Dean Gores' Old RoR Bet

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] Rand's comments on [one's] inability to know others' senses of life, and her condemnation of the act of attempting to do so as psychologizing.

Where do you get the second part of that (condemnation as psychologizing)?

Ellen

[deanwins]

PDS, I share your prejudice towards anything that has "quantum" in it. I think it originally meant that some things have been measured to be shown existing in discrete (as in discrete math) amounts verses continuous. Beyond that, I think its just a buzzword that some people plug in. Like "cloud" computing. But in the case of "quantum", I think this buzzword is often purposefully made to mean "it behaves in ways that are not understandable!"

[Ellen Stuttle]

Soon we'll be five men and one woman talking to each other with few others reading it.

--Brant

might be that way already

Does that mean you consider two of the women currently posting not actually women? (Here, have a cigar.)

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

The point was to share a laugh over the massive overreach and unreality of Objectivish hubris. Remember that humor is "the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at." It's a "snooty, very well dressed dowager walking down the street, and then she slips on a banana peel." What's funny about it is "the contrast of the womans pretensions to reality."

See, it's an Objectivist virtue. Why are people upset about it?

You all seem to be saying that I should feel sorry for the lady, not laugh at her, show her some kindness despite her snootiness, and help her up. Does that apply to all snooty dowagers, or only to Objectivist snooty dowagers?

J

"Objectivish hubris," "Objectivist snooty dowagers." How you generalize. Dean is and was an individual person. Why bring "Objectivish" into it?

I think that what people are saying is that maybe a bit of charity to youthful excess is in order.

Btw, I don't find the sight of a "snooty dowager," or anyone, slipping on a banana peel funny.

Ellen

[PDS]

I have never seen a single dowager my entire life, let alone one snooty or in the vicinity of a banana peel.

And, having read the first half of Great Expectations at an early age, I won't deny that I was on the lookout for one for quite some time.

[Brant Gaede]

Soon we'll be five men and one woman talking to each other with few others reading it.

--Brant

might be that way already

Does that mean you consider two of the women currently posting not actually women? (Here, have a cigar.)

Ellen

Now, now. I did say "soon." (Shall I switch to geologic time?)

I didn't understand that the thread was started before Dean showed up, so I now bless this thread's genesis in its moral essentiality. I can see Jonathan brings out the best in people (but not in me, alas).

No, I don't miss Phil, but I recently read one of his posts on RofR that's nearly ten years old. It was much better than the crap he ended up posting here.

--Brant

pompous in my own way, heh!--but I stopped being a prick in 1973 (so I was told), but I can still be one if I want to counter animadversion upon the weak and innocent (I mean me)

[Jonathan]

Then why should Merlin have had formal education in Kant before he's qualified to make assessments of Kant's philosophy? Unless you're disqualifying yourself, because you lack formal education in Kant, as well as Merlin, from being qualified.

Ellen

I haven't claimed or even suggested that one needs to have a formal education before being qualified to assess Kant. The only thing that I've claimed is that I suspected, from reading Merlin's views on Kant, that he had never had formal education in Kant, or had the chance to discuss Kant with non-objectivist experts on Kant. Merlin confirmed my suspicions. That is all. I've made no condemnations or denouncements of Merlin. In fact, I recognized that he doesn't toe the Objectivist line when it comes to Kant. There were just some little aspects of his article on Kant which gave me the hunch that he hadn't had the opportunity, via formal education, to be disabused of all of Rand's mistakes about Kant. Confirming or refuting that hunch was my only motive for asking Merlin about his educational background.

J

[Jonathan]

[...] Rand's comments on [one's] inability to know others' senses of life, and her condemnation of the act of attempting to do so as psychologizing.

Where do you get the second part of that (condemnation as psychologizing)?

Ellen

Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A:

"t is of course impossible to name the sense of life of fictional characters. You might name the sense of life of your closest friend – though I doubt it. You may, after some years, know the sense of life of the person you love, but nobody beyond that. You cannot ~judge~ the sense of life of another person; that would be psychologizing." (Philosophy of Objectivism, Lecture 12, 1976)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just had to look up dowager.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I have never seen a single dowager my entire life, let alone one snooty or in the vicinity of a banana peel.

And, having read the first half of Great Expectations at an early age, I won't deny that I was on the lookout for one for quite some time.

Are you a Downton Abbey fan? The Dowager Countess (Maggie Smith) is beyond snooty and pretentious, yet I don't want her to fall since she is often the banana peel on which others deservingly slip.

J

[Jonathan]

"Objectivish hubris," "Objectivist snooty dowagers." How you generalize. Dean is and was an individual person. Why bring "Objectivish" into it?

Because Dean's Objectivishism is the reason that he's being pitied. I wouldn't be hearing a peep from the same people if I were mocking exactly the same behavior committed by a leftist/statist/altruist.

I think that what people are saying is that maybe a bit of charity to youthful excess is in order.

I understand. And my point is that the request for charity is not consistent with Objectivism. The people here who are objecting to my treatment of Dean are upset with me for practicing Objectivist virtues.

Anyway, when does charity to youthful excess expire? At what age?

My view is that during the past decade, way too much charity has been granted to youthful excesses in O-land. I think It perpetuates their toddlerhood, and renders them pretty useless out there in the real world of ideas.

J

[Mikee]

"Objectivish hubris," "Objectivist snooty dowagers." How you generalize. Dean is and was an individual person. Why bring "Objectivish" into it?

Because Dean's Objectivishism is the reason that he's being pitied. I wouldn't be hearing a peep from the same people if I were mocking exactly the same behavior committed by a leftist/statist/altruist.

I think that what people are saying is that maybe a bit of charity to youthful excess is in order.

I understand. And my point is that the request for charity is not consistent with Objectivism. The people here who are objecting to my treatment of Dean are upset with me for practicing Objectivist virtues.

Anyway, when does charity to youthful excess expire? At what age?

My view is that during the past decade, way too much charity has been granted to youthful excesses in O-land. I think It perpetuates their toddlerhood, and renders them pretty useless out there in the real world of ideas.

J

Dean is certainly not being pitied. You just go on and on. Rand was first and foremost an individualist. An individual comes along not to your liking, you attack him even though it's clear Dean would not practice aggression on anyone. There is such a thing as justice and fairness, you don't practice either of these objectivist virtues. You offend me, I certainly don't feel sorry for Dean. I ask again, be honest, what is it you really have against Dean? Don't hide behind Ayn Rand's skirt.

[Jonathan]

Dean is certainly not being pitied. You just go on and on. Rand was first and foremost an individualist. An individual comes along not to your liking, you attack him even though it's clear Dean would not practice aggression on anyone.

Where'd you come up with that psychologizing bullshit? Who said anything about Dean practicing aggression on anyone? WTF?

Dean is not bring attacked for his individualism or because he's not liked. He's not being attacked for being the hero or idol or whatever you imagine him to be. Set aside your emotions and reread the thread. Dean is not being mocked for any virtues, but for his disconnection from reality on the issue of solving the mysteries of the universe.

There is such a thing as justice and fairness, you don't practice either of these objectivist virtues. You offend me, I certainly don't feel sorry for Dean. I ask again, be honest, what is it you really have against Dean? Don't hide behind Ayn Rand's skirt.

What are your concepts of justice and fairness? Obviously you disagree with Objectivism's notions of justice and fairness since you try to denigrade my practicing Objectivist justice and fairness as "hiding behind Rand's skirt." So, let's hear your anti-Objectivist alternatives.

It would also be nice if you would address my earlier comments about your double standard of admiring Dean's overconfidence yet being enraged by my very reasonable level of confidence. From here, it looks like you're just hopelessly tangled up in emotionalism. You can't stick to your own beliefs within the same thread. Please explain which of your two contradictory positions you actually believe.

J

[Mikee]

Where the fuck do get that Dean is anybody's hero or idol? You live in a fantasy of your own creation completely devoid of reality. Stop hiding behind your objectivist gibberish. This isn't that complicated, in fact it's pretty obvious. What do you have against Dean? Or are you insane? I will not address you nonsense comment about Deans relative confidence compared to anyones. Totally beside the point and unknowable. You obfuscate like the master of obfuscation your are. The only confidence you are justified in having is your ability to bullshit and throw insults and avoid direct questions until your "opponents" leave the field in disgust. Then I suppose you congratulate yourself on another "win". A legend in your own mind?

[Guyau]

Jonathon: . . . charity is not consistent with Objectivism. . . .

That is a regular Christian caricature of the Objectivist ethics, not the Objectivist ethics. I reject Rand's egoist theory for justice and charity, but it is a false representation of that theory to say simply it boots charity.

[Francisco Ferrer]

From the Playboy interview: Ayn Rand on charity:

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

We may, of course, be talking about something here other than providing aid to the needy. The specific issue here may be about delivering moral judgments.

[Selene]

I just had to look up dowager.

Michael

In loose popular usage, dowager as a stand-alone noun may be used to refer to any elderly widow, especially one who is wealthy or behaves with dignity.

Except for the "dignity" part, it defines John Kerry's dating sites...

[Brant Gaede]

Dean is not bring attacked for his individualism or because he's not liked. He's not being attacked for being the hero or idol or whatever you imagine him to be. Set aside your emotions and reread the thread. Dean is not being mocked for any virtues, but for his disconnection from reality on the issue of solving the mysteries of the universe.

Well, is the problem this or complaining about it? There's no harm I can see in being this way on that stuff. The implication is being so disconnected gets in the way of solving these mysteries. We are not talking about the validity of AGW or Austrian vs Keynesian economics, but the role of play and exploration in cognition if not creation.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

"Objectivish hubris," "Objectivist snooty dowagers." How you generalize. Dean is and was an individual person. Why bring "Objectivish" into it?

Because Dean's Objectivishism is the reason that he's being pitied. I wouldn't be hearing a peep from the same people if I were mocking exactly the same behavior committed by a leftist/statist/altruist.

I think that what people are saying is that maybe a bit of charity to youthful excess is in order.

I understand. And my point is that the request for charity is not consistent with Objectivism. The people here who are objecting to my treatment of Dean are upset with me for practicing Objectivist virtues.

Anyway, when does charity to youthful excess expire? At what age?

My view is that during the past decade, way too much charity has been granted to youthful excesses in O-land. I think It perpetuates their toddlerhood, and renders them pretty useless out there in the real world of ideas.

Okay, Daddy-O.

--Brant

but I'm afraid it isn't youthful but elder excess

[Guyau]

Regarding ##21, 23, 45, 46, 48, 57

Here is Kant in my journal Objectivity:

Kant, Immanuel

Causality V1N3 30, 35, V1N4 24, V2N1 133–34, V2N2 75–77, V2N4 102, V2N5 21–24; Compatibilism V2N3 84–85; Concepts V1N1 13, V1N3 62, V1N4 24, V2N1 132–34, V2N2 73, 75–77; Cosmology V2N3 61, V2N5 7, 27–29; Esthetics V1N3 65–66, 69–70; Idealism V1N2 13, V1N3 41, 45, 62–65, 81, V1N4 24, V2N2 75–78, V2N3 84–85, V2N5 17–19; Knowledge V1N1 11, V1N2 10–13, V1N3 61–65, 70, 80, V1N4 22–25, V1N5 119, V1N6 60–61, 77, 94, V2N1 116, 132–35, V2N2 3–6, 73–81, 97–99, V2N4 2, 102–3, 195–96, V2N5 9–11, 13–14, 16, 18–21, V2N6 149, 162–63; Mathematics V1N1 11, V1N2 10–13, 16, 28, V1N3 63–64, V1N6 60–61, V2N2 4, 80, V2N4 102–3, V2N5 9–10, 14–16, 19–21; Metaphysics V2N5 1–3, 5–6, 12–13, 18–25; Morals V2N5 96, 98, 113, 115, 131, 133, 137; Physics V2N5 1–3, 5–12, 18–29; Space V1N2 10–13, V1N3 64, V1N4 24, V2N1 133, V2N2 75–77, V2N4 102–3, V2N5 1–3, 6–20, 26–29, V2N6 162–63

Two decades ago, while making this journal, Merlin and I studied a lot of the great philosophers together. One of them was Kant, particularly in his Critique of Pure Reason. I was introduced to that work by a graduate seminar on it, which I had taken my senior year in college (1971). Like me Merlin proved capable of studying Kant’s texts for himself through the years, as well as studying commentaries on Kant’s works and studying other scholarly works about Kant’s philosophy. Merlin’s sources of information in his writings about Kant are given in the citations in his Objectivity essays. They do not include Rand or Peikoff.

Merlin’s picture of Kant’s philosophy is not entirely coincident with my own. But neither of us had to wait at the knee of Ms. Rand or Dr. Peikoff to form our understanding of Kant. We did no such thing.

Also should be dropped: any presumption that the views of Rand and Peikoff about Kant’s philosophy are original with them in their substance. Peikoff and other scholarly kids in Rand’s circle were able to read the generations of commentary on Kant, just like Merlin or me.

That you, Jonathon, have studied some of Critique of Judgment and some of Guyer concerning it is commendable. Merlin is well known to be a scholarly writer, meticulous in his citations, and an independent thinker. He deserves respect and commendation for his scholarship, including his looking to original sources. He deserved no suspicion of ignorant reliance upon Rand or associates for his views of Kant’s philosophy.

[merjet]

Thank you, Stephen. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[Jonathan]

Where the fuck do get that Dean is anybody's hero or idol? You live in a fantasy of your own creation completely devoid of reality. Stop hiding behind your objectivist gibberish. This isn't that complicated, in fact it's pretty obvious. What do you have against Dean? Or are you insane?

I answered your question. Here's the answer once again:

"Dean is not bring attacked for his individualism or because he's not liked. He's not being attacked for being the hero or idol or whatever you imagine him to be. Set aside your emotions and reread the thread. Dean is not being mocked for any virtues, but for his disconnection from reality on the issue of solving the mysteries of the universe."

I'll repeat that last part once again:

"Dean is not being mocked for any virtues, but for his disconnection from reality on the issue of solving the mysteries of the universe."

I will not address you nonsense comment about Deans relative confidence compared to anyones.

I didn't ask about Dean's relative confidence compared to anyone else's. I asked about your practicing blatantly contradictory double standards in your judgments of others' confidence.

Totally beside the point and unknowable. You obfuscate like the master of obfuscation your are. The only confidence you are justified in having is your ability to bullshit and throw insults and avoid direct questions until your "opponents" leave the field in disgust. Then I suppose you congratulate yourself on another "win". A legend in your own mind?

I think you should consider stepping away from the discussion until the time that you can post some intelligent substance rather than just raw anger, psychologizing and self-contradictions.

J

[Jonathan]

That you, Jonathon, have studied some of Critique of Judgment and some of Guyer concerning it is commendable. Merlin is well known to be a scholarly writer, meticulous in his citations, and an independent thinker. He deserves respect and commendation for his scholarship, including his looking to original sources. He deserved no suspicion of ignorant reliance upon Rand or associates for his views of Kant’s philosophy.

Stephon,

I offered no suspicion that Merlin had an ignorant reliance on Rand. Are you lying, Stephon, or just incapable of reading comprehension? All that I offered was the suspicion that Merlin had not studied Kant formally. He confirmed my suspicion.

Jonathan

[merjet]

I offered no suspicion that Merlin had an ignorant reliance on Rand. Are you lying, Stephon, or just incapable of reading comprehension? All that I offered was the suspicion that Merlin had not studied Kant formally. He confirmed my suspicion.

No, that wasn't all you offered. You also said, "you also don't seem to realize yet how badly Objectivists have misunderstood and misrepresented Kant, and how your own view of him is still being distorted by looking at him through a Randian lens" (link).

[Brant Gaede]

I offered no suspicion that Merlin had an ignorant reliance on Rand. Are you lying, Stephon, or just incapable of reading comprehension? All that I offered was the suspicion that Merlin had not studied Kant formally. He confirmed my suspicion.

No, that wasn't all you offered. You also said, "you also don't seem to realize yet how badly Objectivists have misunderstood and misrepresented Kant, and how your own view of him is still being distorted by looking at him through a Randian lens" (link).

Gee, has anyone ever studied "Objectivism" "formally"? Chris Sciabarra? But who formally taught him?

Who formally taught Ben Franklin to be a great scientist?

Does this statement open the backdoor to credentialism for people sick of credentialism all over the damn place, especially in the professions, in that they don't know or recognize it so they can choke down another dose?

Considering all the crap that is taught formally in college Liberal Arts, aren't credentials actually anti-credentials?

--Brant

everyone has distorting and filtering lenses which is why real hard thinking is necessary: Randian lenses are generally superior lenses, but there are problems; there always are problems