Serious Students vs. Degenerate Objectivists

[Xray]

[adressing Phil]:

You wrote the following on Roger's blog.

To admit to the honest, shameful, embarrassing truth, I have a certain kind of what's-the-use depression+cynicism+hopelessness that tells me no one will read it, appreciate it, and I'll end up feeling even worse. When Rand started feeling those things late in life and couldn't write another novel, unlike me she had already accomplished a life's work. In my case on the other hand, I'm basically still a nobody who has accomplished *nothing* of importance intellectually, and I'm having trouble finding motivation. When I sit down to write I feel a huge lack of energy.

It would interest me whether Phil was in some way influenced by the pressure some Objectivists seem to feel in terms of having to produce something unique, in order to qualify as a "first-hander".

A "first-hander" is merely someone who follows his own rational judgment, not someone else's.

--Brant

I think there is a more implied than following one's own rational judgement.

Suppose Jane Doe arrives at the rational judgement that she'd better not take part in her husband's hobby sky-diving because she's too scared - to call her "first-hander" here would be a bit odd.

While following one's own rational judgment is of course necessary for a first-hander, but the concept also involves the "producer" aspect as an essential part. The first-handers are seen as the the producers, as the "prime movers".

[Brant Gaede]

[adressing Phil]:

You wrote the following on Roger's blog.

To admit to the honest, shameful, embarrassing truth, I have a certain kind of what's-the-use depression+cynicism+hopelessness that tells me no one will read it, appreciate it, and I'll end up feeling even worse. When Rand started feeling those things late in life and couldn't write another novel, unlike me she had already accomplished a life's work. In my case on the other hand, I'm basically still a nobody who has accomplished *nothing* of importance intellectually, and I'm having trouble finding motivation. When I sit down to write I feel a huge lack of energy.

It would interest me whether Phil was in some way influenced by the pressure some Objectivists seem to feel in terms of having to produce something unique, in order to qualify as a "first-hander".

A "first-hander" is merely someone who follows his own rational judgment, not someone else's.

--Brant

I think there is a more implied than following one's own rational judgement.

Suppose Jane Doe arrives at the rational judgement that she'd better not take part in her husband's hobby sky-diving because she's too scared - to call her "first-hander" here would be a bit odd.

While following one's own rational judgment is of course necessary for a first-hander, but the concept also involves the "producer" aspect as an essential part. The first-handers are seen as the the producers, as the "prime movers".

I'd guess you are mixing up categories. Being on top of a pyramid of ability is not first-handedness. John Galt would have been a queer specimen it's true if he had been a second-hander and the inventor of that motor, but it's theoretically possible. As for the husband-wife situation, try role reversal and see how it reads. It still sort of supports your point, but not as well. There are different ways to deal with fear, but let's not digress. And "producer" is a consequence and it is valid for your example only as part of a positive feed-back loop.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

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

> I love the potty mouth on the crusader for civility.

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.

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

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.

[George H. Smith]

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

> I love the potty mouth on the crusader for civility.

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.

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

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.

Here is a tip, Mr. Civility. Don't start threads with titles like "Serious Students vs. Degenerate Objectivists."

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Here's a tip right back:

There's a big difference between my criticism of trends of degeneracy, deterioration, and decline in the Objectivist movement and name-calling.

Whether you agree with them is an entirely unrelated issue.

[Brant Gaede]

Here's a tip right back:

Try to grasp the difference between my criticism of trends of deterioration and decline in the Objectivist movement and name-calling.

Uh, you said "Degenerate Objectivists," not "Degenerate Objectivism."

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Here's a tip right back:

There's a big difference between my criticism of trends of degeneracy, deterioration, and decline in the Objectivist movement and name-calling.

Whether you agree with them is an entirely unrelated issue.

Only someone seriously detached from reality would think that "degenerate Objectivists" would not be construed as an insult by reasonable readers.

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.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Here's a tip right back:

There's a big difference between my criticism of trends of degeneracy, deterioration, and decline in the Objectivist movement and name-calling.

Whether you agree with them is an entirely unrelated issue.

Another thing...

Your original thesis, succinctly stated, amounts to this: People who do not study O'ism sufficiently often fail to understand it. And these ill-informed people tend to criticize or reject O'ism unfairly, and/or they do not apply its tenets consistently to their own lives.

This observation, however accurate, is obvious to the point of being trite. So what did you do? You camouflaged your ho-hum point in the loaded and polemical language of "serious" versus "degenerate" Objectivists, apparently in the hope that readers would think that you actually had something original and significant to say, for once.

Ghs

[Xray]

I'd guess you are mixing up categories. Being on top of a pyramid of ability is not first-handedness. John Galt would have been a queer specimen it's true if he had been a second-hander and the inventor of that motor, but it's theoretically possible.

Theoretically possible, but imo it would substantially have weakened Galt's "prime mover" position.

I think that a "prime mover" is always a first-hander in that which he moves forward, but not every first-hander is necessarily a prime mover.

[Xray]

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

I don't recall one single case where mutual name calling contributed to making headway in an online discussion.

I would like to focus instead on some of the points you have raised, in order to get more clarity regarding the terms "degenerate Objectivists", and "Neo-Objectivsts" that you have used here.

In # 59, I asked you a question about Neo-Objectivists.

You had written :

My problem is with the Neo-Objectivists and people who tend to populate Objectivist Living are good examples is they largely never fully master it.

My question was:

Whom would you label as 'Neo-Objectivists'? People like e. g. David Kelley?

I got no reply, so I'll try again.

The Objectivist movement has undergone a major schism: the Peikoff-Kelley split.

What would you call David Kelley? Is he, in your eyes, still an Objectivist?

[George H. Smith]

My question was:

Whom would you label as 'Neo-Objectivists'? People like e. g. David Kelley?

I got no reply, so I'll try again.

The Objectivist movement has undergone a major schism: the Peikoff-Kelley split.

What would you call David Kelley? Is he, in your eyes, still an Objectivist?

How about the Brandens? Both have criticized O'ism in a number of areas. Are they "degenerate Objectivists"? Have they failed to master O'ism as thoroughly as Phil has? If so, what could Jedi Phil teach them that would enable them to become "serious students" of Objectivism? Perhaps he could loan them his extensive notes of Peikoff's lectures. That might help!

Life is often difficult, so I treasure those rare moments when life is way too easy.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

George had to make four separate posts to obscure this simple issue:

"There's a big difference between my criticism of trends of degeneracy, deterioration, and decline in the Objectivist movement and name-calling.

Whether you agree with them is an entirely unrelated issue."

[9thdoctor]

Are we still going on about unsubstantiated “degeneracy, deterioration, and decline in the Objectivist movement”, and the name calling generally* initiated and escalated by Phil?

*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.

[George H. Smith]

George had to make four separate posts to obscure this simple issue:

"There's a big difference between my criticism of trends of degeneracy, deterioration, and decline in the Objectivist movement and name-calling.

Whether you agree with them is an entirely unrelated issue."

I didn't expect you to address my points. You are a coward in such matters.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> I didn't expect you to address my points. You are a coward in such matters.

You didn't make any good points. And you are a fool.

[George H. Smith]

Are we still going on about unsubstantiated “degeneracy, deterioration, and decline in the Objectivist movement”, and the name calling generally* initiated and escalated by Phil?

I am still waiting for Phil to address the issue of whether David Kelley and the Brandens are "degenerate Objectivists." I won't hold my breath.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

> I didn't expect you to address my points. You are a coward in such matters.

You didn't make any good points. And you are a fool.

So do you regard the Brandens as "degenerate Objectivists"? This is a question, not a point. Look at the punctuation; it is a dead giveaway..

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I'd guess you are mixing up categories. Being on top of a pyramid of ability is not first-handedness. John Galt would have been a queer specimen it's true if he had been a second-hander and the inventor of that motor, but it's theoretically possible.

Theoretically possible, but imo it would substantially have weakened Galt's "prime mover" position.

I think that a "prime mover" is always a first-hander in that which he moves forward, but not every first-hander is necessarily a prime mover.

Let's consider Galt as a "prime mover" and a Prometheus. Galt withheld his motor while Pro gave man fire. Galt moved nothing, actually, while Pro had his liver ate, but he certainly moved something, just like the inventor of the wheel. Now one can invent the wheel, speaking metaphorically of course (something equivalent), and others can use and apply it, but "prime mover" implies something much greater than an invention appertaining to the inventor, so we get men as gods or artificial human constructs like John Galt. Looking at this guy too many Objectivists historically have decided to emulate the form for they cannot grasp the non-existing substance. It's like someone jumping up in church screaming she's found Jesus (and therefore one of the saved), but much more sub rosa. (Galt waited for his speech, Objectivists had to swallow it hook, line and sinker, if they be Objectivists so considered.) Naturally in such a culture--cult actually--you can't have serious, critical thinking, or challenge authority, without rendering yourself out of it or being rendered out.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

ND, you are a veritable fount or sophistry and outright lies:

1. sophistry (if not dishonesty): "unsubstantiated “degeneracy, deterioration, and decline ---> Any general statement that I would make you would claim is 'unsubstantiated' unless I were to take a week to give you case after case in book length. Yet, any honest person who has followed -this- list or has experience in the wider Oist movement has seen the dropping away, the decline, the moving away from Oism.

And such a person would not airily dismiss it as 'unsubstantiated'.

2. An outright lie: the name calling is generally initiated by Phil?3

3. A willful and dishonest refusal between -retaliation- and initiation: only Jonathan is as quick on the trigger as potty mouth Phil.

,,,,,

ND, it's gone past the point where what you are saying could be honest mistakes, since I've rubbed your nose in them a dozen times: you are just a complete scumbag.

[Philip Coates]

> I am still waiting for Phil to address the issue of whether David Kelley and the Brandens are "degenerate Objectivists."

Did you have a reason why all three fit into the general description?

[George H. Smith]

> I am still waiting for Phil to address the issue of whether David Kelley and the Brandens are "degenerate Objectivists."

Don't hold your breath. It's a stupid question.

No problem, Phil. Given the mess you made on this thread, your best tactic is to cut and run. I can't say I blame you.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

> I am still waiting for Phil to address the issue of whether David Kelley and the Brandens are "degenerate Objectivists."

Did you have a reason why all three fit into the general description?

You are the expert on degenerate Objectivists, having taken so many notes over the years. That's the reason I am asking you. I personally think your entire conception of degenerate Objectivists is a crock, so, no, I obviously don't think Kelley and the Brandens are degenerate Objectivists.

I understand why you don't wish to show some guts and risk offending some big names, so you needn't answer my question. As I said, you are a coward in such matters.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

If Phil would only talk about important and serious ideas instead of people--look at the title of this thread--George would honestly engage him and put aside the mutual bitch-slapping that Phil always seems to get the worst of. George, in fact I think, would be stunned. Me too. It obviously won't happen, so George won't be stunned, which is why he would be stunned if it did, and the reason is basic divergence of interests.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

ND, you are a veritable fount or sophistry and outright lies:

1. sophistry (if not dishonesty): "unsubstantiated “degeneracy, deterioration, and decline ---> Any general statement that I would make you would claim is 'unsubstantiated' unless I were to take a week to give you case after case in book length. Yet, any honest person who has followed -this- list or has experience in the wider Oist movement has seen the dropping away, the decline, the moving away from Oism.

And such a person would not airily dismiss it as 'unsubstantiated'.

I haven’t asked for anything book length. I said “Name one”.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=145658

You’re asserting a pattern, and I’m willing to settle for a single example!

2. An outright lie: the name calling is generally initiated by Phil?3

3. A willful and dishonest refusal between -retaliation- and initiation: only Jonathan is as quick on the trigger as potty mouth Phil.

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.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8863&view=findpost&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.

,,,,,

ND, it's gone past the point where what you are saying could be honest mistakes, since I've rubbed your nose in them a dozen times: you are just a complete scumbag.

Dozens of times? Name one.

[George H. Smith]

If Phil would only talk about important and serious ideas instead of people--look at the title of this thread--George would honestly engage him and put aside the mutual bitch-slapping that Phil always seems to get the worst of. George, in fact I think, would be stunned. Me too. It obviously won't happen, so George won't be stunned which is why he would be stunned if it did, and the reason is basic divergence of interests.

--Brant

I am not the first person on this thread to ask Phil to concretize his category of "degenerate Objectivists" by presenting or discussing some specific examples. He has persistently refused to do this, so, as a person who has mastered O'ism would put it, Phil has given us nothing but a "floating abstraction."

The inability to concretize abstractions is symptomatic of a degenerate Objectivist, so Phil definitely qualifies. We now know that there is at least one degenerate Objectivist. The question is whether there are more, in addition to Phil.

Ghs