Reconsidering Rand's Ethics


starrynightlife

Recommended Posts

Xray, I think you start from a presupposition and use whatever terminology seems to you to support your presupposition and that you haven't a clue what "hardwiring" of the brain would mean in brain structure or how "hardwiring" would evolve. (I don't use the "hardwiring" metaphor unless I'm speaking carelessly or, as in this case, posing a taunting comment. I think it's a pernicious metaphor which is in fashion at this time and unfortunately is used even by biologists and neurologists who ought to know better, but which won't remain in use as better knowledge of brain evolution is acquired.)

Bingo. Do you think Xray knows anything about neuroplasticity? "Hardwired" implies or suggests no changes or alternatives.

Neural plasticity goes a long way to explaining a biological basis for self-determinism. I think it's wonderful when science catches up with what we already, inductively,'know'.

My self-illustration for volition has often been "opening one of 100 doors, to find another 100 behind it; and choosing, repeatedly, from another 100, and so on."

No one choice is definitive - except the choice to open a door in the first place, ie, to choose life. But the culmination of those decisions is definitive.

Essentially mapping your own course.

If no one has read it yet, I recommend studiodekadent's essay, Alienation: The Human Condition, (in the Articles section).

There appears to be - what he calls -"Denial", or, "Damnation", from a couple of posters, here!

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 270
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Imo Rand's errors in her ethical theory can partly be explained with the difficulty she had in feeling empathy.

Perhaps you are right about this. To me, the other possibility is that she needed her ethics to lead to her politics which was actually the most important piece to her. She worked backwards from her political stance but didn't admit as much. Or, like you say, she was emotionally retarded. Probably both.

I believe Ayn Rand tried to make a complete dichotomy between "selfish" or "egoism" and "altruistic". They are mutually exclusive and exhaustive only with idiosyncratic meanings. Moreover, when two people who don't agree about their meanings, discussion usually turns into a battle about words more than facts.

Ayn Rand was asked at least once if something she did for her husband was altruistic. Her emphatic reply was that it was not, and she did it for her own selfish reasons. Most people would disagree with such word usage. What she did was partly for her husband's benefit, not solely her own. His benefit and her benefit are not mutually exclusive.

I was involved in a discussion about this on Rebirth of Reason about two years ago, starting here. To better understand it, I recommend first looking at the Venn diagrams here. To draw a Venn diagram to represent Ayn Rand's position, I would draw the two circles completely separate, with one labeled 'benefit to self only, but not sacrificing others' and 'benefit to other only with self-sacrifice'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

In the latter half of the nineteenth century, particularly intertwined with the ascendance of evolutionary theories of biology, there were ethical theorists in England, Germany, France, and America who wrote of altruism and egoism as mutually exclusive and antagonistic.

Guyau (1885) has a passage in which he reports a case in which a man was very depressed over some horrible things that had happened to him. Suddenly, nearby him, a rabid dog appeared, threatening other people present. The man ran to the dog, grabbed him, sustaining wounds, then ran to the Seine, dog in arms, and jumped in. Guyau opines that all cases of self-sacrifice for others, by one’s life, should be as this one. So some nineteenth-century moralists saw some ways in which the opposition between altruism and egoism is diminished. Guyau also mitigated the opposition by emphasizing that humans have the expansive quality that is found in all living things and by emphasizing the love of risk in humans (and apparently in certain monkeys teasing crocodiles).

It would be a delight to make a close comparison of Guyau’s view with that of Nathaniel Branden in his little piece on the rationality and morality of risking one’s life (The Objectivist, April 1964). In her fiction, Rand has protagonists willing to die for justice (Ragnar), for a friend (Roark), or for a lover (Galt), but that is different than (trying to) live solely for the sake of others, which Rand takes as unmitigated altruism.

I’ve said enough recently concerning margins of selfishness contained in but inessential to Rand’s theory of rational egoism. I’ll just say in this note that the excess I have identified seems more likely not the result of psychological defectiveness, but of overcompensation in standing against altruism in its classical definition.

Certainly the conception of altruism all around my Christian culture when growing up in middle of last century is that articulated by Nathaniel Branden in his essay “Benevolence versus Altruism” (The Objectivist, July 1962).

Altruism is: placing others above self. As an ethical principle, altruism holds that man must make the welfare of others his primary concern and must place their interests above his own; it holds . . . that service to others is the moral justification of his existence, that self-sacrifice is his foremost duty and highest virtue.

The essence of altruism is the concept of self-sacrifice. It is the self that altruism regards as evil: selflessness is its moral ideal. Thus, it is an anti-self ethics . . . .

The concept altruism is apparently often a watered-down one since then. Be that as it may, the moral doctrine Rand and Branden were contradicting was very real and widespread. It was not irrational or psychologically defective to oppose good-old-fashioned altruism. I’ll bet the doctrine of uncorrupted altruism is still heard in many a learned sermon in this country every Sunday. Plenty of bumper stickers nowadays saying “Not me, Thee.”

Edited by Stephen Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xray, I think you start from a presupposition and use whatever terminology seems to you to support your presupposition and that you haven't a clue what "hardwiring" of the brain would mean in brain structure or how "hardwiring" would evolve. (I don't use the "hardwiring" metaphor unless I'm speaking carelessly or, as in this case, posing a taunting comment. I think it's a pernicious metaphor which is in fashion at this time and unfortunately is used even by biologists and neurologists who ought to know better, but which won't remain in use as better knowledge of brain evolution is acquired.)

Ellen, it looks like "hardwired" has become a popular metaphor. So we are dealing with a linguistic phenomenon here of a technical term having found its way into everyday language to a degree that even biologists and neurologists use it in a broader sense.

So if you don't like the term "hardwired" being used in the discussion here because it could create confusion, I can try to find another term, or describe in more words what I mean to convey.

For example, I could use "essential for survival" instead.

If selfishness were not biologically hardwired in us humans, how could we survive for one single day?

I'll change it to "We could not survive for one single day if selfishness were not a driving force in us".

Um, for one example, a very obvious example, do you consider sexual desire "hardwired in us humans"?

My point was that it is impossible for us to survive as individuals if we were not selfish.

As for sexual desire, it is a drive, with the satisfaction of the drive being perceived as a pleasurable experience. Nature's trick to assure survival of the species by making individuals "selfishly" want to engage in sexual activity.

Where's the survival advantage for the individual organism in seeking a sexual partner?

Before an individual is in a position to seek a sexual partner, it is necessary for countless selfish acts to have preceded. Without selfishness as the driving force, the seeking of a sexual partner could not take place at all.

Sexuality is again an example where "selfishness" of the individual assures the survival of the species.

Imo selfishness is not a "virtue" - it is a vital ingredient of human life. It is nothing one has to learn. It just is.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo selfishness is not a "virtue" - it is a vital ingredient of human life. It is nothing one has to learn. It just is.

You are merely saying moral philosophy is irrelevant, but moral philosophy is used to control and enslave people. A "virtue of selfishness" merely counters this poison freeing people from the wrong ideas and sanctioning the proper relationship between their lives and the lives of others in the context of human freedom, psychological and political-economical. Of course selfishness is hard-wired into living organisms--it is in my Chocolate Lab--but freedom and happiness aren't, just the need.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guyau (1885) has a passage in which he reports a case in which a man was very depressed over some horrible things that had happened to him. Suddenly, nearby him, a rabid dog appeared, threatening other people present. The man ran to the dog, grabbed him, sustaining wounds, then ran to the Seine, dog in arms, and jumped in. Guyau opines that all cases of self-sacrifice for others, by one’s life, should be as this one. So some nineteenth-century moralists saw some ways in which the opposition between altruism and egoism is diminished.

Stephen,

I have the gut feeling that Guyau may have invented this story for the purpose of illustrating his point of view, and am interested in your assessment. Does Guyau name a concrete source?

But whether invented or not, Guyau's "reported" case can be regarded as yet another expression of self-interest being the driving force guiding all human action.

For a depressed individual's self-interest can be directed to annihilation of self, preferring non-existence over existence.

As for the depressed man taking the dog down with him, I lean far more toward interpreting it as a 'death sentence' he selfishly executed on the dog for biting him than as an act directed to save a group of people from a single "rabid" dog. How could the man be sure that the dog showing "threatening" behavior was rabid?

Plenty of bumper stickers nowadays saying “Not me, Thee.”

It would interest me who produces those bumper stickers. Is it churches?

Imo selfishness is not a "virtue" - it is a vital ingredient of human life. It is nothing one has to learn. It just is.

You are merely saying moral philosophy is irrelevant, but moral philosophy is used to control and enslave people.

Ayn Rand was a moral philosopher too. Surely you don't think she wanted to control and enslave people?

Imo selfishness is not a "virtue"

Ayn Rand did not say it was. As Brant already told you here, the book title The Virtue of Selfishness does not make it a virtue.

Problem is, what Brant told me may not reflect Rand's opinion, for imo it is pretty bold to deny that she regarded selfishness as a virtue, in view of the fact that she chose "The Virtue of Selfishness" as a book title for her pivotal essays dealing with Objecivst ethics.

But let's go along with your argumentation going toward Rand seeing selfishness not as a virtue.

So if selfishness is not regarded as a virtue in the Objectivst ethics, what is it then?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo selfishness is not a "virtue"

Ayn Rand did not say it was. As Brant already told you here, the book title The Virtue of Selfishness does not make it a virtue. Her list of 7 virtues does not include selfishness.

Problem is, what Brant told me may not reflect Rand's opinion, for imo it is pretty bold to deny that she regarded selfishness as a virtue, in view of the fact that she chose "The Virtue of Selfishness" as a book title for her pivotal essays dealing with Objecivst ethics.

But let's go along with your argumentation going toward Rand seeing selfishness not as a virtue.

So if selfishness is not regarded as a virtue in the Objectivst ethics, what is it then?

Read the book's introduction and her list of 7 virtues.

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Mac,

Here's something I don't get about your apparent virulent hatred of Rand for her supporting "capitalism":

Don't you understand that what she was supporting is what's called in current evolpsych/"selfish-gene"-based parlance "reciprocal altruism." Ironically.

Granted that she had the "Is" wrong -- I've assumed we're talking about the same "Is," i.e., her idea that survival is the goal set to an organism by its biological nature -- the social system which would follow from current views on Darwinian selection is actually the same as hers: That is, leave people alone to decide for themselves, attempts at control by social engineering aren't in keeping with biological reality. I think that even Dawkins understands this, though he still wants social control, since he doesn't morally approve of the very biological reality he describes. Most evolpsych theorists have taken to being in favor of a conservative, leave-'em-alone viewpoint.

I wonder if somehow you equate "capitalism" with "social Darwinism" -- which Rand opposed -- and have never grasped her actual conception of "capitalism" as mutual trade to mutual advantage, both parties benefit.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I haven't come across one person who will tell me they are an Objectivist here and that is kind of scary considering the title of this website. I have heard from socialists and non comittals all over the place here...You all should rename this forum Academic Living and take it from there.

Pippi, over time OL has become more and more a home for people who are not Objectivists and they have tended to crowd out the fully convinced Objectivists. So it's become more of a board where you will see threads with titles like 'reconsidering' or 'a flaw' in Oism. While these questions are usually quite silly or uninformed, nonetheless there is nothing wrong with a site whose purpose is/or which tends to draw those whose purpose is to debate and discuss Objectivism.

Like here: among Oists, quasi-Oists, crypto-Oists, not yet-Oists, disillusioned drunken-Oists, what the hell is Oism-ists, etc.

And also there are bright people here who don't happen to be Oists and have interesting things to say. I learned a lot from a thread on literature from well-read people, for example. People who were active there didn't have to support Objectivism or agree with it 100% like I do for them to have caused me to think about what they had to say. In general also, topics which have nothing to do with Oism can draw interesting insights.

All of the unmoderated sites tend to draw their share of self-indulgent 'barroom drunken screamers'. Each of these sites tends over time to become Frequent Crap Attractors (that's a technical term from Objectivist epistemology.) The more orthodox sites, for example, tend to draw their share of those who mindlessly repeat Oist bromides without having understood them.

Every once in a while, you just get so fed up that like GHS and myself you have to take a vacation.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advice:

Just read selectively. Skip the people who have cognitive or personality disorder. Don't even read the long, meandering or repetitious threads. Spend little time on discussion boards. Get a life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I haven't come across one person who will tell me they are an Objectivist here and that is kind of scary considering the title of this website. I have heard from socialists and non comittals all over the place here...You all should rename this forum Academic Living and take it from there.

Pippi, over time OL has become more and more a home for people who are not Objectivists and they have tended to crowd out the fully convinced Objectivists. So it's become more of a board where you will see threads with titles like 'reconsidering' or 'a flaw' in Oism. While these questions are usually quite silly or uninformed, nonetheless there is nothing wrong with a site whose purpose is/or which tends to draw those whose purpose is to debate and discuss Objectivism.

Like here: among Oists, quasi-Oists, crypto-Oists, not yet-Oists, disillusioned drunken-Oists, what the hell is Oism-ists, etc.

And also there are bright people here who don't happen to be Oists and have interesting things to say. I learned a lot from a thread on literature from well-read people, for example. People who were active there didn't have to support Objectivism or agree with it 100% like I do for them to have caused me to think about what they had to say. In general also, topics which have nothing to do with Oism can draw interesting insights.

All of the unmoderated sites tend to draw their share of self-indulgent 'barroom drunken screamers'. Each of these sites tends over time to become Frequent Crap Attractors (that's a technical term from Objectivist epistemology.) The more orthodox sites, for example, tend to draw their share of those who mindlessly repeat Oist bromides without having understood them.

Let's take Phil's suppositions at face value. Why haven't the "bright people here" been crowded out along with "the fully convinced Objectivists"? Could it be that the "fully convinced" are religious about Objectivism and/or dullards? As for the orthodox sites drawing "their share of those who mindlessly repeat Oist bromides without having understood them"--maybe there they went.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Anti-Effort, Lack of Pride among the Camp-Followers

Subject: Thoughtless, "Chat List" Responses

Subject: Dodging, Whining, Pissing, and Moaning

Major Subject: Phil Coates & Sloppy, Unfocused, Generalizing | Hypocrisy | Evasion | Selective | Memory | Unnamed Targets | Poisoning the Well | Hectoring | Refusal to Cite Specifics | Inability to Learn from Own Errors | Self-Regarding Pose of Moral and Intellectual Superiority

Minor Subjects: Shoddy documentation | Missing Citations, Lack of Illustrative Examples, Refusal to Provide References or Specific Warrants for Sweeping Denunciations | 'Blind Spots' | Refusal to Acknowledge Blind Spots | Self-Exemption from Own Standards | Psychological Projection | Defensiveness | Refusal to Grant Points to 'Enemies' | Lack of Critical Self-Appraisal

Tone of this essay: Relentlessly mocking

Style of this essay: Rigourous, well-referenced

References used: specific examples, hyperlinked to original sources

Target audience: General Objectivist Living readership

Aim of this essay: To meticulously document Phil Coate's repulsive generalizing in the cited post

Expected result/Impact on Phil Coates: Nil

Implicit prediction of this essay's reception/response by subject of mockery: haughty evasion of all points made or silence or more of the same fucking bullshit he is known for across the Online Objectivish Universe

I haven't come across one person who will tell me they are an Objectivist here and that is kind of scary considering the title of this website. I have heard from socialists and non comittals all over the place here...You all should rename this forum Academic Living and take it from there.

Pippi, over time OL has become more and more a home for people who are not Objectivists and they have tended to crowd out the fully convinced Objectivists. So it's become more of a board where you will see threads with titles like 'reconsidering' or 'a flaw' in Oism. While these questions are usually quite silly or uninformed, nonetheless there is nothing wrong with a site whose purpose is/or which tends to draw those whose purpose is to debate and discuss Objectivism.

Like here: among Oists, quasi-Oists, crypto-Oists, not yet-Oists, disillusioned drunken-Oists, what the hell is Oism-ists, etc.

And also there are bright people here who don't happen to be Oists and have interesting things to say. I learned a lot from a thread on literature from well-read people, for example. People who were active there didn't have to support Objectivism or agree with it 100% like I do for them to have caused me to think about what they had to say. In general also, topics which have nothing to do with Oism can draw interesting insights.

All of the unmoderated sites tend to draw their share of self-indulgent 'barroom drunken screamers'. Each of these sites tends over time to become Frequent Crap Attractors (that's a technical term from Objectivist epistemology.) The more orthodox sites, for example, tend to draw their share of those who mindlessly repeat Oist bromides without having understood them.

Every once in a while, you just get so fed up that like GHS and myself you have to take a vacation.

[to be continued, after I finish laughing at Phil Coate's implacable posturing]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to learn to read, write and think. As Phil told you, your looks won't last.

Ted are you an objecivist? Is Phil an Objectivist?

I haven't come across one person who will tell me they are an Objectivist here and that is kind of scary considering the title of this website.

I have heard from socialists and non comittals all over the place here-what is the point?

Pure Objectivism is basically undoable-the proof is in this forum

If some one starts talking about cells and organisms I shut down-cells and plasma aren't people

You all should rename this forum Academic Living and take it from there.

Hi, Pippi! It's me - down here under my rock.I see you are vexed, as so often before, by the presence of so many aliens living among the Objectivists. You have asked me many times why I am here, for example. Probably you ask yourself why you come here at all. But I bet I know why:

The "real" objectivists are at OOnline, Noodlefood, and Forum4, but except for a few eccentrics they are boring. Some first-class thinkers, Mindy Newton for example,but dull as ditchwater. SOLO has some interesting characters but they are raving psychopaths and I would be scared to step foot on there to be tortured with Alliteration and Acronym and then executed by the Pomo Squad to the strains of "My Prayer".

The people at OL are interesting, they write interesting things and have a huge collective body of knowledge.They can laugh at themselves, even Phil sometimes. Face it, you like some of them. Even the ones you hate are sort of invigorating, no? I know you hate me, but consider that you can judge a person by the quality of their enemies. I'd say I was a pretty high-quality one.

Nobody gets paid to participate here, well except me when I am taking one of my many, many paid sick days. Learning and conversation are enjoyment.Recreation. I think you are "doing" objectivism when you apply its principles to what you choose to do and say, and to whom. Ayn Rand did this; she seemed to enjoy it.

Edited by daunce lynam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let's not forget his treasured pussy whipped file album:

jeffC5_whipped.gif

whipped.jpg

pussywhipped.jpg

pussy-whipped.jpg

PussyWhipped.jpg

TIGER-1.jpg

Acquired by an eboolian search of Phil's computers under "pussy" AND "whipped"

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advice:

Just read selectively. Skip the people who have cognitive or personality disorder. Don't even read the long, meandering or repetitious threads. Spend little time on discussion boards. Get a life.

Well, I for one am taking this to heart; no more long, rambling essays from me. No sir!

Gone will be the fat, in with the lean.

One-liners - that's the ticket.

Minimalisim, everything cut down to three words.

(Hmm.)

Well, OK, 900, I promise.

And I'm not putting off that psychologist appointment any longer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let's not forget his treasured pussy whipped file album:

jeffC5_whipped.gif

whipped.jpg

pussywhipped.jpg

pussy-whipped.jpg

PussyWhipped.jpg

TIGER-1.jpg

Acquired by an eboolian search of Phil's computers under "pussy" AND "whipped"

Adam

Thanks for this! My daughter-in-law was looking for the perfect gift for their 3rd anniversary and the magazine subscription will be just the thing. Stu has been getting a little stroppy lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

Great set of cartoons! You and William have been putting so much research into keeping OL on the "it's all about Phil" track, that I'm going to have to add a bonus to your usual paychecks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[to be continued, after I finish laughing at Phil Coate's implacable posturing]

This is shaping up to be the greatest Phil take down ever. I've done Phil take downs, so I know the best when I see it. This should have its own thread, so it can be conveniently referenced. Can't wait for part 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Well, I for one am taking this to heart; no more long, rambling essays from me. No sir! {WhyNot]

Good boy!!! (Looks like my attempt to implement regularly scheduled beatings here at OL is bearing fruit.)

> I've done Phil take downs, so I know the best when I see it.

ND has delusions of grandeur. I'm going to have to up the beatings - and take a deduction from his usual paycheck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pippi, over time OL has become more and more a home for people who are not Objectivists and they have tended to crowd out the fully convinced Objectivists.

Phil,

You are starting to get it.

OL is a site with more emphasis on "Living" than on "Objectivist." The approach here is for people to think for themselves, not for people to learn and adopt a set of rules for structuring how to conform their lives to how others think (or how Rand thinks).

The people attracted here are mostly folks familiar with Rand's works and other Objectivism-oriented literature (thus, the "Objectivist" in the title), but they mostly do not call themselves "Objectivists" because they do not want to identify themselves with the dogmatic kinds of individuals who are out to save the world in the name of an individualistic collective (i.e., Objectivist movement).

You gave an inaccuracy above, though. I don't know of anyone here who crowds out "fully convinced Objectivists." I certainly don't. In fact, there are a few members of OL who I would characterize as "fully convinced Objectivists." One young man sells stuff from his Objectivst-like boutique here. Others have started or are involved in different Objectivist groups around the country and world. They do fine here and, judging from their posts, feel right at home. They know their own minds and are quite comfortable around others who think differently tan they do on sundry issues. They know how to disagree with respect.

The crowd out problem is that I simply do not allow dogmatic preacher-types (of any sort) to crowd out the free flow of ideas. That is the rub for many of who you call "fully convinced Objectivists."

I do not let them hog discussions and intimidate/manipulate other posters. That bothers these kinds of people and they usually do not stay when they come around. Persuade by reason is not their thing. They feel safer in crowds where the other people think like they do--where the leader-types can form their power center cliques and the follower-types can follow them.

A good example of what I am talking about (albeit an extreme one) is the question, "Is it moral to eat bread?" If someone asked that on OL, it would probably be met with disbelief and/or derision. That is because the people attracted here are committed to their own minds. The idea of even asking this question smacks of a need for approval from others to think. So it's funny.

But a follower type of what you call a "fully convinced Objectivist" needs guidance and approval from a leader more than he needs to think for himself. To him, this is a very serious issue and he gravitates to where he can get what he needs. He is insecure in his own thinking, so he looks for certainty from others that he can put on like a raincoat. btw - This is a actual question WSS found in that Objectivism Q&A thing Hsieh is promoting.

The kind of person who would ask that question--and the kind of person who would actually answer it--are not the kinds of people attracted to OL.

Frankly, I believe that if they came here and were allowed to organize, they would crowd us out. Independent thinking doesn't fit with what they want to do--unless the independent thinking leads to adopting their party line.

Like I said, that morality of eating bread question is an extreme example, but it shows clearly the mindset I am talking about. If you make the issue more subtle, which is generally the case, it just looks better. But the principles are identical. Whoever wishes to think independently and express his/her thoughts in a group has to respect others doing the same. The only way to let the independent mind grow and flourish within a group is to remove the power games. Then reason has a chance to win--by the individual choice of the individuals--to the benefit of all.

There are some rough times at times, but here on OL, I have noticed that reason and common sense usually prevail in the end. If you take into account that we are all independent people from widely different backgrounds, and that most of the OL regulars are pretty stubborn, this actually is a beautiful thing.

Messy, but beautiful.

Kinda like human beings...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That morality in eating bread thingy is funny, Michael. In the 19th Century my paternal Mennonite ancestors got into an argument over whether one should or should not slice bread because the Bible mentions the "breaking" of bread. If not for that then for other such reasons, a bunch split off into Seventh-Day Adventists. Religion was strong in agrarian society. I suspect it re-enforced the authority of the patriarch. And I think that authority was needed for reasons of sheer survival. Before these folk farmed in Kansas they were German settlers farming in Russia. They left Germany in the very early 19th Century to escape compulsory military service. They walked. There was great poverty involved. Decades later for the same reason many packed up and immigrated to the United States. My grandfather as a boy was part of the Oklahoma land rush and later voted for Grover Cleveland for President. The Gaedes who didn't leave the Ukraine were eventually killed by Stalin along with tens of millions of others.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I don't know of anyone here who crowds out "fully convinced Objectivists." I certainly don't.

I don't mean forcibly or banning, just that some of the sharper minds in Oism [not just ARI people] don't post often. Right or wrong, they find the chaff to substance ratio too high for them.

> I do not let them hog discussions and intimidate/manipulate other posters. That bothers these kinds of people and they usually do not stay when they come around...the leader-types can form their power center cliques and the follower-types can follow them.

That's not the kind of person I had in mind.

> that morality of eating bread question is an extreme example

Someone actually asked that of Diana H in her 'ethics' webcasts. It's like all the general knowledge the person has is Objectivism and he has never read that you need carbs in a balanced diet and has drawn the totalistic conclusion that -any- carbs (whatsoever? across a lifetime?) are bad for you and fattening and raise your blood sugar to unhealthy levels.

Excerpt from "The Scarlet Carb" by Nathaniel HaveaNut:

<>"Happy birthday, Al. Here's a slice of birthday cake."

<>"Get away, you immoral monster; I would be damned for eternity."

© 1602 Intrinsicist Productions, Reverend DimBulb, Chief Executioner Officio

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh hell, I thought Diana was talking about performing oral sex on the rock group or maybe human cannibalism of same!

Wow, now I remember why I hated this group! Gaggingly gay are they!

This must have been the sequel to the Day the Music Died!

Adam!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

Sometimes, when I make a clever post, I'd like to have that acknowledged rather than always just ignoring it or deflecting and instantly trying to "one-up". Not just me, that's a general human 'conversational' relating to people thing:

Notice how on another thread today I showed appreciation for your interesting work on researching some things in Atlas Shrugged.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
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