sjw

So what you're saying Victor is that now, like me, you agree with Rand?

Yeah, I remember a "forum owner" who accused me of being a Randroid when I was telling him there were virtues in Peikoff, then I was a "Brandroid" when I told him to stop turning a blind eye to ARI's past. Whenever there's a disagreement, I seem to end up on neither side of it as well as on both sides... Must be that "kung fu Objectivism" you mentioned ;) Shayne

I think any system that claims to be complete and correct is going to engender cultishness. "I agree with Rand except on patents." "Oh, well you're not a True Objectivist then. Rand would not have wanted you." On that worldview, Objectivism is pointless. And that was the one Rand set forth--those were *her* terms, not ARI's or Peikoff's. She didn't want anyone calling themselves "Objectivist" except those that adhered to most of what she said. I don't call myself "Objectivist" anymore, I'm a "rational individualist". It's true that I agree with Rand on most things she said, but I do it on my terms not hers. I think normally, we call our systems by the names of the originators or the names they preferred as a token of respect. I would do that myself since my worldview mostly fits with hers, except Rand did not want the token. She wanted conformity. So be it. I have also come to think that any Objectivist movement is quite peripheral to what our real purpose as rational individualists living in a collectivist world should be. I couldn't care less if my neighbor is Objectivist. What I need is for them to keep their hands off my stuff (and are in favor of governments that do the same). I'd also like it if they are productive, but that's optional as long as they respect my rights. As the founding of the United States proves, you do not need everyone to adhere to the same systematic philosophy to make a great new political system. Objectivism can be integral to engineering change toward a better government, but it doesn't mean that all consumers need to themselves be Objectivist.

And again, Victor was the one who started with the differences, and with Rand not me. So you should ask him where he differs from Rand if you care. I think Rand was just fine as is on this topic--I don't see it as a badge of honor to gratuitously differ with Rand (nor do I worship her or consider her infalliable--I have differences on various topics--the fact that I need to say that should perhaps be taken as insulting by certain people who like robots repeat the mantra "you're just a Randroid" everytime someone defends a view of hers). All of this indicates big enough differences with Victor to discern. I don't see why I should have to highlight them any more than they already are highlighted. Really, I think this latest accusation that we're both playing word games is just a variation on the egalitarian, politically-correct "you're both wrong, so just kiss and make up" bullshit. First it was "you're both being insulting, so kiss and make up", now it's "you're both playing word games, so kiss and make up." The motive is, in my opinion, the same: to exempt yourself from judging who's right and who's wrong. And again I say that if you're not going to go to the trouble of reading through carefully and figuring out who's wrong, then don't jump in here and claim we're both wrong. I don't claim that you have a burden to judge one way or the other, but if you're not going to do it objectively, then don't do it at all.

Since one of Victor's points was that he disagreed with Rand about talent, and she meant talent as "innate skill", then there's your definition. It's not hairsplitting; either this innate concrete skill (for drawing say) exists or it doesn't. But if Victor would like to retreat by redefining talent to mean my "innate capacity" where that means some very generalized attributes of the brain, akin to attributes of muscles that determine responses to strength or endurance training that's fine by me, but then you should exclusively accuse him of playing the semantic games, not me.

There are two things that are essential to mention on this topic. The first is the most obvious, and hardly controversial in any context, the common culture is quite aware of it: we are all born with different potentials. This follows from the law of identity combined with day to day observations that we differ in just about every concrete measure. Who disagrees with this? Pretty much no one. But that's what the other side has I think been harping on. Indeed, I've been drawn by Victor as the strawman who disagrees with this trivially obvious point even though I don't. The most interesting and useful point here is the one I made: that actualizing your potential can be tricky and take a lot of conscious effort, that you might feel like you've hit a brick wall because of your natural endowments when really the brick wall is your premises. That is not to argue against the fact that one can ignore one's own nature and truly beat your head against the wall, trying to achieve something you never will, but I don't think that is the typical case. Most people give up too soon and for the wrong reasons rather than try too hard. Most people who feel like they can't do something would probably be able to do it quite well if they were shown or discovered the right method.

When I was a kid I experienced the same thing with regard to basketball. No matter how much I "practiced" it seemed, I was a horrible shot. Then, years later as an adult, after I tried it again, as a kind of experiment: after reading Ayn Rand, my self-confidence shot up, and I thought that I could do almost anything I set my mind to. I knew I had been hopelessly horrible at shooting a basketball and wondered whether I could be a fair shot. Instead of "practicing" like I'd done before (which meant: shooting over and over), I brought a deeper mental approach. I paid close attention to mental aspects of shooting that I was oblivious to before. I didn't just shoot over and over, I analyzed what I was doing and thought about what method I could use to improve fastest. Lo and behold, in a short time I was shooting far better than I'd ever done as a kid. The difference was not age. My genes didn't magically change. It was wisdom. I had learned that method was key in all difficult human endeavors, a better method can yield far superior results. If you know that then if you want to do something hard you set about trying to discover the best way. If you don't then you brand yourself "not born with the talent for that" and you quit and stay in your comfort zone. I ran the same experiment years later with drawing. Again, I was hopeless at it as a kid. But I took a more conscious approach to it, learned a little bit of method, and came to a result I was happy with. My drawings weren't great, and I didn't try for more than a few months. But I'd learned enough to know that I could learn to draw reasonably well, if I so desired.

You missed the part of the discussion where one side was arguing for tabula rasa and the other side was arguing against it. That (and many other things) indicates that this is not a mere "word game".

Yes. I didn't notice you pretending to remain above the fray while you join in by slinging criticisms around, nor casting around ignorant criticisms of me without having understood the actual course of events that led this thread downhill.

I might owe Michael an apology because he asked me to stop with this and I haven't. But he also asked Victor to stop and Victor has refused to and has thereby created an obligation on me to correct his negligent attributions. I am happy to abide by Michael's wishes if Victor will. I'm also happy to answer Victor's questions and help put this thread back on track, if he will start taking responsibility for his misrepresentations.

I don't think it's a coincidence that everyone left here can't grasp my case and can't grasp the hypocrisy of criticizing me for my behavior while refusing to judge you for yours. And look at what you just did. I said I was baffled that you misrepresented me, you then did it AGAIN by implying that I was objecting to insults when I was really objecting to misrepresentation. Instead of facing that and answering it for me so I can understand you, you start pleading with me to get back to the topic (as if it's a sign of virtue to ignore vice). I just don't understand this. Why did you completely misunderstand what I objected to in the first place when I had made it so painfully clear, and why did you not explain yourself when it happened? I mean, if you would just fess up, then I could have sympathy or something. I could be gracious. But you won't admit your screwups. You won't take full responsibility for them.

And your point is? My point was that you have no business telling me not to expect fairness from you when you butt in like this. Same goes for Paul. The fact is, no one in this thread (so far) just wants me to answer, they want me to answer and they want to opine about how ill-mannered I am while ignoring the true problem: Victor's behavior. If some innocent person came in asking what I meant, well then I'd answer them.

No, I am cleaning off the eggs by pointing out where he misrepresented me. And *you* are getting into the middle of things and declaring me to be wrong to object to his egg-throwing. That makes you a vandal too. It's not "social manipulation" to tell the thugs to stop throwing the eggs.

You "may have dished out"? Anyways, I made it clear that it's not the insults I'm objecting to, it's the misrepresentation. I didn't just think I made it clear--I actually made it clear. But you didn't see it for some reason. I don't know the reason. So I don't know why you're even saying this. I don't know why you say half of what you say to me. It bears little relation to what I actually said. That's the problem. Are you just not remembering the conversation, and guessing as to what's being talked about? What's the deal?

Shayne,For one, I don't read the shit. It bores me. I have no interest in the social power plays people engage in. I do have some questions though. Why are you letting Victor's actions, or inactions, determine your behaviour? Why do you give him this power over you? Why not just state your case with complete disregard to what Victor does or doesn't do? This would seem to be the individualist thing to do. Paul In other contexts Victor would be sued for his behavior. He constantly indulges in "Shayne said X", where "X" is something I did not say. If someone threw eggs at my house, then I'd have an obligation to clean them off. They created that obligation with their nihilism. That's not letting them "determine my behavior". That's being a victim of their nihilism. Victor is no different. He attributes words to me that I did not say, and I have to come back and clear the record. It's crap. He should stop or be booted from the forum for it.

Again, bullshit. You chose to get involved by criticizing me for my behavior. Once you did that, you had a responsibility to judge the situation fairly. But I agree that not all the participants have such a responsibility. Only those choosing to get in the middle and start tossing around criticisms, as you have.

Yeah, expecting not to be grossly misrepresented at every turn = "perceived social realities".

Not if you blame it on me. I don't wonder about you Victor. I wonder about all the people who don't call you on this kind of shit.

Bullshit. You didn't own up. You didn't apologize. You blamed it on me.

In spite of CNA's poor reading of what I wrote, I don't care whether Victor thinks he hung me or not (I seriously doubt he could catch me in an actual contradiction, but if he did then that wouldn't bother me either; unlike him, I'm willing to learn from my mistakes). So that's not the issue here. The issue is obvious, and I have a hard time seeing how you and CNA can miss it since I've repeatedly stressed it: I think Victor has crossed the line of bad behavior numerous times, he's either willfully or neglectfully distorted my position on numerous occasions (not to mention when he attributed someone else's position to me and then blamed *me* for doing that!), I've called him on it, and he's neither owned up, nor apologized, nor promised to stop. This isn't about insults. This is about gross intellectual negligence bordering on libel. So don't come back to me and say "but you insult Victor too". That's bullshit. I'm not objecting to insults as such (I do object to baseless insults--Victor indulges in that too). I'm objecting to his gross negligence in representing my views. So that's the real issue. That's *obviously* the real issue. I don't see why I should put up with that crap. And I don't see why the rest of the people in this thread let him get away with it. Under these conditions, why try to explain yourself, and why expect someone to?

On the one hand, you can almost play the part of "I'm genuinely interested in the truth here, please explain", while on the other, you take every opportunity to ignore someone trying to explain something to you. I repeatedly stressed that there's a distinction I have in mind between talent and capacity. But you purposefully and systematically evade it, for no other purpose than to mock me. You pretended to try to coax some more information out of me, pretending that you actually had an interest, but you reveal your real purpose here, your apparent purpose in life: To mock. That is likely why you like philosophy: it gives you the tools you need in order to make people look like the fool (at least to you and any dupes nearby stupid enough to buy your stupid tricks). I think you revel in caricature for one reason only: you love to mock. Not as a means to belittle evil, but as a destructive end in itself.

Sigh... You refuse to own up but start to behave yourself, at least, for this one post. Since you don't own up I can only assume that you're behaving yourself only for the moment, just so you can bait me into giving you some more words to prance about on. It's ill-considered for me to answer you, don't you think? I mean, that's what you're doing right? Asking me politely for the moment because you "just know" that I'm going to be giving you a rope to hang me with, and then regardless of what I say, you'll prance about hanging me with that rope, whether imaginary and made up by you, or real in the sense that I really said something bogus? You're totally trolling me now, just as you have been this whole thread.

Victor that is bull. They weren't gratuitous insults; they were well-reasoned and well-targeted insults that actually apply to the real you, and were justly earned by you from your poorly-reasoned and not-well-targeted insults you've been falsely applying to me. I wouldn't insult you if you wouldn't constantly harrass me with your insulting, presumptous remarks. You keep pretending like you want to know what I think while at the same time baiting me over and over with your foolishness and providing no motivation to deal with you on anything but the terms of trading insult for insult. How about you own up for your poor behavior and start behaving yourself. Then I'll make the effort to try to help you understand what I'm saying (even though I think the meaning is quite clear already).

In fact I have no problem with using the word innate or inherent, that I chose one and not the other means nothing other than that. It's just that you're a presumptuous fool. I think it's safe to assume that these presumptions are really just projections of your own dishonest/malevolent psyche. No, I am describing something different from talent, making a distinction that is real but evidently too fine for you to grasp without piles of painstaking effort and suffering of your ignorant presumptions on my part, if even that would cut it. I didn't make your point, but you're certainly foolish enough to think such a thing. Now, after all that, as an afterthought, you start to sense that maybe you should ask me what I think rather than putting your own foolish thoughts into my head. If you would start out this way as a habit, rather than being a presumptuous ignoramous as a habit, well then I could talk to you on polite terms.

It's too bad you don't listen. It's too bad you see someone else's "nastiness" but not your own. The boy is easy to explain in my theory. Here's a simplified answer which to your mind will only create more objections (you can lead a fool to the truth but can't force him to understand): some people are born with muscles that adapt much more quickly to exercise stimulus. It's an inherent natural capacity their muscles have that other people's don't. Likewise, some people's minds have the capacity to learn much more quickly. This is oversimplified somewhat, since muscles can have a capacity to adapt to strength or endurance training; the mind undoubtedly has similar parameters that give rise to differences in ability in different areas--without there being some inborn ability to a specific "talent" for a concrete activity such as drawing or math.