Objectivism Online run by hypocritical babies?


blackhorse

Recommended Posts

They have other defenses. Name-calling, disappearing from discussions, accusing me of being dishonest and therefore of suddenly being unworthy of their time, etc. Oh, and keeping me on moderation and sometimes only letting my posts go through after the thread has disappeared from the recent posts page, thus trying to leave the impression that my opponents had a resounding last word to which I couldn't muster a reply. Most of the members aren't fooled by that tactic, though. Mostly just Nicky.

J

This is standard operating procedure for OO. A few years ago, someone posted a thoughtful critique of "The Objectivist Ethics," showing that in theory one could carefully pursue one's rational self-interest and still commit theft and even murder. The resulting debate went on for many days until one of the moderators shut it down. The original poster was never heard from again--no doubt banished for life. Shortly thereafter, a new thread was started, this time with only hard shell Objectivists contributing, all in perfect accord that respect for the rights of others must follow logically and invariably from rational egoism.

Then there was another thread in which someone had argued with some cogency that intellectual property rights should not be treated differently from rights in physical property. In other words, that patents and copyrights should come without an expiration date. The best response anyone could offer was that the original poster was defending a form of theft, as the patent holder would be monopolizing something he had no right to. There was no real effort to provide a rationale for the legal distinction between intellectual and physical property.

This thread disappeared entirely. Apparently for want of a good comeback, the moderators decided the challenge to Rand's position on IP should not exist on the web at all.

I think it's important to share stories like these. I think that abusive people think that they're creating the illusion of fairness, if not of intellectual victory, and they count on others not caring enough to burst the bubble.

Faking reality, censoring, moderating, banning -- the next generation's versions of Objectivist virtues.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

However, since the world abounds in instances of successful human parasites with disgustingly long lifespans, Rand and the Objectivists must resort to the "qua man" hat trick. It goes something like this: since reason is man's necessary means to survival, man's goal in life must be to live as a rational being.

It's worse than that. Since "reason" is man's essential characteristic, and the exercise of reason is volitional, you aren't, properly speaking, "man" (or she sometimes says "human") if you don't activate reason.

"...to be human is an act of choice." - Galt's Speech

"The Objectivist Ethics"

[bold emphasis added]

Man cannot survive as anything but man. He can abandon his means of survival, his mind, he can turn his life into a brief span of agony - just as his body can exist for a while in the process of disintegration by disease. But he cannot succeed, as a subhuman, in achieving anything but the subhuman - as the ugly horror of the anti-rational periods of mankind's history can demonstrate. Man has to be man by choice - and it is the task of ethics to teach him how to live like a man.

Ellen

Precisely Ellen.

Additionally, using his "male" syntax and semantic, Morlist was making the same points.

Becoming a fully rational human is a choice,

A...

That "Becoming a fully rational human is a choice" isn't all that Rand was saying. She made a stronger statement - that TO BE HUMAN - equivalent to being a rational being - is an act of choice.

I.e., those who haven't volitionally activated rational consciousness are not human according to Rand but instead sub-human.

Regarding Moralist's point re "men" and "women" versus "males" and "females," I wanted to say but didn't get around to saying that I thought that he, like Rand, was expressing the idea that not everyone biologically human is "human." So if people were going to get up in arms about what he was saying, to be consistent, they should also take issue with what Rand said.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't know of him, but I'm sorry that you've lost someone who was dear to you.

J

Thanks, J.

Ivor Hugh was dear to so many, over some 66 years of radio broadcasting, starting with a children's show. His mission in life was to serve God by bringing joy.

There are people who just brighten the world with their presence. :smile:

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! I'M one of those O.O brats! :-P

Some of the people there need to stop and grasp the contextuality of knowledge. I was lucky; shortly after that little outburst I linked to one of the moderators started asking me about epistemology and really got me thinking about it.

One of the moderators once actually offered to personally guide me in private messages in understanding Objectivism. I was to list what I mistakenly believed to be Objectivism's errors, contradictions and overstatements, and this moderator would then review my mistakes and explain to me how I had gotten everything wrong. I made a list, starting with aesthetics (my primary area of interest) and worked back from there to the other branches. The moderator's reply was that s/he disagreed with almost everything I had listed, be s/he was short on time and would get back to me later in detail. I never heard back.

But even aside from that I'd still take one of those O.O brats over a Christian, any day of the week- at least they're trying to be more rational.

No, I don't think that's true. They're not trying to be rational. They're trying to establish authority under the guise of rationality.

Those Christians want to get to their after-life, and you can't pretend this doesn't affect their derivative values.

Belief in the afterlife affects Christians no more than Rand's art affects Objectivists -- her fictionally presenting the world as it "ought to be" and "as if it were real." It's the same thing. Both are the aesthetic effect of experiencing one's ideas and ideals "in concrete form." Both are a form of addressing a human need of faking it until making it, of living a simulation first in order to later deal with reality, and of blurring the line between fact and fiction and buying into an illusion in order to make reality digestible and one's hopes achievable.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's more from Rand on the subhuman status of those who aren't exercising reason:

When man unfocused his mind, he may be said to be conscious in a subhuman sense of the word, since he experiences sensations and perceptions. But in the sense of the word applicable to man - in the sense of a consciousness which is aware of reality and able to deal with it, a consciousness able to direct the actions and provide for the survival of a human being - an unfocused mind is not conscious.

Psychologically, the choice "to think or not" is the choice "to focus or not." Existentially, the choice "to focus or not" is the choice "to be conscious or not." Metaphysically, the choice "to be conscious or not" is the choice of life or death.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's more from Rand on the subhuman status of those who aren't exercising reason:

When man unfocused his mind, he may be said to be conscious in a subhuman sense of the word, since he experiences sensations and perceptions. But in the sense of the word applicable to man - in the sense of a consciousness which is aware of reality and able to deal with it, a consciousness able to direct the actions and provide for the survival of a human being - an unfocused mind is not conscious.

Psychologically, the choice "to think or not" is the choice "to focus or not." Existentially, the choice "to focus or not" is the choice "to be conscious or not." Metaphysically, the choice "to be conscious or not" is the choice of life or death.

Ellen

And of course the logical question is, "How can someone who is not focused -- not conscious -- choose to focus?" Apparently Rand didn't choose to focus on that obvious question, or chose to unfocus her mind in order to avoid dealing with reality? If so, was she subhuman at that moment? Did she remain subhuman for as long as she didn't focus on the question of how an unfocused/unconscious person could choose to focus, or did she become human again when focusing on other issues?

Can a person be mostly human because she generally deals with reality in a focused manner, but just partially subhuman because she evades and unfocuses about certain subjects? Or is it all or nothing, black or white? If a person is subhuman, wouldn't that mean that they don't have human rights, and that it's okay to initiate force against them, treat them like cattle?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course the logical question is, "How can someone who is not focused -- not conscious -- choose to focus?" Apparently Rand didn't choose to focus on that obvious question, or chose to unfocus her mind in order to avoid dealing with reality? If so, was she subhuman at that moment? Did she remain subhuman for as long as she didn't focus on the question of how an unfocused/unconscious person could choose to focus, or did she become human again when focusing on other issues?

Branden addressed that question, sort of - not in the way you frame it. I'll find what he said. Later.

Can a person be mostly human because she generally deals with reality in a focused manner, but just partially subhuman because she evades and unfocuses about certain subjects? Or is it all or nothing, black or white? If a person is subhuman, wouldn't that mean that they don't have human rights, and that it's okay to initiate force against them, treat them like cattle?

J

Seems that, yes, it's possible to be partially human and partially sub-human and to vary in percentage. Again, later.

I don't recall anything directly addressing the rights issue. Taking the Indians' land was ok because the Indians were savages and had no conception of property rights. Shooting the guard because he wouldn't think was ok. There are some other nebulous hints.

I'm glad that someone - i.e., you - is noticing some of the snafus in Rand's assertions on man/human, not-man/subhuman.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall anything directly addressing the rights issue. Taking the Indians' land was ok because the Indians were savages and had no conception of property rights...

Yes, and yet the Vikings were somehow not savages in Rand's opinion, but heroes, despite violating everyone's property rights (and every other kind of right).

...Shooting the guard because he wouldn't think was ok. There are some other nebulous hints.

I would think that, like raising cattle, hunting deer, and using animal labor, the Objectivist position would be that it is not only acceptable but virtuous to better one's life by taking advantage of the ownership of anything and everything that is not human, and therefore that it is good to own and make use of "subhumans."

That would include selectively farm breeding them and being sure to intellectually "comprachico" their offspring so that they never learn to volitionally choose to self-activate their consciousnesses and become rights-bearing humans.

J

P.S. I think that the Minnesota Vikings should be forced to change their name. It's insulting. I'm embarrassed that my ancestors were rapists, pillagers and murderers, and I wish the NFL would stop glorifying their crimes. It's like naming a team the Joliet Nazis, or the Montgomery Slave Drivers. How do you think that would go over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a department store decided to change its name from Macy's to Hitler's Department Store, my guess is that most people would find such renaming ridiculous, and, more subtly, they would say something like "they get what they deserve." In other words, I would like to think most people would "let the market have its say" on whether Hitler's Department Store should change its name.

But this is football. So that's totally different. Not only does everybody's opinion matter, but everybody's opinion today bears far more weight that the opinions held 5 years ago, 10 years ago, etc.

Sorry about the crimes of your ancestors, by the way. At least they had blonde hair and nicely trimmed mustaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a department store decided to change its name from Macy's to Hitler's Department Store, my guess is that most people would find such renaming ridiculous, and, more subtly, they would say something like "they get what they deserve." In other words, I would like to think most people would "let the market have its say" on whether Hitler's Department Store should change its name.

But this is football. So that's totally different.

Yeah, generally with sports teams the idea is to choose a name which represents strength and fierceness. I saw a clip of Krauthammer last night in which he said that the term "Redskin" originates as a description of the color of war paint, not skin. So it would seem that the name may have been selected not as a racial reference, but as a reference to warriors' chosen adornments.

Not only does everybody's opinion matter, but everybody's opinion today bears far more weight that the opinions held 5 years ago, 10 years ago, etc.

Speaking of bears, should the Chicago Bears be forced to change their name? Just think of all of the people who have been victimized by bears! Do Chicagoans think it's cute or funny that people have been mauled to death? Have they no decency?

Sorry about the crimes of your ancestors, by the way. At least they had blonde hair and nicely trimmed mustaches.

Right, and they stood atop mountains with their drawn swords held high and glinting in the new day's first golden rays.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What hat trick?

Since existence, for a conscious being, is experienced as a conscious process, to truly live (qua man) is to think.

Life qua man is simply awareness.

And this SHOULD exclude anyone who doesn't care to think; in what sense are they human aside from opposable thumbs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A vegetable is not alive; a curious and rational person is.

Is a concrete-bound stoner more like the former or the latter?

Nothing against stoners, in general, but some of them (who eat, sleep and breathe apathy) are perfect examples of this.

---

The survival argument for being rational doesn't strictly apply to every single individual and this is where some Oists, unfortunately, are prone to twist the facts to fit theory.

But consciousness must be conscious of something; the alternative is mindlesness.

And anyone who intentionally spends their lives that way isn't alive and is, frankly, not human.

Moralist was saying this but, in the thread he began on O.O, also ventured to say that certain thoughts are masculine or feminine.

To which I say: why not take that premise further? Why not consider certain thoughts intrinsically rich, white or blonde?

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