Dean Gores' Old RoR Bet

[Jonathan]

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).

Yes, I said that your view was distorted by Rand's influence. That's quite mild compared to Stovphon's lie that I accused you of "ignorant reliance."

The elephant in the room is the fact that I detected your lack of formal education, and your lack of exposure to direct feedback from non-Objectivist experts on Kant. How do you imagine that I did that?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Kant through Objectivism (Rand) = crap.

--Brant

work off that, if you agree; I do--if you disagree, you can still work off that just know what you're working off of behind the word(s)

[PDS]

If the mysteries of the universe can indeed be explained by Dean, does it matter what Kant said or which lens we are using to view Kant's attempt at same?

If so, that I would suggest that Dean give us a brief overview of same and we start chewing on that.

My hunch is that Dean--although he looks damn sharp in a tux--has not yet actually figured out the mysteries of the universe.

[Guyau]

Jonathan (#76): "I detected your lack . . . and your lack . . . . How do you imagine I did that?''

From the pattern that is Jonathan's contribution, not much imagination is required.

[Jonathan]

If the mysteries of the universe can indeed be explained by Dean, does it matter what Kant said or which lens we are using to view Kant's attempt at same?

If so, that I would suggest that Dean give us a brief overview of same and we start chewing on that.

My hunch is that Dean--although he looks damn sharp in a tux--has not yet actually figured out the mysteries of the universe.

Oh my God!!! Why are you being so disrespectful of Dean?!!! Fuck you! He deserves respect because he's well know for being deserving of respect! Why do you fucking hate him and want to kill him? What's he ever done to you? You're just a vicious fucking fuckerly fucker!!!

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan (#76): "I detected your lack . . . and your lack . . . . How do you imagine I did that?''

From the pattern that is Jonathan's contribution, not much imagination is required.

Let's hear it, Stephon. What pattern do you think you've detected? Is your detecting patterns as disrespectful as you claim mine to be? I've successfully demonstrated the accuracy of my detection. Let's see you do the same.

J

[PDS]

If the mysteries of the universe can indeed be explained by Dean, does it matter what Kant said or which lens we are using to view Kant's attempt at same?

If so, that I would suggest that Dean give us a brief overview of same and we start chewing on that.

My hunch is that Dean--although he looks damn sharp in a tux--has not yet actually figured out the mysteries of the universe.

Oh my God!!! Why are you being so disrespectful of Dean?!!! Fuck you! He deserves respect because he's well know for being deserving of respect! Why do you fucking hate him and want to kill him? What's he ever done to you? You're just a vicious fucking fuckerly fucker!!!

J

I shall call your hyperbole and raise the bet: if with my understatement I've underestimated Dean, he will understand.*

*Winning through alliteration, one trilogy at a time.

Is anybody holding any metanoia in their hand?

[Guyau]

.

Why Stephon? And a second time. Now there's a bit of a mystery.

. . .

[Ellen Stuttle]

.

Why Stephon? And a second time. Now there's a bit of a mystery.

From this typo:

That you, Jonathon, [...].

Also from here, which I hadn't noticed yet when I referenced the instance above:

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

Ellen

Edited January 23, 2014 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

The elephant in the room is the fact that I detected your lack of formal education, and your lack of exposure to direct feedback from non-Objectivist experts on Kant. How do you imagine that I did that?

J

Edit: You did have the indicated option in the original post - link.

Now you've added "lack of exposure to direct feedback from non-Objectivist experts on Kant," which lets you off the hook of not having any formal education on Kant yourself, since you have "direct feedback" from one non-Objectivist person you consider an expert on Kant. Are you qualified to judge who's actually an expert on Kant? Are you aware that Kant scholars have disagreements amongst themselves on interpretation - and have had since Kant's own day?

The wording "direct feedback" also lets you skirt Merlin's saying that he's read books on Kant. Feedback has to be "direct," or it isn't qualifying?

Have you read books on Kant?

Ellen

Edited January 23, 2014 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

"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.

That certainly isn't true in my case, as I know from actual experience of personally having known some youngsters of geek proclivities of whom Dean reminded me from back when I was still reading RoR.

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.

Who among the people criticizing is concerned with whether his/her views are consistent with Objectivism?

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

The mocking with which you started this thread was over something Dean said some years ago.

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.

Again, so what regarding the persons responding to you here?

Ellen

[merjet]

The wording "direct feedback" also lets you skirt Merlin's saying that he's read books on Kant. Feedback has to be "direct," or it isn't qualifying?

By Kant, too. Relevant to my article on RoR - Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

[Brant Gaede]

Goody, goody. A food fight! Without Phil, they can be fun!

--Brant

[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

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)

She isn't calling attempting to know someone's sense of life "psychologizing"; she's calling judging someone's sense of life "psychologizing."

As you've pointed out other places, of course, her statement you quoted is at variance with her own long previous history of both claiming to know and judging people's, especially artists', senses of life.

I don't recall if you've ever pointed out, but I know that I have, that her "psychologizing" article is atrocious.

Ellen

[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

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

You added - your below-your-name line - "might be that way already."

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Why Stephon? And a second time. Now there's a bit of a mystery.

Thick.

No, Jonathan. You have never fooled anyone.

You're claiming to speak for everyone, and also to know that my motive is to fool people? Heh. What do you imagine that I'm trying to fool them about? What evil tricks do you believe that I'm up to?

The tone and purpose you have spread has been no mystery.

What are the tone and purpose? Specifically. Why not name them if they're not a mystery? Please do explain my motives.

J

[Guyau]

#84

Thanks, Ellen. Got it: Jonathan (sorry for the misspelling).

[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?)

You added - your below-your-name line - "might be that way already."

Ellen

Now, now. I did say "might."

--Brant

squirm, squirm, squirm

[Brant Gaede]

[...] 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)

She isn't calling attempting to know someone's sense of life "psychologizing"; she's calling judging someone's sense of life "psychologizing."

As you've pointed out other places, of course, her statement you quoted is at variance with her own long previous history of both claiming to know and judging people's, especially artists', senses of life.

I don't recall if you've ever pointed out, but I know that I have, that her "psychologizing" article is atrocious.

Ellen

Rand's ability to write cogent, powerful prose tended to obscure the quality of what she was saying when it failed to match up.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

The elephant in the room is the fact that I detected your lack of formal education, and your lack of exposure to direct feedback from non-Objectivist experts on Kant. How do you imagine that I did that?

J

Edit: You did have the indicated option in the original post - link.

Now you've added "lack of exposure to direct feedback from non-Objectivist experts on Kant," which lets you off the hook of not having any formal education on Kant yourself, since you have "direct feedback" from one non-Objectivist person you consider an expert on Kant.

This was the original post. From the beginning I was asking about feedback and guidance from non-Objectivist experts on Kant. It is not something that I've just now added.

Are you qualified to judge who's actually an expert on Kant? Are you aware that Kant scholars have disagreements amongst themselves on interpretation - and have had since Kant's own day?

The wording "direct feedback" also lets you skirt Merlin's saying that he's read books on Kant. Feedback has to be "direct," or it isn't qualifying?

I'm not skirting anything. You appear to be reading motives into my posts which aren't actually there. I haven't rated Merlin's overall knowledge of Kant, or disqualified any of his sources of feedback as inadequate. I've simply stated that Merlin's article on Kant had enough of a trace of Rand's influence that I suspected that he hadn't had formal education on Kant or direct, non-Objectivist, expert feedback. Nothing more.

Have you read books on Kant?

I've read Kant and books on Kant, and continue to do so. I don't consider myself an expert. Far from it. I suspect that both Stephen and Merlin have forgotten more about Kant than I know. I haven't been trying to pose as an expert. My only purpose in asking Merlin the original question was to confirm or refute the hunch that his article gave me about his education and exposure to feedback.

J

[Brant Gaede]

What are the tone and purpose? Specifically. Why not name them if they're not a mystery? Please do explain my motives.

Power lusts. Envy. Resentment of childhood traumas. Destroy OL. Compensate for moral and intellectual inadequacies.

Benevolence for carriers of truth. Justice. Desire for a true Objectivism. Can't stand nonsense.

--Brant

Uh, I'm just throwing things against the wall

[Jonathan]

She isn't calling attempting to know someone's sense of life "psychologizing"; she's calling judging someone's sense of life "psychologizing."

Yes, and Mikee was most certainly not only implying that he knew my sense of life, but also judging it.

As you've pointed out other places, of course, her statement you quoted is at variance with her own long previous history of both claiming to know and judging people's, especially artists', senses of life.

Yes. And it appears that many of her followers and fans have adopted her approach to the subject: everyone else is not to pyschologize, but it's okay for Rand and her followers who judge themselves to be of her caliber and therefore similarly exempt from her commands not to psychologize.

I don't recall if you've ever pointed out, but I know that I have, that her "psychologizing" article is atrocious.

I think I've voiced agreement, now and then, here and there, over the years with your fine observations on the atrociousness of that article.

J

[Jonathan]

What are the tone and purpose? Specifically. Why not name them if they're not a mystery? Please do explain my motives.

Power lusts. Envy. Resentment of childhood traumas. Destroy OL. Compensate for moral and intellectual inadequacies.

Benevolence for carriers of truth. Justice. Desire for a true Objectivism. Can't stand nonsense.

--Brant

Uh, I'm just throwing things against the wall

I like the "Destroy OL" one.

Destroy it by stimulating interest, passion and discussions? Destroy it by attracting new members? Destroy it by getting people to say what's on their minds?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

A sidelight on unraveling the mysteries of the universe:

While ordering a couple other books from Amazon, I noticed advertised and bought a 402-page (not including the index) volume published in 2013 by the Edge Foundation, titled:

This Explains Everything, edited by John Brockman.

On the jacket is the following:

Deep, Beautiful, and

Elegant Theories of

How the World Works

EDGE.ORG Presents Original Ideas by

Today's Leading Thinkers

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Jared Diamond,

Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins,

Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Thaler,

V. S. Ramachandran, Freeman Dyson,

Martin Rees, Sherry Turkle, and More

[a whole lot more - I counted, on a quick count, 148 total

contributors, including the 10 listed on the cover.]

A jacket line quotes:

"Offers a rare chance to discover big ideas before they hit

the mainstream." --NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW

Some (not all) among the participants are, imo, afflicted by a degree of hubris which might make even the most self-aggrandizing in O'ism land blush - and none of the contributors, at least none whose names I noticed on a quick glance through the listing, has the excuse of youth for any excesses.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rand's ability to write cogent, powerful prose tended to obscure the quality of what she was saying when it failed to match up.

--Brant

Yes, yes, and yes, again and again. Rand was so powerful a writer, she can have the effect on the reader of producing a feeling of crystalline sense being made, when actually the details contain non-sequiturs, contradictions, outright assertions presented as if they were observations, etc. As many times as I've read - and been critical of details of - some of her essays, if I start to re-read one of those essays after enough time for my memory of it to fade a bit, I can still feel for awhile swept into an impression of coherent argument.

Ellen