Serious Students vs. Degenerate Objectivists

[George H. Smith]

<> "Among people who disagree with Objectivism (and you), how do you distinguish between those who are degenerate and those who are not?" --- This is a very good question: My answer is that those one constantly encounters who say "Oh well, I was a Rand fan when I was young and immature, but I learned the world doesn't work that way" and then go on to give something they learned in college that seems to contradict it are often simply "brainwashed" or mistaken and are not able to see through their professors' lies and distortions and misrepresentations.

They are (in many cases) not denying something they know to be true or which would require too much effort. So they are not 'degenerating' from something. They never accepted or understood the something in the first place.

They don't know any better, to put it in a five word sentence.

How do you know that you have not been "brainwashed" by Rand?

I intensely disliked your entire approach. It is condescending and smacks of a religious mentality. It doesn't matter in the least whether someone agrees with all of Rand or some or Rand or none of Rand. What matters is, first, whether a person is willing to give reasons for his beliefs; and, second, the epistemological value of those reasons.

When reasons for a belief are given, a rational person addresses those reasons. To proclaim yourself a full-blooded O'ist, while looking down from your Olympian heights and passing judgment on heretics (which you call "degenerate Objectivists") and infidels, signifies absolutely nothing except an unearned and unjustified sense of superiority.

Frankly, Phil, I used to attribute your schoomarm posts to lack of good judgment and a desire for attention. I now see that your schoolmarm tendencies run deep into the marrow of your bones. I find this very troubling. You are looking for self-esteem in all the wrong places.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

If you don't have a gift or serious interest in higher math no matter how hard you work you probably won't get it. A math genius might not work on what others work so hard on hardly at all. My college geologist friend remarked that it was a privilege to be able to understand what the innovators in math had done even if he couldn't understand how they thought it all up in the first place. Before grade inflation this guy got his undergraduate degree from the University of Arizona in 1966 with the highest grade point average to that date in its highly regarded hydrology program (and got his PhD there four years later). He also remarked on some poor soul who needed to pass a certain math course and couldn't do it even after taking it multiple times. Now that was a hard worker.

--Brant

General Grant, why don't you promote Col. X to general?--He's been a Col. for a long time and works extremely hard--ans: See that mule over there, he does the same; should I make him a general?

[George H. Smith]

<> "Among people who disagree with Objectivism (and you), how do you distinguish between those who are degenerate and those who are not?" --- This is a very good question: My answer is that those one constantly encounters who say "Oh well, I was a Rand fan when I was young and immature, but I learned the world doesn't work that way" and then go on to give something they learned in college that seems to contradict it are often simply "brainwashed" or mistaken and are not able to see through their professors' lies and distortions and misrepresentations.

They are (in many cases) not denying something they know to be true or which would require too much effort. So they are not 'degenerating' from something. They never accepted or understood the something in the first place.

They don't know any better, to put it in a five word sentence.

I intensely disliked your entire approach. It is condescending and smacks of a religious mentality.

My comment about Phil's "religious mentality" was more than polemicism. His approach is right out of the Christian Playbook.

Interested OLers should read Thomas Aquinas's lengthy discussion of heresy in his Summa Theologica. Essential to his treatment is the distinction between heretics and schismatics, on the one hand, and infidels, on the other hand.

Heretics, according to Aquinas, know the true doctrine, so we must explain why they embrace the wrong-thinking of of heresy instead of the right-thinking of orthodoxy. In some cases, the errors may be innocent, as with a person who doesn't fully understand Christian doctrine. But heresy is more than innocent error -- it is obstinate error. A heretic is one who persists in his erroneous belief even after he has been corrected by someone who knows better -- say, a Catholic priest or an Objectivist Phil. A heretic, in other words, is a degenerate Christian; he is a person who has fallen away from orthodoxy from a willful failure to understand and/or accept the truth. For example, a heretic may persistently refuse to study Christian doctrine with sufficient care, in which case heretical beliefs will flow from an inadquate knowledge born of willful ignorance.

Infidels, in contrast, are unbelievers who have never heard the truth, so they are not irrational in the same sense that heretics are. Infidels don't know any better, but heretics do, so heretics are responsible for their errors in a way that infidels are not.

The similarities between this way of thinking and Phil's posts are downright spooky. And I should note that this way of thinking was a major obstacle to the progress of knowledge. Enlightenment philosophers knew this, and that is why they fought against it tooth and nail. Now Phil pops up and gives us old wine in a new bottle.

Ghs

[Xray]

The word degenerate means to decline or deteriorate. It presupposes that they are dropping away from some valid standard, from something they ought not to have lost or abandoned. That's true of Objectivism. It's a valid philosophy and a vitally important one. Bottom line: Those who dropped away from it *ought not* to have done so.

Every orthodoxy has its heretics. That's all you are really talking about here. Now all you need do is prove that O'ism is 100 percent correct.

I'm convinced that all efforts to keep a philosophical/political/religious system orthodox/closed will eventually result in its demise.

[Brant Gaede]

The word degenerate means to decline or deteriorate. It presupposes that they are dropping away from some valid standard, from something they ought not to have lost or abandoned. That's true of Objectivism. It's a valid philosophy and a vitally important one. Bottom line: Those who dropped away from it *ought not* to have done so.

Every orthodoxy has its heretics. That's all you are really talking about here. Now all you need do is prove that O'ism is 100 percent correct.

I'm convinced that all efforts to keep a philosophical/political/religious system orthodox/closed will eventually result in its demise.

Same for the open. Everything gets plowed under sooner or later--frequently coming back.

--Brant

[Xray]

I'm convinced that all efforts to keep a philosophical/political/religious system orthodox/closed will eventually result in its demise.

Same for the open. Everything gets plowed under sooner or later--frequently coming back.

--Brant

Permanent transformation is the underlying principle of all existence, yes. But closed-system adherents seem to have more problems with this than open-system advocates.

[George H. Smith]

The word degenerate means to decline or deteriorate. It presupposes that they are dropping away from some valid standard, from something they ought not to have lost or abandoned. That's true of Objectivism. It's a valid philosophy and a vitally important one. Bottom line: Those who dropped away from it *ought not* to have done so.

Every orthodoxy has its heretics. That's all you are really talking about here. Now all you need do is prove that O'ism is 100 percent correct.

I'm convinced that all efforts to keep a philosophical/political/religious system orthodox/closed will eventually result in its demise.

"Eventually" can be a long time. The Catholic Church had a good run of maintaining orthodoxy for over 1000 years. A lot depends on the institutional structures in which orthodoxies are embedded. Those orthodoxies with strong institutional foundations tend to fare better than free-floating orthodoxies. Charismatic leaders can also play an important role.

Ghs

[john42t]

"Eventually" can be a long time. The Catholic Church had a good run of maintaining orthodoxy for over 1000 years. A lot depends on the institutional structures in which orthodoxies are embedded. Those orthodoxies with strong institutional foundations tend to fare better than free-floating orthodoxies. Charismatic leaders can also play an important role.

A lot also depends on correctness.

I believe that boolean logic is going to survive for a long time unchanged without any need for an institution.

I have almost as much optimism for Rand's ideas.

[caroljane]

It's great to be back.

You're reappearance announcements are getting to be as common as Phil's departure announcements. But welcome of course. Best of the Week?

Hyperbolist! There was only one, plus one double post.

Best will be back--bester than ever, nah, too obvious.

Near the end of my lonely exile I envisioned you all in your Halloween costumes.

Ghs, wreathed in wizardly fumes.

Shayne in his Cloak of Righteousness.

Brant as Annie Oakley.

Tony, in the All Blacks jersey he has to wear all year anyway, the result of an injudicious bet.

WSS in his usual getup, scaring the neighbourhood kids half to death.

ND capturing the occasion in his ever-popular Christopher Isherwood costume.

Me, I was in my usual. pointy hat, raincoat, broomstick, portable crag for perching on.

[9thdoctor]

ND capturing the occasion in his ever-popular Christopher Isherwood costume.

Who? I just googled the name, it's not a very familiar one, and I can't figure out what the costume looks like. Sure you didn't mean Eccleston?

Anyway, next time I'll come as Lohengrin.

[Philip Coates]

> "Heretics, according to Aquinas, know the true doctrine, so we must explain why they embrace the wrong-thinking of of heresy instead of the right-thinking of orthodoxy. In some cases, the errors may be innocent, as with a person who doesn't fully understand Christian doctrine. But heresy is more than innocent error -- it is obstinate error....A heretic, in other words, is a degenerate Christian; he is a person who has fallen away from orthodoxy from a willful failure to understand and/or accept the truth. For example, a heretic may persistently refuse to study Christian doctrine with sufficient care, in which case heretical beliefs will flow from an inadequate knowledge born of willful ignorance. Infidels, in contrast, are unbelievers who have never heard the truth.. [they] don't know any better, but heretics do, so heretics are responsible for their errors in a way that infidels are not." [GHS]

{emphasis added}

Aquinas was a brilliant man. This is a very good summary of the difference between willful abandonment of the truth vs. not knowing any better!!

Aquinas is 100% correct that the later is -- in the case of fundamental life principles, important virtues, important character traits, etc. -- much more worthy of disapproval than simple lack of knowledge or naivete. (Burning at the stake or calling them moral monsters might be a bit much, though.)

The unfortunate part is that Aquinas applied it to the willful abandonment of *nonsense, lies, fallacies*, not important truth. Another example of misapplying a valid principle is Peikoff's condemnation of Kelley for abandoning valid principles of Objectivism when 'he should have known better' (or does know better.) In both cases, Aquinas and Peikoff are condemning someone on the wrong grounds -- because the doctrine they are defending is not true.

You can't criticize someone as a backslider, a heretic, or the equivalent when what he backs away from and abandons is i) not true at all, ii) or he doesn't really understand that it is, iii) or it's not important or optional. --- Got it straight now, George?

[caroljane]

ND capturing the occasion in his ever-popular Christopher Isherwood costume.

Who? I just googled the name, it's not a very familiar one, and I can't figure out what the costume looks like. Sure you didn't mean Eccleston?

Anyway, next time I'll come as Lohengrin.

Poor Ish, forgotten already. "I Am a Camera" - Berlin Stories - Cabaret was based on it. I like you as Lohengrin but it's Adam in the shining armour this time (with pink trim). Though reports from sources on the scene suggest otherwise --

see next post

[Selene]

In both cases, Aquinas and Peikoff are condemning someone on the wrong grounds -- because the doctrine they are defending is not true.

I no longer get involved in discussions with Mr. Coates, but even my reptilian skin is pierced by seeing Pope Peikoff's name in the same sentence with a real philosopher.

There are standards.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

I like you as Lohengrin but it's Adam in the shining armour this time (with pink trim). Though reports from sources on the scene suggest otherwise --

see next post

I changed my mind, I'm coming as Papageno.

[caroljane]

Kids: Trick or Treat!

Adam: Hi. kids! Are you prisoners of the state indoctrination system, or do your parent encourage your natural reason?

Kid 1: We hafta be home by nine.

Both: Trick or treat!

Adam: Heh-heh. Here you go, this is the best treat you'll ever get!

Clunk

Kids: It's a book.

A: It's not just a book, it's the book, the best reading treat of your lives....

K1: Is it a Bible? Because my dad said to not bring home any Bibles.

K2: He said don't bring home any goddam Bibles.

K1: Shut up.

A: You dad sounds like a rational man. No, it's the opposite of a Bible, it's wonderful and inspiring and your dad will like it.

K2: It's awful heavy, mister.

A: It's heavy with ideas -- here, take some candy too.

K1: Chocolate dollars, cool!

K2: Hey, is this a chocolate gun? Because my mom said, don't bring home---

A: OK, OK, eat it on the way,-- nice costumes, kids!

A: Thanks mister, you too - are you a sheep?

A: Actually a ram-- see the brand mark? American Grade A!

[Selene]

Kids: Trick or Treat!

Adam: Hi. kids! Are you prisoners of the state indoctrination system, or do your parent encourage your natural reason?

Kid 1: We hafta be home by nine.

Both: Trick or treat!

Adam: Heh-heh. Here you go, this is the best treat you'll ever get!

Clunk

Kids: It's a book.

A: It's not just a book, it's the book, the best reading treat of your lives....

K1: Is it a Bible? Because my dad said to not bring home any Bibles.

K2: He said don't bring home any goddam Bibles.

K1: Shut up.

A: You dad sounds like a rational man. No, it's the opposite of a Bible, it's wonderful and inspiring and your dad will like it.

K2: It's awful heavy, mister.

A: It's heavy with ideas -- here, take some candy too.

K1: Chocolate dollars, cool!

K2: Hey, is this a chocolate gun? Because my mom said, don't bring home---

A: OK, OK, eat it on the way,-- nice costumes, kids!

A: Thanks mister, you too - are you a sheep?

A: Actually a ram-- see the brand mark? American Grade A!

Ahh, the bitch is back, cold stone sober as a matter of fact! You go girl!

[caroljane]

Kids: Trick or Treat!

Adam: Hi. kids! Are you prisoners of the state indoctrination system, or do your parent encourage your natural reason?

Kid 1: We hafta be home by nine.

Both: Trick or treat!

Adam: Heh-heh. Here you go, this is the best treat you'll ever get!

Clunk

Kids: It's a book.

A: It's not just a book, it's the book, the best reading treat of your lives....

K1: Is it a Bible? Because my dad said to not bring home any Bibles.

K2: He said don't bring home any goddam Bibles.

K1: Shut up.

A: You dad sounds like a rational man. No, it's the opposite of a Bible, it's wonderful and inspiring and your dad will like it.

K2: It's awful heavy, mister.

A: It's heavy with ideas -- here, take some candy too.

K1: Chocolate dollars, cool!

K2: Hey, is this a chocolate gun? Because my mom said, don't bring home---

A: OK, OK, eat it on the way,-- nice costumes, kids!

A: Thanks mister, you too - are you a sheep?

A: Actually a ram-- see the brand mark? American Grade A!

Ahh, the bitch is back, cold stone sober as a matter of fact! You go girl!

Sir! I just called you a knight in shining armour, and you refer to me as a female do? You, you..you ewe, you!

[Selene]

Geez...from the trick or treat story, it was looking like I would have to register on the states sexual predator list!

My apologies me lady!

[caroljane]

I like you as Lohengrin but it's Adam in the shining armour this time (with pink trim). Though reports from sources on the scene suggest otherwise --

see next post

I changed my mind, I'm coming as Papageno.

Holy Handel, the Bergman 1974 Magic Flute movie just came on TV here, keeping me up too late...how did you know?

[George H. Smith]

> "Heretics, according to Aquinas, know the true doctrine, so we must explain why they embrace the wrong-thinking of of heresy instead of the right-thinking of orthodoxy. In some cases, the errors may be innocent, as with a person who doesn't fully understand Christian doctrine. But heresy is more than innocent error -- it is obstinate error....A heretic, in other words, is a degenerate Christian; he is a person who has fallen away from orthodoxy from a willful failure to understand and/or accept the truth. For example, a heretic may persistently refuse to study Christian doctrine with sufficient care, in which case heretical beliefs will flow from an inadequate knowledge born of willful ignorance. Infidels, in contrast, are unbelievers who have never heard the truth.. [they] don't know any better, but heretics do, so heretics are responsible for their errors in a way that infidels are not." [GHS]

{emphasis added}

Aquinas was a brilliant man. This is a very good summary of the difference between willful abandonment of the truth vs. not knowing any better!!

Aquinas is 100% correct that the later is -- in the case of fundamental life principles, important virtues, important character traits, etc. -- much more worthy of disapproval than simple lack of knowledge or naivete. (Burning at the stake or calling them moral monsters might be a bit much, though.)

The unfortunate part is that Aquinas applied it to the willful abandonment of *nonsense, lies, fallacies*, not important truth. Another example of misapplying a valid principle is Peikoff's condemnation of Kelley for abandoning valid principles of Objectivism when 'he should have known better' (or does know better.) In both cases, Aquinas and Peikoff are condemning someone on the wrong grounds -- because the doctrine they are defending is not true.

You can't criticize someone as a backslider, a heretic, or the equivalent when what he backs away from and abandons is i) not true at all, ii) or he doesn't really understand that it is, iii) or it's not important or optional. --- Got it straight now, George?

Yeah, I got it. We begin a discussion of such matters by presupossing that Rand is 100 percent right and that everyone else is wrong. That makes everything else very easy, now doesn't it?

Anyway, I hope you enjoy living in the 13th century. And I hope you don't like to play with matches.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

"Eventually" can be a long time. The Catholic Church had a good run of maintaining orthodoxy for over 1000 years. A lot depends on the institutional structures in which orthodoxies are embedded. Those orthodoxies with strong institutional foundations tend to fare better than free-floating orthodoxies. Charismatic leaders can also play an important role.

A lot also depends on correctness.

I believe that boolean logic is going to survive for a long time unchanged without any need for an institution.

I have almost as much optimism for Rand's ideas.

I wasn't talking about things like logic, math, and hard science. I doubt if anyone else was, either.

Ghs

[anthony]

Brant as Annie Oakley. Tony, in the All Blacks jersey he has to wear all year anyway, the result of an injudicious bet. WSS in his usual

Well, yes - pass the salt, please; I have a nice open wound in my throat to sprinkle it.

Though I said all year the Kiwis had the top team, in all justice they deserved the Cup.

It was the 'Boks going down to the Wallabies by one point that really hurt! No ways! that ref needs specs.

Tony

[Xray]

I'm convinced that all efforts to keep a philosophical/political/religious system orthodox/closed will eventually result in its demise.

"Eventually" can be a long time. The Catholic Church had a good run of maintaining orthodoxy for over 1000 years. A lot depends on the institutional structures in which orthodoxies are embedded. Those orthodoxies with strong institutional foundations tend to fare better than free-floating orthodoxies. Charismatic leaders can also play an important role.

Since the Catholic Church's good run in that field was also based on the the use of force, threats, coercion and defamation of heretics, the question can be asked whether any closed-system orhodoxy that does not use at least some of the above has a chance of establishing itself even for a limited time span.

Also, orthodox/closed systems always seem to require 'chief ideologues' whose job is to continually hammer "the true doctrine" into their followers.

Mrs K., the Jehova's Witness coming to my door once told me: "You know, if our community didn't have those meetings each week, everything would drift apart." ("da würde doch alles auseinanderlaufen", she phrased it in German).

So very true, Mrs K.

There you have it again: any philosophical /religious/political thought system left to itself (without intervention by those who would want to keep it closed) is subject to being transformed, and that would apply even to the most rigid doctrinary systems.

[john42t]

I wasn't talking about things like logic, math, and hard science. I doubt if anyone else was, either.

People were talking about philosophical/religious systems.

And philosophy is a hard science.

[George H. Smith]

I wasn't talking about things like logic, math, and hard science. I doubt if anyone else was, either.

People were talking about philosophical/religious systems. And philosophy is a hard science.

You will need to define what you mean by a "hard science." Philosophy is not a "hard science" as that term is commonly understood today.

Ghs