Serious Students vs. Degenerate Objectivists

[George H. Smith]

Here’s a currently active thread where you first said : “usual ND stupidity”, then called me “Nihilist Dipshit”. And I haven’t retaliated in any way. Imagine how you look to someone who’s never visited this site before, a Lee Child fan curious about what people think of the casting of Tom Cruise.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=145707

Then here’s a link to the classic Phil performance, in case anyone needs reminding. Who initiates, and who escalates in this exchange?

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=133263

Sorry Ellen, if you're following this.

,,,,

I just read the Lee Child thread this morning. I thought it was a good thread until I hit the post in which Phil engaged in unprovoked name-calling. I wish Phil would learn some civility. I could give him a list of rules, but I'm not sure that would help. In any case, OL would be a more pleasant place if Phil would make an effort to curb his nastiness.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

After so many examples one can logically conclude that what Phil's getting on OL is exactly what Phil wants, but if he were to acknowledge this all would stop for him. This whole thing of his is powered by a generous hypocrisy. I suspect he's consciously oblivious to it. When he came back he sincerely tried not to do what he characteristically does, not engaging people negatively, but he fell off that horse after a while. Eschewing name-calling hardly gets to the heart of this matter.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

After so many examples one can logically conclude that what Phil's getting on OL is exactly what Phil wants, but if he were to acknowledge this all would stop for him. This whole thing of his is powered by a generous hypocrisy. I suspect he's consciously oblivious to it. When he came back he sincerely tried not to do what he characteristically does, not engaging people negatively, but he fell off that horse after a while. Eschewing name-calling hardly gets to the heart of this matter.

--Brant

I recall that Phil fell off his horse shortly after riding in. But when I started to read the Lee Child thread this morning -- and I say this in all sincerity -- I thought, "Good for Phil; he is making an honest effort to discuss a topic instead of preaching." Then I read Phil's spasmodic fit of name-calling, which was apparently provoked by Ninth's suggestion that Tom Cruise is too short to play the lead role in a movie, and I thought, "Shit, more of the same."

I tend to agree with your obsevation that Phil is basically getting what he wants. He wants attention, and attention is what he is getting. As for the kind of attention Phil is getting -- well, that amounts to falling off a horse of a different color.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

But when I started to read the Lee Child thread this morning -- and I say this in all sincerity -- I thought, "Good for Phil; he is making an honest effort to discuss a topic instead of preaching." Then I read Phil's spasmodic fit of name-calling, which was apparently provoked by Ninth's suggestion that Tom Cruise is too short to play the lead role in a movie, and I thought, "Shit, more of the same."

Notice that the civil posts by Phil date from over a year ago. I latched onto that thread, rather than starting a new one, so I wouldn’t have to establish who Lee Child and Jack Reacher are. Phil could easily have expressed his disagreement by pointing to Tom Cruise’s track record with action adventure movies, then we could have settled with a civilized difference of opinion. That’s just not the current incarnation of Phil. All his worst qualities are coming out in an amplified form this time around. He at least needs to take a break, or, more likely, to find himself another online home.

If there’s a next time, let’s hope he doesn’t use the defective reset button again.

[George H. Smith]

Notice that the civil posts by Phil date from over a year ago.

i didn't notice that. So much for my premature enthusiasm.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

Subject: Am I Required to Be Civil to those who are Uncivil Toward Me?

No, you're not required to be civil to those who are uncivil toward you. And others aren't required to be civil to you after you've been uncivil to them. See, that's the part that you're missing. You're not reflecting on your own asshole behavior.

This is so obvious that I'm amazed I have to explain it: Civility is desirable with people who are civil with you. But if someone throws shit in your face, calls you names, constantly insults you are not required to be civil in response.

Exactly right, Phil! When you throw shit in people's faces, call them names, constantly insult them, schoolmarm them, give them unsolicited advice when you've accomplished nothing in life yourself, you shouldn't expect them to be civil in response!

To evade this simple principle is akin to evading the difference between -retaliatory- force and the initiation of force.

Exactly! Your whining about how others are treating you is akin to someone evading the difference between retaliatory force and the initiation of force! So stop being such a giant wuss when people respond to your incivility!

If you repeatedly call me names, insult me on post after post for a period of many months or even years, the point comes when I'm fed up and ***I'm going to kick your teeth in*** in like manner.

Phil, today, like everyday, I've been working at creating artwork and pursuing my goals. What have you done? Has it occurred to you to stop wasting your time taunting people online with your stupid, petty shit, and to get busy doing something productive instead? Try to get control of yourself, focus your attention on yourself instead of lashing out at others, change your behavior, and become productive. You're not going to achieve in life what you claim that you want by taunting people online or by schoolmarming. That's not how books get written.

J

[Jonathan]

Oh, but you explained that you did not mean this as a moral judgment! Okay, Phil. You are a degenerate person, not a serious person. Of course, this is not a moral judgment. I merely mean that you have not mastered the art of living. But I haven taken extensive notes on life, so I am a serious person.

There is obviously no insult in my observation, so if you respond with anything except civil language, I will kick your teeth in.

Likewise, my use of the term "shitstain" isn't an insult. It's not a moral judgment, but a just a descriptive term for people who haven't accomplished anything but who feel that they have to "leave their mark" everywhere by presuming to schoolmarm those who have accomplished something. I really don't understand why Phil feels that my identifying him as a shitstain is an insult, or why he has to then initiate insults against me and claim that he's "retaliating."

J

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan, you seem to be assuming Phil has no curriculum vitae.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

*only Jonathan is as quick on the trigger as potty mouth Phil, and I gather that’s the result of several more years' experience than I’ve had of interacting with him.

Yeah, the longer that you know Phil, the less tolerant you're likely to be of his behavior, and the more immune you'll be to his inevitable whining about his victimhood.

J

[john42t]

My two cents on the actual topic of this thread.

People learn differently. I'm pretty lazy in a way, I have difficulties to do what I've planned to do.

Yet I came through my maths studies much better than most of my colleagues, who were often more diligent.

And no, it's not intelligence (or not just intelligence anyway).

There are often things that catch my interest, and then it's like there's nothing more pleasant than to investigate. For a few years, maths was like that for me.

Most of the deepest insights didn't come by brooding over books but in situations like when one's standing at a bus stop. That's because maths isn't only calculating and proving, but integrating conceptual knowledge - which is something that can be done off-paper in memory. (Although it presupposes diligent memorization of the definitions beforehand.)

But then I lose interest and then it seems to be impossible to deal with the matter. I would go as far as saying that it feels as if I had no choice in what I am able to concentrate on - yet in hindsight it often turned out to have been the right thing.

In my experience, this is not how most people are (I actually believe there are probably biological differences at work, but that's another matter): I know plenty of people who never get really excited about anything but are capable of more consistent focus. And then there's a few who seem to experience their attention capabilities more like I do. And I see no correlation between this trait and intelligence.

I don't want to value anything here, both "types" (there's probably more) have their advantages. I would just advise against self-blame if you're one type and compare your weaknesses against the strengths of the other.

[Philip Coates]

> you are a coward in such matters.

And you're a coward - as is ND - in terms of your sleazy personal insults. And then you ask me to engage you 'give me an example'. No, I don't like that. Give me another. I reject your proof...give me more.

Any idiot would agree that there are people who have

i) dropped away from or

ii) not fully practiced important and key principles of Objectivism that would improve things or

iii) refused to fully study or attend properly to Objectivist principles.

I don't need to call out individuals by name (if I wanted to I would name people participating on this thread) - a category description like i, ii, iii is enough **unless you are deliberately trying not to understand**.

Both you, GHS and ND, know damn well that there are lots of people who fit the criteria I listed. So your protestations that I need to illustrate it further are disingenuous or worse.

[Philip Coates]

Sense: Having a Sense of Truth and Honor...and not Being a Degenerate Objectivist

Brant, Jonathan, GHS, ND,

You keep saying I'm the one who is uncivil when I have pointed out (and anyone who has read my posts over a long period of time honestly knows) that I started angrily retaliating after a long pattern** of abuse (from you guys primarily).

Why do you keep lying about the initiation of the incivility?

Why do you say things just to try to score "debaters points"?

Why do you say things you know are not true?

Didn't you learn anything from Objectivism about honor, about integrity, about admitting the truth?

(Or is that an area of decadence or degenerating from Oism in the soul of each of you?)

,,,,,,,,,,

*** I would be willing to accept as a valid response someone who said the following: "Phil, I haven't been a member of this list for very long, so I don't know who initiated this and who is responding in kind."

[9thdoctor]

Any idiot would agree that there are people who have

i) dropped away from or

ii) not fully practiced important and key principles of Objectivism that would improve things or

iii) refused to fully study or attend properly to Objectivist principles.

Whoa, hey there, you’re trying to move the goal posts! Here’s what I dispute:

Nowadays, when I go on Oist websites or boards, I find person after person who expresses disagreement on point Y when Oism never advocated Y

One example please. Just one. As I noted in an earlier post, I saw someone on OO recently, a noob more or less, claim Oism says X and then went into why he disagreed with it. Immediately there were regulars pointing out that Oism doesn’t say what he claimed. Now, if this is as prevalent as you claim, finding an example should take no time at all. But it’s not, and you’re full of it.

Why do you keep lying about the initiation of the incivility?

Why do you say things just to try to score "debaters points"?

Why do you say things you know are not true?

Didn't you learn anything from Objectivism about honor, about integrity, about admitting the truth?

Back atcha with each of these questions.

[Brant Gaede]

Sense: Having a Sense of Truth and Honor...and not Being a Degenerate Objectivist

Brant, Jonathan, GHS, ND,

You keep saying I'm the one who is uncivil when I have pointed out (and anyone who has read my posts over a long period of time honestly knows) that I started angrily retaliating after a long pattern** of abuse (from you guys primarily).

Why do you keep lying about the initiation of the incivility?

Why do you say things just to try to score "debaters points"?

Why do you say things you know are not true?

Didn't you learn anything from Objectivism about honor, about integrity, about admitting the truth?

(Or is that an area of decadence or degenerating from Oism in the soul of each of you?)

,,,,,,,,,,

*** I would be willing to accept as a valid response someone who said the following: "Phil, I haven't been a member of this list for very long, so I don't know who initiated this and who is responding in kind."

Well, Phil, I put you on my "ignore" list to better read you, actually. Now I'm simply not going to read you. This reduces your primary antagonists by 25%. I also won't read you when you get quoted. I hope your remaining antagonists start quoting you the way you quote them because then I won't have to work so hard to make this work for me.

--Brant

wishful thinking

[George H. Smith]

Any idiot would agree that there are people who have

i) dropped away from or

ii) not fully practiced important and key principles of Objectivism that would improve things or

iii) refused to fully study or attend properly to Objectivist principles.

Let's take the points one by one:

1) People in this category are not "degenerate Objectivists." They are ex-Objectivists.

2).What "key principles" are you referring to? And "improve things" in what way? At least give some hypothetical examples, if you don't want to give any real ones. I really don't know what you are talking about.

3) Again, what "Objectivist principles" are you referring to? You will need to provide more than vague generalities, so please give some examples of the Objectivist principles that some people refuse to study.

When people don't study a subject, it is usually because they don't see any value in it. This means that they disagree with you, not that they are "degenerate" in some way, so let me ask you this: Among people who disagree with Objectivism (and you), how do you distinguish between those who are degenerate and those who are not? Or do you regard everyone who disagrees with you as degenerate in some way?

I bypassed the polemicism and asked some serious questions. Please answer them.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

I also won't read you when you get quoted. I hope your remaining antagonists start quoting you the way you quote them because then I won't have to work so hard to make this work for me.

Ok, but I want to get this straight: you want people to not use the quote function with Phil's posts, or you want people to snip their quotes of him so as to distort his meaning? When Phil does his snipping, since he won’t use the quote function it makes it difficult, often nearly impossible, to find the original statement he has deliberately garbled.

I could go for continuing to use the quote function, but then also doing the improper snipping. That way you get fair warning that the next block of text comes from OL's resident potty mouth, and you can direct your eyes away from the offending prose. Meanwhile the functionality is maintained for those of us with stronger constitutions, and Phil still gets a bit of his just deserts.

[Brant Gaede]

I also won't read you when you get quoted. I hope your remaining antagonists start quoting you the way you quote them because then I won't have to work so hard to make this work for me.

Ok, but I want to get this straight: you want people to not use the quote function with Phil's posts, or you want people to snip their quotes of him so as to distort his meaning? When Phil does his snipping, since he won’t use the quote function it makes it difficult, often nearly impossible, to find the original statement he has deliberately garbled.

I could go for continuing to use the quote function, but then also doing the improper snipping. That way you get fair warning that the next block of text comes from OL's resident potty mouth, and you can direct your eyes away from the offending prose. Meanwhile the functionality is maintained for those of us with stronger constitutions, and Phil still gets a bit of his just deserts.

The strength of my constitution has nothing to do with any of this. I didn't miss him when he was gone and now I'm not going to miss him while he's here.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> I bypassed the polemicism and asked some serious questions. [GHS]

You did. And because you departed from dismissive or contemptuous insult, I won't respond with counter-insult.

> Please answer them.

I'll try to do that later this morning when I return from tennis. (I'll also reread my original post to see if I was unclear or too broad.)

[Xray]

Phil,

What is your opinion on the big schism in Objectivism: the Peikoff-Kelley split?

David Kelley is in favor of Objectivism as an open system, for which he has been fiercely attacked. (D. Hsieh spoke of the "open system folly").

Are you comfortable with the idea of Objectivism as an open system or would you rather keep it closed?

[9thdoctor]

The strength of my constitution has nothing to do with any of this.

Alright-alright, swap out “stronger constitutions” for “weaker gag reflexes”.

[Jonathan]

Sense: Having a Sense of Truth and Honor...and not Being a Degenerate Objectivist

Brant, Jonathan, GHS, ND,

You keep saying I'm the one who is uncivil when I have pointed out (and anyone who has read my posts over a long period of time honestly knows) that I started angrily retaliating after a long pattern** of abuse (from you guys primarily).

Why do you keep lying about the initiation of the incivility?

Why do you say things just to try to score "debaters points"?

Why do you say things you know are not true?

Didn't you learn anything from Objectivism about honor, about integrity, about admitting the truth?

(Or is that an area of decadence or degenerating from Oism in the soul of each of you?)

,,,,,,,,,,

*** I would be willing to accept as a valid response someone who said the following: "Phil, I haven't been a member of this list for very long, so I don't know who initiated this and who is responding in kind."

Phil, is there ever going to be a payoff to your fantasies? I would imagine that your need to believe untrue things about yourself and others has a purpose. Is the purpose to feel better about yourself? Do you think that your trying to tear down others will lift you up and give you the "energy" and confidence that you lack? I mean, you've been doing it for years now and it hasn't worked so far, has it? Don't you think that it would be better -- and more Objectivist, truthful and honorable -- to start facing reality? At some point you're going to have to recognize that your buffoonishly puffing yourself up and schoolmarming those who have accomplished what you haven't hasn't gotten you any closer to accomplishing anything. Why not recognize it today, and start on the road to accomplishment? Choose to let go of your envy and resentment. Choose to become good!

J

[9thdoctor]

Choose to let go of your envy and resentment. Choose to become good!

But Darth Phil must obey his master.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeMslayMvh4

Here's the abbreviated, essentialized answer:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Choose to let go of your envy and resentment.

Jonathan,

I'm not in Phil's head, but I don't get the impression that envy and resentment are his main drivers (well... resentment, OK--but not resentment of the achievements of others--instead resentment grown over time from the hostility he both prompts and endures in groups).

When people get in group, the philosophy pieces don't fit like they do on paper. People just don't act like the blueprint says they should. I have the impression that this bothers Phil--on a "that ain't the way it's supposed to be" level--and he wants to make it work. But he doesn't know how to tell people that or convince them. So he does what he can, but then people respond as they do. I think that frustrates him to no end.

As to actual achievement itself, your comments are good ones.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

I'm not in Phil's head, but I don't get the impression that envy and resentment are his main drivers (well... resentment, OK--but not resentment of the achievements of others--instead resentment grown over time from the hostility he both prompts and endures in groups).

When people get in group, the philosophy pieces don't fit like they do on paper. People just don't act like the blueprint says they should. I have the impression that this bothers Phil--on a "that ain't the way it's supposed to be" level--and he wants to make it work. But he doesn't know how to tell people that or convince them. So he does what he can, but then people respond as they do. I think that frustrates him to no end.

I'd be more likely to be swayed by your reasoning if Phil actually behaved in the way that he thinks "it's supposed to be," but he doesn't. It's not as if he's leading by example in the way that, say, a confident, respectful, good-natured person like Sciabarra would. As has been repeatedly observed by many people, Phil is by far the worst violator of his own schoolmarm rules and expectations.

Notice that he doesn't post in fora where the Objectivists are inexperienced and perhaps actually in need of learning from him? No, instead he's focused on schoolmarming those who know much more than he does, and who have accomplished much more. Intellectually experienced achievers are his target, and thus he seems to be motivated by wanting to appear to be morally and intellectually above them, which, in combination with his frequent avoidance of substance when the discussions get tough, screams to me "envy" and "resentment."

I think it's very upsetting to Phil that no one sees him as he sees himself: as being in the upper echelon of Objectivist thinkers. And he wants to punish those who don't take his puffing and bluffing seriously. He seems to be motivated primarily by the idea of receiving unearned respect.

J

[Brant Gaede]

It's not Phil, it's people engaging Phil. Count me out.

--Brant

I'll say it again