Search the Community

I was thinking about some of the life-learning and wisdom of Nathaniel Branden, half-convinced in my mind that I was remembering a quote accurately, that Nathaniel Branden had written "disagree" and "disagreeable" much like I thought in the title of this entry. I did find a phrase, something like I remembered and put it in fuller context at bottrom. But first some thoughts from the departed. The natural inclination of a child is to take pleasure in the use of the mind no less than of the body. The child's primary business is learning. It is also the primary entertainment. To retain that orientation into adulthood, so that consciousness is not a burden but a joy, is the mark of the successfully developed human being. Nathaniel Branden We do not hear the term "compassionate" applied to business executives or entrepreneurs, certainly not when they are engaged in their normal work. Yet in terms of results in the measurable form of jobs created, lives enriched, communities built, living standards raised, and poverty healed, a handful of capitalists has done infinitely more for mankind than all the self-serving politicians, academics, social workers, and religionists who march under the banner of "compassion". Nathaniel Branden “When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.” Ayn Rand Thinking of someone with whom I have useful disagreements. Watauga Lake, Tennessee.

[Added by WSS, August 18 2018: old placeholder thread, updated with a puzzler snatched from the front pages of OL. It's a neat little attribution discussion, with sides of psychology and morality ... I may not get around to answering myself for a bit, but thought to dust this old entry off, give it some glitz, and apply twenty-first century cogitation tech. ] Argument Clinic May 12 and 13 -- thanks to the tipster who saw this entrained convo begin to derail. I'd like to think that I can with help rationally analyze the apparent impasse, and then put Reason to further work in solving the apparent misunderstanding. Something in this exchange suggests a pattern in disagreement in the Endless Love thread on the front porch. (what I like about this blog is that it is visible only to Objectivist Living members. It would be an in-house solution if we could get MSK and PDS to a mutual comprehension, mutual understanding. It would go a long way toward restoring mutual-respect. Michael is fighting every step of the way over process/truncquotes -- without pausing to give PDS a good 'hearing.' It may be a function of being 3 things at once: Forum Leader, Forum Owner, Trump Campaigner. How can one stump for a candidate without setting aside The Principle of Charity or other rational aids? It seems to me almost impossible. So the challenge is to bring PDS and MSK to a common ground, however small. I call this for clinical sake "The Danger in asking for Specifics: the specifics ... " because the dispute circles around the propriety of asking for specific things [Added by WSS: From a live re-performance recording of the Monty Python classic. ]

No particular topic to start this off. I want to open a space where doubt is okay -- to have disquieting anticipation, to have issues and questions and even fierce criticism. OK to roll. I will also act as a moderator. The rules that are in place are the same general OL rules, but I intend to be a tight-ass. Please do not overdo 'personalizing' discussion. Do not attack the character of discussants or otherwise be a conversational oaf. There is only one level of appeal. So ... anybody got a nice safe space topic? I have thought about it for a while now, and all I can come up with is a vague theme ... UNITY UNIFY

Fresh from today's headlines -- or rather, fresh from Today's front porch at Objectivist Living. Brief audio introduction to the issues [TBRecorded] Geoff, You mean like stealing votes? That's the kind of integrity you are looking for in a president? Michael Word People ploys, number 16 and 7 -- spins on "If I understand your points correctly." The double ploy depends on the operation of Compare and Contrast. What is being compared? To answer that question, one needs to understand the basic ploy parameters of the fallacious reasoning -- in informal English it is known as The Old Switcheroo. In this case, what is being swapped out are words denoted by Turkeyfoot. More specifically, Integrity. First step to analysis is to listen to the entire TF comment with an aim to understanding and restating his argument or point or points. Here is the audio: Not comes ... discussion points ... about integrity? Let's listen to Donald Trump's explanation: And here is Peter extemporizing with Ellen Stuttle: Verbatim: Now listen to the approach taken by one discussant. Note the pitfalls of truncation: I will add a tag here, and somehow jam all this material into a seven-minute podcast. I am thinking of committing the first sin of podcasting again -- over-exhuberance in choosing sound tracks. In this case I am going to give into the thrill of danger, and summon up a new Horror ambiance.

These are the kinds of commentary that I know I should give real thought to. Although Michael seems to insult me in one item [see clarification d"oh below], he follows it with a smiley emoticon, so I know it is 'banter.' If I weren't a simple child like Pollyanna, I'd say that insults choke discussion. But that is for another day and another dollar. Some things just need to sink in. First, as a boring background, Adam teased this out of me ... MIchael took a bit from this and answered it in his inimitable way. But let's just say he didn't quote it, since you just read the words anyway, and I cannot be bothered to finick with the quoating software for the moment. That seems to fit your condition ... and here I though I was one of the guys that Rock! Hmmm. Deep thoughts. Here was a bit more of my thoughts on defining bigotry. Tony always triggers thought. This is what started it all off, with Michael answering the question of Categories. And so, I can answer -- on list -- the final set of questions, bolded for your reading pleasure.

Sure. Anti-Trump people. Those against Trump. And so on. I don't demonize someone who criticizes Trump just for criticizing him. There are lots of people who can't stand Trump as is their right. And some of them make great points.