Please rationally support this decision

[Francisco Ferrer]

Actually, admissions of wrong-doing and regret are not at all uncommon. Scared Straight and similar programs have made use of felons engaging in self-reproach to discourage teens from committing crimes.

I thought we were talking about successful predators... Is this the quality of "evidence" you think I should be providing? What convicted fellons say after years in prison isn't a reliable source of anything.

The question in this thread is whether a successful (i.e. unpunished) predator would experience "necessary" (your word) psychic costs. If it is your position that they do, then your claim must be backed by evidence other than your merely saying it is so.

I am being theoretical because this is a theoretical issue... I cannot give you ostensible evidence because it would be as arbitrary as your Scared Straight refrence.

Really what it comes down to is shame, and how it manifests. And again, shame is not something people go around talking about.

In Post #195 you wrote, "Apparently the evidence you require is for someone to openly admit they have made a mistake with their own psychology. People don't really do that."

The fact that there are innumerable newspaper articles, books, memoirs and documentaries in which criminals express regret for past activities and acknowledge their flawed thinking at the moment of committing the crime shows that people really do make such admissions.

Now, as of Post #200, your position appears to be that we cannot trust what convicted felons say about their thinking because, well . . . because they're criminals.

But why must we trust your assumption that there is a necessary psychic cost to crime? Your assumption is based entirely on what you think must be going on the head of a person you've never met. With just as much "proof" one could assert that all criminals suffer from the torture of Satan's demons.

I have heard Christians and socialists say no wealthy man can be truly happy unless he gives a large part of his fortune to the poor. Evidence for this? Apparently they do not need to provide it because any evidence submitted for their position would be just as arbitrary as evidence submitted against it.

This is the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance, as in "Nobody has ever been able to prove that there is no God. Therefore, there clearly is a God."

You say it comes down to shame. The individuals I mentioned at the end of Post #198 gave not the slightest sign of shame. You may wish to argue that every criminal feels shame and that any wrong-doer not showing it is merely concealing it. But how could one draw such a conclusion without presuming to know how the entire species thinks?

[anthony]

In "The Virtue of Selfishness," Ayn Rand wrote. ". . . men cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship.”

Any dictatorship?

You are still being highly materialist FF.

If you're going to quote Rand extensively you have to accept what she meant, implicitly as well as explicitly.

She begins with the independent being (of mind and body) as the bench mark. Yes, the thief, looter and dictator may exist to old age - in apparent success - and not get what one considers their just desserts, explicitly. They have in the mean time, without fail, abandoned themselves to others - either in their lust for absolute power, or in feeding off them. (Altruism, in its fundamental state). Either way, he needs them. Whatever you or anyone may perceive as their outward thriving belies that each is a husk of a man. All his victims have ended up owning him.

Actually, Rand does not begin with independence. She begins with why man needs a code of values and goes on to argue that "An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil."

Mao was owned by his victims, you say? If so, why didn't any of the victim/owners think to sell off or discard this thing they owned?

But I wasn't referring to how she began the book.

I didn't say she began her book with 'independence'. I said "she begins with the independent being" [... implicitly].

i.e. she approaches morality, metaphysically, with the premise of - man the autonomous being.

Implicit in "the organism's life" is that each is an autonomous "organism". (It is not physically or mentally part of or connected to any other organism).

Therefore: Autonomy -> Independence. Is -> Ought. Whatever threatens this autonomy/independence "is the evil".

You will have noticed that all Rand's ethics follow from the metaphysical nature of man.

As I pointed out - materialist, FF. Which explains your literalism. Do you not envisage the breach of a dictator's consciousness in the realization of his motives and actions always geared to manipulating or destroying masses of other people (also autonomous beings)? By existing, dependently, over them he - implicitly, again - becomes their slave. Without his physical, life-or-death power over them he'd be a zero; he has become so, anyway, and he has to know it.

[Dglgmut]

In Post #195 you wrote, "Apparently the evidence you require is for someone to openly admit they have made a mistake with their own psychology. People don't really do that."

The fact that there are innumerable newspaper articles, books, memoirs and documentaries in which criminals express regret for past activities and acknowledge their flawed thinking at the moment of committing the crime shows that people really do make such admissions.

Now, as of Post #200, your position appears to be that we cannot trust what convicted felons say about their thinking because, well . . . because they're criminals.

So you think expressing remorse after being caught and convicted of a crime is not only a reliable indication of one's emotions, but also as exposing as coming clean about something that nobody knows about.

Apparently there are no incentives involved in either case... right?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The essential point is that there is no evidence to support the claim that one necessarily experiences a psychic cost for taking the unearned and undeserved or that such cost is not offset by the benefits of the taking.

Apparently the evidence you require is for someone to openly admit they have made a mistake with their own psychology.

Calvin,

LOL...

I think it goes beyond that.

Obviously, there is no evidence anywhere that guilt exists as an emotion. And even if it did, there is no evidence to show that betraying one's morality induces guilt. After all, correlation is not causation. And, frankly, there is no evidence the correlation exists between moral betrayal and guilt. (And don't forget, Ayn Rand certainly provided no evidence. Look at Mao.)

Come to think of it, there is no evidence that emotions exist. But hell, why stop there? From what I can tell, there is no evidence that the mind exists. Or thoughts. Do humans exist? Really? Where's the evidence? When you look at it, not even existence exists.

Where's the evidence?

And who's looking anyway?

You?

You don't exist!

If you claim you do, I want to see the evidence!

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Come to think of it, there is no evidence that emotions exist. But hell, why stop there? From what I can tell, there is no evidence that the mind exists. Or thoughts. Do humans exist? Really? Where's the evidence? When you look at it, not even existence exists.

Where's the evidence?

And who's looking anyway?

You?

You don't exist!

If you claim you do, I want to see the evidence!

Michael

Think Twice.

--Brant, Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Think Twice.

Brant,

How can anyone think twice when there is no evidence they thought once?

We need evidence, man.

Do humans pee? Well, where is the evidence? Some humans don't pee because their urinary systems are hooked up to a machine. So humans obviously don't pee. That's false. Ayn Rand sure as hell didn't prove it.

We need more evidence, man.

More and more evidence. Because without evidence, you know, you can't know anything. Up might be down. Left might be right. Karl Marx could have written Atlas Shrugged. That's crazy, you say? Where is the evidence he didn't? Just because Rand said she wrote it and other people said so, too, that's not evidence. Anybody can say anything.

Evidence, evidence, evidence, my kingdom for more evidence!

Actually, I'm thinking all this life and existence and reason stuff is baloney, except there is no evidence baloney comes from pigs.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Someone call 911. Michael, go lay down until the ambulance gets there.

[moralist]

The actual date of the Gettysburg Address or the mental state of Mao Tse-Tung in his later years have nothing to do with how we view the world or how "we each live."

A liar would try to conflate a date with a subjective opinion. The truth is found in your own subjective judgment of Mao as being a "gentleman". That's the kind of value you live by, and you reveal it with your own words.

"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears." --Ayn Rand

That's a two edged sword, Frank... and you've cut yourself on it.Greg

[anthony]

.

But FF- one thing I'm unsure of, do property rights derive from this 'self-ownership' - or does 'self'-property derive from property rights? Chicken or egg?

Following Locke, one acquires the right to property in nature by mixing his body (labor) with it. Self-ownership before real estate ownership.

Um. A "body" that IS directed by a 'mind', is that correct?

I can only think that this was meant as self-evident to the inestimable John Locke.

'Cos that's what this all boils down to: does one (do you) know beforehand what one is going to do, know what one is doing while one does it, and know afterwards what one has done?

Further, at any stage can one change the outcome... or the mindset that caused it?

And what does it take to change what was wrongly done, but an objective appraisal of one's act against an objective standard?

So, an objective morality.

A thief or tyrant not only commits an action, he will not judge himself and his act, nor does he change his behavior.

Three immoral strikes, he's out.

I suppose "self-ownership" is all right as a concept (I'd rather think of it as being a 'sovereign individual') -- but it's the end of a line of reasoned justification, not the beginning - as I think you treat it (of property rights).

The justification starts with man as an autonomous, self-directing being.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Actually, Rand does not begin with independence. She begins with why man needs a code of values and goes on to argue that "An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil."

Mao was owned by his victims, you say? If so, why didn't any of the victim/owners think to sell off or discard this thing they owned?

But I wasn't referring to how she began the book.

I didn't say she began her book with 'independence'. I said "she begins with the independent being" [... implicitly].

i.e. she approaches morality, metaphysically, with the premise of - man the autonomous being.

Implicit in "the organism's life" is that each is an autonomous "organism". (It is not physically or mentally part of or connected to any other organism).

Therefore: Autonomy -> Independence. Is -> Ought. Whatever threatens this autonomy/independence "is the evil".

You will have noticed that all Rand's ethics follow from the metaphysical nature of man.

As I pointed out - materialist, FF. Which explains your literalism. Do you not envisage the breach of a dictator's consciousness in the realization of his motives and actions always geared to manipulating or destroying masses of other people (also autonomous beings)? By existing, dependently, over them he - implicitly, again - becomes their slave. Without his physical, life-or-death power over them he'd be a zero; he has become so, anyway, and he has to know it.

No. She does not start with man; she starts with organisms in general:

An organism’s life depends on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly. What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival.

Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.

Next, the fact that a being is "not physically or mentally part of or connected to any other organism," does not lead to the conclusion that creatures are not dependent on members of their own species for survival. Herd animals, such as zebras for example, stay in groups because it is much more likely that a predator will be seen by one of the herd members. This division of labor allows each zebra to spend more time eating and less time searching for threats.

It is likely that early man lived in close knit groups for much the same reason.

But let us stipulate that due to evolution and technology modern man has the power to survive independently. That fact does not magically yield the moral principle that he "should," "must," or "ought" to live independently. Some modern men may prefer the comfort, security, fellowship that a close knit group allows. It is true that collectivism does not promote innovation or an increased standard of living, but those gains may not be the highest priorities for individuals in a group.

More to the point of this thread, you have not provided a reason what any particular modern human organism must necessarily respect the wealth created by others in order to survive or prosper or even enjoy peace of mind.

You write, "Therefore: Autonomy -> Independence. Is -> Ought. Whatever threatens this autonomy/independence 'is the evil.'"

No, it does not follow from the fact that one man plants and tills and harvests his food that another men "should," "must," or "ought" not take the bounty created by the first man.

There may be in most cases the danger of being killed or imprisoned for stealing, but that fact does not yield the principle that is it never right to steal.

Perhaps it is true that predators commit a "breach of . . . consciousness" and in some cases suffer what Rand calls "price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own."

But where is the evidence that this is true in all cases? The unfortunate fact is that many predators repeat their crimes. In such cases the loot gained apparently offsets any psychic costs.

[Francisco Ferrer]

In Post #195 you wrote, "Apparently the evidence you require is for someone to openly admit they have made a mistake with their own psychology. People don't really do that."

The fact that there are innumerable newspaper articles, books, memoirs and documentaries in which criminals express regret for past activities and acknowledge their flawed thinking at the moment of committing the crime shows that people really do make such admissions.

Now, as of Post #200, your position appears to be that we cannot trust what convicted felons say about their thinking because, well . . . because they're criminals.

So you think expressing remorse after being caught and convicted of a crime is not only a reliable indication of one's emotions, but also as exposing as coming clean about something that nobody knows about.

Apparently there are no incentives involved in either case... right?

What we are looking for is evidence for your claim that there are "necessary" psychic costs for a act of theft.

In Post #195 your wrote, "Apparently the evidence you require is for someone to openly admit they have made a mistake with their own psychology. People don't really do that."

Now if it is your argument that few or none will admit to experiencing psychic costs for crime, then you have adopted a position that is unprovable. You may as well argue that Obama worships the Devil and that he is so diabolical that he has hidden all evidence of this.

On the other hand, I would argue that there is substantial clinical evidence that a segment of those who commit crimes have little or no empathy and thus little or no negative feedback for violating the rights of others.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Obviously, there is no evidence anywhere that guilt exists as an emotion. And even if it did, there is no evidence to show that betraying one's morality induces guilt. After all, correlation is not causation. And, frankly, there is no evidence the correlation exists between moral betrayal and guilt. (And don't forget, Ayn Rand certainly provided no evidence. Look at Mao.)

Come to think of it, there is no evidence that emotions exist. But hell, why stop there? From what I can tell, there is no evidence that the mind exists. Or thoughts. Do humans exist? Really? Where's the evidence? When you look at it, not even existence exists.

Thank you. As a good host you look out for your guests. This will give people an easier position to argue against than the one I've actually taken.

[Brant Gaede]

Obviously, there is no evidence anywhere that guilt exists as an emotion. And even if it did, there is no evidence to show that betraying one's morality induces guilt. After all, correlation is not causation. And, frankly, there is no evidence the correlation exists between moral betrayal and guilt. (And don't forget, Ayn Rand certainly provided no evidence. Look at Mao.)

Come to think of it, there is no evidence that emotions exist. But hell, why stop there? From what I can tell, there is no evidence that the mind exists. Or thoughts. Do humans exist? Really? Where's the evidence? When you look at it, not even existence exists.

Thank you. As a good host you look out for your guests. This will give people an easier position to argue against than the one I've actually taken.

Betraying one's morality induces pain, unless one's morality is crap. Then you may be visiting pain on oithers. You can call it a painful emotion or not; the pain remains. Semantics won't provide any relief except in Internet intellectualizations where no relief is needed for no one's hurting beyond any ego bruising.

--Brant

[anthony]

Ah, FF (your #210) I repeat, Rand ~implicitly~ approached it from man's nature - the autonomy of man.

Read what you quoted: "...are actions generated by the organism itself, and directed to a single goal..."

Tell me what "the organism itself" implies?

To say it again, the organism's survival, goals, (etc.) are ~implicitly~ founded on it being an autonomous organism.

Anything else, it having any other nature, would entail another approach, yes?

Then you put up the false dichotomy of men living in mutual co-operation...

To live independently, is to live by objective reality sought by an independent mind, first and foremost - NOT, without contact and dealings with other men. So, Capitalism.

Come on! You know this.

For the guy who takes the bounty other men provide: i.e., one man (an "organism") is living by his "actions generated...to a single goal", the second is living by the first man's actions and mind. "Should" he be a parasite on others and surrender his independence? is the question.

His immorality in stealing from that man, is what he commits upon HIMSELF, primarily. Prior to the immorality of sponging off or looting the products of an other's mindful actions. It's called rational *selfishness*, remember?

[Francisco Ferrer]

The actual date of the Gettysburg Address or the mental state of Mao Tse-Tung in his later years have nothing to do with how we view the world or how "we each live."

A liar would try to conflate a date with a subjective opinion. The truth is found in your own subjective judgment of Mao as being a "gentleman". That's the kind of value you live by, and you reveal it with your own words.

"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears." --Ayn Rand

That's a two edged sword, Frank... and you've cut yourself on it.

Greg

The absence of evidence for a claim is not a subjective opinion.

There are no reports of Mao ever expressing regret, remorse, or self-doubts about the Chinese Communist Revolution, its human toll, or his role in it.

If, however, you have evidence of the psychic costs his murders exacted on him, please submit it.

Or, lacking such evidence, you may instead post some comments about me. That should settle the matter.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Following Locke, one acquires the right to property in nature by mixing his body (labor) with it. Self-ownership before real estate ownership.

Um.

Yes, go ahead, what's your question?

A "body" that IS directed by a 'mind', is that correct?

In most cases. hands follow the instructions of the brain.

I can only think that this was meant as self-evident to the inestimable John Locke.

'Cos that's what this all boils down to: does one (do you) know beforehand what one is going to do, know what one is doing while one does it, and know afterwards what one has done?

The answers are in my case, yes, yes, yes. In the case of some others, the answers may vary.

Further, at any stage can one change the outcome... or the mindset that caused it?

At any stage? People have been known to blow out candles they've lit. However they cannot cancel history.

And what does it take to change what was wrongly done, but an objective appraisal of one's act against an objective standard?

So, an objective morality.

A thief or tyrant not only commits an action, he will not judge himself and his act, nor does he change his behavior.

Three immoral strikes, he's out.

I suppose "self-ownership" is all right as a concept (I'd rather think of it as being a 'sovereign individual') -- but it's the end of a line of reasoned justification, not the beginning - as I think you treat it (of property rights).

The justification starts with man as an autonomous, self-directing being.

Let's say there are two women. One has long, beautiful black hair. The other, due to illness, has a bare, scabby scalp.

While Woman with Black Hair is sleeping, Bald Woman cuts off her hair and makes a wig of it to cover her own bare head.

By the Theory of Self-Ownership one has title to her own body and all its parts. Thus, Bald Woman's action is a property rights violation.

[anthony]

Ha. FF, Do you understand the premises of AS, let alone TVoS?

It's all property rights to you, or "the brain"!

Blowing out candles...when I asked in effect, if a thief knows he's a thief, and can he change it. Or better, stop before he becomes one.

Determinism and materialism dictate otherwise, it seems.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Obviously, there is no evidence anywhere that guilt exists as an emotion. And even if it did, there is no evidence to show that betraying one's morality induces guilt. After all, correlation is not causation. And, frankly, there is no evidence the correlation exists between moral betrayal and guilt. (And don't forget, Ayn Rand certainly provided no evidence. Look at Mao.)

Come to think of it, there is no evidence that emotions exist. But hell, why stop there? From what I can tell, there is no evidence that the mind exists. Or thoughts. Do humans exist? Really? Where's the evidence? When you look at it, not even existence exists.

Thank you. As a good host you look out for your guests. This will give people an easier position to argue against than the one I've actually taken.

Betraying one's morality induces pain, unless one's morality is crap. Then you may be visiting pain on oithers. You can call it a painful emotion or not; the pain remains. Semantics won't provide any relief except in Internet intellectualizations where no relief is needed for no one's hurting beyond any ego bruising.

--Brant

Do you guys have any evidence of what you are claiming?

I can think of a gazillion counter-examples. So I need evidence, especially because Ayn Rand was wrong. She had no evidence.

About what?

Oh, it doesn't matter. She didn't have evidence for anything.

We need more evidence.

More and more and more evidence.

Can you feel it? Oh God... evidence. Evidence...

With enough evidence, we might even attain perpetual orgasm.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

Ah, FF (your #210) I repeat, Rand ~implicitly~ approached it from man's nature - the autonomy of man.

Most thoughtful of her to do it implicitly. Thus she provided her followers with the occupation of making things explicit.

Read what you quoted: "...are actions generated by the organism itself, and directed to a single goal..."

Tell me what "the organism itself" implies?

The one generating actions.

To say it again, the organism's survival, goals, (etc.) are ~implicitly~ founded on it being an autonomous organism.

Anything else, it having any other nature, would entail another approach, yes?

Yes, you might say that in nature autonomous organisms survive, explicitly and sometimes implicitly, by being autonomous. Whereas non-autonomous organisms survive by being non-autonomous.

Then you put up the false dichotomy of men living in mutual co-operation...

To live independently, is to live by objective reality sought by an independent mind, first and foremost - NOT, without contact and dealings with other men. So, Capitalism.

Come on! You know this.

The problem is that you have used the words "autonomous" and "independent" without ever defining them. I used "independent" in the sense of

"not relying on another or others for aid or support."

It may not be your definition but it is not inherently the wrong definition.

For the guy who takes the bounty other men provide: i.e., one man (an "organism") is living by his "actions generated...to a single goal", the second is living by the first man's actions and mind. "Should" he be a parasite on others and surrender his independence? is the question.

The predator would take or not take depending on whether it is in his best interests. He may decide that avoiding death by starvation is a greater good than respecting the rights of the creator. On the other hand he may decide that the risk of death by crossbow is a worse fate than sleeping on an empty stomach.

His immorality in stealing from that man, is what he commits upon HIMSELF, primarily. Prior to the immorality of sponging off or looting the products of an other's mindful actions. It's called rational *selfishness*, remember?

If he committed the action upon himself, then perhaps he can compensate himself by taking himself out to dinner one night. And what would be irrationally selfish about that?

[Francisco Ferrer]

Ha. FF, You haven't understood AS, let alone TVoS.

It's all property rights to you!

Blowing out candles...when I asked in effect, if a thief knows he's a thief, and can he change it. Or better, stop before he becomes one.

Determinism and materialism dictate otherwise, it seems.

A theory of property rights is not needed to see the gap in Rand's ethics between identifying an organism's life as its standard of values and ruling out theft as a means to enhance or extend that life.

[anthony]

His immorality in stealing from that man, is what he commits upon HIMSELF, primarily. Prior to the immorality of sponging off or looting the products of an other's mindful actions. It's called rational *selfishness*, remember?

If he committed the action upon himself, then perhaps he can compensate himself by taking himself out to dinner one night. And what would be irrationally selfish about that?

Sometimes I could believe you have a sense of humor, Francisco.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ha. FF, You haven't understood AS, let alone TVoS.

It's all property rights to you!

Blowing out candles...when I asked in effect, if a thief knows he's a thief, and can he change it. Or better, stop before he becomes one.

Determinism and materialism dictate otherwise, it seems.

A theory of property rights is not needed to see the gap in Rand's ethics between identifying an organism's life as its standard of values and ruling out theft as a means to enhance or extend that life.

This, I submit, is a perfect response of a concrete-bound mentality in the traditional Randian sense.

I never thought I would agree with an example Peikoff once mentioned as I thought it was an exaggeration, but I see it clearly all over FF's posts. Here is a passage from "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand":

Ayn Rand started thinking in terms of principles, she told me once, at the age of 12. To her, it was a normal part of the process of growing up, and she never dropped the method thereafter. Nor, I believe, did she ever entirely comprehend the fact that the approach which was second nature to her was not practiced by other people. Much of the time, she was baffled by or indignant at the people she was doomed to talk to, people like the man we heard about in the early 1950s, who was calling for the nationalization of the steel industry. The man was told by an Objectivist why government seizure of the steel industry was immoral and impractical, and he was impressed by the argument. His comeback was: "Okay, I see that. But what about the coal industry?"

I think one of the frustrations people feel with FF is not his tendency to trivialize evil or wallow in nit-picky semantic negative vibes. I think it is the impossibility of explaining what a principle is to him. He treats principles like concretes, that is, without any conceptual hierarchy, then asks for evidence or points to a surface contradiction (or "gap" or whatever), then claims he debunked this or that.

You try to explain that a principle is integrated from many observations, not deduced from a single instance. But that gets ignored as the parrot kicks in.

Look at how he does not understand the difference between goal and purpose (standard). He is not stupid, but this is not a simple lack of understanding, either. It is a refusal to understand based on a much deeper concrete-bound epistemological premise.

One has to understand something correctly before one can debunk it. Ignoring the meaning will not get one there.

Is his constant ignoring integration honest? I believe so. (Sometimes it is clever, too.) But it is frustrating to those who do think in principles.

People constantly talk past him and he them because of his blinders. There's a hole in his perception where other people see stuff. I've given up on reasoning with this. I've now gone into satire. It's more fun than nitpicking semantics.

He's entitled to his opinions, but he's not going to persuade anyone here that Rand was wrong through argument-by-repetition. Drip drip drip. There will also be my drip drip drip satire along with it. Then if he wants to persuade, he will have to use logic and reason--starting with addressing the fundamental parts he constantly leaves out. (I will not satirize that if he ever starts.)

Once again, I have no problem with disagreements. Nor do I have a problem if someone believes Rand was wrong. I do have a problem when someone preaches a misrepresentation, honestly or dishonestly.

In my evaluation, I don't think he has a clue about how Rand makes a logical connection between fact and value. I mean that literally. What's more, I think when he starts to get it, he resists. (But then, I would need more evidence than forum posts to come to that conclusion, right? Evidence, evidence, evidence... )

In an odd way, he reminds of a mini-celebrity named Anita Sarkeesian when she argues that video games exist just so young testosterone-driven males can oppress females and giant oppressor corporations can exploit this. She never goes to a 100% standard with this premise, but everything she says and does points to it.

As she is intelligent, and this theme shows a breathtakingly stunted and/or warped epistemology when she simply leaves out obvious things (like garden-variety fun, the pleasure of puzzle-solving, neuroscience, etc.) but insists on attributing really obnoxious class-warfare motives to gamers (and all males throughout history--except left-wingers--for that matter), she has oodles of well-intentioned gamers constantly trying to make sense out of her arguments and then getting hostile with her when she refuses to consider the obvious while claiming the obnoxious part about them is all. Of course, she then blames all the hostility on their supposed misogyny.

What's worse, you feel she is sincere.

It's watching someone live in the real world with her body, but living in a self-imposed opaque bubble in her mind.

Concrete-bound epistemology is like that, too. (I expect FF to now say I'm unfair because he never discussed video games. )

The frustrating part is you look at someone intelligent like that and wonder how they can do it. But they do...

Apropos, I bet if I scratch this deep enough, I will come up with core story at the root.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

Ha. FF, You haven't understood AS, let alone TVoS.

It's all property rights to you!

Blowing out candles...when I asked in effect, if a thief knows he's a thief, and can he change it. Or better, stop before he becomes one.

Determinism and materialism dictate otherwise, it seems.

A theory of property rights is not needed to see the gap in Rand's ethics between identifying an organism's life as its standard of values and ruling out theft as a means to enhance or extend that life.

This, I submit, is a perfect response of a concrete-bound mentality in the traditional Randian sense.

I never thought I would agree with an example Peikoff once mentioned as I thought it was an exaggeration, but I see it clearly all over FF's posts. Here is a passage from "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand":

Ayn Rand started thinking in terms of principles, she told me once, at the age of 12. To her, it was a normal part of the process of growing up, and she never dropped the method thereafter. Nor, I believe, did she ever entirely comprehend the fact that the approach which was second nature to her was not practiced by other people. Much of the time, she was baffled by or indignant at the people she was doomed to talk to, people like the man we heard about in the early 1950s, who was calling for the nationalization of the steel industry. The man was told by an Objectivist why government seizure of the steel industry was immoral and impractical, and he was impressed by the argument. His comeback was: "Okay, I see that. But what about the coal industry?"

I think one of the frustrations people feel with FF is not his tendency to trivialize evil or wallow in nit-picky semantic negative vibes. I think it is the impossibility of explaining what a principle is to him. He treats principles like concretes, that is, without any conceptual hierarchy, then asks for evidence or points to a surface contradiction (or "gap" or whatever), then claims he debunked this or that.

You try to explain that a principle is integrated from many observations, not deduced from a single instance. But that gets ignored as the parrot kicks in.

Look at how he does not understand the difference between goal and purpose (standard). He is not stupid, but this is not a simple lack of understanding, either. It is a refusal to understand based on a much deeper concrete-bound epistemological premise.

One has to understand something correctly before one can debunk it. Ignoring the meaning will not get one there.

Is his constant ignoring integration honest? I believe so. (Sometimes it is clever, too.) But it is frustrating to those who do think in principles.

People constantly talk past him and he them because of his blinders. There's a hole in his perception where other people see stuff. I've given up on reasoning with this. I've now gone into satire. It's more fun than nitpicking semantics.

He's entitled to his opinions, but he's not going to persuade anyone here that Rand was wrong through argument-by-repetition. Drip drip drip. There will also be my drip drip drip satire along with it. Then if he wants to persuade, he will have to use logic and reason--starting with addressing the fundamental parts he constantly leaves out. (I will not satirize that if he ever starts.)

Once again, I have no problem with disagreements. Nor do I have a problem if someone believes Rand was wrong. I do have a problem when someone preaches a misrepresentation, honestly or dishonestly.

In my evaluation, I don't think he has a clue about how Rand makes a logical connection between fact and value. I mean that literally. What's more, I think when he starts to get it, he resists. (But then, I would need more evidence than forum posts to come to that conclusion, right? Evidence, evidence, evidence... )

In an odd way, he reminds of a mini-celebrity named Anita Sarkeesian when she argues that video games exist just so young testosterone-driven males can oppress females and giant oppressor corporations can exploit this. She never goes to a 100% standard with this premise, but everything she says and does points to it.

As she is intelligent, and this theme shows a breathtakingly stunted and/or warped epistemology when she simply leaves out obvious things (like garden-variety fun, the pleasure of puzzle-solving, neuroscience, etc.) but insists on attributing really obnoxious class-warfare motives to gamers (and all males throughout history--except left-wingers--for that matter), she has oodles of well-intentioned gamers constantly trying to make sense out of her arguments and then getting hostile with her when she refuses to consider the obvious while claiming the obnoxious part about them is all. Of course, she then blames all the hostility on their supposed misogyny.

What's worse, you feel she is sincere.

It's watching someone live in the real world with her body, but living in a self-imposed opaque bubble in her mind.

Concrete-bound epistemology is like that, too. (I expect FF to now say I'm unfair because he never discussed video games. )

The frustrating part is you look at someone intelligent like that and wonder how they can do it. But they do...

Apropos, I bet if I scratch this deep enough, I will come up with core story at the root.

Michael

No, rather than being concrete-bound, my approach is to require that ideas be derived from actual data rather than exist, in Rand's words, as "floating abstractions" or in another writer's words "a theory in search of a reality."

I have never trivialized evil. Rather, my position is that opposition to evil does not follow logically from the basic premises of Rand's ethics.

I agree that a "principle is integrated from many observations," and accordingly it is not from a few but many observations that I've concluded that Rand is in error in saying that the predator's "price of destruction [is] the destruction of their victims and their own."

Of course, there is a connection between fact and value. However, the existence of that connection does not form a bridge from Rand's egoistic premises to her position on respecting rights.

I grant the difference between goal and purpose (standard). What I question is that the predator's standard necessarily must be Rand's standard.

And, yes, repetition is best avoided when possible. In the future I'll attempt to respond to posts with links to previous posts. You'll see, I hope, less drip, drip, drip and more link, link, link.

There has been no misrepresentation of Ayn Rand. I never claimed that she endorses a prudent predator. All along my position has been that the rights-respecting conclusions she reaches (and that I concur with) do not follow seamlessly from her early premises.

As for the accusation that I "wallow in nit-picky semantic negative vibes." It is true, that from time to time, I do enjoy wallowing, but I am always careful to choose a location where the vibes are positive and the semantics are free of nits.

I agree that satire may be the best way to respond to my posts. The satirist is not required to paint an accurate portrait only an exaggerated one.

[Brant Gaede]

The core story is the core story one puts at one's "root." I doubt it can be displaced. I think Greg and Francisco are very similar that way except their core stories don't overlap, so they argue with each other. Or rather, Francisco argues, Greg is much too basic for that frosting. I've learned much more that's valuable and important to me from Greg, however.

--Brant

mucho

[Brant Gaede]

Francisco, did you just say in your last post you don't do abstractions from abstractions? Or, do you do abstractions from abstractions in turn from data?

--Brant