Stillbirth of reason: Altruism


Recommended Posts

Sadly, but typically, the fusiles at 'SoR failed to see my sarcasm in the Rand v Hayek affair.

I don't know, Eva.

I'm in your corner, but when I start reading here and continue, it looks more to me like you stepped in it, then researched and tried to clean it up once you smelled it. :smile:

Here's where I differ from most others about you. I don't see the poo as important. (It's great for teasing, though. :smile: ) I see the research.

You did what most don't.

Michael

>>>>I was parroting Hayek, the Austrian-skool person loved and admired by Rand.>>>>>>

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

>>>>I was parroting Hayek, the Austrian-skool person loved and admired by Rand.>>>>>>

And this?

To put it mildly, Rand's admiration for Hayek was not shared. For her part, she seemed a bit confused as to why. poor girl!

Rather, Atlas was a big hit, made lots of money, so she simply ingored the hard questions.

Hmmm...

Let's see.

Does that sound like sarcasm with the real message being Rand hated Hayek?

Well, it sounds like sarcasm, but does it sound like you're pimping Rand to bait the posters (the sassiness I kinda like)? Or does it sound like Rand hated Hayek?

You say it sounds like Rand hated Hayek and the others were too stupid to see it.

(patting gently and paternally on your head) Sure it does, Ms. Eva... sure it does...

:smile:

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony wrote:

. . . rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism.

end quote

The validity of all philosophical notions, including rational egoism and nature versus nurture are being tested in the laboratory of freedom. The debt incurred by The Ukraine may be their downfall. The “influence” secured by Russia or by the newest American promise of one billion dollars are artificial gimmicks to change reality. Inject less freedom (politically and economically) into a society as in The Ukraine and there is an invalid scientific experiment. The results are rigged, and the true results supplied by reality are delayed.

Yet the culturally Russian, Ukrainian minority, apparently freely (has a free vote been verified?) voted to become part of Russian, as in one of Eva’s stances: if one is for more freedom then let them secede. But it is the same dilemma. May a majority vote a minority into serfdom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna know the difference I see between Eva and that other dude I had to ban?

When I say sassy, she's like Jonathan. You piss on me, I'll piss on you with the same standard of piss. You stop pissing, I stop pissing.

And she will stop. I've seen it several times.

The other dude won't. He wants to come into a place not his own, spit in the owner's face, then say he can't stop spitting until someone tells him what's wrong with spit.

I understand Eva--and yes, we'll probably tangle before it all settles down :smile: . But I know people like her. They're good people. You can trust them, even if you're yelling at each other.

(btw - I agree with Ellen that Eva's loaded to the gills with academese, but, for some damn reason, I believe she will walk away from it over time as the fundamental part. I believe her bullshit detector will win out in the end. :smile: )

The other type is a control freak who will sell you out in a heartbeat over nothing. People like that live to destroy. Notice they don't build anything. I don't mind playing dirty if need be, but I chose to raise the bar on my own integrity years ago. These folks waddle around in shit like ducks going quack quack quack all the time. They like their integrity right there in the shit they waddle in.

I tolerate these kind of folks up to a point, but the reason everyone has a voice on OL is because control freaks don't get to rewrite the rules over here and start peer pressure games.

Could I be wrong about Eva? Maybe. I've been wrong before and I know she's grated on some people's nerves. (Gloriously, I might add. She's George's kind of sassy. :smile: I mean form, not content... :smile: )

But I've also got years of living and lots of scars from being screwed over by every kind of person imaginable. I learned to survive by learning how to identify the destroyers. And I still build. I'll keep building until I'm incapacitated or in my grave. (In fact, stick around and see what happens here this year.)

So I bring that perspective to the table.

Eva's sassy like a destroyer might be, but in my view, that's payback. And it's surface and immediate. She doesn't go for the kill, just the sting, because, underneath, I believe she cherishes others more than she likes to admit to herself. The real destroyers try to fuck up other people as much as they can get away with, usually over petty crap and vanity. I don't see her doing that. Instead, I see rebelliousness (much more than the snobbery she affects). I see she doesn't want others to fuck up her life. And since so many people have tried (I imagine), she likes to piss folks off when they start preaching too many "shoulds." :smile:

(btw - I'm that way, but without that crappy academese. I have my own sins. :smile: )

One caveat. I don't forget another who was that way, a dude who fooled me then flooded this forum with plagiarized stuff. I've got that in mind, too. But his sassiness had no substance, just plagiarism and attitude. Also, he would not correct himself with research. She does (even if her System 1 honks way louder than her fine System 2 at the time :smile: For those who don't know, that's Kahneman-speak for the huge lower part of the mind/brain and the much smaller higher one.).

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna know the difference I see between Eva and that other dude I had to ban?

When I say sassy, she's like Jonathan. You piss on me, I'll piss on you with the same standard of piss. You stop pissing, I stop pissing.

[...]

(btw - I agree with Ellen that Eva's loaded to the gills with academese, but, for some damn reason, I believe she will walk away from it over time as the fundamental part. I believe her bullshit detector will win out in the end. :smile: )

I hope you're right, and that maybe some warning as to the academese she's full to the gills with will help reinforce her bullshit detector.

Meanwhile, I doubt that Jonathan will feel flattered by the comparison. :laugh: He's already tangled with her on a couple threads.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer a different metaphor--a caterpillar (a feisty one, but still a caterpillar) maturing into a lovely butterfly by bursting out of a cocoon into freedom.

I love to watch butterflies flying. They make the air around us beautiful.

I don't know how the following fits with the metaphor above, but it does somehow. :smile:

It came up randomly and I thought it was a nice coincidence.

if you love a butterfly, let it go...

Roger,

What a nice thought!

You get to keep what you give away. (That's a phrase about having an abundance attitude by marketer Joe Schroeder.)

For some reason, I got into a feel-good mood.

Gotta work on that.

No sense tempting fate. It can become a serious disease. :smile:

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm neither flattered nor offended by the comparison. I can see similarities between Eva and me. The one big difference I see is that she seems to be very eager to show how much more she thinks knows about everything than what everyone else knows, especially when she doesn't. She's a little too intellectually competitive -- to the point of needing to employ fakery and dishonesty in order to appear to win. If she'd get over that insecurity, I think she'd be quite a fun participant here at OL.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only has Eva been popping up in several places on the O-web, she also has a confederate variously named "Tom" and "A former member"

(http://www.meetup.com/Ayn-Rand-Fan-Club-Meetup-Group/messages/boards/thread/39126532 - for some reason OL won't let me paste or link. Alternatively, go to Bing and look up stasi phanomen plato; at the moment it's the third result.).

They have a lot in common. Most salient is their penchant for supercilious name-dropping, but it doesn't stop there.

Their prose styles are similar, including a fondness for "rather" and a cavalier way with spelling.

They are the only two people to hold their odd theory of stasi phanomen in Plato. If Bing is to be believed they are the only two people ever to use the phrase.

They are the only two to espouse their equally odd theory of Aristotelian matter.

Eva identifies herself as living in Atlanta. Tom was posting to the Atlanta Objectivist Meetup board.

Could one have been mentor to the other? What are the chances that two such people could come about independent of each other?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only has Eva been popping up in several places on the O-web, she also has a confederate variously named "Tom" and "A former member"

(http://www.meeup.com/

Ayn-Rand-Fan-Club-Meetup-Group/messages/

boards/thread/39126532 - for some reason OL won't let me paste or link).

Pete,

It might be because the base url is "meetup" not "meeup."

Here's the corrected link:

http://www.meetup.com/Ayn-Rand-Fan-Club-Meetup-Group/messages/boards/thread/39126532

Michael

EDIT: Pete, The damn thing was acting weird in your post as I tried to fix it after I saw you made a change--one that still didn't work. I finally deleted it and pasted it in again. Now it works in both your post and mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote:

(btw - I agree with Ellen that Eva's loaded to the gills with academese,

end quote

After reading her brief bio she reminded me of being raised in the Statist academy in “Ender’s Game,” or perhaps more aptly “Starfleet Academy.” Ensign Eva Crusher report to the bridge. Perhaps we should require her to pledge to NOT meddle in the lives on alien planets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Eva: (Greetings, btw.) You write of "altruism versus individualism" as though you didn't see my quote earlier ("The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence").

Don't you see the significance of this conceptual 're-alignment'? Do you think - now you know it -that if Rand did not perceive, understand the threat it contains to the independent mind and reason, she would have cared a whit for altruism, one way or other?

You'd think I'd made the quotation up, or sumpin, the way you've cruised by it. Does it not sit well with your assumptions?

I know you know this, that everything Rand stood for, through politics and ethics, comes back to reason.

Rational egoism is its derivative, and egoism is NOT (to her) the direct opposite of altruism, as she said. Only indirect, I'd gather. Hierarchies, again.

This is one 'narrative' I feel Objectivists should be the first to dismiss, rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism - as we sometimes do.

Greetings, whYNOT,

Altruism, selfishness, and independence are concepts derived from mental states, or 'faculties'. As such they're philosophy derived from science.

We all want to feel independent, or what Kant called 'freedom' in Crit#3. This, as well as altruism, and egoism, comes from within, and is given content by cultural forms.

There is no reason to believe, however, that reason favors the faculty of independence over that of either egoism or altruism. This, I believe, is Rand's fundamental blunder. Without offering any evidence as to why, she simply declares it true as a thought convenient to believe.

What;s obviously clear, moreover, are the number of times our own egoisms have clouded our good judgment, and how our independence of spirit has caused us far more problems than worth the effort.

Science knows no opposites. For example, in Biology, we grade downwards from Kingdom to Species in discreet steps of difference. Rather, 'opposites' define a sense of meaning within philosophy, and are therefore scrutinized as concept in two ways:

* ad hoc oppositions as a way of establishing a contrast. For example, in the formal sense of A not B, or 'ideal types' drawn up to help clarify a scientific problem.

** metaphysical in the Platonic-Hegelian sense. Observed scientific difference (ie non-oppositional) is a materialist illusion. In the higher spiritual realm, those who understand can clearly see the opposites in their true essence.

Rand's opposition of altruism versus egoism/independence--indirect or otherwise-- plays on a supposed either/or choice that the reader is supposedly obliged to make. Of course, the dice are loaded, but that's not the main point here.

Rather, to choose one faculty over the other is silly, because both are who we are, unless you're name is 'Rand', in which case one is probably missing. In other words, her notion of 'doing' philosophy is to take fundamental brain processes that have always been known to work together, and to convert them into 'oppositions' by virtue of an epistemo-metaphysical wand .

Nonsense.

Eva

Link to post
Share on other sites

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Eva: (Greetings, btw.) You write of "altruism versus individualism" as though you didn't see my quote earlier ("The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence").

Don't you see the significance of this conceptual 're-alignment'? Do you think - now you know it -that if Rand did not perceive, understand the threat it contains to the independent mind and reason, she would have cared a whit for altruism, one way or other?

You'd think I'd made the quotation up, or sumpin, the way you've cruised by it. Does it not sit well with your assumptions?

I know you know this, that everything Rand stood for, through politics and ethics, comes back to reason.

Rational egoism is its derivative, and egoism is NOT (to her) the direct opposite of altruism, as she said. Only indirect, I'd gather. Hierarchies, again.

This is one 'narrative' I feel Objectivists should be the first to dismiss, rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism - as we sometimes do.

Yes, whYNOT, I did cruse by 'independence'. I'll comment in full tonite, when I have more time.. For your part, kindly append additional fext & context for me to ponder.

Eva

Yes, well. I've only one central issue to raise, which is that it seems clear that both altruism and rational selfishness pivot around a single point: reason and mind-independence. (According to Rand). One is of course, to the latters' destruction, the other their champion.

Entirely different perspectives of altruism AND rational egoism emerge, given this approach, I've experienced.

Did she "re-work" altruism, as she did with selfishness? Outside its common use, it seems so. Although she openly slated it as unconsciously-accepted Virtue -- charity or helping others in trouble out, didn't seem to be any problem for Rand. A lot (as often) almost appeared self-evident to her, I think.

However, with both doctrines (and every other principle she ever tackled) she did not simply go by accepted definitions alone, she had to understand the whole package: what it is; where it comes from; where it leads to. For the individual. (Seems to me).

'Altruism' is not just 'giving and doing' for others, but also held up as a Platonic ideal. It is contra-reality. Let its proponents practise it unequivocally and honestly-and bear its full consequences - and that fact will become clear to all. It cannot be practised consistently without the spiritual demise of the organism, and in extremes, its physical death.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>>I was parroting Hayek, the Austrian-skool person loved and admired by Rand.>>>>>>

And this?

To put it mildly, Rand's admiration for Hayek was not shared. For her part, she seemed a bit confused as to why. poor girl!

Rather, Atlas was a big hit, made lots of money, so she simply ingored the hard questions.

Hmmm...

Let's see.

Does that sound like sarcasm with the real message being Rand hated Hayek?

Well, it sounds like sarcasm, but does it sound like you're pimping Rand to bait the posters (the sassiness I kinda like)? Or does it sound like Rand hated Hayek?

You say it sounds like Rand hated Hayek and the others were too stupid to see it.

(patting gently and paternally on your head) Sure it does, Ms. Eva... sure it does...

:smile:

Michael

No, the contempt that Rand felt for Hayek is part of what makes Rand...Rand,,,as every Objectivist can recite by heart, It's therefore part of the text--ostensibly far,far more imprrtant than the content as to their intellectual disagreement,

I was trying to lure the ignorami over at SoR, as I still am over here among you, the intelligent, into a debate over the economics.

In other words, someone kindly inform me of the real value of her 'famous' marginalia to Roads, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Eva: (Greetings, btw.) You write of "altruism versus individualism" as though you didn't see my quote earlier ("The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence").

Don't you see the significance of this conceptual 're-alignment'? Do you think - now you know it -that if Rand did not perceive, understand the threat it contains to the independent mind and reason, she would have cared a whit for altruism, one way or other?

You'd think I'd made the quotation up, or sumpin, the way you've cruised by it. Does it not sit well with your assumptions?

I know you know this, that everything Rand stood for, through politics and ethics, comes back to reason.

Rational egoism is its derivative, and egoism is NOT (to her) the direct opposite of altruism, as she said. Only indirect, I'd gather. Hierarchies, again.

This is one 'narrative' I feel Objectivists should be the first to dismiss, rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism - as we sometimes do.

Yes, whYNOT, I did cruse by 'independence'. I'll comment in full tonite, when I have more time.. For your part, kindly append additional fext & context for me to ponder.

Eva

Yes, well. I've only one central issue to raise, which is that it seems clear that both altruism and rational selfishness pivot around a single point: reason and mind-independence. (According to Rand). One is of course, to the latters' destruction, the other their champion.

Entirely different perspectives of altruism AND rational egoism emerge, given this approach, I've experienced.

Did she "re-work" altruism, as she did with selfishness? Outside its common use, it seems so. Although she openly slated it as unconsciously-accepted Virtue -- charity or helping others in trouble out, didn't seem to be any problem for Rand. A lot (as often) almost appeared self-evident to her, I think.

However, with both doctrines (and every other principle she ever tackled) she did not simply go by accepted definitions alone, she had to understand the whole package: what it is; where it comes from; where it leads to. For the individual. (Seems to me).

'Altruism' is not just 'giving and doing' for others, but also held up as a Platonic ideal. It is contra-reality. Let its proponents practise it unequivocally and honestly-and bear its full consequences - and that fact will become clear to all. It cannot be practised consistently without the spiritual demise of the organism, and in extremes, its physical death.

>>>>>'Altruism' is not just 'giving and doing' for others, but also held up as a Platonic ideal. It is contra-reality.<<<<<

If you or she is attacking Comte,then fine, he's fair game. Feel free to argue away in your own Platonic world of absolutes with others that do, too..

What's hilarious, however is how Rand, as an Anti-Platonist, can so easily be lured into a rather violent argument on Platonic grounds. Altruism versus independence: which will win? Platonists are dying to know!

In any case, as a real, functioning entity, 'independence is not linked any closer to reason than altruism. This is because the innate faculty of reason --possessed by all-- needs content, or knowledge.

To this end, by far the larger portion of what we know was accomplished in groups (eg see Feynmen) and without profit motive. Most scholars create and transmit knowledge precisely because they value the altruism of offering a contribution of knowledge, rather than hoarding it for personal gain.

That a handful of amerikan computer geeks, creating a commodity based upon the work of von Neuman, Turing, et al, can be considered 'geniuses' speaks volumes for the idiocy of middle amerikan thought.

Another example is the simultaneous discovery of HIV by Gallo, amerikan, and a collective at Institue Pasteur, Paris. Gallo obtained a patent by amerikan law for his process of duplication which, by today's constitutional understanding, he could not.

OTH, by French law, such work falls within the public domain, which is rather moot, anyway, since one has never in any truly civilized counry been able to patent a life form,

One of the story's themes is that while Gallo prifited enormously under an ideology that said selfishness was okay, Pasteur scientists worked under altruistic motive, with the same results--other than, of course, the proliferation of HIV duplication technique for free.

In this sense, altruism proved far more adaptive because it enabled the spread of important knowledge.

Eva

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the contempt that Rand felt for Hayek is part of what makes Rand...Rand,,,as every Objectivist can recite by heart, It's therefore part of the text--ostensibly far,far more imprrtant than the content as to their intellectual disagreement,

Why did Rand dislike Hayek?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the contempt that Rand felt for Hayek is part of what makes Rand...Rand,,,as every Objectivist can recite by heart, It's therefore part of the text--ostensibly far,far more imprrtant than the content as to their intellectual disagreement,

Why did Rand dislike Hayek?

Hayek, working within a European tradition of inquiry as to what holds societes together, responded that private ownership, by making everyone a stakeholder, was the best glue.

Rand, typically, could have cared less. Rather her concern was for advocationg freedom from coercion for the individual. Hence, a dasiy-chain sort of 'philosohy' that sees economics as an ethical system befitting individual liberties--not a social benefit.

Whatever.

The problem is that the Objectivist movement itself ascribes to the larger picture of 'Austrian' Economics, of which Hayek plays a cenntral figure. The basic principle, again, is that government interference is always bad.

EM

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only has Eva been popping up in several places on the O-web, she also has a confederate variously named "Tom" and "A former member"

(http://www.meetup.com/Ayn-Rand-Fan-Club-Meetup-Group/messages/boards/thread/39126532 - for some reason OL won't let me paste or link. Alternatively, go to Bing and look up stasi phanomen plato; at the moment it's the third result.).

They have a lot in common. Most salient is their penchant for supercilious name-dropping, but it doesn't stop there.

Their prose styles are similar, including a fondness for "rather" and a cavalier way with spelling.

They are the only two people to hold their odd theory of stasi phanomen in Plato. If Bing is to be believed they are the only two people ever to use the phrase.

They are the only two to espouse their equally odd theory of Aristotelian matter.

Eva identifies herself as living in Atlanta. Tom was posting to the Atlanta Objectivist Meetup board.

Could one have been mentor to the other? What are the chances that two such people could come about independent of each other?

Re Plato: the commonly known free translation is "Save the surface and you save all". It's used in Platonic circles as shorthand to illustrate the point that he and his student, Aristotle, shared far more similarities than differences. This, of course, runs counter to the 101 nonsense propagated by Rand that he was an 'idealist', while Aristotle was a 'materialist'.

Quine rather famously cited this expression as an introduction to his "Pursuit of truth". Now that funny troublemaker can go google up 'Quine', and become totally confused.

In any case, that someone who has yet to make a positive contribution to this site is unable to access this phrase is absolutely meaningless..

Another Platoism which might occupy is intrusively petty mind is: "'Back from Syracuse?" I'm just dying to see how this one googles up, as well.

Re Atlanta connection. A dear friend of mine, who's now in Spain, wrote into the site called 'Atlanta Meetup', but was banned for having disagreed with the site owner. I image that several of her friends got nasty...perhaps a 'Tom' whom I don't know.

Moreover, a real attendee of the Atlanta Rand fiasco was an elderly retired gentleman who used to teach philosophy full-time, and was our guest lecturer in Plato here on campus. on the firt day , he wrote the expression on the blackboard, in the attic.

He was the one, actually, who suggested to us that we look into Rand, as our political attitudes were 'right wing'. His stated reason for attending was to see whether or not there was any off-campus philosophy in town.

Lastly, i'm flattered that i merit the attention of being 'investigated', if only by a dithering old fool who has nothing better to do--surely not a real contribution of content that might enhance the discussion.

EM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote:

(btw - I agree with Ellen that Eva's loaded to the gills with academese,

end quote

After reading her brief bio she reminded me of being raised in the Statist academy in “Ender’s Game,” or perhaps more aptly “Starfleet Academy.” Ensign Eva Crusher report to the bridge. Perhaps we should require her to pledge to NOT meddle in the lives on alien planets.

After reading Taylor's reminders, I was myself reminded of all the disfunctional childern who were not raise with the same love and care as my sister and me. So If i resemble the outcome of a statist academy, Peter was surely raised by a whore for a mother, and nad a herion-pushing farther whom he neve knew.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter was surely raised by a whore for a mother, and nad a herion-pushing farther whom he neve knew.

Eva,

The dozens?

Dayaamm!

Let's lower the bar, why don't we?

Sassy is one thing. Nasty, crude, and not very clever is another. That sounds more like middle school taunts on a first booze-up. It's not even good ghetto-talk.

One I enjoy. The other is just infantile crap I don't want around me.

Peter is a sweet guy if you let yourself get to know him. And he's great for banter.

Or wallow in cheap kiddy hate and become the very thing you affect to feel superior to.

Here I thought you were good at words...

Michael

Link to post
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