Smallness of Mind

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a comment I made back in 2006 that is pertinent to the topic.

This reminds me of a book I read a long time ago called The Murder of Christ by Wilhelm Reich. He tried to examine what he called "the emotional plague of mankind." I found a portion of this work online and a quote from it is especially pertinent to this particular case.

When the Emotional Plague strikes its victim, it strikes hard and fast. It strikes without mercy or regard for truth or facts or anything else except one thing: to kill the victim.

There are public prosecutors who act as true lawyers, establishing the truth by evidence from many sources. There are other prosecutors whose only goal of the prosecution is killing the victim, no matter whether right or wrong, just or unjust.

And this is the murder of Christ today as it was two thousand and four thousand years ago.

I remember at the beginning of the book, Reich had a list of concepts in two columns. I can't remember the terminology, but I do remember the point of each column. On the left was a list of words made by the greatness of human beings. On the right was how the petty people interpret or see such greatness. Thus there was the word "genius" on the left and "eccentric" on the right. There was a long list of ideas like that and it covered a wide range of topics.

Although the terminology was different, Reich was discussing "heroic sense of life" and "second-handers" in Objectivist terms. Now with Rand, in this case, we come to where we can add to that list. On the left, we can put "rational moral judgment." On the right, we put "scapegoating."

I was just now looking for that list online, but I can't find it. I'm going to have to end up buying the book or getting it from the library.

Apropos to the thread topic theme, the USA government is guilty of a bad, bad thing with Wilhelm Reich. He died in jail and the government essentially made an attempt to burn his books. Pure witch-hunt stuff--and this was in the 40's and 50's.

It's ironic how his government accusers viewed him on the right side of his column, but history is gradually solidifying his position on the left side. For example, I just saw in the Wikipedia article on him that his nuttiest thing and one of the main causes of his woes, the orgone accumulator, is now being vindicated in controlled double-blind experiments.

To me, government bureaucrat and "smallness of mind" are almost synonymous.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

I just thought of something I want to add to my leadoff post for this thread. I traced some forms of small-mindedness in our culture and also an unfortunate progression in Objectivist circles. (ASIDE: I mentioned "Fact and Value" as a turning point, but I could have mentioned the earlier 'casting out of enemies' based on personal issues, not even an attempt at philosophical -- the Rand vs. Branden splitting of the movement -- as an even more fundamental descent into pettiness, including a lot of "you are loyal to Rand's person or you are out" - ism.)

But the question I want to add is why (and maybe also how).

How does small-mindedness -- the focus on personalities and people rather than issues, the enemies lists, scandals and squabbles and festering ill-will and Hatfield-McCoy grudges and bruised egos uber alles -- all that constellation of things -- how does that spread or grow...or at minimum remain such a deep-seated part of human nature?

Because the culture is already corrupt in many ways, It's understandable or not a huge surprise when you see the 'sliming' done in the media, by academics, by those who oppose or favor global warming resorting more to scandal and personal attack and denial of a hearing or tenure -- rather than in good faith dealing with their opponents' or critics' arguments.

But Objectivism is a philosophy of reason, one totally opposed to this sort of thing. One devoted to the idea the best idea should win and to intellectual meritocracy and rigorous argument. So why the plague of small-mindedness (and, as I argued in post 1, I think it has actually *gotten worse* in the last decade or two)?

Is it in the philosophy or is it in how it is lived? Or are the examples I gave in post 1 poorly chosen and am I way off base -- and there is not much wrong along the lines of small-minded behavior, choices, rhetoric, etc. in our philosophical/ethical/political movement? We're doing "just fine"?

[Selene]

Here is a comment I made back in 2006 that is pertinent to the topic.

This reminds me of a book I read a long time ago called The Murder of Christ by Wilhelm Reich. He tried to examine what he called "the emotional plague of mankind." I found a portion of this work online and a quote from it is especially pertinent to this particular case.

When the Emotional Plague strikes its victim, it strikes hard and fast. It strikes without mercy or regard for truth or facts or anything else except one thing: to kill the victim.

There are public prosecutors who act as true lawyers, establishing the truth by evidence from many sources. There are other prosecutors whose only goal of the prosecution is killing the victim, no matter whether right or wrong, just or unjust.

And this is the murder of Christ today as it was two thousand and four thousand years ago.

I remember at the beginning of the book, Reich had a list of concepts in two columns. I can't remember the terminology, but I do remember the point of each column. On the left was a list of words made by the greatness of human beings. On the right was how the petty people interpret or see such greatness. Thus there was the word "genius" on the left and "eccentric" on the right. There was a long list of ideas like that and it covered a wide range of topics.

Although the terminology was different, Reich was discussing "heroic sense of life" and "second-handers" in Objectivist terms. Now with Rand, in this case, we come to where we can add to that list. On the left, we can put "rational moral judgment." On the right, we put "scapegoating."

I was just now looking for that list online, but I can't find it. I'm going to have to end up buying the book or getting it from the library.

Apropos to the thread topic theme, the USA government is guilty of a bad, bad thing with Wilhelm Reich. He died in jail and the government essentially made an attempt to burn his books. Pure witch-hunt stuff--and this was in the 40's and 50's.

It's ironic how his government accusers viewed him on the right side of his column, but history is gradually solidifying his position on the left side. For example, I just saw in the Wikipedia article on him that his nuttiest thing and one of the main causes of his woes, the orgone accumulator, is now being vindicated in controlled double-blind experiments.

To me, government bureaucrat and "smallness of mind" are almost synonymous.

Michael

Michael:

He died in jail of heart failure just over a year later, days before he was due to apply for parole.^[7]

Any autopsy ever performed?

^{Rather convenient, don't you think?}

Adam

[Philip Coates]

(Offering an answer to the why and how questions in post 27)

What i would suggest is the explanation would include the principles of resistance and inertia that I made several posts about in the "spreading a new philosophy" thread apply not just to the uphill battle to convince the world of a whole new philosophy, to 'converting' people.

They apply to the phenomenon of small-mindedness as well. Both culturally - getting the press to stop focusing on scandal and feet of clay, for example. And individual by individual - for example, getting individual everyday Objectivists and their leaders to stop the factional demonizing, dividing into totally irreconcilable camps even when they agree on basic philosophy.

There are a number of phenomena which buttress resistance to change in this area:

1. emotional hardening --- the battle lines are drawn, nasty things have been said or done, one "sees red" when the other person or side is considered; seeing red prevents one from actually thinking objectively

2. excuses / rationalizations --- well, he deserves it; he got away with something else so exaggerate this; the other side needs to be destroyed or undercut so the ends justify the means; most people can't think so you have to get them emotionally against the other side; if i don't do it first, he will; nice guys finish last

3. subconscious defense mechanisms --- becoming hostile when challenged, covering fear or embarrassment or guilt or shame with counter-attack, displacement or deflection such as with humor or changing the topic, projection (no you hypocrite you are the one who has been doing the very thing you're criticizing)

4. defense values --- "I'm a tough guy, I don't back down from any fight and I'll always get the last blow in and use any weapon in a knife fight" - in other words, the mean-spirited kind of personal or character attack or focus is justified because the guy can't allow his phony self-esteem of himself as a "tough guy" or a "realist" to be punctured or to feel himself weak if he backs away [unlike DM's, I don't know this is in mainstream psychological literature, but Allan Blumenthal used to have list of frequent ones]. DV's are a form of DM.

All four of these are major causes of resistance to change in attitudes or behaviors that remain unmoved even when you know - or could let yourself know - that change is warranted.

Are there other answers to the 'why' of resistance to casting aside small-mindedness? Or a better breakdown of causes? What can then be done?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

This is not an attack, but a statement of fact. (Meaning I am not referring specifically to you, although I have observed you being guilty several times of the problem I mention below. Incidentally, I've been guilty of this in the past. I now fight hard against it inside myself.)

If reason as persuasion is to convince people not to be small-minded (according to your standards), the VERY FIRST condition is that the agent spreading the message CANNOT feign to know stuff he, in reality, does not know.

EVER.

One of the problems with many Objectivists is that they make all kinds of boneheaded judgments in public--both good and bad--about topics where they don't have very much knowledge. And they load their judgments (often all-or-nothing judgments) with emotion.

But when called on it--even with proof, rather than admit their limited understanding, they go into some kind of Rand ape mode and get their backs up.

That, to me, is about as small-minded as it gets.

And I mean that literally. "Small" as in limiting--on purpose--the size of ones mind.

To me, it doesn't matter why anyone would do that. If they want credibility, they have to stop that crap.

If I ever were to embark on a campaign to reverse small mindedness, that would be my starting point. A good message cannot be spread by a fundamentally flawed messenger when reason is the standard.

Michael

[anthony]

>I don't know about "Everyone needs to operate according to the same standards toward others." By whose morality? There is a creeping collectivism to it. [whyNot, Post 15] I meant in terms of basic standards like benevolence, civility, not judging people until all the evidence is in, not bullying or using force, honesty, treating people with respect no matter who they are - until a particular individual shows he doesn't deserve it, etc. > Phil,.

Phil,

Those standards cover it well. Agreed, and understood.

One word I believe to be a cover-all, that represents the counter to pettiness,

is 'grace', or 'graciousness'. Gracious in success, and during set-back.

As Objectivism matures, and loses its defensiveness, I feel positive grace will go with it.

For me the notion is synonymous with Barbara Branden.

"You gotta accentuate the positive, eliminate..."

:0

[caroljane]

I agree Tony. I know far less about this whole subject than the rest of you. But my impression is that out of the volcanic birth and history of Objectivism it is Barbara Branden who has most grown in stature and self-knowledge and , yes certainly, grace.

[Philip Coates]

I hadn't known Barbara until her appearance on these discussion lists and the word "classiness" in discussion comes to mind. Also, the ability to say a lot in a few essentialized words

[Jonathan]

There are a number of phenomena which buttress resistance to change in this area:

1. emotional hardening --- the battle lines are drawn, nasty things have been said or done, one "sees red" when the other person or side is considered; seeing red prevents one from actually thinking objectively

2. excuses / rationalizations --- well, he deserves it; he got away with something else so exaggerate this; the other side needs to be destroyed or undercut so the ends justify the means; most people can't think so you have to get them emotionally against the other side; if i don't do it first, he will; nice guys finish last

3. subconscious defense mechanisms --- becoming hostile when challenged, covering fear or embarrassment or guilt or shame with counter-attack, displacement or deflection such as with humor or changing the topic, projection (no you hypocrite you are the one who has been doing the very thing you're criticizing)

4. defense values --- "I'm a tough guy, I don't back down from any fight and I'll always get the last blow in and use any weapon in a knife fight" - in other words, the mean-spirited kind of personal or character attack or focus is justified because the guy can't allow his phony self-esteem of himself as a "tough guy" or a "realist" to be punctured or to feel himself weak if he backs away [unlike DM's, I don't know this is in mainstream psychological literature, but Allan Blumenthal used to have list of frequent ones]. DV's are a form of DM.

All four of these are major causes of resistance to change in attitudes or behaviors that remain unmoved even when you know - or could let yourself know - that change is warranted.

Phil, I think you've done a great job here of explaining what's behind the small-mindedness and resistance to reality that is so often displayed by zealots like you, Pigero, Newberry, Comrade Sonia and Peikoff.

Are there other answers to the 'why' of resistance to casting aside small-mindedness? Or a better breakdown of causes? What can then be done?

I would add envy to the list. Insecurity/low self-esteem/mediocrity masquerading as self-confidence and moral righteousness. I think that many of the people in Objectivist circles who want to be seen as gurus, and who want to control others, are usually pretty lacking in abilities and accomplishments. I think they need to see themselves as real-life Roarks and Galts, and, since they're not -- since they can't produce at much more than a mediocre level -- their only option to keeping the fantasy alive is to tear down others. I think that's probably a big part of what you're all about, Phil. I think it's a big part of why Newberry needs to smear other artists and thinkers. I think it's a part of why Comrade Sonia needed to tear down Sciabarra. It's why Peikoff needed to get rid of people from Kelley to McCaskey.

Envy. You're envious of those who are better thinkers and producers.

J

[caroljane]

There are a number of phenomena which buttress resistance to change in this area:

1. emotional hardening --- the battle lines are drawn, nasty things have been said or done, one "sees red" when the other person or side is considered; seeing red prevents one from actually thinking objectively

2. excuses / rationalizations --- well, he deserves it; he got away with something else so exaggerate this; the other side needs to be destroyed or undercut so the ends justify the means; most people can't think so you have to get them emotionally against the other side; if i don't do it first, he will; nice guys finish last

3. subconscious defense mechanisms --- becoming hostile when challenged, covering fear or embarrassment or guilt or shame with counter-attack, displacement or deflection such as with humor or changing the topic, projection (no you hypocrite you are the one who has been doing the very thing you're criticizing)

4. defense values --- "I'm a tough guy, I don't back down from any fight and I'll always get the last blow in and use any weapon in a knife fight" - in other words, the mean-spirited kind of personal or character attack or focus is justified because the guy can't allow his phony self-esteem of himself as a "tough guy" or a "realist" to be punctured or to feel himself weak if he backs away [unlike DM's, I don't know this is in mainstream psychological literature, but Allan Blumenthal used to have list of frequent ones]. DV's are a form of DM.

All four of these are major causes of resistance to change in attitudes or behaviors that remain unmoved even when you know - or could let yourself know - that change is warranted.

Phil, I think you've done a great job here of explaining what's behind the small-mindedness and resistance to reality that is so often displayed by zealots like you, Pigero, Newberry, Comrade Sonia and Peikoff.

Are there other answers to the 'why' of resistance to casting aside small-mindedness? Or a better breakdown of causes? What can then be done?

I would add envy to the list. Insecurity/low self-esteem/mediocrity masquerading as self-confidence and moral righteousness. I think that many of the people in Objectivist circles who want to be seen as gurus, and who want to control others, are usually pretty lacking in abilities and accomplishments. I think they need to see themselves as real-life Roarks and Galts, and, since they're not -- since they can't produce at much more than a mediocre level -- their only option to keeping the fantasy alive is to tear down others. I think that's probably a big part of what you're all about, Phil. I think it's a big part of why Newberry needs to smear other artists and thinkers. I think it's a part of why Comrade Sonia needed to tear down Sciabarra. It's why Peikoff needed to get rid of people from Kelley to McCaskey.

Envy. You're envious of those who are better thinkers and producers.

J

Good point about envy, it can be a strong motivator. It is one of the sneakiest of emotions and hard to detect in others or even in oneself.

[Brant Gaede]

There are a number of phenomena which buttress resistance to change in this area:

1. emotional hardening --- the battle lines are drawn, nasty things have been said or done, one "sees red" when the other person or side is considered; seeing red prevents one from actually thinking objectively

2. excuses / rationalizations --- well, he deserves it; he got away with something else so exaggerate this; the other side needs to be destroyed or undercut so the ends justify the means; most people can't think so you have to get them emotionally against the other side; if i don't do it first, he will; nice guys finish last

3. subconscious defense mechanisms --- becoming hostile when challenged, covering fear or embarrassment or guilt or shame with counter-attack, displacement or deflection such as with humor or changing the topic, projection (no you hypocrite you are the one who has been doing the very thing you're criticizing)

4. defense values --- "I'm a tough guy, I don't back down from any fight and I'll always get the last blow in and use any weapon in a knife fight" - in other words, the mean-spirited kind of personal or character attack or focus is justified because the guy can't allow his phony self-esteem of himself as a "tough guy" or a "realist" to be punctured or to feel himself weak if he backs away [unlike DM's, I don't know this is in mainstream psychological literature, but Allan Blumenthal used to have list of frequent ones]. DV's are a form of DM.

All four of these are major causes of resistance to change in attitudes or behaviors that remain unmoved even when you know - or could let yourself know - that change is warranted.

Phil, I think you've done a great job here of explaining what's behind the small-mindedness and resistance to reality that is so often displayed by zealots like you, Pigero, Newberry, Comrade Sonia and Peikoff.

Are there other answers to the 'why' of resistance to casting aside small-mindedness? Or a better breakdown of causes? What can then be done?

I would add envy to the list. Insecurity/low self-esteem/mediocrity masquerading as self-confidence and moral righteousness. I think that many of the people in Objectivist circles who want to be seen as gurus, and who want to control others, are usually pretty lacking in abilities and accomplishments. I think they need to see themselves as real-life Roarks and Galts, and, since they're not -- since they can't produce at much more than a mediocre level -- their only option to keeping the fantasy alive is to tear down others. I think that's probably a big part of what you're all about, Phil. I think it's a big part of why Newberry needs to smear other artists and thinkers. I think it's a part of why Comrade Sonia needed to tear down Sciabarra. It's why Peikoff needed to get rid of people from Kelley to McCaskey.

Envy. You're envious of those who are better thinkers and producers.

J

Ping-ponging.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Instead of considering the validity of ideas we cannot sell we are to examine the psychology of those not converted with the implicit idea that humans are malleable and plastic enough that we merely have to act on them in different ways and they can thus be made better--or what--eliminated? Small-mindedness is merely relatively trite conceptualizations and integrations. So what? Chuck the Utopianism.

--Brant

[Peter]

Going to the John wrote:

It's why Peikoff needed to get rid of people from Kelley to McCaskey.

Envy. You're envious of those who are better thinkers and producers

end quote

Phil? Oh, he is a bit British, but you are wrong. He thinks of things that no one else discovers. He is unique.

Peter

[BaalChatzaf]

That, to me, is about as small-minded as it gets.

And I mean that literally. "Small" as in limiting--on purpose--the size of ones mind.

Does the human mind have a spatial extension to which a spatial adjective such as "large" or "small" can be applied?

The phrase "small minded" should be clearly labeled as idiomatic usage.

Ba'aL Chatzaf (literal minded --- idiomatic usage)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Look in any dictionary and you will find definitions of small that do not involve space. They talk about things like degree, outlook, importance, etc. I was clear in my use, that I was referring to the abstract contents of the human mind.

Try the English language as used. It works better than imposing arbitrary restrictions on it.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Using Occam’s razor, we might look for the simplest common denominator among the various causes described—anger, neurotic defense mechanisms, envy, low self-esteem, et al—and conclude that, putting it very simply, people tend to treat others badly when they are unhappy. Conversely, people tend to treat others more decently to the extent that they are happy.

As the problem of human material survival was more or less solved over the course of the last century—as the industrial revolution raised our standard of living to the point where all of our time and energy was not devoted to simple survival—human beings suddenly found themselves with more leisure time, and this free time naturally led people to become more aware of their overall quality of life. Whether consciously or unconsciously, people were confronted with the reality of their daily experience of life, and found that experience either positive or negative or somewhere in between.

Achieving happiness is a major challenge. Witness the amount of depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, divorce, domestic violence, inhuman brutality and sheer boredom that surrounds us every day. Happiness does not merely happen spontaneously when we no longer have to worry about where our next meal is coming from. There are certain objective requirements for happiness—e.g., having a productive purpose, love and intimacy, reasonable physical health, et. al. But most people rarely confront that issue in any sort of explicit manner. They assume they should be happy if they are able to live comfortably on the physical level. Or if they follow what society says you should do (get married, have a family, etc.) Alas, life is not so simple.

Few people choose to deal with the issue of achieving happiness in explicit terms, and, as a consequence, they aren’t happy. And they often compound their unhappiness by escaping into drugs, sexual promiscuity or any number of other forms of avoiding the knowledge of their own misery.

There is an enormous amount of unhappiness in the world, and people have become more aware of their own suffering in the past century under conditions of relative material abundance. When people are unhappy, they typically lack benevolence toward others. If you are miserable, you tend to lose the ability to treat other people decently. And so we have the widespread phenomenon of people taking out their unhappiness on others through various forms of attacking or belittling or insulting or otherwise malevolent behavior.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

Having been guilty of many of these things, I can say with 100% certainty that envy was not my motivation. I don't believe it was the motivation of the people you cite, either.

I can't think of any other phrase to cover the root motivation for the hostility (where you put envy) except conflict of faith-story.

When a person's faith-story is challenged in terms he cannot ignore, he either gets belligerent or he challenges the faith inside himself. And if he does that, it leads him to an internal crisis of the utmost importance--one that dwarfs everything else. I know this first-hand.

The faith-story is not just reason versus faith, which is an easy dichotomy to manipulate and rationalize without a person going deep into himself. The faith-story is a world-view that includes the creation story, the savior (or at least founder or leader), the jargon (and/or sacred-sounding words), the scapegoats, the symbols and icons, the creed, the rituals, sacred quests, a whole package like that. And the fundamental belief that this package is the best thing for the entire world, which here means the rest of humanity.

When someone shows a believer that the world can be just fine without his faith-story, his self-image, which he has put into that package as where he belongs, loses its place in the universe. He no longer has a bigger picture that he is part of.

To be blunt, that's some heavy shit.

But that doesn't have anything to do with envy (I'll give you that envy might be present in the mix in some people, but it's not fundamental). I want to say it has more to do with fear, but I think it goes even deeper than that.

Michael

EDIT: On reflection, I just realized that there is another component to the faith-story. A person who adopts it is always among the Privileged Ones in his mind as compared to the rest of humanity. He considers himself as a superior being to others who are not like him. This might be a form of vanity or conceit, but once again, it cuts so deep that I think it goes beyond this kind of superficial emotion.

[Brant Gaede]

So, Michael, do you think Ayn Rand went to the max possible for her in protecting her own "faith-story"?

--Brant

I do--and it's still a damn shame

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So, Michael, do you think Ayn Rand went to the max possible for her in protecting her "faith-story"?

--Brant

I do--and it's still a damn shame

Brant,

Atlas Shrugged was certainly a fictional faith-story in the sense I said. It has the whole shebang from beginning to end.

It would have been (and still is) a great symbolic replacement for more flawed faith-stories. It meets a deep human need for these stories, but keeps it abstract--so long as it is treated as art. Unfortunately, it looks like Rand and many of those who came after her tried to actually live it. (I know I did.) And there's the inevitable deification of the creator. Instead of treating John Galt as mankind's savior like in the book, many now put Rand in that role.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I was thinking of her attitude toward friends and students of Objectivism and her Objectivism-will-destroy-you if you're half-assed about it or don't keep taking it in hook, line and sinker after once taking embracing it. The philosophy as "its own avenger" was the way she put it describing her break with Nathaniel Branden.

--Brant

agree with what you wrote, however

[william.scherk]

I shall approach the issues raised by the originating poster in his post upthread titled Small-Mindedness (on page one of this thread) by editing and revising that post.

>One of the most depressing things about our culture is the relentless small-mindedness of the debates and of the kinds of issues that are discussed in public. narrow outlook; petty

I feel depressed when I read petty comments and the narrow outlook of debates within and without the 'Objective-ist' communities. For example, here some comments ** that highlight what I mean by petty or even small-minded, comments that exemplify the illiberal, narrow minded and prejudiced arguments and statements that bring on the depression.

[follows examples, with either links or references to time and place. The examples enrich the discussion by providing both context and real-life instances of the OT's concerns]

>It is actually the intellectuals (in politics, particularly the "commentariat")who are largely responsible for this focus. Right now more attention is given to the personalities and marital histories of those competing for the Republican nomination than to the arguments and evidence for their positions.

Here's another example of what I see as misplaced focus: In the race for the Republican presidential nomination, we see so-called intellectuals among media political commentariat saying such things as this:

[follows three examples of comments and statements from supposedly intellectual debates on the Republican race. One comments on Newt Gingrich's marital history, one on Michelle Bachman's husband as First Gentleman (with insinuations that he is a flaming queen), the third list on-air bits and editorial one-liners that betray a smutty, illiberal, gutter-level discourse about Huntsman (weak), Romney (Mormon), Bachman (crazy like Christine O'Donnell), etcetera]

I remember a few years ago, there was a nationally-televised Presidential debate in which the questions came from the audience, from the public not from the Dan Rather-Diane Sawyer-George Stephanopolous types. What struck everyone, including the candidates, was that the man on the streetfocused on issues, on what was wrong with the country and what should be done. He didn't focus on personalities or on 'gotcha' type questions, trying to embarrass or pursue the latest scandal.

Remember the [i looked up the famous debate that I remembered and filled in the details DATE, PLACE, PARTICIPANTS of the debate I had in mind as a great example] the questions put to the candidates by citizens themselves? Remember how the questions were not about personalities at all? Remember there were no scandal-du-jour "gotcha" questions? Here's a passage [i used the easy Youtube code to select a start point in the debate video that I found for my punchiest illustration, and then used the [media tags] to insert it:

[pithy exchange between JOE PUBLIC and surprised CANDIDATES that perfectly exemplifies the no-bullshit To The Issues, Sir tone that I believe is the opposite to crotch-sniffing doggy-style reporting of politics - ED the Editor]

>small-minded [dictionary]---> "marked by pettiness, narrowness, or meanness <small–minded conduct>"But a small-minded focus is not something we see only in politics. Scientific and academic debates often turn into personal squabbles. The discussion of biographies of important figures tends to be not on their achievements or ideas, but on their personal quirks or feet of clay. Was Steve Jobs a bossy tyrant? Was Newton a religious nut? Did Ayn Rand have an extramarital affair?One of the biggest advantages Objectivism has as a philosophical system was the focus on issues, on ideas not on isolated individual personalities. More on what people could be at their best and a lot less on NIxonian "enemies lists." That has been refreshing and inspiring to people starving for something higher and more noble than gossip. But, the problem is the danger of slipping back into battles between individuals. (Even people who have absorbed a philosophy of reason can slip backinto habits acquired long before they became mature thinkers or philosophically-committed.)That is why Peikoff's "Fact and Value" was such a fateful and influential wrong turn two decades ago. Ostensively, a philosophical piece about an abstract epistemological and ethical issue, it was heavily directed at sliming and discrediting one man within the Objectivist philosophical movement. And everyone who thinks like him. And, of course, that became polarizing. Instead of discussing ideas, people tended to line up as Kelley-ites and anti-Kelley-ites. This should never have happened. People have also lined up on whether or not they have a positive or negative view of Ayn Rand's personal life. As if that were a metaphor for being open or closed, tolerant or intolerant.And it has only gotten worse. With the ease of being heard and the lack of adult supervision, an entire generation now has found all sorts of other personal conflicts to air publicly and to try to vilify and humiliate their personal enemies. I used to think there was too much incivility or personal gossip or grudges on the old OWL list. The it got a bit worse sometimes on the Atlantis list. But then, in another turning point and with thier own websites as megaphones, two very small and vindictive minds, Diana Hsieh and Lindsay Perigo began to repeatedly push this to another level.Sensing that it was a new low, only about five years ago I spent a lot of time pointing out what was wrong with DH's personal campaign to attack Chris Sciabarra, an unprecedented campaign of focusing solely on attacks one decent person. (DH was a big step below "Fact and Value" because that was, agree or disagree, to a significant extent about epistemology and ethics and what constituted good Objectivist practice; it wasn't solely about attacking the actions of Kelley, but largely what Peikoff thought to be his basic ideas.) Lindsay Perigo expanded on D.H. by attacking -everybody- and by discarding the intellectual language of Diana H. And simply using biliousness, ridicule and insult instead. Not even pretended overly much to be an intellectual but more of a self-proclaimed "rabble" rouser.The result now, is that it has spread to all sorts of websites or forums. Peikoff, then Hsieh, then Perigo are imitated on every side in the Oist "public discussions". The generation-long trend had already long ago ripped apart or knifed in the cradle campus clubs, community clubs, summer conferences. Oists focusing on "what side are you on" within movement issues. That's the first kneejerk thought, too often. Much more than a focus on the ideas they have in common or what can be done to implement them. The people who want to have a serious discussion are ignored and bad money drives out good, and they often just stop participating or leave. It doesn't take very long for a serious thread to degenerate into tong warfare, into people who get angry at a false view to call their opponents dishonest, evaders, hypocrites, scum and to use gutter language when they can't or don't have time to mount an argument. The victim fires back in angry and personal terms. And the outraged aggressor escalates and repeats his attacks. And the hostilities get carried over and never forgotten.Magnanimity and thoughtfulness and intellectual seriousnessare the first things that get lost. First in our wider culture among the intellecutals, journalists, biographers, politicians, etc. and more recently -- in imitation -- in the more loudmouthed and assertive of Objectivist circles.,,,,,,,,,,PS, My guess is this post will simply become the vehicle for renewed personal attacks. Rather than a focus on the ideas involve.. an

And that's why led to my lovely, timeless aside to Ellen, "you cunt"! It isn:t my fault. It is all the bad behaviour I have been driven iatto by Degeneration and Other People.

Edited December 19, 2011 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

Using Occam’s razor, we might look for the simplest common denominator among the various causes described—anger, neurotic defense mechanisms, envy, low self-esteem, et al—and conclude that, putting it very simply, people tend to treat others badly when they are unhappy. Conversely, people tend to treat others more decently to the extent that they are happy.

As the problem of human material survival was more or less solved over the course of the last century—as the industrial revolution raised our standard of living to the point where all of our time and energy was not devoted to simple survival—human beings suddenly found themselves with more leisure time, and this free time naturally led people to become more aware of their overall quality of life. Whether consciously or unconsciously, people were confronted with the reality of their daily experience of life, and found that experience either positive or negative or somewhere in between.

Achieving happiness is a major challenge. Witness the amount of depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, divorce, domestic violence, inhuman brutality and sheer boredom that surrounds us every day. Happiness does not merely happen spontaneously when we no longer have to worry about where our next meal is coming from. There are certain objective requirements for happiness—e.g., having a productive purpose, love and intimacy, reasonable physical health, et. al. But most people rarely confront that issue in any sort of explicit manner. They assume they should be happy if they are able to live comfortably on the physical level. Or if they follow what society says you should do (get married, have a family, etc.) Alas, life is not so simple.

Few people choose to deal with the issue of achieving happiness in explicit terms, and, as a consequence, they aren’t happy. And they often compound their unhappiness by escaping into drugs, sexual promiscuity or any number of other forms of avoiding the knowledge of their own misery.

There is an enormous amount of unhappiness in the world, and people have become more aware of their own suffering in the past century under conditions of relative material abundance. When people are unhappy, they typically lack benevolence toward others. If you are miserable, you tend to lose the ability to treat other people decently. And so we have the widespread phenomenon of people taking out their unhappiness on others through various forms of attacking or belittling or insulting or otherwise malevolent behavior.

This rings very true.

I have been mainly lucky and therefore happy in my life, yet at times when I had a minor ache or pain, or just felt wildly irritated for nor reason, I have been rude or offensive to others. It had nothing to do with them. I didn't envy them, hate their philosophy, feel threatened by them or usually even know them as they were complete strangers. I was just hurting and needed to lash out and be mean.

Depression is even worse. You feel so unconnected with normal people, so inferior and unworthy even to be seen by them, that you spend most of your time trying to avoid human contact.

If misery is constant so will be incivility and anti-socialism. In a bad sense, Objectivists!

[Philip Coates]

Dennis, your post #41 is really excellent. And in many ways:

1. You identify a deeper psychological cause that frequently motivates some of the more immediate causes of small-mindedness. 2. You make some really important points economically and powerfully {{ e.g., "When people are unhappy, they typically lack benevolence toward others. If you are miserable, you tend to lose the ability to treat other people decently", the general points you make about happiness and unhappiness in the culture, etc.}} 3. You cover a lot of thought-provoking ground. {I'll try to expand on points I agree with and also explain some small disagreements in a later post.} 4. Your writing is clear and simple 'abstractly' with enough examples to be understood.

,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Aside - On another thread I've made a point urging providing substantive *feedback*: I find giving feedback like this is in my self-interest. It's not 'charity' to praise someone for doing something well here. i) It puts a little spotlight of sunlight on that sort of thing or underscores it in my own mind, ii) makes it more important than things which don't rise to that. iii) It encourages me to effort myself. iv) And it allows me to underscore some 'tips' or examples of when something philosophical or psychological, areas of interest in my own writing, are well-expressed. You create the reality you offer feedback on.

Feedback on, being a critic of a bad post also has selfish value, but it is usually of a lesser level because it doesn't reach all of those four roman-numeraled results.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... agree with what you wrote, however

Brant,

I am going to antagonize some people with this, but what the hell.

From all the screaming I have observed from scientists, I believe some of the most inflexible and irrational faith-stories I have ever witnessed come from that quarter. Some of that stuff gets weirder than Candomblé at its most primitive uga-uga.

Wouldn't it be great if philosophy were treated solely as a body of ideas about the fundamental nature of the universe and man from the top down, and science treated solely as specialized knowledge and inquiries into isolated parts of the universe from the bottom up?

But that's not to be. Not in my lifetime...

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

There is an enormous amount of unhappiness in the world, and people have become more aware of their own suffering in the past century under conditions of relative material abundance. When people are unhappy, they typically lack benevolence toward others. If you are miserable, you tend to lose the ability to treat other people decently. And so we have the widespread phenomenon of people taking out their unhappiness on others through various forms of attacking or belittling or insulting or otherwise malevolent behavior.

This rings very true.

I have been mainly lucky and therefore happy in my life, yet at times when I had a minor ache or pain, or just felt wildly irritated for nor reason, I have been rude or offensive to others. It had nothing to do with them. I didn't envy them, hate their philosophy, feel threatened by them or usually even know them as they were complete strangers. I was just hurting and needed to lash out and be mean.

Depression is even worse. You feel so unconnected with normal people, so inferior and unworthy even to be seen by them, that you spend most of your time trying to avoid human contact.

If misery is constant so will be incivility and anti-socialism. In a bad sense, Objectivists!

Good insight, Daunce. Your observations coincide with mine.

Conservative talk radio host Dennis Prager wrote a book titled Happiness Is A Serious Problem in which he argues that people have a moral obligation to be happy in order to be make the world a better place. Objectivists would say that our moral obligation is to ourselves—i.e., that each of us has the moral responsibility to make the most of the value that is your own life, and that the emotional state of happiness is the consequence of achieving that value. Objectivists would say that benevolence toward others is a by-product rather than the goal. But either way you look at it, I think we could argue that happiness and benevolence are moral issues.

And when I witness a malevolent pattern in others (e.g., the way some posters routinely mock certain other posters on OL), I tend to conclude that the ones doing the mockery are likely making a confession they would not care to see examined in the clear, remorseless light of day.