Serious Students vs. Degenerate Objectivists

[Jonathan]

Jonathan whose avatar is a fox...

She looks like a fox, but she's actually a Shiba Inu Pomeranian mix.

J

[George H. Smith]

So everyone, where do we go from here? Politics is the logical choice. I have heard several people on Objectivist Living say they do not vote but that is not the way to fight for our rights. Get involved. Peter Taylor

Too bad Ayn Rand didn't spend her time getting petitions signed and campaigning for political candidates instead of wasting all those years writing Atlas Shrugged. If Rand had truly gotten involved, as you so wisely recommend, she might have actually had some influence. Ghs

Rand got involved politically two or three different ways, at least, in the 1940s. She did it again with Goldwater in 64, Nixon in 68 and 72, and by helping Greenspan go to Washington in order to accelerate history into the big smash down comparable to what happened in her great novel. The last was her most brilliant and effective touch: faux free markets via the socialism of central banking and then collectivism drowns in the contradiction. --Brant what next?--we draw up a better constitution without the flaws

I know that Rand was politically active at times. But the effects of those activities were minuscule in comparison to the effects of her novels, especially AS.

What I object to is the nonsense that people who don't engage in political activities aren't really doing anything to advance of the cause of freedom. In point of fact, the vote of one person will make no difference whatsoever in the outcome. For decades I have maintained that for libertarians and O'ists to promote and engage in political activity is to play exactly the game that statists want us to play. It is a game in which perpetual ideological minorities will expend a lot of time and resources with very little, if any, political results.

If libertarians and O'ists wish to vote, that is up to them. But let's not exaggerate the importance of this. Far more important are educational efforts.

Please, don't anyone tell me that education and political efforts are not incompatible, yada, yada, yada. I have been writing and lecturing about this issue since the formation of the LP in the early 1970s, so I know the political catechism, and their supposed compatibility is not relevant to my point. I am talking about priorities.

An interesting story: I was invited to speak at an early California LP Convention to express my objections to political action generally, and to a libertarian political party specifically. As the news of my talk got around, outraged LPers circulated a petition demanding that my invitation be rescinded. (John Hospers was one of the signers.) When this didn't work, a large button was made up that read "WHY?" I wore the button proudly during my talk.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I'd guess what happened to the LP was inevitable, especially absent the Koch money. Too bad Harry Browne fell down.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Jonathan whose avatar is a fox...

She looks like a fox, but she's actually a Shiba Inu Pomeranian mix.

J

She's adorable. Poor innocent creature! Does she divine the degenerate depths of her master's heart?

[Jonathan]

She's adorable. Poor innocent creature! Does she divine the degenerate depths of her master's heart?

I suspect that she probably does sense my degeneracy. Like Phil, she nips at my heels occasionally.

J

[caroljane]

She's adorable. Poor innocent creature! Does she divine the degenerate depths of her master's heart?

I suspect that she probably does sense my degeneracy. Like Phil, she nips at my heels occasionally.

J

She's adorable. Poor innocent creature! Does she divine the degenerate depths of her master's heart?

I suspect that she probably does sense my degeneracy. Like Phil, she nips at my heels occasionally.

J

She's adorable. Poor innocent creature! Does she divine the degenerate depths of her master's heart?

I suspect that she probably does sense my degeneracy. Like Phil, she nips at my heels occasionally.

J

Ah, the heelbone connected to the I-bone -- make sure she never gets too hungry.

[George H. Smith]

She's adorable. Poor innocent creature! Does she divine the degenerate depths of her master's heart?

I suspect that she probably does sense my degeneracy. Like Phil, she nips at my heels occasionally.

J

She's adorable. Poor innocent creature! Does she divine the degenerate depths of her master's heart?

I suspect that she probably does sense my degeneracy. Like Phil, she nips at my heels occasionally.

J

She's adorable. Poor innocent creature! Does she divine the degenerate depths of her master's heart?

I suspect that she probably does sense my degeneracy. Like Phil, she nips at my heels occasionally.

J

Ah, the heelbone connected to the I-bone -- make sure she never gets too hungry.

The same passage quoted three times. Hmmm....

Are you using a wine glass or drinking straight from the bottle?

[caroljane]

I assume you were addressing Jonathan and not myself, since if any indecorous repetitions occurred they would naturally be the fault of the gentleman.

Amongst the better class of society in Canada it is acceptable for respectable widows to sip beer from a wineglass, I have heard.

I

[Brant Gaede]

Well, that queers the6

Jonathan whose avatar is a fox...

She looks like a fox, but she's actually a Shiba Inu Pomeranian mix.

J

She's adorable. Poor innocent creature! Does she divine the degenerate depths of her master's heart?

Well, that queers the fox hunt.

--Brant

grump

[9thdoctor]

The same passage quoted three times. Hmmm....

Are you using a wine glass or drinking straight from the bottle?

Hey hey, at least she’s trying to use the quote function. So be careful what you wish for. And if you look in the mirror and see this staring back at you:

you’ll only have yourself to blame.

[George H. Smith]

I assume you were addressing Jonathan and not myself, since if any indecorous repetitions occurred they would naturally be the fault of the gentleman.

Amongst the better class of society in Canada it is acceptable for respectable widows to sip beer from a wineglass, I have heard.

I

I thought the better class of Canadians use a straw to drink wine. Or so I have heard.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I assume you were addressing Jonathan and not myself, since if any indecorous repetitions occurred they would naturally be the fault of the gentleman.

Amongst the better class of society in Canada it is acceptable for respectable widows to sip beer from a wineglass, I have heard.

I

I thought the better class of Canadians use a straw to drink wine. Or so I have heard.

Ghs

I hate discussions I can't horn in on.

--Brant

Phil has the gift--He is the One--as I have read

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

Too bad Ayn Rand didn't spend her time getting petitions signed and campaigning for political candidates instead of wasting all those years writing Atlas Shrugged. If Rand had truly gotten involved, as you so wisely recommend, she might have actually had some influence.

end quote

ONE) Oh great Oz, art thou comparing thy worthy “educational efforts” to Rand’s masterpiece, or just comparing your magnificence to us ordinary “students of Objectivism?” I will read anything new that comes along about Objectivism, so I command thee, “Occupy thy writing desk, Scribem, not Wallstreet! I have a heavy purse of gold put aside for worthy scribblers.”

TWO) Influential works like Rand’s novels and philosophy come along about every thousand years. Boydstun, Reidy, Coates, and you George, are a few of the people who are publishing philosophy, online or in books. To the rest of us we advance our views mostly through forums, seminars and financially supporting Objectivism. Political activism, letters to the editor and other grass root efforts are a way we can influence events. It may be the only way “we” can influence events.

THREE) Please drop your insistence that a moral government cannot ever demand payment for services. I know Rand kicked the can down the road by saying, “Someday, it could be voluntary,” but your insistence on moral purity NOW borders on zealotry. “We” say Objectivist Political Theory is viable through a modified United States Constitution.

Your Pal and at times, adversary,

Peter

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Being Disengaged

> I don’t like the name of this thread or its bitterness. [Peter Taylor, #347]

Peter, I think a lot of the bitterness is in response to my choice of the adjective "degenerate". If I had chosen "backsliding", "lazy", "sloughing off", "deteriorating", each would have had the same negative connotation of doing something one ought not to do in regard to whether one embraces something proper and important. And would have generated pretty much the same response.

But each of the five adjectives - while it names something real and important - doesn't quite name the entire breadth of what bothers me. Here is what I'm now trying to identify:

I've been around (all of us have) a huge array of people who are engaged in important action in three areas of life: (i) in schools, both as student -- and, in my case, as a teacher. (ii) in the world of paid work, as a worker and as an employee. (iii) in Objectivism, in courses, in conferences, and in clubs and discussion.

In each case, I and some others have tended to be on the zealous, activist, energetic, perfectionist, hard-working, thorough end of the spectrum. But there have been students in school, co-workers and employees, and students or adherents or fellow-travelers of Objectivism who have been on the inactive, jaded, sloppy, anti-effort, or too preoccupied/distracted to care end.

While I don't think it's quite that bad, I'm sometimes tempted to rewrite Thoreau: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet inactivity."

Those last are different types of inactivity, yet there is something very different on that end of the spectrum about how people engage with something that they (tacitly or not) acknowledge is important to master or understand or 'work' at than on the other end of the spectrum: You see it in those (i) at school who are satisfied with kinda-sorta knowing the material, (ii) with employees in every line of effort who 'go thru the motions', and (iii) with Oists who give Oism less thought (or effort to apply and integrate consistently) than it objectively needs -- whether or not they are zealous orthodox or lukewarm or now don't call themselves Oists.

There's a big difference between the active, engaged, energetic perfectionism of Steve Jobs and that of many people putting new software or hardware on the market.

In addition, there is another whole category besides those who should know better: those who "slough off" because they honestly are not convinced or don't believe the area of endeavor (school, their jobs) or belief (ideas, philosophy, academic disciplines) is worth their time and effort.

You wouldn't call them "lazy" or anti-effort. Many of them simply believe their time would be better spent by 'dropping out' of that particular area. If they are mistaken (for example: it's seldom a good idea to permanently drop out of school - at least in terms of getting a basic education - and it's seldom a good idea to not make all the conscientious effort one can in one's job, even if one is temporarily not in one's ideal work), then I might still use a highly critical adjective like deteriorating or backsliding or degenerate in -some- cases, although not with the connotation that they always "know better".

But I'm looking for a better title for the wider phenomenon than the adjective 'degenerate' or backsliding or lazy or sloughing off. Here is what I'm trying to describe in a sentence or two:

The world is full of people who don't fully engage with aspects of life or knowledge. Whether they are burned out or jaded or don't understand the value or don't know how or feel intimidated or get distracted or approach it in the wrong way -- there are lots of alternative reasons or causes.

But not 'engaging' when you ought to, when it is right and important to do so -- whether it be with your studies, with the job you are paid to do, or with continually learning things, or with a code of values and an integrated view of man and the world to guide you life -- is destructive and harmful.

QUESTION:

1. Is there a single adjective to encapsulate what I'm trying to name, or is it impossible to describe in a shorter form than what I've done here? 2. How about my title above, "being disengaged"? Does that leave out any element of it?

[Jonathan]

Subject: Being Disengaged

> I don’t like the name of this thread or its bitterness. [Peter Taylor, #347]

Peter, I think a lot of the bitterness is in response to my choice of the adjective "degenerate". If I had chosen "backsliding", "lazy", "sloughing off", "deteriorating", each would have had the same negative connotation of doing something one ought not to do in regard to whether one embraces something proper and important. And would have generated pretty much the same response.

Speaking of backsliding, being lazy, sloughing off and deteriorating, are you any closer to your goal of producing something of value, Phil?

But I'm looking for a better title for the wider phenomenon than the adjective 'degenerate' or backsliding or lazy or sloughing off. Here is what I'm trying to describe in a sentence or two, but I'm looking for a single word for:

The world is full of people who don't fully engage with aspects of life or knowledge. Whether they are burned out or jaded or don't understand the value or don't know how or feel intimidated or get distracted or approach it in the wrong way -- there are lots of alternative reasons or causes.

But not 'engaging' when you ought to, when it is right and important to do so -- whether it be with your studies, with the job you are paid to do, or with continually learning things, or with a code of values and an integrated view of man and the world to guide you life -- is destructive and harmful.

QUESTION:

1. Is there a single adjective to encapsulate what I'm trying to name, or is it impossible to describe in a shorter form than what I've done here?

2. How about my title above, "being disengaged"? Does that leave out any element of it?

We could invent a word. How about "Coatesing"? It kind of sounds like "coasting," but has the added benefit of sounding like your last name, thus implying all of the smug, schoolmarming stuff combined with distractedness and lack of accomplishment.

J

[caroljane]

I assume you were addressing Jonathan and not myself, since if any indecorous repetitions occurred they would naturally be the fault of the gentleman.

Amongst the better class of society in Canada it is acceptable for respectable widows to sip beer from a wineglass, I have heard.

I

I thought the better class of Canadians use a straw to drink wine. Or so I have heard.

Ghs

George, I think you have confused this with the straw man custom, practiced in much of urban Canada, in which the strawman is liberally plied with wine and then ritually burned, emerging as toast.

A natural mistake.

[caroljane]

I hate discussions I can't horn in on.

--Brant

So do I! C'mon in Brant -- bring your own drinking horn.

[Brant Gaede]

Phil's ideas about ideas are not about ideas as such, not even Objectivist ideas, respecting 95% of what he posts here on OL. Is that not the ultimate degeneracy qua Objectivism?

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

The world is full of people who don't fully engage with aspects of life or knowledge. Whether they are burned out or jaded or don't understand the value or don't know how or feel intimidated or get distracted or approach it in the wrong way -- there are lots of alternative reasons or causes.

But not 'engaging' when you ought to, when it is right and important to do so -- whether it be with your studies, with the job you are paid to do, or with continually learning things, or with a code of values and an integrated view of man and the world to guide you life -- is destructive and harmful.

QUESTION:

1. Is there a single adjective to encapsulate what I'm trying to name, or is it impossible to describe in a shorter form than what I've done here?...

How about "Most People" ? Not an adjective, but an accurate label.

As Bertrand Russell once said: Most people would rather die than think; in fact, many do.

Ghs

[Peter]

Phil wrote:

. . . Is there a single adjective to encapsulate what I'm trying to name, or is it impossible to describe in a shorter form than what I've done here? 2. How about my title above, "being disengaged"? Does that leave out any element of it?

end quote

Phil, if a person is still a fan of Rand I like the term "being disengaged." There is no good reason to alienate a possible ally and decent person. A lot of people wrapped up in their careers are the biggest fans of Rand and they are potential donors to Objectivist causes. People who are running for office are prudent to disassociate themselves from Rand’s atheism while simultaneously extolling her *reason*. Others are not socialists, nor altruists, but believe in Christian Charity as in Charles Dicken’s Christmas story. They are not hypocrites.

I am careful to not “generally” criticize someone like Doctor Piekoff unless it is a very specific disagreement. I might meet him some day or have a question for him. Who needs to deliberately seek enemies?

Well, I do enjoy teasing George. As he said, “He lights to see sparks,” (or some such thing) and so do I. But I would throw George a life preserver, and pull him aboard Ragnar’s ship.

Then scrub my hands. Just kidding.

Peter

[Philip Coates]

> A lot of people wrapped up in their careers are the biggest fans of Rand and they are potential donors to Objectivist causes. People who are running for office are prudent to disassociate themselves from Rand’s atheism while simultaneously extolling her *reason*. Others are not socialists, nor altruists, but believe in Christian Charity as in Charles Dicken’s Christmas story. They are not hypocrites.

Peter, I agree.

But I was talking about something different for the first half of this thread. Surely those people exist as well. And are also important to identify.

[Xray]

Xray,

I don't want to revisit the whole Peikoff vs. Kelley thing. I've posted a lot on it - including, if I recall, on more than one thread here.

Short version: Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value" is riddled with mistakes and bad analogies. Until he started advocating "nuking Teheran" (or claiming that if you didn't vote for the Democrats in one election, you failed to fully be Objectivist), it's probably the worst, most irrational, most destructive thing he ever wrote**. What he calls tolerating evil by Kelley was nothing of the kind. He missrepresents Kelley: Kelley was not abandoning Objectivism in any manner whatsoever. He was in fact defending it. Kelley's essay in response "Truth and Toleration" was excellent and, unlike Peikoff, a valid and important application of Objectivism.

Imo Kelley's thinking transcends Objectivst principles because it is more complex.

Example from "Truth and Toleration":

http://www.atlassoci...of_Ayn_Rand.pdf

Most of our transactions in the world are with people of mixed character.

We should certainly try to make sure that our relationships with them are

based on their virtues, their rational elements, not their vices. This policy

is our only protection against the direct and obvious dangers of irrationality;

it is also the means of obtaining the long-range benefit of rewarding

virtue and discouraging vice. But we have no control over how a person

will use the benefits he obtains from us. A worker who is highly rational

on the job may devote his earnings to an irrational cause, or an after-hours

life of debauchery. People are unitary beings. We may choose to deal with

them only to the extent that they are rational, but it is rare that we can

tailor the exchange so that it benefits only their rational side.

The same is true on a larger social scale. It is a basic truth of

economics that in any voluntary trade, both parties benefit. It is also true

that in an economic system with a complex division of labor and integrated

markets, every transaction has some effect on every other transaction. As

long as we act economically, therefore, it is impossible to avoid aiding

evil people and groups at least indirectly. In varying degrees, the benefits

of our action will fall upon the just and the unjust alike. For example, one

may properly refuse to make any direct loan to a totalitarian government.

But any money one saves will marginally increase the supply of capital,

and thus lower the prevailing rate of interest. So, as long as the totalitarian

government has access to the international capital market, it will benefit

from one’s savings.

[Philip Coates]

> Imo Kelley's thinking transcends Objectivst principles because it is more complex. [Xray]

I agree.

It's about dealing with people and that requires a wider knowledge (plus common - and sometimes uncommon - sense) than just being able to spit back Objectivist bromides...or thinking you can deduce it all from Objectivism. You have to have direct knowledge of people and what they are like. See the thread I just started -- Human Nature and Judgment: Assessing Yourself and Others -- for more thoughts on this. (And how complex it can be.)

[anthony]

> Imo Kelley's thinking transcends Objectivst principles because it is more complex. [Xray] I agree. It's about dealing with people and that requires a wider knowledge...

I can't agree, guys.

I often get hyperbolic myself, but I think "transcends" is actually inaccurate. (Explores, expands, extends, even evolves - are closer, I think.)

Anyway, my contention is that "Truth and Toleration" is in fact fully grounded in Objectivism.

I do not wish to appear an expert on Kelley on the strength of one book, and a few essays, but I was very conscious in reading TnT of finding out what all the fuss was about. Throughout, I could not find any 'heresy', or a single deviation from fundamental Objectivism; however, to qualify - AS thought through by a top-notch intellectual, who has expanded it to its full potential. Without compromise, Kelley demonstrated that Objectivism is HUMAN, very simply put. All accomplished by insightful identification of human nature, and by utilizing O'ist principles (not transcending them). A great book - good, solid thinking, and a fresh perspective - written in a calmly unhectoring, undefensive manner.

Self-evidently, it's about time Kelley's works were viewed as mainstream O'ism, rather than some sort of maverick interpretation of it. (As many do).

Considering that he himself asserts his cohesion with O'ism, anything otherwise is unjust to Kelley - and to Objectivism.

Tony