Intellectual debate: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Brant Gaede]

For the record: Ayn Rand took two years, not four (Ellen) to write Galt's speech.

--Brant

Edited January 23, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Mikee]

I REALLY wish I had more time right now to read and try to understand this thread right now but it will have to wait until the weekend. I hope the conversation between Paul and Shayne is still ongoing.

In the meantime: I see nothing at all wrong with statements of the form: "When you say this [etc] is sounds as if you think this [etc]. Given the complexity of the human mind and language sometimes I think it's a miracle that anyone understands someone else ever. Think of two alien races, both highly advanced, meeting for the first time. Perhaps the only thing they have in common are math and technologies which they agree on. Anything at all they tried to converse about other than the most basic things would be completely baffling. There might be decades of developing a common language. A "meeting of the minds" can be difficult and require a long feeling out period of question and answer for it to happen. Please let it happen. I really like where Paul is working now and I can't think of anyone better than Shayne to bounce these ideas off of.

[sjw]

Shayne, as a matter of fact, it was your post responding TO ME to which I was replying.

Oh please. It's all part of the same conversation. You just want to drop context as a means of attacking, just as you've dropped context by posting stuff from the talent thread into this thread, or stuff from Victor's art thread into this thread.

[sjw]

Epistemology has an inescapable subjective root that renders ITOE important but incomplete.

Rand was well aware of the fact that ITOE was incomplete. That's why she called it "*Introduction* to Objectivist Epistemology". My point is that your statement implies that you have a fundamental disagreement with ITOE regarding her comments on subjective/intrinsic/objective knowledge. Could you comment on this apparent disagreement?

[Kevin Haggerty]

I see nothing at all wrong with statements of the form: "When you say this [etc] is sounds as if you think this [etc].

Hey Mikee. I think this is a fundamental tool of communication and respect, as long as there's a big ol' question mark at the end. It can be a little painstaking when you have to offer several paraphrases of a person's point of view before they agree with your assessment--sometimes you both end up trading paraphases of paraphrases and that could try anybody's patience--but when the person I'm talking to finally say, "Yes, that is what I was trying to get at" I find the process well worth the trouble.

But as soon as a person asserts, "No, that's not what you meant at all, you don't know what you're saying, I'll tell you what you're saying..." any hope for an exchange of ideas is lost, because such a person has decided to innitiate force against the person they're talking to. The person has become an intellectual bully. Interestingly, often such folks do not perceive this, because they don't see the force coming from within them, but from our language itself. They believe it is logic which exerts the force; it is logic that forces the other person to conform to their view of things, they are but a passive messenger of the capital "T" truth.

And just to make things as clear as I can for any would-be intolerationist out there: I'm not saying that it's "bad" to judge other people as being unaware of their true feelings or of the implications of what they say (plenty of us are!), only that if communication is your goal, then you must allow the other person to be the arbiter of what they meant and what they're trying to say. We are none of us perfect communicators, and it may take a couple goes at a subject before we've made ourselves clear. When I decide that a person is well and truly unaware of themselves and what the heck they're talking about, I understand that any further direct conversation with that person is a waste of my time and theirs.

-Kevin

[Rich Engle]

Shayne has a wonderous vision of an ant colony, and then kicks down this virtual sandpile:

This misses the point. Ayn Rand created a grand, sweeping, radical new alternative in the history of philosophy, and here we have little ants staring at little passages and making little nitpicking criticisms about them that misrepresents her actual view. You can't read one sentence and make these big sweeping inferences--no sentence, not even Ayn Rand's, can capture every aspect and nuance and possible criticism--you have to see how it relates to everything else. You have to think, you have to integrate.

It's sad. We have on the one hand ARI types who refuse to find anything wrong, vs. people who didn't bother thinking while they read her and find things wrong that she didn't even hold.

MSK is diplomatic, and fair, and in this case, trying to be pragmatic in the good sense (there are times when being pragmatic works well).

I remember once hearing Nathaniel comment about manners. He more or less said that an incredibly large amount of problems can be solved or prevented by use of good manners. That is a standard of civility which I find difficult to debate, and painfully simple to pursue. And, it sure seems like an expedient manner in which to pursue self-interest. It is something that is rarely, if ever, perfected, but to pursue seems to improve matters.

It is a simple, civil standard, and what it makes me wonder is why I would assume that one who clearly has not mastered it would be capable of consistency elsewhere. And even if they are, to have to pick through the ill-mannered shell...why? The truth can so easily be found elsewhere.

On the other hand, I remember J.G. Bennett saying "If you have an unpleasant nature, and dislike people, it is no obstacle to the work."

As to the ever-so-inviting quote I placed here, it appears that the assumption is people here on OL have an insufficient conceptual framework as far as reading Rand's fiction, if not all of her work in general. That's pretty questionable just from the fact that this is OL...you go to Rand boards for a reason. Seems like the idea is there is really, here, only one person who understands fully.

So yes, I can easily separate wheat from chaff. The questions become "why" and "for what purpose is so much chaff there to begin with?"

rde

Edited January 23, 2007 by Rich Engle

[sjw]

But as soon as a person asserts, "No, that's not what you meant at all, you don't know what you're saying, I'll tell you what you're saying..." any hope for an exchange of ideas is lost, because such a person has decided to innitiate force against the person they're talking to.

Ridiculous. You cast disagreement as initiation of force--revealing not truth but the touchy tolerationist spirit. What's next, do you support actual physical retaliation for this alleged "initiation of force"? It wouldn't be out of the ordinary, statists act like this all the time. No one's more touchy than a dictator.

I'm not saying that it's "bad" to judge other people as being unaware of their true feelings or of the implications of what they say (plenty of us are!), only that if communication is your goal, then you must allow the other person to be the arbiter of what they meant and what they're trying to say.

I agree--but if the person's answers in contradictions you certainly can't give much weight to his account. You can't square a circle nor "communicate" with someone who makes no sense.

[sjw]

Seems like the idea is there is really, here, only one person who understands fully.

No, it's: Know your limits. E.g., it's preposterous criticize Rand on issues that she (or her associates) covered in detail somewhere that you haven't bothered to read. Your stance should be more of "She said this, and it makes no sense to me because ..." and not "Rand makes no sense. She said X but it's really Y." Speaking of bad manners--in intellectual discussions, nothing is more boorish than that.

And no, I don't hold the ridiculous idea that all members of OL do this, obviously it's just a few that for their own good should be discouraged. There are plenty of erudite members here.

[Dragonfly]

And no, I don't hold the ridiculous idea that all members of OL do this, obviously it's just a few that for their own good should be discouraged. There are plenty of erudite members here.

Well, you are not one of them.

[Kevin Haggerty]

But as soon as a person asserts, "No, that's not what you meant at all, you don't know what you're saying, I'll tell you what you're saying..." any hope for an exchange of ideas is lost, because such a person has decided to innitiate force against the person they're talking to.

Ridiculous. You cast disagreement as initiation of force.

No, actually, I don't. You know, for a really smart guy, you sure do a lot of sloppy paraphrasing. I think communication requires an authentic desire to understand the other person's point of view. I see an emotional component to successful communication. Where people share mutual respect and extend the benefit of their doubts to the other person, communication tends to flourish. I find that certain emotions, like contempt, disdain and hostility definitely impede communcation (of anything other than contempt, disdain and hostility, of course).

You don't show a lot of evidence of a desire to understand, Shayne. You have a way of arrogating near a priori knowledge of other people's beliefs and intentions. I have no doubt you have a thorough understanding of the writings of Ayn Rand, but that doesn't make you a good judge of other poeple, or their motives.

You seem to be far more interested in demolishing other points of view than understanding them, owing to the fact that you've spent so much more of your time in this thread attempting the former than acheiving the latter. Time and again, you've painted another poster's argument as the most absurd crap and told them they don't know what they're talking about. No, Shayne. It is you who refuses to take the time to find out what the others here are talking about.

If I wanted to say disagreement was force, I could have done just that. But I didn't, as anyone can see. How you can honestly imagine that someone coming to this board would hold such an asanine view as mere disagreement = force is beyond me. But I find your response typical of a lot of intellectual bullies I've known because they never take responsibility for their bullying behavior.

I'm equating the attempt to force another person to accept your assessment of their inner state to be an innitiation of force. Of course, it's not force on the order of aiming a loaded gun at someone, but it is none the less force, pressure, an attempt to control and dominate. You give the person you're talking to no choice but to allow themselves to be dominated by you (at least to the degree that they must explain and justify themselves at your command) or to leave the conversation. One can disagree without discounting the other person's self-assessment. You don't seem to differenciate between disagreeing and attempting to dominate others.

--revealing not truth but the touchy tolerationist spirit. What's next, do you support actual physical retaliation for this alleged "initiation of force"? It wouldn't be out of the ordinary, statists act like this all the time. No one's more touchy than a dictator.

I gotta wonder how comments like this serve you. I wonder if you feel they contribute to the discourse in any positive way. To my mind, this is exactly the kind of dominating and bullying behavior I'm talking about. Such comments reflect very badly on you.

But perhaps I'm missusing the idea of "force" or using it in a way that's inconsistant with AR. So could you tell me (or anyone here, for that matter) according to AR, is there any kind of force other than physical force? Is there no coersion or bullying without physical violence? I certainly wasn't talking about physical force. I was thinking more in terms of verbal abuse and manipulation, dominating and controling behavior. I think people retaliate in kind to that sort of thing all the time--and I think it greatly impedes communication and undermines mutual respect.

I'm not saying that it's "bad" to judge other people as being unaware of their true feelings or of the implications of what they say (plenty of us are!), only that if communication is your goal, then you must allow the other person to be the arbiter of what they meant and what they're trying to say.

I agree--but if the person's answers in contradictions you certainly can't give much weight to his account. You can't square a circle nor "communicate" with someone who makes no sense.

We reach! (sorry, I was addicted to Star Trek when I was a kid and every now and then I have flash-backs. ) Glad to hear it.

-Kevin

[Paul Mawdsley]

Logic and reason are an integrated whole. One doesn't exist without the other. Even an elementary logic class has to reference material used to demonstrate truth and fallacy. One can blindly run across the highway because one feels like it and not get run over, but it's chutzpah to imply it happened out of reason--i.e., rationality. And if one doesn't want this discussion to bleed to death, we'll have to leave logic to humans, not deer, dogs and machines.

--Brant

My level of interest has waned to the point where I don't care how it dies. If all discussion must only exist in rigid pre-existing rational frameworks defined by Rand, or anyone else for that matter, then there is no room for what I have to contribute in this discussion. I like to challenge existing paradigms but I don't like to beat my head against the wall. I'm getting bored and starting to feel like I'm wasting my time.

Brant,

I believe I owe you an apology. I was getting frustrated with the general feedback I was receiving on this thread yesterday and finally posted a reaction that could have appeared to be directed specifically at you. I was careless. It wasn't specifically your feedback I was frustrated with. You're feedback was just my trigger. Problem is, I don't value the confrontational style many others do. I tend to read confrontation as a lack of intent to listen and understand. I am beginning to reevaluate. I still look for good will, good manners, and an intent to understand. I am learning about the value of confrontation. Go ahead and challenge me to raise the level of my thinking and communication. Sorry about my carelessly directed post.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

Epistemology has an inescapable subjective root that renders ITOE important but incomplete.

Rand was well aware of the fact that ITOE was incomplete. That's why she called it "*Introduction* to Objectivist Epistemology". My point is that your statement implies that you have a fundamental disagreement with ITOE regarding her comments on subjective/intrinsic/objective knowledge. Could you comment on this apparent disagreement?

Shayne,

It has been awhile. I remember my overall evaluation of Rand's perspective and the line of thought it sparked in me but I don't recall the details of her view off hand. I have not set my own thinking relative to Rand's framework, even though many of her principles were my starting point. My copy of ITOE has no index. Could you point me to the relevant chapters or page numbers so I can refresh my understanding of Rand's view before I respond?

Paul

[Rich Engle]

Seems like the idea is there is really, here, only one person who understands fully.

No, it's: Know your limits. E.g., it's preposterous criticize Rand on issues that she (or her associates) covered in detail somewhere that you haven't bothered to read. Your stance should be more of "She said this, and it makes no sense to me because ..." and not "Rand makes no sense. She said X but it's really Y." Speaking of bad manners--in intellectual discussions, nothing is more boorish than that.

And no, I don't hold the ridiculous idea that all members of OL do this, obviously it's just a few that for their own good should be discouraged. There are plenty of erudite members here.

Er, as far as recent memory provides, the only thing I've said directly critiquing Rand in this thread was about her weakness in the area of psychology, and that is has been gone over in many places for a long time. Hardly boorish, a word choice I find uncalled for, but am not suprised to see. Once you've had ants, you've almost had it all. :twitch:

What I said was nothing new. I'd think with your expertise in things Rand you would know that for the longest time she thought of psychology as a pseudo-science, although she later seemed to modify her view.

And time has gone on. She's been dead for over twenty five years. Psychology has continued.

I notice that you rarely speak outside of the Objectivist knowledge base. Is there more?

[sjw]

It has been awhile. I remember my overall evaluation of Rand's perspective and the line of thought it sparked in me but I don't recall the details of her view off hand. I have not set my own thinking relative to Rand's framework, even though many of her principles were my starting point. My copy of ITOE has no index. Could you point me to the relevant chapters or page numbers so I can refresh my understanding of Rand's view before I respond?

See the index, under "intrinsic-subjective dichotomy". There are several pages pointed out there, I presume that's a good place to start.

[Paul Mawdsley]

It has been awhile. I remember my overall evaluation of Rand's perspective and the line of thought it sparked in me but I don't recall the details of her view off hand. I have not set my own thinking relative to Rand's framework, even though many of her principles were my starting point. My copy of ITOE has no index. Could you point me to the relevant chapters or page numbers so I can refresh my understanding of Rand's view before I respond?

See the index, under "intrinsic-subjective dichotomy". There are several pages pointed out there, I presume that's a good place to start.

"My copy of ITOE has no index"

[sjw]

I notice that you rarely speak outside of the Objectivist knowledge base. Is there more?

I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking why most of my comments have been about the basics of Objectivism--well that's because I'm responding to basic mistakes.

If you're asking whether I have my own thoughts, well of course I do. I disagree with Rand on some issues (rarely) and think some areas need expansion (less rarely) and work to apply my own understanding in my own field (often). E.g., I disagree with a specific element of the Objectivist view of certainty, and I'd add a "primary/secondary" conceptual distinction to her epistemology (don't bother guessing what I mean by that), because I needed such a distinction in my field.

[sjw]

"My copy of ITOE has no index"

Whoops.

52-54, 79, 96, 101, 107-108.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul and Shayne,

It might be a good idea to see if your copies of ITOE are the old one or the new 2nd edition. The page numbers will vary.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Logic and reason are an integrated whole. One doesn't exist without the other. Even an elementary logic class has to reference material used to demonstrate truth and fallacy. One can blindly run across the highway because one feels like it and not get run over, but it's chutzpah to imply it happened out of reason--i.e., rationality. And if one doesn't want this discussion to bleed to death, we'll have to leave logic to humans, not deer, dogs and machines.

--Brant

My level of interest has waned to the point where I don't care how it dies. If all discussion must only exist in rigid pre-existing rational frameworks defined by Rand, or anyone else for that matter, then there is no room for what I have to contribute in this discussion. I like to challenge existing paradigms but I don't like to beat my head against the wall. I'm getting bored and starting to feel like I'm wasting my time.

Brant,

I believe I owe you an apology. I was getting frustrated with the general feedback I was receiving on this thread yesterday and finally posted a reaction that could have appeared to be directed specifically at you. I was careless. It wasn't specifically your feedback I was frustrated with. You're feedback was just my trigger. Problem is, I don't value the confrontational style many others do. I tend to read confrontation as a lack of intent to listen and understand. I am beginning to reevaluate. I still look for good will, good manners, and an intent to understand. I am learning about the value of confrontation. Go ahead and challenge me to raise the level of my thinking and communication. Sorry about my carelessly directed post.

Paul

That's all right. While I thought it was directed at me, naturally enough considering you quoted me, I didn't think I was the only one. The discussion, however, is too abstract and impenetrable for me to deal with. I literally don't understand what you are talking about as witnessed by some of your subsequent posts.

--Brant

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul and Shayne,

It might be a good idea to see if your copies of ITOE are the old one or the new 2nd edition. The page numbers will vary.

Michael

I was thinking about that. In my copy page 52 is the first page of chapter 5: Defintiions.

Shayne, thanks for the info. I'll be busy and out of town the next couple of days so it may take a little time to respond. I'll take ITOE with me.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

That's all right. While I thought it was directed at me, naturally enough considering you quoted me, I didn't think I was the only one. The discussion, however, is too abstract and impenetrable for me to deal with. I literally don't understand what you are talking about as witnessed by some of your subsequent posts.

--Brant

Thanks for not telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.

[sjw]

Paul and Shayne,

It might be a good idea to see if your copies of ITOE are the old one or the new 2nd edition. The page numbers will vary.

Michael

Mine's the "Expanded Second Edition." Definitions is on p. 40, so those numbers won't work.

Edited January 23, 2007 by sjw

[Paul Mawdsley]

Mine's the "Expanded Second Edition." Definitions is on p. 40, so those numbers won't work.

Unless anyone has any other ideas, I'll see if I can get my hands on a fancy copy with an index. Why would a book like this be published without an index? I have the same problem with my copy of The Disowned Self.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

I have both editions. Here are the corresponding page numbers for the index entries regarding the intrinsic/subjective dichotomy.

Expanded 2nd Edition p. 52-54 = Old Mentor paperback p. 69-72

(End of Chapter 5, Definitions. Although Shayne may have intended for you to start later, I would start with the paragraph that begins: "Aristotle regarded 'essence' as metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as epistemological.")

Expanded 2nd Edition p. 79 = Old Mentor paperback p. 105-106

(In Chapter 8, Consciousness and Identity. Although it is earlier, I would start with "It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the 'How?'..." and go for 3 paragraphs, ending with "... seeks a substitute in the collective subjectivism of others.")

Expanded 2nd Edition p. 96 = Old Mentor paperback p. 129-130

(This is Peikoff's essay, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy." Although the terminology is different, the intrinsic/subjective dichotomy is still discussed. The intrinsic part is Plato's essences and the subjective part is nominalism. Start with "In the modern era, Platonic realism..." and go for 3 paragraphs, ending with "To secularize an error is still to commit it.")

Expanded 2nd Edition p. 101 = Old Mentor paperback p. 136-137

(Peikoff's essay. To get the context, I would start with "In the realm of propositions, there is only one basic epistemological distinction..." and go for 4 paragraphs, ending with "... objectively required in the process of conceptualization.")

Expanded 2nd Edition p. 107-108 = Old Mentor paperback p. 144-147

(Peikoff's essay. Here is another case where the terminology is different, this time necessary=intrinsic and contingent=subjective. The short part mentioned does not really make the point well, so I would start a bit earlier than the intended start point, right at the heading, "Necessity and Contingency" and go for 9 paragraphs, ending with "... and have no alternative to doing so." (The Mentor page numbers already reflect this expansion.)

I hope that helps.

Michael

[sjw]

Wow, talk about service!