Objectivism as Religion

[Paul Mawdsley]

:yawn:

I get ya Kat! I get ya! :yawn: :yes:

Shauna

[Victor Pross]

Victor! Your comments are out of line!

Ivan,

For you, I take it back. But for others, I leave it in...for those who don't care. :aww:

-Victor

[sjw]

:yawn:

I get ya Kat! I get ya! :yawn: :yes:

Shauna

Glad to see you're finally acting your age. Well, I mean your education level. I haven't seen behavior like yours since high school.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shauna is Paul's wife.

What does any of this contribute to wisdom?

Anybody?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Shauna is Paul's wife.

What does any of this contribute to wisdom?

Anybody?

Michael

Whoa! I just had a flash back hearing my mother's voice say "wait till your father gets home!" when I was ill-behaved.

[sjw]

Shauna is Paul's wife.

O.o

What does any of this contribute to wisdom?

It's shameful that Rich didn't just address my point: that James' statement was bogus because it defined religion so broadly it included everything. Instead he listed James' credentials (argument from authority) and declared my ignorance (ad hominem).

Here's some wisdom: This kind of nonsense would stop if the perpetrators were put in their place by other members than just me rather than joked around with. This same pattern happens in high school and society at large: hooligans getting away with crap and no one says anything so they just keep doing it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

You see insults where none are meant. Then you respond with strong insults. I see no value in doing that all the time.

But let's look at this last case anyway. All you needed to say to Rich was that he was wrong in assuming you had not read James and I am sure he would have apologized for the presumption (while still disagreeing with your evaluation of James, and remember that he is no longer an Objectivist). I see no big deal there, nor any intended insult.

I do see why he could have made that presumption, too, given that fact that Objectivists frequently trash philosophers like James (and others) without having read a word simply because Rand trashed them. They use Rand as a short-cut to their own thinking, then go about condemning very intelligent producers (like James) as if they were expert intellectuals themselves. From what I read, your comments about James were pretty standard Objectivist bashing, so Rich reacted automatically. A friendly reminder that he was dealing with a person who is more responsible intellectually than what he has been used to would have settled the issue right there on the spot.

If you claim the right to have a really thin skin, what about Rich's context, where he has been cussed all the way to Kingdom come and back by Objectivists? Doesn't he have a right to make a mistake because of all that noise without being called an intellectual slut?

We certainly are not helping a high school student understand Objectivism or any other ideas with this stuff.

Michael

PS to Rich: Please remember that Shayne is in a much higher intellectual class than those enthusiastic boneheads who have normally engaged you. He has a stricter view of Objectivism than most on OL, but that does not mean he does not think with his own mind (or has a habit of criticizing what he does not know). His views appear to align with the orthodoxy, but once you look at them closer, you see that this is on the surface only. He definitely is not a tribalist.

You both are good guys.

[Victor Pross]

I see William James as the catalyst of all self-appointed gurus and baby-sitters for the lost children of affluent families—one whose perpetual smile betokens a private joy in fuzzy thinking and the attention of nubile waifs. James was also instrumental in getting the movers of Avant-Garde art off the ground, the folks who designed the emperor’s new clothes.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Shayne, I too am not only an intellectual slut, but an intellectual whore. I look at various philosophies with the sole intent of gaining intellect from them. This intellect, since I found Objectivism, is almost solely in the arena of reaffirming my own beliefs and finding better ways to do it.

As far as it being a religion goes, however, I would have to agree with Shayne. Lets face it, an all-inclusive definition isn't a definition. As I iterated on the Art and Subobjectivity (god I hate that name) thread, a subjective (or infinite, both work) definition is a contradiction in terms.

Ivan, the utilization of techniques by preachers does not make on a preacher (talking is a technique often used by preachers) to quote Atlas Shrugged "James, you ought to learn some day that words have an exact meaning"

As to your question about who decides which version is truly Objectivism, I have two answers. One is righ and one is wrong. I just don't know which.

1. The people who agree completely with every word that Rand said while continually challenging every premise and not relying on Rand's intellect but using their own. (I think this boils it down to just Rand) The rest of us are just attempting to improve.

2. Whoever has achieved logical perfection. (It cannot be proved that this is true for anyone)

Edited January 12, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[sjw]

Shayne, I too am not only an intellectual slut, but an intellectual whore. I look at various philosophies with the sole intent of gaining intellect from them. This intellect, since I found Objectivism, is almost solely in the arena of reaffirming my own beliefs and finding better ways to do it.

To be an intellectual slut in the sense I meant, you have to not only look at them but refrain from fundamental evaluations of them. You need an "it's all good" attitude when it comes to ideas. So are you one in that sense then? The Bible is as good for you as James or Rand?

[Danneskjold]

Having had much of the Bible rammed down my throat, I would say that there is no wisdom there that you could not also find in Objectivism/using logic. I find myself using a particular passage from the Bible quite often when conversing with Christians. I don't know the exact words but what it boils down to is "If a man does not work, nor shall he eat."

[sjw]

You see insults where none are meant.

Michael, I appreciate some of your other comments, but I can't agree with this. Rich claimed I didn't and probably could not understand James. That's an insult. He refused to face up to my actual criticism, offering ad hominem and argument from authority instead. That's dishonest. I can see why he was treated the way he was by other Objectivists. You can't pull that sort of low crap on Objectivists of any ilk in any forum, and rightly so.

You talk about a "thin skin". I don't agree there either. I choose not to put up with Rich and Paul's little games. I choose not to tolerate unfounded insults, irrationality, context dropping, and brazen acts of illogic. This is a conscious intellectual choice on my part, not an emotional reaction. If I see bullshit, I'm going to call bullshit. You don't seem to agree with that, and that's OK, but I haven't yet seen an argument against my approach. On the contrary, all I've seen is more insults, and this allegation that I have a "thin skin".

[sjw]

Having had much of the Bible rammed down my throat, I would say that there is no wisdom there that you could not also find in Objectivism/using logic. I find myself using a particular passage from the Bible quite often when conversing with Christians. I don't know the exact words but what it boils down to is "If a man does not work, nor shall he eat."

You did not answer my question. Do you consider refraining from an overall evaluation of these works to be a virtue? I don't question whether we can find tidbits of value in the Bible, or in James (more than a few tidbits there actually). I would not even be surprised if Hitler had something of "value" to say somewhere or other. Here he says someting of value, even if on accident and by implication: "What luck for rulers that men do not think." That doesn't mean I'm going to declare "it's all good" and claim that someone who gives an overall negative evaluation of Hitler's philosophy is ignorant of it.

[Danneskjold]

Refraining completely from reading all philosophy but my own? Of course that's not good as I would show by saying that I look at many other philosophies if for no other reason than to reaffirm my own. It's just fine to look, although I would seriously hesitate to/not say "it's all good".

[Victor Pross]

Refraining completely from reading all philosophy but my own? Of course that's not good as I would show by saying that I look at many other philosophies if for no other reason than to reaffirm my own. It's just fine to look, although I would seriously hesitate to/not say "it's all good".

Jeff,

You might want to look into Existentialism. It's a French school of philosophy popular during the 1950s and 60s. It taught its adherents how to wear a black turtleneck, dangle a cigarette from the lips and strike a pose of dour worldiness--all useful tools for seducing female graduate students over coffee.

Sign me up. :turned:

-Victor

[Paul Mawdsley]

Shauna is Paul's wife.

O.o

Okay! The kids are in bed and I have successfully repelled the attempted coup for control of the computer.

What does any of this contribute to wisdom?

For starters, I have learned that Shayne would rather talk to my wife than talk to me. That's understandable. Like Shayne, she has a strong analytical side and can tend to view things through a dyadic lens. Her analytical side says the way we all are behaving together-- yeah! you too Shayne-- is ridiculous and childish. However, her dyadic lens can be just as cutting as Shayne's (although generally with more restraint). She certainly doesn't see Shayne as being anywhere near innocent in what she has witnessed.

[Victor Pross]

Shauna is Paul's wife.

O.o

Okay! The kids are in bed and I have successfully repelled the attempted coup for control of the computer.

What does any of this contribute to wisdom?

For starters, I have learned that Shayne would rather talk to my wife than talk to me. That's understandable. Like Shayne, she has a strong analytical side and can tend to view things through a dyadic lens. Her analytical side says the way we all are behaving together-- yeah! you too Shayne-- is ridiculous and childish. However, her dyadic lens can be just as cutting as Shayne's (although generally with more restraint). She certainly doesn't see Shayne as being anywhere near innocent in what she has witnessed.

Damn, Paul, it seems like your wife is a lot like Angie. It takes a good woman to tell your inner child to stop acting so childish.

-Victor

[Paul Mawdsley]

Truth is, I've been sitting back and trying to understand the dynamics that keeps leading to the downward spiral in these interactions. I would like to find a way to interact with Shayne's style that doesn't end up in name calling but I don't think it will be easy. It is not entirely in my control.

Mike Erickson suggested that my style is to seek synthesis. This is not exactly correct. I am not attempting a synthesis of two points of view. Nor is it the synthesis of many points of view that I am looking for. This puts way to much emphasis on points of view. I am looking to integrate all the information, all the evidence at my disposal, into a unified view which I can call my own. I just happen to include the information gleaned from tapping into someone else's point of view as extremely valuable for breaking out of this epistemological relativistic bubble I find myself in.

We are all looking to make contact with the absolutes of reality– to discover truth in a sea of belief and faith– that can provide us with more than just a relative physical, psychological, and philosophical point of view. This is what the whole history of religion, philosophy, and science has been about. The absolutes of reality are the holy grail of human consciousness. One way to think of our culture is to consider it as being like a hologram. It is a system of parts, each of which contain a perspective of the whole. More than this, each part is also a part in a greater system. Each individual point of view contains a perspective of our whole social and physical existence. If we see each perspective as a particular angle on the universe– admittedly, some better informed and integrated than others, then surely there is great value in tapping into this resource. It doesn't make sense to disvalue all the information from a given perspective because we do not agree with all the elements of that perspective.

Rand teaches us that reason– the non-contradictory integration of evidence– is our only means to conceptual knowledge. Unfortunately, she also teaches us that it is right to disvalue, and exclude from our consideration, any perspective that contains elements that are antithetical to Objectivist principles. This is the equivalent of saying: Use the faculty of the non-contradictory integration of evidence but don't consider all the evidence. The main point here is that other people's perspectives are not necessarily some threat to be attacked and defended against. They do not have to be viewed as the antithesis to some thesis in some personal trek from dyad to dyad. They are a particular spin of the evidence with a different focus from our own, using different orientations of consciousness, different rational frameworks, and different motivational biases. They are a potential path to new evidence and new connections. In short, they are valuable to our rational faculty.

I am not suggesting that everyone should approach dialogue with a dialectic orientation every time. There is nothing wrong with approaching dialogue as a dyadic system in which sides are taken on a particular integration/interpretation of the evidence. The problems begin when it is suggested the other person's reasoning skills are suspect, their perspective is disvalued, and they are labelled as part of a class of unimportant people worthy of no further consideration.

Michael asks, "What does any of this contribute to wisdom?" As I said before, I find the psychological/social dynamics illuminating. It stirs my imagination and puts in motion a set of connections. Whether or not Shayne and I are able to find some way to interact without finding ourselves in some negative spiral, I will find some way to contribute to my wisdom. It's all information to be integrated.

The problem is that treating other people's views as the antithesis of our own, as some threat to be attacked and defended against while disvaluing their perspective, changes the dynamic that has defined OL until now. The fundamental social value of mutual respect for the other person's perspective has enabled some great quality discussions to evolve here, with little bickering. If this value is not maintained, the identity of OL will change as the "What is Talent" thread bares out. That thread has a truly unique dynamic from any that came before it. The difference is in the breakdown of this defining social value.

Can Shayne and I get along? Can Shayne and Victor get along? Can Shayne and Rich get along? I don't know. Shayne had a great suggestion. Perhaps we all need to look in the mirror and ask, "What do I contribute to the breakdown?" We are volitional beings. We need to make different choices.

I have looked in the mirror. I have looked through all my posts related to my interactions with Shayne. An element of my context in responding to him was a sense of comradery with those I have come to like. I did not stick to the facts the way I would like to think I did. In short, I became part of the problem.

My wife says that I have an obnoxious, pompous, arrogant, self-righteous side to me that shows up when I am experiencing social tension and defensiveness. This is not her favourite side of me. It is what I see in some of my remarks toward Shayne when I look objectively at my posts. This is not the context I want to communicate from. Sorry, my mistake. I do come from a position of good will.

Now, will Shayne take an objective look in the mirror and admit the role he has played in these negative spirals of discourse?

Paul

Edited January 12, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley

[Danneskjold]

So far I have managed to not get in a fight with him. In my humble opinion, everybody is committing the fallacist's fallacy. That is, assuming that the other person's position is wrong because they commit a fallacy. You guys all say the others set up strawmen, ad hominems, or any other various types, and then disregard all other information because of these fallacies.

Then again I joined into the talent conversation fairly late, I could be wrong.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

We do disagree on some things.

Michael, I appreciate some of your other comments, but I can't agree with this. Rich claimed I didn't and probably could not understand James. That's an insult.

Why not ask him if he really meant that you have an intellectual defect or are mentally impaired? I explained his context to you. You can use that information or not in your evaluation. You obviously chose not to so far. I agree that Rich isn't a saint, but he isn't the devil either. You err in your judgment.

You talk about a "thin skin". I don't agree there either.

Heh.

If you see something you perceive as a slight, you get extremely insulting right at the start and don't even bother to ask to make sure. I have seen this enough to say it and know it to be accurate. You certainly exclude personal contexts (except your own) and presume the absolutely worst motives by the other person at moments like this. I call that "thin skin."

I choose not to put up with Rich and Paul's little games. I choose not to tolerate unfounded insults, irrationality, context dropping, and brazen acts of illogic. This is a conscious intellectual choice on my part, not an emotional reaction.

I agree that insults should not be tolerated and that rudeness is appropriate when one is absolutely sure an insult occurred.

But there are other manners of not tolerating "irrationality, context dropping, and brazen acts of illogic" than calling someone names. What is the purpose of calling a person a nasty name if you think he is irrational? If you want to discuss something with the person, this effectively shuts the door. If you want to point out an error, you create hostility so that your arguments are not even looked at. If you wish to dismiss the person, why not ignore the person instead? Calling him a nasty name almost ensures he will call you one back. Is that your intent? If so, how does that show lack of toleration? You obviously tolerate the irrationality enough to want to keep engaging it.

I am not against nasty names qua nasty names. I am against using them as a first act of judgment. This is part of my entire approach in Objectivism. I prefer to understand perfectly what I am judging before I fly off the handle. That is why I have a small procedure I go through (which normally includes asking the person if my understanding is correct) just to make sure. You have seen me get nasty, so you know that I am not suggesting appeasement and that when I find something despicable, I do not mince my words.

This is where we come to Paul. I find your perception of his motives to be incorrect.

Paul has developed some brilliant thinking in understanding why certain things happen by looking at them from different perspectives and testing observations against different standards. (He calls it looking through different lenses.) He is not interested in clouding the line between good and evil at all. On the contrary, I get the impression that he is highly interested in making sure something is evil before he goes about destroying it.

In my experience with people (which has included environments where there were some really nasty people, hardened criminals and moral scum), I have found that the person who seeks full knowledge (regardless of motive) is the most dangerous when he gets violent. He will seek to destroy what he is after efficiently, not talk about it. The good guys who are like this are absolute hell to evil once they get rolling (violently or otherwise), and they are usually the quiet ones so nobody ever hears about what they do.

Let's say that they think vermin should be exterminated and they find no pleasure in doing that, so once they are sure they are dealing with vermin, they just go in and do what has to be done and get it over with—and then move on without a second thought. This can be killing on one extreme and goes the range to simply neutralizing the evil on the other. Force does not have to be involved, but the evil does get eradicated for the particular situation involved.

(I don't want to comment on the bad guys like this as it is outside the topic. Their standard is not good/evil and they are scum anyway.)

I see Paul's commitment to discovering that he has all the facts as a form of ensuring that he will commit no injustice in his evaluations. I have no doubt that Paul has a very interesting history—one that includes strong acts of moral judgment—that would surprise most any of us.

That is the value I get from his words.

Michael

[sjw]

Paul:

Unfortunately, she also teaches us that it is right to disvalue, and exclude from our consideration, any perspective that contains elements that are antithetical to Objectivist principles.

First of all, this statement doesn't make sense to me unless you replace "Objectivist" with "rational". I don't live my life by what Rand said, I do what I think makes sense. Leaving that quibble aside, I don't think Rand did what you accuse her of. I certainly don't do it. If I did that I'd exclude virtually everything from consideration (but substitute "Objectivist" with "rational"). In fact I'd have to exclude Objectivism because it contains bogus elements in a few places. I don't think anyone could actually practice what you're saying, I think it's incoherent.

On the contrary, I agree in principle with your method of looking at everything, and then integrating your own perspective, tossing out what's bad, keeping what's good (*based on a rational method*, and keeping in mind that we can't literally look at everything, we have to prioritize, there's not point in reading junk like the Bible). In fact I explicitly, knowingly have used that method in my field in creating a new approach--I was using your stated method a decade ago. I not only referred to old approaches I considered flawed in many respects, but I absolutely needed them in order to make sure I had coverage in my own method. I've heard it said that Plato's main value was to raise the right questions, even though his answers were all wrong. In this respect he definitely helped Aristotle (Aristotle is another figure who explicitly, knowingly referred to previous works in order to get good coverage on his own).

So if you're trying to contrast your approach with mine, that's not the right contrast.

You wonder why things break down. Michael thinks I overreact. I respect the assessment. But what I think is really going on is that I react as such. Here we are talking about all the other bullshit, speaking in generalities about dozens of posts--when right in front of you is Rich with his ad hominem and argument from authority and changing the subject. This is gross illogic on his part. And that's not mentioning the insult. This is the part I don't understand. He commits a rapid fire succession of fallacies clearly driven from some motive other than to comprehend the subject at hand--and now we're talking about what an asshole Shayne is. I think there's something wrong with that.

You say you have good will. I'd like to believe that. But for me, good will begins with a commitment to reason. There is no such thing as an irrational good will. How can you let this stream of illogic spew forth from Rich and look the other way while you make jokes (or maybe that was your wife...)? You speak of the environment at OL and how I'm corrupting it. What kind of environment is it when someone feels perfectly happy indulging in illogic like Rich just did? I'm all for cutting people a little slack. I cut you and Rich zero slack for a simple reason: you have not demonstrated a commitment to reason, you've demonstrated the opposite. I give people benefit of the doubt up until the point that they prove that they don't give a damn about principles, logic, reason, what's right and what's wrong, then that's it. You three crossed the line with me.

You ask whether I'll look in the mirror. I am looking in the mirror. And what I see is me acting the way I think for the most part, while being open to changing my mind. But you offer me no reasons, no arguments for why I shouldn't hold you to these standards, you just offer insults (up until your last post). For one thing, tell me why I should put up with Rich's 3 breaches of logic. Why is that an acceptable form of discourse in this forum that we should look the other way on? I think he should get smacked upside the head (metaphorically) and discouraged from doing it. *He* should be the one everyone gets on his case for not staying on topic, for indulging in fallacies. Instead, *I* get smacked upside the head. What's up with that?

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

All these remarks about you being more of a better fit comes from a place where the regulars here are known to take swipes at Rand—all of it to demonstrate what “true free thinkers they are”. :shifty: You appear fully committed to reason—and I only suppose this from your directly saying so. You also mention being “rational” as you prefer, over being pegged an “Objectivist.” Well, that’s good, and I feel the same way about myself. And Angie, too. My motto is: I love Ayn Rand--but I love the truth more. I’m an independent thinker, and I can say that without trashing Rand. Just like you. So we have that in common. [shayne, this is me bending the grapevine tree within your reach.]

-Victor

Edited January 12, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Hey Victor, I think it's supposed to be an olive branch.

[Victor Pross]

Hey Victor, I think it's supposed to be an olive branch.

Olives? I don't like the taste of that. Yuck. :shocked:

[sjw]

Thanks Victor, branch accepted