Philip Coates

> I do not understand your insistence that you are right

Clearly explained in 11/13 post.

> Wow, this is fun!

No it's not. :-)

[Phil I have added emphasis to your post, changing no words. WSS]

Subject: Particular names vs. Generic names - continued

> Elle a été appelée place Vendôme dès le xviie siècle, du nom de l'Hôtel de Vendôme qui se trouvait là.

(Aside: "Place" means "square" in French, which is why I previously used the example in English of Washington Square.)

It is possible for someone to -sometimes- discuss the particular location or thing or person without capitalizing the generic term if one wishes to consider it generically. For example you could, in talking about towers, say "The Eiffer tower, for example is a tower which..."

So you will likely see Place Vendome, except in such an occasion.

By the way, you just gave another example of what I'm saying:

"la place Dauphine constitue la seconde place royale parisienne" -- He is talking generically about different squares, so lower-case is appropriate and grammatical.

William,

I had deleted this on the main thread shortly after posting it...I guess nothing is ever truly lost on the internet!! :

"I'm always amused when a writer or artist (think Hemingway or James Joyce or Picasso) is lauded by all the critics and becomes really "big".

Then, in "emperor has no clothes" fashion, everybody gets intimidated, doubts their own perception, worries that maybe the famous Nobel or Pulitzer or Man Booker laureate is too 'deep' or 'profound' for them to appreciate, blame themselves when they don't follow some obscure allusions or irrelevant minutiae...and finds all kinds of excuses when the famous author puts out crap.

Like Umberto Eco's turgid, wheezing, coal-burning, smoke-belching, wheels locked, overloaded, screaming into a pile up train wreck of an opening sentence."

While I like my polemical last sentence, I deleted the whole thing because I thought it was a tad too contemptuous and snarky....as if I had imbibed all the bad habits of Adam Selene, George H. Smith, Jeff R, ND and put them together.

Ha, ha, ha!

Mon Cher Pinailleur,

1. The first four Google entries all say Place Maubert, not place Maubert. You must have done some snipe hunting further down in the list.

2. La grammaire francaise:

2.1. One principle is the importance or renown or centrality of the geographical location... Arrondisements sont capitalize aussi, ne c'est pas, monsier bilingue?

2.2. Another principle, perhaps more important, is whether or not you are emphasizing that this is a particular place or thing or proper noun (Fifth Avenue, not fifth Avenue; the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, not the tomb of the unknown soldier) rather than a generic category label.

2.3. The rules for capitalization here are, I believe the same in French and in English.

Roger, I just realized that somewhere up above you got the impression that I was leaving OL. I wasn't saying I won't post again, just that I haven't found in the past this not audience not to be a good one for my substantive projects, or for my more 'positive' and more detailed intellectual efforts.

William, it doesn't imply that I have contempt for -everyone- on OL when I don't feel the need to explain my comings and goings or my reasoning to people who treat me with hostility.

> What are the ten most important things you want to accomplish with your life? Of those, what is the single most important one? Suppose money were no concern...suppose you were going to die in 6 months...suppose you knew you could not fail--what would you try to achieve?

Roger, these are very good questions that everyone who is less productive than they might be should ask themselves.

I think I have a pretty clear idea, but the more abstract and philosophical/epistemological/'heavy' topics it's hard to find an audience for.

> Remember, Phil, in The Fountainhead..."show me your achievement; and the knowledge will give me courage for mine." ...why not put it to work in ~your own~ life?...write that book you've been threatening to write.

Roger, I have to concede that your criticisms and points are right on target.

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.

> Then announce its availability to OL members. Even better, get a well-respected, prolific thinker and writer on OL to praise your book's merits and to recommend others buy it.

I think this is pretty much the last place I would want to do that. (And I've given up on Objectivists as a market or audience. What my market or audience would be: ???)

> Phil, I think that your original use of the term "degenerate Objectivist" was way over the top, considering what you wanted to accomplish. Your point was well taken (in my opinion), that there is an AWFUL lot of uninformed criticism and mis-application of Objectivism on OL

I'd have to reread my first post, but I don't think I aimed it at OL but at the wider universe of millions of people, such as those countless ones who say "I loved Rand in my youth before I wised up" or "I used to be an Objectivist, but now I see it is invalid/limited/corrupt/a cult/is uncaring and cold..."

OL is way too small a subculture -- This is a phenomenon which applies to hundreds of thousands who have drifted away, lost the idealism of youth or become lazy or inert or sloppy intellectually. (( It is only worth looking at as a source of stark examples because, in my view, the most prominent of its regulars have been unusually articulate in expressing their resentment of / disagreement with / misunderstand of the ideas --and/or-- show a lack of effort at applying its principles ...as evidenced by how they post and the level of thinking involved. ))

> other people's misbehaviors and defaults is not my responsibility, but theirs. I did not ~cause~ it, and I cannot ~control~ it or ~cure~ it.

I agree that it's not my responsibility, but it's a valid life choice to be someone who points out and thus tries to cure or correct mistakes.

> Phil, I think that your original use of the term "degenerate Objectivist" was way over the top, considering what you wanted to accomplish. Your point was well taken (in my opinion), that there is an AWFUL lot of uninformed criticism and mis-application of Objectivism on OL, and that more careful study of the available Rand and post-Rand material would go a long way to eliminating the ignorant crap we have to wade through. But you expressed it in such a negative and condescending way that the response you received was inevitable...

Roger, I'd say two things in response to this:

1. It's clear to me that no matter how benevolently or tactfully I point out mistakes to the people on this site, they will still find something to resent about it. I know that before I was met with insults I -used- to point things out with tactfully and without naming names or "putting people on the spot".

2. Now, no one has to think the term "degenerate Objectivist" applies to them, and they may think they have good reasons for a waning of commitment to the ideas, but the term is accurate for what I've observed about people's "drifing away" from Objectivism over decades:

"Degenerate" ===>

Adjective: Having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.

Verb: Decline or deteriorate physically, mentally, or morally.

And, if I recall, I did point out in my original post that the loss or decline does not have to be a -moral- issue, it can be an honest belief or a forgetting or a simple failure to have ever fully 'got it' or fully applied and integrated it. Oism is hard, so to degenerate is understandable if someone never got that. I met lots and lots of people during the Peikoff years, often the most fervent and outspoked true believers, of whom I had a sneaking hunch, "Yeah, well, Loudmouthdude won't be around in twenty years."

> I've moved toward my happiness, rather than letting the shortcomings of others drag me down.

This is another excellent piece of advice, Roger.

For some reason it's hard for me to avoid being dragged down by it.

> Why is there so much infighting among Objectivists? [Roger]

Why is there so much infighting among academics, intellectuals in many disciplines, among those with strong ideological views? They spent a lot more time mastering intellectual matters (and developing respect for those matters) than they did getting along with (or developing respect for) other human beings. "Pointy-headed" intellectuals [as opposed to the mature, balanced, well-developed ones] are far more likely than the average to lack tolerance, respect, people skills, tact, diplomacy. They also are more likely to have spent less time developing verbal self-control. "Hey, I'm a genius ... I don't have to attend to that distracting, conventional stuff." "I'm just more honest thatn other people and say what I feel." "I can just wing it and just fling my feelings around at anyone who gets in my way."

> Seriously, hostile commentary and personal attacks are a lot easier than rolling up one's sleeves and trying to fight productively for reason and freedom.

The average intellectual has concentrated so heavily on developing his mind or his "topic mastery" that he has neglected self-mastery, self-discipline, character and effort-building in other areas. That's why you see so many Oists in dead-end jobs, struggling for money, etc. To be successful in those areas -- just like going out into the arena and fighting for reason and freedom -- requires a significant portion of your life have been spent getting off the couch and learning how to do things in the real world. Successfully.

> But when I see how many posts are sent up each day by some people, I wonder if they have considered whether this is the most rational and productive use of their time?

This doesn't only apply to Oists, of course but "internet discussion mavens" in general. It's perhaps the line of least resistance for them. Anti-effort combined perhaps with a sneaking inadequacy at dealing with the 'real world'.

> he also substantially changed the logical order of the presentation, and he included new integrations as well.

Roger, can you explain what specifically you have in mind here?

Thanks.

Jesus, Chris, details man, details!!!

Examples. Explanations. Favorite event and why?? Favorite lecture and some notes on it??