MisterSwig

On 6/28/2021 at 12:15 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I disagree with a few things I heard but I don't want to list them right now.

I hope you list them or PM me about them eventually, especially if they relate to something I said. One reason I post on forums is to hear the disagreements, and sometimes a critic has evidence that changes my mind.

On 6/16/2021 at 5:41 PM, Aldo Espejo said:

If someone read it, maybe we can discuss some of his ideas, but for the sake of the discusion, i do think the book fall short in the realms of analysis and the extension.

Hi Aldo,

I read the book as prep for the recent interview. I'd be happy to discuss it. Where do you think the analysis falls short? Keep in mind that it was written some time ago. Do you have the expanded edition?

We talked with Ibis and Kudwy from the Aporia Institute on Tiktok and YouTube. They are part of a group of young capitalists who debate online and experiment with methods of spreading Rand's ideas. Check it out!

21 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

This conversation/debate, in a nutshell, sounds like a question of teleology, and the is/oughts that arise around that....seems like it's asking the question, what is primary, the species or the individual, regarding "who sets the goals?"

Once we achieve volition, the individual sets his own goals, though often under social pressure from family or society. There is the context of being part of a species, so that should guide the goal-setting and seeking. For example, I could try to reproduce by ejaculating into a pot of soil and watering it each day, but of course that's not going to work. I need to align my goal with the nature of my species and find a fertile woman. So, if I understand your question, I'd say an adult individual is primary in terms of goal-setting, because the species is not actually a thing that sets goals, not like a political group that votes on goals for the group.

Prior to gaining volition, a baby pursues goals automatically or involuntarily. So we could say that nature sets the goal of living for a new, living organism. But really that's simply the nature of a living organism. And once we develop volition, we are then confronted with the choice of continuing to be a living organism or dying.

18 hours ago, tmj said:

I'm still stuck on universal/objective , species/individual dichotomies and how these are identified and applied in this discussion.

So, the way I'm using them, "universal" and "objective" are not dichotomous. A universal value (for example, air) is also an objective value. It's universal because it's of value to every single human being (indeed every single living organism that needs air to function). And it's objective because the value has a beneficial relationship to the object which is a particular human being. "Universal" describes the value's relation to a whole class of valuers. "Objective" describes the value's relation to a particular valuer. So while all universal values must also be objective, not all objective values are universal. Let's say you're allergic to peanuts but I'm not. Peanuts are an objective value to me, but an objective disvalue to you, thus they can't be of universal value to the human species.

As for "species" and "individual," these are nouns that refer to the same things from different perspectives. In our case they refer to human beings. Each human is an individual because he's "not divisible." He can't be separated into multiple humans. And a human is also part of a species, because he's the offspring of an interbreeding pair of individuals, thus he is born into a biological group of individuals capable of interbreeding with each other. I suppose the "species-individual" problem is dichotomous in the sense that a single individual isn't also a group of individuals. So an individual is not literally a species. But to have a species requires having individuals that interbreed. And since "species" refers to these interbreeding individuals as a group, I don't see an actual species-individual dichotomy. "Species" identifies a real similarity among particular individuals: their capacity to interbreed when sexually mature and fertile.  

37 minutes ago, tmj said:

MS

Does BENEFICIAL to.. extend to benefitted from ?

They might be related, in that something beneficial which you gain will be something that you benefited from in the past or continue benefiting from throughout your life. But this doesn't necessarily mean that something you benefited from in the past is still beneficial to you now, because things and contexts change over time.

On 6/19/2021 at 9:53 PM, Peter said:

On 6/19/2021 at 7:56 PM, MisterSwig said:

My general take is that a man's standard is a complex of physical, biological and mental factors.

That got me thinking about the Tom Hank's movie "Castaway" when he begins to take stock of his situation.

I watched Cast Away last night. I think the "taking stock" portion actually begins before the crash. As the situation becomes more desperate on the plane, he leaves his seat to recover his watch with the picture in it. This act is clearly motivated by the mental aspect of his standard of values. The object is important to his happiness. Then on the beach he addresses other aspects of his life. Purely physical concerns include shelter from the elements and shoes for his feet. As a biological organism he must also sustain his life, so he creates things like the spear to hunt for food and fire to signal for help. His volleyball doll is a little silly, but I suppose it falls into the mental aspect, particularly the value of having someone to talk to. It keeps him mentally active, emotionally invested, and distracted from his solitude. Though if I were stranded on an uninhabited island for four years, I wouldn't create a male doll.

On 6/23/2021 at 7:04 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In your formulation, if a value is not CHOSEN to be acted on by ALL members of the human race, it is not a universal value for the human race. And that leads to the law of identity being thrown out the window.

First, that isn't my formulation. Mine would sound like this: if a value is not POSSIBLE (or not BENEFICIAL) to EACH member of the human race, then it is not a universal value for the human race. My formulation is not about chosen values, it's about objective values. Reproduction is not an objective value to each member of the human race.

Consider that an individual goes through stages of life from infancy to old age. His identity, and thus some of his objective values, change over the course of his life. It is only after physical maturity that reproduction becomes possible to fertile adults. And then it becomes impossible again for elderly, post-menopausal women. Thus, a significant portion of the human race cannot reproduce. Reproduction could be a value for the fertile portion of humanity. But even then there are other factors to consider in particular circumstances, such as whether it would positively or negatively affect the parents, the nation or the species.

On 6/23/2021 at 7:04 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

To identify human nature with the stipulation that reproduction is not part of it is to misidentify human nature, misidentify human, and misidentify nature. That's a lot of misidentifying.

Each human has an identity, and for many of them their identity does not include reproduction. That's an objective fact. Children can't produce sperm or eggs. They can't reproduce. Elderly women are no longer fertile, they can't reproduce.

If "human nature" meant the nature of mature, fertile humans, I could see the foundation for your position. But that's not what it means. It includes non-fertile humans too. Children and old women are not exceptions to humanity. Childhood and old age are normal stages of being a human.

Now it's true that children normally develop into fertile adults, and most elderly women were fertile in their youth, but that doesn't change their current nature. And when you're identifying something, you must identify it as it currently exists, otherwise what are you identifying? The human species consists of human individuals at all stages of life, both reproductive and not. 

On 6/19/2021 at 9:53 PM, Peter said:

That got me thinking about the Tom Hank's movie "Castaway" when he begins to take stock of his situation.

I still haven't seen that movie. Which is unusual since I like survival movies.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Is it rational to blank that out when formulating ethics and a universal code of values for humans?

Technically I wouldn't blank it out, I would line it out after consideration. A universal code of values must apply to all particular humans who want to live, and reproduction does not do that. A species is a group of individuals, a collective, and so reproduction is a collective or group value, not a universal one. To some individuals within the group (probably a minority), reproduction might be impossible or even detrimental to their lives. Thus their purpose within the group cannot or should not include reproduction.

On 6/20/2021 at 11:36 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is called context-shifting and it happens all the time in today's culture. (Including in O-Land.)

Right, because I said I didn't understand your position and then went into question mode.

On 6/20/2021 at 11:36 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

We are no longer talking about human beings or the human species, but instead about one human being in an emergency situation.

It's not an emergency, it's rather the last man's new normal. He's not going to escape from the situation of there being nobody else in the world.

On 6/20/2021 at 11:36 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So how on earth can that be called biology (as a standard of value) in any terms except the biology of extinction?

Biology includes survival of the living organism, not just reproduction of it. The last man must still use his own life to figure out what is valuable to it.

On 6/20/2021 at 11:36 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Or your situation, the last man on earth. If such a man commits suicide, would that be evil? Good? Biological? Suppose he gets so depressed from loneliness, living each day is torture. Is he then duty-bound to use reason to keep surviving because someone said his life is the standard of value? That doesn't sound Objectivist to me.

He wouldn't be duty-bound to survive, but if he chose to live he'd have to use his own life as a standard for survival, in addition to his abstract standard. But I agree that the "last man" scenario is fiction, and thus we shouldn't use it to formulate our standard. I used it to inform my question:

On 6/19/2021 at 7:56 PM, MisterSwig said:

Are you saying that since there are women and men in existence, their biological standard must include reproduction?

If the answer is yes, wouldn't that imply that birth control is evil? Taking the pill or wearing a condemn is bad for reproduction.

On 6/10/2021 at 12:04 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have to complement you, though. I never thought Valliant's leap into the face of Branden glory would be a topic of discussion on OL again. Ever. You proved me wrong...

Thanks, I think.

We can switch gears, if you like. The latest episode is an interview with Andrew Bernstein on his campaign against the left and his book on heroes.

On 5/20/2021 at 10:43 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You used the word "biology" as your standard above for one context. But when you use the term "biology" as a fundamental, you have to make survival and reproduction your standard, at least for the species.

That's reality, not an opinion.

No species. No individuals.

I'm not sure what you mean by making a biological standard for the species. If there were only one man left in the world, he would need a standard of value based on his biology, but that standard could not include reproduction because there would be no women with whom to reproduce. Are you saying that since there are women and men in existence, their biological standard must include reproduction?

My general take is that a man's standard is a complex of physical, biological and mental factors. This includes physical pleasure, biological health, and rational knowledge. I took a stab at formulating the idea a few years ago on the OO forum. It's probably evolved a bit since then.

Regarding biology, having a normal set of humans (species group) to observe must be necessary to formulate the abstract standard for humans. But reproduction couldn't be part of that abstract standard, since reproduction is objectively impossible (or even fatal) for some women. It's not a value to all humans. And the "species" is not an actual individual to whom a standard could apply. Reproduction is a value to those for whom it's objectively good or beneficial, because it satisfies (or leads to the satisfaction of)  the need for pleasure or health or knowledge, or some combo of such universal values.

On 9/23/2019 at 12:45 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Anything's possible, but in the way the US Navy presented it, the Navy would have to be complicit in staging a hoax on the entire world, USA included.

I don't trust the government, but I find that idea too remote to take seriously right now.

I agree, I don't think it's a hoax. Lev and I discuss this evidence on our podcast. Thought you'd be interested. We'll probably do a part 2, so I'm curious what people think are the most important factors or issues concerning these UFOs.

On 6/4/2021 at 2:02 PM, william.scherk said:

In the absence of formal physical contests between Objectivist blocs or institutes, a general lashing-about is O-land's most popular sport.

I'd pay good money to watch Brook and Barney fight in the Octagon.

On 6/4/2021 at 2:02 PM, william.scherk said:

As an operating assumption -- Both Sides R Bad² -- it's far afield from an operating assumption that Both Sides/All Sides should be heard from, depending on the dispute, case or issue under discussion, or milepost on the road to Judgement.

I pretty much stopped listening to the left, unless they have a sense of humor. I can't stand the humorless left that's only interested in destroying things, including jokes.

On 6/6/2021 at 9:48 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Suppose Valliant said in public--and meant--that your father had the "soul of a rapist." And he went on a crusade about it. Would you say he was making a "strong claim" that "doesn't seem fair"?

I would have a different evaluation of the claim and the claimant, because my father is not Nathaniel Branden, nor is my father a deceptive womanizer. To say the same thing about my father would be ridiculous, because there isn't a shred of evidence for it. Whereas with Branden there is some evidence, but, again, I think there is reasonable doubt.

On 6/6/2021 at 9:48 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If you didn't want to pop him in the nose as that would be an "exaggeration," at least wouldn't you feel like calling him a liar or an idiot or boneheaded or something?

Yes, if someone said that of my father, I'd have no trouble calling him a liar or idiot.

On 6/6/2021 at 9:48 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I fear you didn't read the "soul of a rapist" passage correctly in the Valliant book. Valliant was not referring ONLY to sex. He was referring to the need to control all rapists, in his professional consideration, have. An immoral need to control. He claimed that Branden exerted that over Rand in all his dealings with her. That was the case he made. Go back and read it if you don't believe me. It's right there.

I believe I read it correctly. Valliant brings up the psychology of a rapist in the context of Branden's sexual relation with Rand on page 382-3.

Quote

While Branden's behavior does not compare, his motive--like that of the "Power-seeking" social metaphysician--in his romantic conduct toward Rand was control and physical gain, not a sincere passion at all.

So Valliant is addressing Branden's motive for his romantic behavior. And he reinforces this point by also discussing Branden's other "romantic choices," Barbara and Patrecia. If Branden's alleged pathology affected other relations, that wouldn't be evidence for "the soul of a rapist," but perhaps the soul of a thief, brute, etc.

On 6/6/2021 at 9:48 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

A person with a rapist's level of immoral need to control does not develop anything near this.

Yes, they do. If you read or watch true crime stories, rapists (and even murderers) can be different sorts of people. Some are charming, some even have families and friends who never suspected a thing.

On 6/6/2021 at 9:48 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If you don't want to look at his life, I'm fine with that. But to refuse to look and then pretend that his life was other than it was--even to the point of insinuating it is irrelevant to judging him with having a "soul of a rapist"--is a misidentification based on someone else's judgment.

Character witness testimony can be important, and Valliant certainly looks at a large chunk of it in his book. The most relevant testimony would be from his sexual partners, and that's where Valliant concentrates his focus.

On 6/6/2021 at 9:48 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Notice that in your discussion with Valliant, neither you nor Scott were able to complete your statements or questions if they involved treating the Brandens with a more reasonable approach than he does.

I tried to interject a few times but gave up because James and Scott were pretty heated over the Branden topic and it wasn't really my kind of battle. It's hard to avoid epistemological mistakes in the heat of a debate. You have to check your emotions and think at the same time under time constraints and social pressure. That's why I prefer forum posting and some pre-planned, pre-recorded, edited podcasting rather than livestreaming whatever spontaneous nonsense falls out of my mouth sometimes.

We have a new episode where we interview Stephen Hicks on postmodernism and the leftist manifestations of it. If you're into the use of language, I ask him about the postmodern tactic of weaponized rhetoric near the end.

On 6/6/2021 at 12:37 PM, Mark said:

Where did you get the photo of Valliant, the one with his hands in front of him?

Valliant provided the photo for the thumbnail.

I'll answer other posts when I have more time.

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I get it that you like Valliant. After all, you just interviewed him and called him a legend.

Haha, I didn't call him a legend, Scott did. I do like Valliant, though, and his books, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says or writes, just like I don't agree with everything Rand said or wrote. Hell, I don't even agree with everything I have said or written over the years. I've changed my mind on a few things.

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But consider this, also. in the quotes I just gave, aren't you overthinking it?

Suppose Valliant said in public--and meant--that someone you love has the "soul of a rapist." And he went on a crusade about it.

Would you say he was making a "strong claim" that "doesn't seem fair"?

Or would you pop him in the nose real hard? 

Is that more exaggeration? I'm not going to hit someone for speculating about a deceptive womanizer's psychology or motive, even if for some reason I cared about the deceptive womanizer. I might try to defend him rhetorically against questionable accusations. But in the case of Branden, I don't care much for him, and so I'm not that interested in defending him.

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But in O-Land, people want to talk about control and rape and immoral (as in immoral person in general, not just immoral womanizer) and stuff like that with him. If one is going to judge the whole person that way, but only look at one situation in his life, they are using their minds wrong. If one is going to paint NB as a narcissistic control freak, one has to look at the rest of his life as context. 

Doesn't that make sense?

Which relevant parts of Branden's life did Valliant fail to consider? You can only look at the parts that are revealed, and of those you only need to consider the ones that are relevant to your thesis. The "soul of a rapist" charge pertains to his sexual relationships. I think Valliant addressed these in relation to his conclusion. Though I'm not sure his conclusion is correct, because I think the evidence supports reasonable doubt. Namely, someone with the soul of a rapist should be an actual rapist. So why didn't his women report him as a rapist? Did they enjoy being raped? Or was Branden something less than a rapist? 

On 6/2/2021 at 2:21 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't want to rewatch that interview, not even part, but I don't recall the word "rape."

Did I miss it?

Or did the word "rape" never come up?

It didn't come up, but I'm familiar with that part of his book, having reread portions before the interview. 

For the record, I'm not sold on the "soul of a rapist" charge. (pp. 382-3) It's a rather strong claim. I see some evidence pointing to maybe a low-level "rapey" mentality. But then Rand did create Howard Roark, so perhaps that's what she liked in a man, only without the lying part. Also, if Branden's "need to control" was that pathological, I doubt he would have ended the sexual relationship. He probably would have continued satisfying Rand and continued trying to control her. But then I'm not a rapist, so I don't know how much age or looks factors into it. I do think, however, that there's more to the "soul of a rapist" than an unhealthy desire to control people. And it doesn't seem fair to say someone has the "soul of a rapist" yet agree that he wasn't an actual rapist. It reminds me of the soul-body dichotomy.

On 5/20/2021 at 3:17 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This dork openly stated that Nathaniel Branden raped Ayn Rand for years and she, poor thing, kept coming back for more. She, being blinded by true love and all,  just didn't have the capacity to discern that he had the "soul of a rapist."

I addressed part of this issue with a question at 22:25 in part one. I asked why he thinks Rand failed to see that Branden was manipulating her. And Valliant started answering by saying that he thought Branden sincerely loved Rand in the beginning. But then, he says, Branden began using psychotherapy to manipulate people.

On 5/6/2021 at 6:56 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As an added thought, the people in O-Land who misconstrue what one means in order to lash out do the same thing as social justice warriors do today with cancel culture.

I think it's a deeply psychological problem in most cases. These types treat their mind as sacrosanct, because it's their "reality," their "truth." Thus, anything that pops into their mind has the force of a "fact," including their misinterpretations of what you say, which often result from the influence of triggered emotions. Sometimes they notice that their belief clashes with another "fact," and then they have to try to think or evade. But they are generally oriented toward a subjective world view, because they failed to automatize objectivism, despite claiming to uphold it. Subjectivism remains as a vestige from their prior, overt beliefs. It governs their cognitive perspective. Perhaps they don't realize it, or perhaps they do, can't do anything about it and try to hide the problem by using distractions such as lashing out at others. Better to be considered an asshole than a subjectivist.

In episode four Scott and I discuss the momentum of religious and philosophical ideas throughout history and the problem of moral equivalence related to judging political sides. We also talk about  Scott's view of life extension and making it the unifying purpose of the liberty movement.

Scott and I had James Valliant on the podcast. We interviewed him for over three hours about several topics. The content is divided into three parts. I hope you listen and subscribe to our channel.

In Part 1 Valliant explains how he learned about Objectivism, then he and Scott have a lively disagreement about the Brandens.

In Part 2 we talk about Valliant's history in the Objectivist movement, and then at 33:17 we discuss Rand's history with conservatives.

Finally, Part 3 goes into immigration (0:00), memory (9:01), the Derek Chauvin Trial (24:20), and Valliant's book Creating Christ (30:54).

On 5/15/2021 at 5:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ditto for your species. Without it you have nothing.

If you can't reproduce with any other living thing, then you certainly don't have reproduction. I wouldn't say you have nothing though. You still have your particular life.

On 5/15/2021 at 5:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

...that doesn't mean one has to reproduce as one of the ultimate values to be rational. Just like one does not have to survive at all costs to be rational (such as sacrificing one's integrity in a manner that cannot be fixed to survive.)

True. I'm not making survival or reproduction the standard. I once argued for the rationality of captured spies committing suicide. There are cases where controlling the time and manner of your death through suicide might be the rational choice. Heck, Galt was prepared to off himself to save Dagny from torment. Rand understood this.

That said, if your species were in danger of going extinct, you should  seriously consider making survival and reproduction your top goals, if only to help ensure your own long-term happiness. You must consider that in old age you will need more and more help from the younger, fitter generation. You might have a store of property or knowledge to trade, but what good will that do you if there's nobody to trade with when you're declining in physical capacity.

On 5/15/2021 at 5:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

...one cannot work for eliminating the family (parents and kids) as a form of organization in society and be rational.

I agree. This is why I find persuasive those black economists who argue that welfare programs destroy black families by favoring single mothers.

On 5/15/2021 at 5:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For example, gay people do not reproduce, but, to be rational, they should be aware of the species ramifications of their condition and they should value--on a fundamental level--coexisting with people, a large number of people, in fact--who do reproduce.

Lots of people don't reproduce, including lots of straights. Over-reproduction can be harmful at the species-level, just like under-reproduction can cause problems. 

On 5/15/2021 at 5:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This didn't stop him from hitting on me at times, though, the asshole.  After I would tell him to knock it off, we would laugh about it.

Ha! I had a buddy in high school who was gay. We were even roommates after college for a time. He fell in love with me, which made the friendship awkward, since I'm 100% straight and had to convince him that he had no chance with me.