Stillbirth of reason: Altruism

[eva matthews]

Peter was surely raised by a whore for a mother, and nad a herion-pushing farther whom he neve knew.

Eva,

The dozens?

Dayaamm!

Let's lower the bar, why don't we?

Sassy is one thing. Nasty, crude, and not very clever is another. That sounds more like middle school taunts on a first booze-up. It's not even good ghetto-talk.

One I enjoy. The other is just infantile crap I don't want around me.

Peter is a sweet guy if you let yourself get to know him. And he's great for banter.

Or wallow in cheap kiddy hate and become the very thing you affect to feel superior to.

Here I thought you were good at words...

Michael

Peter, 'sweet guy' that he is, can keep my familial upbringing out of his posts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter, 'sweet guy' that he is, can keep my familial upbringing out of his posts.

Eva,

This is the kind of bossiness that doesn't work here.

You've got a good brain, a good feisty spirit and lots of talent.

Use it for God's sake.

Or not.

Your choice.

I have a forum to run.

Michael

[eva matthews]

Eva impresses me as well on course to a "distinguished" academic career, and already skilled at academic schlick (take-off on "schtick").

Ellen

The academic schlick is all Rand's: 'epistemology, metaphysics, primacy of being, existence, axiom (gasp!)'....i'm just responding in her own language.

So the lack of content, by some, in this thread is due in great part to resentment. People use personal invective to the extent that they have nothing else to say.

EM

[Brant Gaede]

Just discovered this thread. Used to be free of Joe Rowlands who's never posted here. Now we have a worthless altruism thread*. Altruism is the necessary morality of totalitarianism or anyone who has a need to rule others. Altruism, sacrifice, Rand blasted such, but the real problem is the practice of morality on others, for if you're free of religious and collectivist bs being practiced on you then you are free to be yourself respecting yourself. That's your morality, but you don't practice it on others you live it. By this I mean just be rational for being rational means rational self interest. To internalize the altruism foisted off on you is self enslavement through sanction. But free of that rational self interest can embrace many so called acts of altruism for they are actually selfish.

Rand never knew this duality of altruism, maybe because of communism and Nazism all about and around her 20th century life. Humans are social beings but that social being sits on top of the thinking being which ain't social but individualistic.

All four true basic principles of Objectivism are necessarily individualistic and primarily selfish all lived and out of and integrated philosophically by the natural individualism of the atomistic thinking human. Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics (morality), politics. But this is an intellectual philosophical construct albeit vertically and logically integrated one to another. On this foundation we put in the rest of the person so we can have a person to think about--a person and persons generally.

The more basic problem is the bifurcation of two disciplines, psychology and philosophy. If you want you can throw in the whole of what are called classical liberal arts, not even excluding science, except that would be too much food in the mouth.

--Brant

*problem solved

(why didn't you people send out the "B" signal? Like all real heroes I'm altruistically ready to go for that's part of my selfishness.)

[eva matthews]

Just discovered this thread. Used to be free of Joe Rowlands who's never posted here. Now we have a worthless altruism thread*. Altruism is the necessary morality of totalitarianism or anyone who has a need to rule others. Altruism, sacrifice, Rand blasted such, but the real problem is the practice of morality on others, for if you're free of religious and collectivist bs being practiced on you then you are free to be yourself respecting yourself. That's your morality, but you don't practice it on others you live it. By this I mean just be rational for being rational means rational self interest. To internalize the altruism foisted off on you is self enslavement through sanction. But free of that rational self interest can embrace many so called acts of altruism for they are actually selfish.

Rand never knew this duality of altruism, maybe because of communism and Nazism all about and around her 20th century life. Humans are social beings but that social being sits on top of the thinking being which ain't social but individualistic.

All four true basic principles of Objectivism are necessarily individualistic and primarily selfish all lived and out of and integrated philosophically by the natural individualism of the atomistic thinking human. Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics (morality), politics. But this is an intellectual philosophical construct albeit vertically and logically integrated one to another. On this foundation we put in the rest of the person so we can have a person to think about--a person and persons generally.

The more basic problem is the bifurcation of two disciplines, psychology and philosophy. If you want you can throw in the whole of what are called classical liberal arts, not even excluding science, except that would be too much food in the mouth.

--Brant

*problem solved

(why didn't you people send out the "B" signal? Like all real heroes I'm altruistically ready to go for that's part of my selfishness.)

I'll return to this missive tonite, as I'm pressed for time; one quick comment:

Yes, You've solved all of your 'problems' if you say that all of science, psychology, and classical liberal art should be directed by philosoophy. Just make a philosophy up, like Rand did, and away you go....facts cannt possibly get in the way!

EM

[Brant Gaede]

I'll return to this missive tonite, as I'm pressed for time; one quick comment:

Yes, You've solved all of your 'problems' if you say that all of science, psychology, and classical liberal art should be directed by philosoophy. Just make a philosophy up, like Rand did, and away you go....facts cannt possibly get in the way!

EM

Didn't say that. You can run "that" into and out of my post because I didn't write a book. "Directed by philosophy" is the same mistake the collectivists make "directed by" morality. You end up with dogmatism at best and gross existential horror at worst, even in the name of freedom. You seem to be assuming a general lack of reason within philosophy--any philosophy--itself.

--Brant

empiricism anyone?

[Brant Gaede]

Objectivism--not Randism--101: reason and reality (epistemology and metaphysics), same as with good and proper science. Morality: rational self interest; politics: freedom.

Objectivism 202: investigation and elaboration off that base (bring on those liberal arts) reaching tentative conclusions in the same sense science reaches tentative conclusions. Apply carefully, using grace, humor and goodwill. Start with yourself. Oh, yes, don't forget reason.

Orthodox Objectivism: spend your life studying everything Rand said and wrote until you agree with it then keep refreshing it all remembering she was a genius if you ever wonder WTF you are really doing.

--Brant

[anthony]

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Eva: (Greetings, btw.) You write of "altruism versus individualism" as though you didn't see my quote earlier ("The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence").

Don't you see the significance of this conceptual 're-alignment'? Do you think - now you know it -that if Rand did not perceive, understand the threat it contains to the independent mind and reason, she would have cared a whit for altruism, one way or other?

You'd think I'd made the quotation up, or sumpin, the way you've cruised by it. Does it not sit well with your assumptions?

I know you know this, that everything Rand stood for, through politics and ethics, comes back to reason.

Rational egoism is its derivative, and egoism is NOT (to her) the direct opposite of altruism, as she said. Only indirect, I'd gather. Hierarchies, again.

This is one 'narrative' I feel Objectivists should be the first to dismiss, rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism - as we sometimes do.

Greetings, whYNOT,

Altruism, selfishness, and independence are concepts derived from mental states, or 'faculties'. As such they're philosophy derived from science.

We all want to feel independent, or what Kant called 'freedom' in Crit#3. This, as well as altruism, and egoism, comes from within, and is given content by cultural forms.

There is no reason to believe, however, that reason favors the faculty of independence over that of either egoism or altruism. This, I believe, is Rand's fundamental blunder. Without offering any evidence as to why, she simply declares it true as a thought convenient to believe.

What;s obviously clear, moreover, are the number of times our own egoisms have clouded our good judgment, and how our independence of spirit has caused us far more problems than worth the effort.

Science knows no opposites. For example, in Biology, we grade downwards from Kingdom to Species in discreet steps of difference. Rather, 'opposites' define a sense of meaning within philosophy, and are therefore scrutinized as concept in two ways:

* ad hoc oppositions as a way of establishing a contrast. For example, in the formal sense of A not B, or 'ideal types' drawn up to help clarify a scientific problem.

** metaphysical in the Platonic-Hegelian sense. Observed scientific difference (ie non-oppositional) is a materialist illusion. In the higher spiritual realm, those who understand can clearly see the opposites in their true essence.

Rand's opposition of altruism versus egoism/independence--indirect or otherwise-- plays on a supposed either/or choice that the reader is supposedly obliged to make. Of course, the dice are loaded, but that's not the main point here.

Rather, to choose one faculty over the other is silly, because both are who we are, unless you're name is 'Rand', in which case one is probably missing. In other words, her notion of 'doing' philosophy is to take fundamental brain processes that have always been known to work together, and to convert them into 'oppositions' by virtue of an epistemo-metaphysical wand .

Nonsense.

Eva

"Philosophy derived from science"!!

ha!

Basic error: that science, biology, etc., precedes man's metaphysical nature. Contrarily, without man's metaphysical nature, there would be no science...etc.

Yeah?

Sorry, Eva but all above displays ignorance of the independent mind, rationality, egoism and altruism.

Whatever I've put to you has been rejected in advance by your fixed mindset.

Socio-anthropology is both your strength and your weakness, since you see existence only through that lens.

"Science knows no opposites".[EM] (Um, Life and death? Fact and fallacy? Existence, non-existence?)

Consciousness does.

If you haven't grasped Objectivism, as is clear, brush up before you rush up.

{But now looking at the more recent additions to this thread, it's too late for that - your mind was prejudicially made up long before.}

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Eva,

On an inter-forum note, did you come to OL of your own volition?

A government regulatory bureaucrat who hides his name, the one I banned for crapping in public, is claiming credit for "transporting" you from RoR to here.

(I wonder if his real name is Wesley. )

People who don't like you and don't like me are thanking him for it over there.

Is he really that powerful?

And was the transport painful?

Michael

[Peter]

Peter Reidy wrote:

Could one have been mentor to the other? What are the chances that two such people could come about independent of each other?

end quote

There is always the possibility that someone is role playing. Is that morally wrong? Yes. I think a case can be made that an “assumed name” is a type of fraud. Yet, phony names are not always an infraction of etiquette. A phony name could be morally fine if the person is using it because they are in the witness protection program or for some other compelling reason, like fear of retaliation. Is Eva a man? Her sarcasm and hate for Rand is only excusable in a younger person, so if “she” is an older “he,” then I would pass moral judgment. Cruel remarks in a younger person are more forgivable to her readers, but why should Eva / Tom care? Well, is over defensiveness in any way a virtue? Is making enemies a virtue? Would doing those things in any way help her cause? NO.

Eva wrote about Peter Reidy:

Lastly, I'm flattered that I merit the attention of being 'investigated', if only by a dithering old fool who has nothing better to do--surely not a real contribution of content that might enhance the discussion.

And she wrote about me, Peter Taylor:

Peter was surely raised by a whore for a mother, and nad a herion-pushing farther whom he neve knew.

end quote

My reference to your upbringing by academic parents as analogous to Star Fleet Academy or to a science academy was not meant to hurt. Nor was it meant to insult your parents. Instead, it was to somewhat “glorify” your story – if you are not lying. I was willing to let your barbs slide, if you are indeed a bright 20 year old who is going to skip her masters and go straight for her doctorate. But somehow your story is not ringing true to me.

It would be intimidating to be investigated. But your slings and arrows do seem more probable coming from the mouth of an older man. Your language and slight of hand about “Tom” also supplies a supposition that you might be a con artist. I can imagine your language coming from the mouth of a barroom brawler but not from “little Eva.” And lastly, no one likes to be conned. It infuriates people, but I am not going to threaten any retaliation other than dislike.

Yet it would be interesting to see Eva’s identity verified. What if she is a 45 year old man with a Marquis de Sade goatee? Yuck.

[Reidy]

I wasn't investigating Eva. I was checking to see if anybody else had used the phrase in question, and Tom in Atlanta was the only one Bing could find. If he's such a friend I should think he would have taught Eva how to use a spell-checker.

[Peter]

Peter Reidy wrote:

I wasn't investigating Eva. I was checking to see if anybody else had used the phrase in question, and Tom in Atlanta was the only one Bing could find. If he's such a friend I should think he would have taught Eva how to use a spell-checker.

end quote

Oh, OK. Sorry, to Peter and to Eva (if she is who she says she is.) Perhaps it seemed like an investigation a Randroid Michey Spillane like me might do 8-) but I meant it about allowing a younger person to get away with something with little if any censure though I might correct her/him. If she is a guy faking childish femininity, my response would have been like the Hulk: “You don’t want to see me angry.”

Eva wrote:

I'm a 20 year old senior who will graduate this spring with a BS in Psych. Since 8, i've always been placed one year ahead of my 'normal' class, mainly because I tested high in math at a 'sweet pickle' age (family name). Small wonder--my dad researches and teaches theoretical (math-model ) Physics. Mom teaches & researches Psy, so i'm the quintessental campus brat.

end quote

I doubt a person would supply so many easily verifiable details if they were lying but you never know. Near the beginning of this thread Eva expressed misgivings about the tone of Rand and I must say BB agreed with her.

I have the following quote listed as Barbara Branden’s but I seem to remember her giving credit to Nathaniel. Anyway, the following quote is from, ”Objectivism and Rage” by Barbara Branden, presented at the TAS 2006 Summer Seminar, July 4, 2006, Chapman University, Orange, CA

Objectivists are by no means immune to this rage. On the contrary, I find it to be increasingly prevalent among Objectivists. We see everywhere—particularly on the Internet—the spectacle of supposed supporters of reason and free inquiry erupting in fury at the least provocation and hurling abuse at anyone who opposes—even questions—their convictions.

. . . . But what I call “Objectivist Rage” has a peculiar twist to it, unlikely to be found anywhere else except, paradoxically, in religion. It is almost always morally tinged. Those who question our ideas and those who oppose them, we are told, are not merely unintelligent, ignorant, uninformed; they are evil, they are moral monsters to be cast out and forever damned. And that is what I want to discuss today: the immensely presumptuous moralizing, the wildly unjust condemnations, and the towering anger and outrage exhibited by so many Objectivists. I want to explain, as best I can identify it, why this happens—that is, what are the mistaken philosophical ideas that lead to it, and what appears to be the psychology of many of its practitioners. If we are to defend ourselves against it and prevent it from contaminating our own dealings with others, our first requirement is to understand it.

. . . . I wonder if the Savonarolas of Objectivism have any idea how many men and women who were drawn to Objectivism, eager to understand it and to learn its application to their lives, are now saying: “If this obsession with finding and rooting out ‘enemies,’ this fanatical unearthing of villains—if this is Objectivism, I want no part of it.”

end quote

[anthony]

Peter:

Granted.

When anyone is not in the least "eager to understand it" but comes on all-knowing and airily dismissive of it all, right back to Objectivist ""axioms"" -- what then?

I noticed Barbara, too, would not suffer presumptuous, ignorant arrogance.

You are indeed a nice guy whom I feel is owed an apology by Eva.

[Jules Troy]

Viper..told ya so..

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, I think Eva is exactly as she describes and presents herself. Coverup artists don't cover up by coming on long and strong, almost disregarding the consequences. She acts like she knows more than she does and doesn't know it. That tends to wash out as one gets older. A lot of education is learning about how ignorant one really is about a lot of things which encourages the development of a true expertise.

--Brant

only half-way there

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

You see what I see.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

I see it too actually, or at least the possibility of that very outcome.

I think she may just be overly defensive and is quick to lash out. (Calling someone's mother a whore just is not appropriate).

Yup I think in time Eva very well may turn out to be an amazing individual. Time will tell, I am sitting on the fence for now.

Have a thicker hide and slow down on the instant perceived insults Eva no one is out to "get you" here.

Except me. I'm the boogie man.

(Joking )

[eva matthews]

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Eva: (Greetings, btw.) You write of "altruism versus individualism" as though you didn't see my quote earlier ("The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence").

Don't you see the significance of this conceptual 're-alignment'? Do you think - now you know it -that if Rand did not perceive, understand the threat it contains to the independent mind and reason, she would have cared a whit for altruism, one way or other?

You'd think I'd made the quotation up, or sumpin, the way you've cruised by it. Does it not sit well with your assumptions?

I know you know this, that everything Rand stood for, through politics and ethics, comes back to reason.

Rational egoism is its derivative, and egoism is NOT (to her) the direct opposite of altruism, as she said. Only indirect, I'd gather. Hierarchies, again.

This is one 'narrative' I feel Objectivists should be the first to dismiss, rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism - as we sometimes do.

Greetings, whYNOT,

Altruism, selfishness, and independence are concepts derived from mental states, or 'faculties'. As such they're philosophy derived from science.

We all want to feel independent, or what Kant called 'freedom' in Crit#3. This, as well as altruism, and egoism, comes from within, and is given content by cultural forms.

There is no reason to believe, however, that reason favors the faculty of independence over that of either egoism or altruism. This, I believe, is Rand's fundamental blunder. Without offering any evidence as to why, she simply declares it true as a thought convenient to believe.

What;s obviously clear, moreover, are the number of times our own egoisms have clouded our good judgment, and how our independence of spirit has caused us far more problems than worth the effort.

Science knows no opposites. For example, in Biology, we grade downwards from Kingdom to Species in discreet steps of difference. Rather, 'opposites' define a sense of meaning within philosophy, and are therefore scrutinized as concept in two ways:

* ad hoc oppositions as a way of establishing a contrast. For example, in the formal sense of A not B, or 'ideal types' drawn up to help clarify a scientific problem.

** metaphysical in the Platonic-Hegelian sense. Observed scientific difference (ie non-oppositional) is a materialist illusion. In the higher spiritual realm, those who understand can clearly see the opposites in their true essence.

Rand's opposition of altruism versus egoism/independence--indirect or otherwise-- plays on a supposed either/or choice that the reader is supposedly obliged to make. Of course, the dice are loaded, but that's not the main point here.

Rather, to choose one faculty over the other is silly, because both are who we are, unless you're name is 'Rand', in which case one is probably missing. In other words, her notion of 'doing' philosophy is to take fundamental brain processes that have always been known to work together, and to convert them into 'oppositions' by virtue of an epistemo-metaphysical wand .

Nonsense.

Eva

"Philosophy derived from science"!!

ha!

Basic error: that science, biology, etc., precedes man's metaphysical nature. Contrarily, without man's metaphysical nature, there would be no science...etc.

Yeah?

Sorry, Eva but all above displays ignorance of the independent mind, rationality, egoism and altruism.

Whatever I've put to you has been rejected in advance by your fixed mindset.

Socio-anthropology is both your strength and your weakness, since you see existence only through that lens.

"Science knows no opposites".[EM] (Um, Life and death? Fact and fallacy? Existence, non-existence?)

Consciousness does.

If you haven't grasped Objectivism, as is clear, brush up before you rush up.

{But now looking at the more recent additions to this thread, it's too late for that - your mind was prejudicially made up long before.}

>>>>Contrarily, without man's metaphysical nature, there would be no science...etc.<<<<<

This is precisely the point of attack of Bacon's New Method' on Aristotle. Science needs only a workable method to produce truth, via induction. OTH, philosophy produces false science because it relies upon deduction from principles.

'Opposites' mean nothing but non-A in formal logic. Anything, then, can be said to be 'opposite'. Science says that the hows of difference are important. For example, having/not having gills is far more important than having fins or feet, thereby relating whales closer to humans than fish in the science we call 'Biology'.

So while 'death' is the end of life, it's just as much a non-A opposite of life as, say a rock. So accordingly, there's a science of dead animals that distinguishes itself form either biology or geology. For example, when you take living tissue for examination, it's called a biopsy, but dead tissue is called necropsy because it's subject to different scientific standards. Ditto with 'autopsy' and 'necropsy'.

So yes, i would say that my mind is 'made up' already to assess any particular philosophy's coherence by its ability to elicit meaning from science. I do, as well, reject the notion that philosophy directs science: it's a genre of nonsense that lost topical interest around 1300 AD.

So if this is what Rand is about, so much the worse for her. But mind you, i'm not pre-judging Rand as such, because i'd say the same thing about anyone else's philosophy that felt it was somehow entitled to direct science.

So basically, chalk this sad tendency up to ignorance of science as such--yours in particular.

EM

[Brant Gaede]

Scientists direct science. I prefer "do science." Science directs nothing neither does any philosophy. I can't recall Rand ever doing a Peikoff with science the way he recently tried to do with physics.

--Brant

[eva matthews]

Peter Reidy wrote:

Could one have been mentor to the other? What are the chances that two such people could come about independent of each other?

end quote

There is always the possibility that someone is role playing. Is that morally wrong? Yes. I think a case can be made that an “assumed name” is a type of fraud. Yet, phony names are not always an infraction of etiquette. A phony name could be morally fine if the person is using it because they are in the witness protection program or for some other compelling reason, like fear of retaliation. Is Eva a man? Her sarcasm and hate for Rand is only excusable in a younger person, so if “she” is an older “he,” then I would pass moral judgment. Cruel remarks in a younger person are more forgivable to her readers, but why should Eva / Tom care? Well, is over defensiveness in any way a virtue? Is making enemies a virtue? Would doing those things in any way help her cause? NO.

Eva wrote about Peter Reidy:

Lastly, I'm flattered that I merit the attention of being 'investigated', if only by a dithering old fool who has nothing better to do--surely not a real contribution of content that might enhance the discussion.

And she wrote about me, Peter Taylor:

Peter was surely raised by a whore for a mother, and nad a herion-pushing farther whom he neve knew.

end quote

My reference to your upbringing by academic parents as analogous to Star Fleet Academy or to a science academy was not meant to hurt. Nor was it meant to insult your parents. Instead, it was to somewhat “glorify” your story – if you are not lying. I was willing to let your barbs slide, if you are indeed a bright 20 year old who is going to skip her masters and go straight for her doctorate. But somehow your story is not ringing true to me.

It would be intimidating to be investigated. But your slings and arrows do seem more probable coming from the mouth of an older man. Your language and slight of hand about “Tom” also supplies a supposition that you might be a con artist. I can imagine your language coming from the mouth of a barroom brawler but not from “little Eva.” And lastly, no one likes to be conned. It infuriates people, but I am not going to threaten any retaliation other than dislike.

Yet it would be interesting to see Eva’s identity verified. What if she is a 45 year old man with a Marquis de Sade goatee? Yuck.

Peter,

Within the context of nearly this entire thread being about me, any particular reference could easily have been misconstrued as a mocking insult and have put me over the top. This pathology is present on other threads, too.

Please, therefore, accept my sincere apology for having over-reacted.

At the same time, kindly refrain from any further mention of either my identity, youth, gender, or putative psychological profile.

I do appreciate your intellectual insights. Personal stuff, when excessive, occludes content.

Sincerely, Eva Matthews

[eva matthews]

Scientists direct science. I prefer "do science." Science directs nothing neither does any philosophy. I can't recall Rand ever doing a Peikoff with science the way he recently tried to do with physics.

--Brant

Brant,

Kindly refer me to this Peikhoff/Physics thing...

Thx, Eva

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, somebody wrote a book on physics sanctioned and supported by LP and someone did a critique that caused LP to run him out of some sort of organization associated with ARI.

Help, somebody, help me help Eva!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Please, therefore, accept my sincere apology for having over-reacted.

At the same time, kindly refrain from any further mention of either my identity, youth, gender, or putative psychological profile.

I do appreciate your intellectual insights. Personal stuff, when excessive, occludes content.

Sincerely, Eva Matthews

Not the way we do things here, Eva. We don't school-marm lecture each other.

--Brant

[anthony]

So if this is what Rand is about, so much the worse for her. But mind you, i'm not pre-judging Rand as such, because i'd say the same thing about anyone else's philosophy that felt it was somehow entitled to direct science.

So basically, chalk this sad tendency up to ignorance of science as such--yours in particular.

I'll make no allowances for you that others may. Erudition, education and intelligence, and even flashes of charm, don't impress me much, without integrity. You are dishonest. Your empirical mindset isn't anything I have not seen, but such skepticism sickens me. I sense that whatever philosophy you are ruled by is fundamentally anti-consciousness, so, anti-life.

If you ever get your hands on power... And you will, by your nature, intellect and the zeitgeist of your time, you will. 'Scientism' is the nursery of tomorrow's intellectocrats.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Not the way we do things here, Eva. We don't school-marm lecture each other.

Brant,

That ain't it.

She's busting on me for pushing her to raise her game.

God, she reminds me of me when I was that age.

Michael