcome, I would have decided differently".

In standard language, a 'sacrifice' is mostly defined as an act performed with the goal to gain from it. A chess player sacrifrices his queen because his goal is to win the game. A sportsman training for a competiton sacrifices countless hours to hard training, the goal being to win. To the gods, sacrifices were offered to appease them. And so on.

To love, is to value objectively, primarily.

I'm not sure what you mean by "objectively" here.

1) Do you mean it is an objective fact that to love is to value? This would of course be correct, for one cannot love something/someone without attributing value to whom or what one loves. Love implies valuing.

2) Or do you mean that what (or who) is loved is objectively "of value" to the person who loves?

3) Or do you mean that what (or who) is loved is in itself (or in himself/herself) an objective value? If yes, what would the objective value consist of?

I have no problem with a "yes" answer to 1) and 2), but would have a problem with a "yes" answer to 3).

If a relationship is based on the arbitrary, floating abstractions, of "wishes", then anything goes, with false 'sacrifices' the order of the day, from both parties.

Relationships are actually quite effective when it comes to do a reality litmus test on "floating abstractions". :)

Maybe that's why people who try to live in partnerships following the rules of Objectivist morality often find this hard, if not impossible to practise, and then run into conflict?

For example, is a husband putting the happiness of his spouse above his own an "altruist" or is he "selfish"?

imo, only an altruist and subjectivist, with not much self-regard, could have the chutzpah to seek proof of love from a son or spouse, by demanding acquiescence to their "wishes".

Persons who seek "proof" of love from others are either ignorant (for there exists no proof in that field) or (far more likely) exerting emotional blackmail in order to get what they want.

Exerting emotional blackmail has nothing to do with altruism or subjectivism. It has to do with manipulating others to serve one's own interests. Even kindergartners already practise it frequently, either by using bribes: "If you are my friend, I'll give you my matchbox car!" or by using emotional blackmail: "If you don't let me sit next to you, I won't invite you to my birthday party!"

I don't use the terms "selfish" and "altruistic" at all in my work with children. Instead I speak of dominant and non-dominant children.

As for self-interest (I prefer to use the term self-interest instead of selfishness since it is less 'loaded' connotatively), they are all equally driven by it, but differ in the way they articulate it.

Suppose I empty a box of smarties on the floor and allow the kids to pick them up, both the dominant and the non-dominant children will want as many smarties as they can get, but the dominant ones will go for it more directly, often trying to push the others aside; some will even try to grab smarties from the hands of another child who has already collected them.

Some non-dominant children are too shy and afraid to articulate their self-interest, and I conceive it as my job to help them articulate it and to stand up to the dominant kids.

And often enough I decide that the comments seem to reveal a depth of ignorance or misunderstanding about the subject at hand that I suspect would make any efforts on my part to educate the commenter quite futile - or, at least, frustrating and unpleasant.

JR

This would certainly apply to a PM exchange--I've spiked a few for that reason--but there is an audience here.

--Brant

Indeed, on a public forum, one never only communicates as a sender A to one single receiver B, but also to everybody else who reads what one has written. So if sender JR thinks his receiver Shayne lacks understanding of an issue, there is no reason for JR to withhold his explanations from the rest of the forum, including the viewers who don't post.

I'd refrain from the "I'm in a position to educate you" thing though. For as a rule, people don't want to be 'lectured' in forum discussions.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xray,

You like analogous stories so here's one.

Geri lives up the road from Helen. Geri works two jobs, and pays her way through university towards an engineering degree. She saves, she budgets, and she reads in any spare time.

Helen is in the process of blowing her inheritance, by partying it up, expensive habits, and making herself popular within her circle. She despises 'drones' who actually work.

But one day, it all runs out, and with her credit maxed-out, her friends deserting her, visits Geri. She pleads and demands assistance from Geri: "You owe it to me; not everybody is as perfect as you; I made a few mistakes: why should I suffer? and you've got money to spare!"

What values do these women portray?

Geri: long-term objective values (independence, rationality, productivity, self-esteem.)

Helen: short term subjective whims.

Which one is 'selfish'? Helen, grabbing all the Smarties, and counting on someone supplying her with more, all her life? Or Geri building character, and her own life?

Has Geri really 'sacrificed' her time at work and study? Should she now make a true sacrifice to bail out Helen?

(We know that, back in the real world - Geri helped out Helen. The industrious and self-responsible Germany, was called on to bail out socialist Greece, and has done so. The better for the worse, now THAT's a sacrifice.)

----------------

Xray, your references to roundworms or children's behaviour are completely misplaced, and irrelevant.

You know Objectivism very well; well enough to differentiate between the objective and subjective in Man's life, but choose instead to mix them up in one gooey mess. You ferret out the small cracks, ignore context and hierarchy, and proclaim the philosophy's founder to be unempathic.

In ethics, you waver between cute "We shouldn't be selfish", and cynical, "Everybody is selfish, anyway".

"Whatever works out right", appears to be your pragmatic philosophy.

If this is a lecture, too bad. Disagreement with Rand is one thing, but creating a strawman out of her, another altogether.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xray,

You like analogous stories so here's one.

Geri lives up the road from Helen. Geri works two jobs, and pays her way through university towards an engineering degree. She saves, she budgets, and she reads in any spare time.

Helen is in the process of blowing her inheritance, by partying it up, expensive habits, and making herself popular within her circle. She despises 'drones' who actually work.

But one day, it all runs out, and with her credit maxed-out, her friends deserting her, visits Geri. She pleads and demands assistance from Geri: "You owe it to me; not everybody is as perfect as you; I made a few mistakes: why should I suffer? and you've got money to spare!"

Ah, the classic topic of the thrifty/hardworking type versus the splurging squanderbug, as in the famous fable LA CIGALE ET LA FOURMI by Jean de La Fontaine:

La Cigale, ayant chanté

Tout l'été,

Se trouva fort dépourvue

Quand la bise fut venue.

Pas un seul petit morceau

De mouche ou de vermisseau (1).

Elle alla crier famine

Chez la Fourmi sa voisine,

La priant de lui prêter

Quelque grain pour subsister

Jusqu'à la saison nouvelle.

Je vous paierai, lui dit-elle,

Avant l'août (2), foi d'animal,

Intérêt et principal.

La Fourmi n'est pas prêteuse ;

C'est là son moindre défaut (3).

Que faisiez-vous au temps chaud ?

Dit-elle à cette emprunteuse (4).

Nuit et jour à tout venant

Je chantais, ne vous déplaise.

Vous chantiez ? j'en suis fort aise :

Et bien ! dansez maintenant.

What values do these women portray?

Geri: long-term objective values (independence, rationality, productivity, self-esteem.)

Helen: short term subjective whims.

Which one is 'selfish'? Helen, grabbing all the Smarties, and counting on someone supplying her with more, all her life? Or Geri building character, and her own life?

Has Geri really 'sacrificed' her time at work and study? Should she now make a true sacrifice to bail out Helen?

(We know that, back in the real world - Geri helped out Helen. The industrious and self-responsible Germany, was called on to bail out socialist Greece, and has done so. The better for the worse, now THAT's a sacrifice.)

Like you said, in the real world, (as opposed to more relentless ant (la fourmi) in La Fointaine's fable, "Geri"(= Germany) helped out "Helen" (= Greece).

Geri won't get one cent of that money back, that's for sure. It looks like Geri has an "in for penny, in for a pound attitude, literally here.

There had been a controversial discussion, before the introduction of the Euro, whether to include counties, which because of their financial problems, got the deprecating acronym "PIGS" (Portugal/Italy Greece Spain).

One could see it coming that the stronger ones were going to have to support to weaker ones because the Euopean union is considered as the higher value.

As for a sacrifice, sure it is a sacrifice. But keep in mind, every sacrifice is performed to obtain what is subjectively perceived as the higher value by the sacrificer. Maybe the higher value for Geri here was to avoid conflict with the rest of the group. Maybe Geri did not want to be regarded as the rich tightwad who lets her poor sister stand out in the cold.

I too have helped out people who I knew were not giving me my money back (the sums were comparatively small (I'm no big earner) but I have the attitude that since one can't take one cent to the grave anyway, why cling to money? Also, my preferred sense of self goes toward seeing me as generous person.

So there cam lie a lot of motives behind giving while knowing you won't getting the money back.

Who is to say what is the objective value? Is money an objective value? Money is a tool, ad and for its "value" it is subjected to permanent change.

I'll adress the rest of your post in the next few days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

La Cigale, ayant chanté

Tout l'été,

Se trouva fort dépourvue

Quand la bise fut venue.

Pas un seul petit morceau

De mouche ou de vermisseau (1).

Elle alla crier famine

Chez la Fourmi sa voisine,

La priant de lui prêter

Quelque grain pour subsister

Jusqu'à la saison nouvelle.

Je vous paierai, lui dit-elle,

Avant l'août (2), foi d'animal,

Intérêt et principal.

La Fourmi n'est pas prêteuse ;

C'est là son moindre défaut (3).

Que faisiez-vous au temps chaud ?

Dit-elle à cette emprunteuse (4).

Nuit et jour à tout venant

Je chantais, ne vous déplaise.

Vous chantiez ? j'en suis fort aise :

Et bien ! dansez maintenant.

Translation seevooplay. Thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here's my own very rough, impromptu translation (this will be fun to see how well I remember my six years of French). I'm not going to go to a dictionary, so I'll put question marks for when I'm unsure or drawing a blank:

La Cigale, ayant chanté

Tout l'été,

Se trouva fort dépourvue

Quand la bise fut venue.

+The Grasshopper, having sung

all summer,

found himself very deprived?

when the winds/cold weather? came.

Pas un seul petit morceau

De mouche ou de vermisseau (1).

Elle alla crier famine

Chez la Fourmi sa voisine,

La priant de lui prêter

Quelque grain pour subsister

Jusqu'à la saison nouvelle.

+Not a single little morsel

of mouse or insect.

She "alla" [mispelling?] goes to cry/plead famine

at the home of the Ant her neighbor,

begging her to bring her

a little grain to subsist on

just until the new season.

Je vous paierai, lui dit-elle,

Avant l'août (2), foi d'animal,

Intérêt et principal.

+"I will pay you," she said to her

"before autumn, on my word as an animal,

both interest and principal."

La Fourmi n'est pas prêteuse ;

C'est là son moindre défaut (3).

Que faisiez-vous au temps chaud ?

Dit-elle à cette emprunteuse (4).

+The ant is not taken in?;

that is her least fault/mistake?

"What did you do in warm weather?"

says she to this imprudent? one.

Nuit et jour à tout venant

Je chantais, ne vous déplaise.

Vous chantiez ? j'en suis fort aise :

Et bien ! dansez maintenant.

+"Night and day, to whatever comes,

I sing, not to displease you."

"You sing? I am very relieved/at ease:

Very well! Dance now."

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for a sacrifice, sure it is a sacrifice. But keep in mind, every sacrifice is performed to obtain what is subjectively perceived as the higher value by the sacrificer. Maybe the higher value for Geri here was to avoid conflict with the rest of the group. Maybe Geri did not want to be regarded as the rich tightwad who lets her poor sister stand out in the cold.

I too have helped out people who I knew were not giving me my money back (the sums were comparatively small (I'm no big earner) but I have the attitude that since one can't take one cent to the grave anyway, why cling to money? Also, my preferred sense of self goes toward seeing me as generous person.

So there cam lie a lot of motives behind giving while knowing you won't getting the money back.

Who is to say what is the objective value? Is money an objective value? Money is a tool, ad and for its "value" it is subjected to permanent change.

La Cigale! (Xray.)

Good that you appreciate poetry - I'm convinced that one needs to have poetry in one's soul to totally appreciate Objectivism. Otherwise, those logicians could sterilize it to death.

Objective/subjective, which would you like to have as a starting point?

To be objective, firmly and primarily, but have the individual choice towards 'subjective' compassion, on occasions?

Or the reverse, lost in an arbitrary world, without a single (objective) standard to operate from?

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: simple politeness, manners

Baal asked for a translation of the La Fontaine poem. So I took some time to do one. Acknowledgement? Response?

(Your welcome, Baal.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: simple politeness, manners

Baal asked for a translation of the La Fontaine poem. So I took some time to do one. Acknowledgement? Response?

(Your welcome, Baal.)

Thank you kindly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: simple politeness, manners

Baal asked for a translation of the La Fontaine poem. So I took some time to do one. Acknowledgement? Response?

(Your welcome, Baal.)

Phil,

Civility in these surreal online communities is a different kettle of fish...

I think that what most posters desire is little more than acknowledgement.

Just a simple "I heard you", goes a long way. Additional agreement, great; disagreement, also fine.

Trouble is, too much of the time one has to shout, loudly and neurotically, to get any attention.

(Damn. I'm starting to do it, myself.)

Which is often where conflicts erupt, I believe.

Just people wanting attention for their ideas and thoughts.

(This reminds me, you owe me a "I heard you", for a post I addressed to you recently, on the Iran topic. :) A chance to practice that benevolence you mentioned. B)

Where, oh where, is Carol? (Daunce)

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: simple politeness, manners

Baal asked for a translation of the La Fontaine poem. So I took some time to do one. Acknowledgement? Response?

(Your welcome, Baal.)

What about his welcome? Has he worn it out?

Confusedly,

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: simple politeness, manners

Baal asked for a translation of the La Fontaine poem. So I took some time to do one. Acknowledgement? Response?

(Your welcome, Baal.)

What about his welcome? Has he worn it out?

Confusedly,

JR

You're point is a good one, JR.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> you owe me a "I heard you", for a post I addressed to you recently, on the Iran topic. :) A chance to practice that benevolence you mentioned.

Tony, the difference is that if you request something (like a translation of more than a word or two) and someone specifically does that for you, you should offer a simple thank you. But in a board on all sorts of topics no one has time to acknowledge or even participate in every thread or address every question. Or sometimes even read them all {I don't even know what the Iran thing is your referring to, and I don't read every thread closely): No impoliteness in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> you owe me a "I heard you", for a post I addressed to you recently, on the Iran topic. :) A chance to practice that benevolence you mentioned.

Tony, the difference is that if you request something (like a translation of more than a word or two) and someone specifically does that for you, you should offer a simple thank you. But in a board on all sorts of topics no one has time to acknowledge or even participate in every thread or address every question. Or sometimes even read them all {I don't even know what the Iran thing is your referring to, and I don't read every thread closely): No impoliteness in that.

THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point about benevolence (this is not directed at you, Tony). One does not have to offer politeness or sensitivity or the like to people when don't behave in a non-benevolent way themselves. Someone insults you, you can feel free to insult them right back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point about benevolence (this is not directed at you, Tony). One does not have to offer politeness or sensitivity or the like to people when don't behave in a non-benevolent way themselves. Someone insults you, you can feel free to insult them right back.

I know, Phil. I'm no goody-two-shoes on that score, either - I've gone for a few posters,myself, that I later regretted, and taken a few licks too.

Firstly, being lazy, it's just too much effort to 'keep score', for me. Second, I'm saddened by it all, a bit.

All intelligent people, here, aiming for rationality, and each one sensitive, there should be a way (starting from civility) to surmount the pettiness.

(And I'm not making the error of assuming it is always petty, every time.)

I think when some kind of keeping a history of past 'engagements' becomes too common, honesty and good-will go out the window. The cumulative effect years on can't be pleasant, so I try to not get sucked in to it. :(

Tony

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point about benevolence (this is not directed at you, Tony). One does not have to offer politeness or sensitivity or the like to people when don't behave in a non-benevolent way themselves. Someone insults you, you can feel free to insult them right back.

I don't have my copy of Phil's Rules of Internet Civility handy, so I thought you might answer the following questions for me:

If you are insulted one time in one post, are you permitted to hurl only one retaliatory insult? Or can you use more than one retaliatory insult in the same post? Or can keep insulting "right back" in many posts indefinitely? I assume you have some rule of proportionality, but I'm not sure.

Another question: Suppose -- and this is only a hypothetical -- I were to say that you have a tendency to write vacuous posts. And suppose -- again, hypothetically -- that you do in fact have a tendency to write vacuous posts. In this case my statement would be true, so would you count it as an insult? Or must an insult be false?

(I chose this particular hypothetical because it is so patently absurd that no one could possibly take it seriously.)

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now