Jump to content






Photo

Objections to Objectivism (standing on one foot)

Dissent Freedom Emotion Human nature

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 KacyRay

KacyRay

    $$$$

  • Members
  • 496 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norfolk, VA
  • Interests:Chess, Music, Polemics, Philosophy, Psychology, Sports, Literature

Posted 24 April 2013 - 04:28 AM

I'm still a bit lost as to the situation he was writing about, but I agree with him wholeheartedly that PZ Myers is a third-rate ass-clown. His blog is a cesspool of feminist venom and alarmism.

 

Fuck PZ Myers. I have nothing good to say about that guy.


"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."

#22 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,352 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:03 AM


 


... Objections to Objectivism (standing on one foot): ...

  • incapable of correction (absolutism of dicta)

. . .

 

... Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, as stated by herself.

 

William,

 

Using that standard, anything written by any author who is dead is "incapable of correction."

 

Or do you believe in the afterlife with spirits who can come back to earth to correct stuff?

 

If not, your third objection, as you stated and qualified it with a definition, doesn't make any sense.

 

Michael

 

MSK, I disagree.

 

Once again, I think Darwin is a good analogy here. To this day, evolution is referred to as “Darwinism”, despite the fact that he never lived to know a fraction of the discoveries that have been made regarding evolution that we know of today. We still credit him with being the father of this science, because it was he who laid the foundation for these discoveries. He told us where the right place to look was. He pointed us in the right direction.

 

Can you imagine how irrational it would’ve been for his to say “Hey, evolution is my discovery, and only that which is written under my name about it can be called ‘Darwinism’. Any discovery made after I’m gone, whatever you choose to call it, cannot be called ‘Darwinsim’”. No – instead he recognized that his contribution to science, while vitally important, was limited to what he was able to discover during his lifetime. Further discoveries, so long as they are consistent with the framework he provided, still qualify as "Darwinism".

 

How could Rand possibly imagine that there were no discoveries left to be made by anyone else, either while she was still here or after she was gone, that would not be perfectly consistent with her philosophy? And if she knew that such discoveries were possible, why, then, would she refuse to permit them to be entered into the record as new discoveries of Objectivism?

 

I can only imagine it had a lot to do with how many people kept trying to edit her work in Hollywood, or her novels. I can understand how she got to that point – it must have been supremely frustrating to have people bastardize her material. But to declare that nothing qualifies as Objectivism unless she herself declared it so… this was the very reason I ceased identifying as an Objectivist.

 

Consider how self-contradictory and self-defeating it is to claim adherence to a philosophy that extols the virtue of independent thought and then ostracizes all those who exercise it.

 

The choice at hand is to think, or not to think. And if one thinks, one will arrive at exactly the same conclusions as Ayn Rand did. If one does not, one has failed to think. And if you diverge in any way from Rand's concept of rugged individualism and absolute rejection of collectivism, then you can't be one of us!!

 

I think this criticism is legitimate.

 

 KacyRay said:

"How could Rand possibly imagine that there were no discoveries left to be made by anyone else, either while she was still here or after she was gone, that would not be perfectly consistent with her philosophy? And if she knew that such discoveries were possible, why, then, would she refuse to permit them to be entered into the record as new discoveries of Objectivism?"

.

This issue is discussed by Barbara Branden in some detail, in her Foreword to The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism (2009, Cobden Press/Laissez Faire Books)., including this:

 

Much work remains to be done, as Rand was quick to acknowledge. In an interview with Garth Ancier of Focus on Youth in 1978, Rand was asked: "Miss Rand, is there anything more to say about your philosophy that you haven't said already?" "I'm glad that you are not acquainted with my philosophy, because if you were, you would know that I haven't nearly said everything yet. I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done." [Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed, edited by Marlene Podriske and Peter Schwartz, p.239]

 

 

Barbara Branden then comments

 

 

Those who insist that Objectivism is a closed system, that only the writings of Ayn Rand can ever be considered part of it, are mistaken.

Strictly speaking, Objectivism cannot yet be considered a complete philosophical system. There remain important philosphical issues that have not been dealt with sufficiently or not dealt with at all - such as esthetics, and as Rand noted, induction.. There are also areas in which Rand is unclear or seems to contradict herself, such as in her various discussions of collateral damage in war. If Objectivism is a closed system, then it can never be completed. (p.xii)



#23 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,047 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:00 PM

On the cousinly subject of Scary Hairy Things, I will defer to Carol herself, but we may have to wait. In the meantime, meet the Sarcastic Fringehead ... hat-tip to Pharyngula, natcherly.
 



 
**********************

Hey, Sweet William!

I am not so hairy anymore. I got to shave off the nine-year playoff beard.

#24 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,066 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:52 PM

William [ . . . ] If you are interested, I just read Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief by Lawrence Wright. It just came out, is going bestseller, and I was lucky enough to grab a library copy, so I did and devoured the book. (You don't have much library time on new releases and you can't renew.)
 
I highly recommend it. Wright is one hell of a good writer.

 

Thanks for the recommendation -- I put it on hold at my library. Wright also wrote one of the most important books concerning the recovered memory movement, specifically the self-deception and outright lies and manipulation of that cult's prime movers and bad actors. That book is "Remembering Satan: A Tragic Case of Recovered Memory"** (Amazon http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0679755829).

 

I think Scientology is going to be around for a long, long time.

 

I agree with that thought. It may never reach again the heights of influence, and it may be damaged by the last five years of high-level insider 'defection,' but the church will be a long time dying. I sometimes think that no religions or cults have been known to die, but that is not true: the Shakers are no more. The People's Temple died in Jonestown. The Church Universal and Triumphant (of Elizabeth Claire Prophet) is anything but, as their last creepy insiders begin to die off.

 

"Belief in the irrational is one definition of faith, but it is also true that clinging to absurd or disputed doctrines binds a community of faith together and defines a barrier to the outside world."

 

Yes .... this is the age-old story. With so much invested mentally and socially in a 'community of faith,' the price to pay for defection or apostasy is huge. The tribal patterns of behaviour are reinforced, it seems, by criticism. Read, for example, the diehard Scientology nutters trying to dis down Wright ...

Wright has also garnered some criticism of the book from anti-cult honcho Steve Hassan. See this odd little story: "Lawrence Wright’s Scientology Book Gets Some Thrashing from Cult Expert Steven Hassan" (http://tonyortega.or...-steven-hassan/)
 
 

I'm still a bit lost as to the situation he was writing about, but I agree with him wholeheartedly that PZ Myers is a third-rate ass-clown. His blog is a cesspool of feminist venom and alarmism.
 
Fuck PZ Myers. I have nothing good to say about that guy.

 

It seems you have nothing to say about Myers and Pharyngula other than invective. So you can fuck yourself off, KC.

 

Clown.

 

On the cousinly subject of Scary Hairy Things, I will defer to Carol herself, but we may have to wait.

Hey, Sweet William!

I am not so hairy anymore. I got to shave off the nine-year playoff beard.

 

I disbelieve you, Carol. I think there is more to the story of the Hairy Things.

 

___________________________________

 

** from the blurb:

 

 

Release date: April 25, 1995
In 1988 Ericka and Julie Ingram began making a series of accusations of sexual abuse against their father, Paul Ingram, who was a respected deputy sheriff in Olympia, Washington. At first the accusations were confined to molestations in their childhood, but they grew to include torture and rape as recently as the month before. At a time when reported incidents of "recovered memories" had become widespread, these accusations were not unusual. What captured national attention in this case is that, under questioning, Ingram appeared to remember participating in bizarre satanic rites involving his whole family and other members of the sheriff's department.

Remembering Satan is a lucid, measured, yet absolutely riveting inquest into a case that destroyed a family, engulfed a small town, and captivated an America obsessed by rumors of a satanic underground. As it follows the increasingly bizarre accusations and confessions, the claims and counterclaims of police, FBI investigators, and mental health professionals. Remembering Satan gives us what is at once a psychological detective story and a domestic tragedy about what happens when modern science is subsumed by our most archaic fears.

Edited by william.scherk, 24 April 2013 - 03:55 PM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#25 KacyRay

KacyRay

    $$$$

  • Members
  • 496 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norfolk, VA
  • Interests:Chess, Music, Polemics, Philosophy, Psychology, Sports, Literature

Posted 24 April 2013 - 11:49 PM


It seems you have nothing to say about Myers and Pharyngula other than invective. So you can fuck yourself off, KC.

 

Clown.

 

You're absolutely right. I could not have said it better myself. I have nothing good to say about PZ Myers. And if you are on board with his far-left feminist cult - or if you just accept it uncritically - then you have some serious soul searching to do. How can anyone who respects Ayn Rand respect someone like PZ Myers? The two are as different as night and day.


"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."

#26 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,595 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:11 AM


It seems you have nothing to say about Myers and Pharyngula other than invective. So you can fuck yourself off, KC.

 

Clown.

 

You're absolutely right. I could not have said it better myself. I have nothing good to say about PZ Myers. And if you are on board with his far-left feminist cult - or if you just accept it uncritically - then you have some serious soul searching to do. How can anyone who respects Ayn Rand respect someone like PZ Myers? The two are as different as night and day.

 

Wow! If I thought this was going anywhere I'd pop some popcorn and break out the sody pop.

 

While you might think William (generally) respects Ayn Rand, I'm dubious. He must respect her in the somewhats. His basic orientation is different than Ayn this and that. Come to think of it, I can't think of anyone here who'd fall under such a rubric, including you. Most of us do respect her, greatly.

 

--Brant

that's the way it is here--even for the resident one or two socialists


Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#27 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,385 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:40 AM

Wright also wrote one of the most important books concerning the recovered memory movement, specifically the self-deception and outright lies and manipulation of that cult's prime movers and bad actors. That book is "Remembering Satan: A Tragic Case of Recovered Memory"** (Amazon http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0679755829).

 

William,

 

You've mentioned this before. I like the Scientology book so much I ordered this one. And I am intrigued by the recovered memory stuff.

 

I've also gotten my hands on Wright's 9/11 book and Twins.

 

Even more, there are lots of his articles online, so that should be enough Wright for me for a while.

 

btw - Steve Hassan rocks. I've viewed about 20 hours of videos of him so far. And it looks like I am going to view another hour (his interview with Jon Atack, which I got on your Tony Ortega link). I understand why he didn't like Wright's book, but he's on a mission to combat cult mind control. Wright's mission is to understand faith and belief as human motivations from a wide religious lens. And, from all my study of Scientology from the outside looking in, I conclude it fits both missions perfectly.

 

Michael


Know thyself...


#28 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,385 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2013 - 11:27 AM

I'm still a bit lost as to the situation he was writing about, but I agree with him wholeheartedly that PZ Myers is a third-rate ass-clown. His blog is a cesspool of feminist venom and alarmism.

 

 

Kacy,

 

This is outside the topic, but briefly, Salty Droid is a site devoted to defending people against Internet marketing hype and scams. This includes some inspiration people outside the Internet who use standard covert "get wealthy" persuasion techniques and go too far like James Arthur Ray. Some of his followers didn't just get their bank accounts skinned, they actually died in a sweat-lodge event.

 

I read that blog because I am migrating to the Internet marketing business and I get the skinny on a lot of dirt there (Salty is incredibly well-sourced, especially on the legal end, even if his style is kinda.. er... colorful.)

 

One of the cases he went after with a venom was a guy (Dave Navarro) who left his wife and small children to run after a hot second tier Internet marketing guru (Naomi Dunford). There were some heavy-handed persuasion techniques involved in the story, discussions caught on tape about how to milk customers, etc.

 

On the family side, they didn't like Dave doing Internet marketing and wanted him to go back to his 9-5 job. On Dave's side, he wanted to follow his dream. Throw in some righteous bickering, family meddling, booze and probably sex, and you got a typical American divorce.

 

Dave's brother, who is religious, put up a website begging him to reconsider and reconnect with his wife and kids, etc. It's a pretty painful thing to read (on all sides). But his brother did the typical emotional blackmail religious people do as part of his arguments--in between bouts of real pain.

 

All in all, it's a soap opera starring a lot of good people doing stupid things where everyone got hurt. But those on the different sides don't see it that way, of course.

 

Then, out of nowhere, without knowing anything about what went on other than what was on the reconsider webpage, PZ Meyers posts that the brother (Anthony Navarro) is an evil scumbag (that was in the title of his post--see here) for pressuring his brother to get back with his wife from a religious angle.

 

Salty went ballistic, especially as the abandoned wife (Allison) sometimes posts in the comments on his blog. She's one of his star victims of the mean cruel Internet marketing scam machine. Add that to the fact that PZ was setting up his own blog network and was monetizing it with make-money-online advertizing of the type Salty combats, and that put the icing on the cake.

 

Then PZ and some of his ideologues attempted a sockpuppet invasion on Salty's blog while PZ banned Salty on his own blog and the thing took off in massive silliness to over 400 comments on that article alone. But it was obvious to Salty's readers and they had a lot of fun with the PZ trolls.

 

(btw - Salty is an attorney.)

 

Michael


Know thyself...


#29 KacyRay

KacyRay

    $$$$

  • Members
  • 496 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norfolk, VA
  • Interests:Chess, Music, Polemics, Philosophy, Psychology, Sports, Literature

Posted 26 April 2013 - 12:13 AM

Interesting story, MSK. Thanks for laying it all out.

 

PZ Myers is a tool. The blogosphere would be better off if he never wrote another word.

 

I wonder if the husband ever came to his senses and went back to his kids?


"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."

#30 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,385 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2013 - 01:00 AM

Kacy,

 

To my knowledge, he has not. If you want to read about this sorry event, here are some links:

 

The reconsider website: Letters To Dave Navarro

 

Salty's articles on Naomi Dunford (which includes Dave): Articles in the Naomi Dunford Category

 

Naomi's site (which has really scaled back from before): IttyBiz

 

Dave's site (I'm glad to see he's back in business--he took some time off when it blew up): The Launch Coach

 

Anthony Navarro's site (Dave's brother): Anthony Navarro

 

You'll have to get Allison's stuff in the comments to Salty's articles.

 

The rest you can Google.

 

Some folks will disagree with me, but I repeat what I said above. These are all good people who got caught up doing some stupid things.

 

This affair and fallout sure scratches the gossip itch, though. :)

 

Michael


Know thyself...






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Dissent, Freedom, Emotion, Human nature

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users