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

[sjw]

At least I give specific quotes to back up my argument that Branden later disagreed with Rand in that "feelings might reflect a more correct assessment of reality than conscious beliefs" (a statement with which Rand no doubt would have violently disagreed).

On the contrary Rand would have agreed that sometimes feelings might be more right than thinking, particularly in a confused person. Indeed she specifically says that one can't know apriori whether an emotion implies a correct or incorrect idea, one has to think it through.

The Objectivist is a thick book, and you clearly haven't even bothered to read what little you have of Objectivism very well. Why should I dig around for something for you when 1) you show little motive to understand Objectivism; 2) it won't make any difference to you anyway, you'll still persist in your biased thinking regarding Rand's view on emotions.

And my argument was that NB later disagreed with that "certainty of the conscious conviction", which I proved by giving the relevant quote. The only thing you do is to give some vague reference to NB's articles in The Objectivist, which is completely useless and doesn't refute my argument.

All you demonstrated was that NB *alleged* to have changed.

Ah, the typical Randroid reasoning: if you disagree with Rand you must be "totally non-objective" and "arbitrary hostile of Rand"

Ah, the typical lazy-minded Rand hater. I didn't claim you were those things because you disagreed with Rand (I disagree with her myself at points); I claimed you were because you take the worst possible interpretation of Galt's statement and attribute that to her, without leaving any possibility for deeper meaning behind that generalization, and without integrating it relative to other things she said that would contradict your interpretation.

[Dragonfly]

"We try to resolve the conflict between reason and feeling" I cannot think of how you would do this with emotion, so I'll assume we use reason to do this.

Why? You could also follow your gut feeling; that might work better than your conscious argument. Now you can of course always claim that just by making that decision you are using reason ("I'd probably better off by trusting my feelings"), but that is obviously not what's meant by "reason" in the original texts, which stands for the conscious ideas that clash with your feeling, and not for the pragmatic decision to have more confidence in your feelings than in your rational conviction.

[Dragonfly]

The Objectivist is a thick book, and you clearly haven't even bothered to read what little you have of Objectivism very well. Why should I dig around for something for you when 1) you show little motive to understand Objectivism; 2) it won't make any difference to you anyway, you'll still persist in your biased thinking regarding Rand's view on emotions.

How predictable. You can't backup your argument and therefore you resort again to the ad hominem with arbitrary statements for which you don't have any evidence. How do you know what I've read of Objectivism and how well I've read it? What do you know about my motive to understand Objectivism? I understand it well enough to know all the errors and I'm still waiting for the Objectivist who can refute my arguments. I don't come up with lame excuses not to backup my statements. Here, I'll give you another Rand quote for free: "An emotion that clashes with your reason, an emotion that you cannot explain or control, is only the carcass of that stale thinking which you forbade you mind to revise."

All you demonstrated was that NB *alleged* to have changed.

Oh, you know better than NB himself whether he has changed? I suppose that for such an extraordinary claim you'd present some extraordinary evidence. Somehow I must have missed that.

Ah, the typical lazy-minded Rand hater.

Again a statement for which you haven't any evidence. Where did you get the silly idea that criticizing someone's arguments implies hating that person? That says more about yourself than about me. For the record: I don't hate Rand at all, but I do have severe criticisms of some of her arguments. But your are not interested in arguments, only in unsupported allegations and in trying to discredit people who disagree with you by using equally unsupported ad hominems.

[sjw]

How do you know what I've read of Objectivism and how well I've read it?

Depending on how you define "read", I don't know how much you've "read". Maybe your eyes moved over many pages. But as to how well you've read it--well that is evident.

Someone like you should be careful about making such a big deal about my not digging up quotes for you. I might just do it. And then where would that leave you? You're not prepared to abandon your nonsense if I do, are you? Let me put it another way. You ask me to dig up information for you. What do you offer in return? Will you exhibit the virtue of pride, and go fix yourself up? Or are you going to continue with your annoying and ill-informed interlocutions?

[Mikee]

I think that the whole idea that someone can be "fully integrated" is a chimaera. We are all full of contradictory ideas and that's probably a good thing, as it gives us flexibility and may be the ultimate source of creativity. In mentally healthy individuals this will pose relatively little problems, as they've found a modus operandi that enables them to function well in most cases, you might compare it with a healthy market of ideas: not every idea is equally good, but there is general prosperity. The idea of a fully rational person is a floating abstraction that has no reference to reality.

The natural process is to try to integrate. Of course this is a life long process and no one is truly fully integrated. However, I don't think we are all "full of" contradictory ideas or a is it a good idea. I think the process of trying to integrate seemingly contradictory ideas is where creativity comes from.

I believe John Galt was Ayn Rand's romaticized representation of a fully rational (and fully integrated) person. This explains John Galt's answer to the question of which to choose, mind or emotion. But as Ayn Rand said: John Galt does not exist. As Bruce Lee said: "Don't mistake the finger pointing to the moon for the moon."

Integrity consists of the continuous effort to understand new information and new experience and to act consistently in accordance to your principles. It doesn't mean to wallow in the joy of being full of contradictory ideas.

[Dragonfly]

Depending on how you define "read", I don't know how much you've "read". Maybe your eyes moved over many pages. But as to how well you've read it--well that is evident.

Another arbitrary assertion. Where is your evidence?

Someone like you should be careful about making such a big deal about my not digging up quotes for you. I might just do it.

Oooh! Should I become afraid now?

And then where would that leave you? You're not prepared to abandon your nonsense if I do, are you?

You'll first have to show that it is nonsense. I won't hold my breath.

Let me put it another way. You ask me to dig up information for you. What do you offer in return?

Why should I offer anything in return? I've presented my argument with relevant quotes, while you have only made arbitrary assertions. The ball is in your court.

Will you exhibit the virtue of pride, and go fix yourself up? Or are you going to continue with your annoying and ill-informed interlocutions?

Again you seem to be more interested in the psychology of your opponent than in a real argument. And about annoying: until recently OL was a relatively pleasant place for discussions, but that has changed when you arrived. You're looking for trouble everywhere, continuously attacking and insulting people, turning this place into another Solo.

[sjw]

You'll first have to show that it is nonsense. I won't hold my breath.

Why do you refuse to identify why you even care if I find a quote or not? Nevermind, the answer is evident.

Again you seem to be more interested in the psychology of your opponent than in a real argument.

You don't have an argument. All you have is your twisted reading of Rand. You've gotten basic issues wrong that should not have to be explained or argued about. And I don't care about your psychology, it's your particular motive in wanting to see a quote that's in question. A particular motive is not a psychology. I think you are an evader, and even if I find a quote, and even if you aren't clever enough to evade that quote, it will have zero effect on our other evasions.

[Dragonfly]

Why do you refuse to identify why you even care if I find a quote or not? Nevermind, the answer is evident.

I care only for real arguments, and it's obvious that I won't get them from you.

You don't have an argument. All you have is your twisted reading of Rand. You've gotten basic issues wrong that should not have to be explained or argued about.

You're evading again. You have no arguments, you can only come up with arbitrary assertions like "you've gotten basic issues wrong that should not have to be explained or argued about". You're in the wrong place: this is a discussion forum, not a church where we accept everything on faith.

And I don't care about your psychology, it's your particular motive in wanting to see a quote that's in question. A particular motive is not a psychology. I think you are an evader, and even if I find a quote, and even if you aren't clever enough to evade that quote, it will have zero effect on our other evasions.

A nice Freudian slip.

[sjw]

I care only for real arguments.

Why? What is your purpose in seeking out arguments?

[Paul Mawdsley]

I have been secretly wondering what it would look like for Shayne and Dragonfly to lock horns. This is fascinating!

[Kat]

hmmmm.... should I move this discussion to pay per view?

[Ellen Stuttle]

So I'm currently going through something that completely reminds me of this thread. The basic idea is that my friend is going out with this girl who I'm friends with as well. The basic idea is that my friend is quite possibly the worst boyfriend that doesn't cheat. He lies, he's a flake, he's inattentive, he doesn't try, and he just doesn't care. I want her to dump him, she won't. Why? Because her heart is telling her that he's the same guy that she started dating after one night when she met him in the park :getlost:. Her heart is in control, not her head. This is what happens when things go like that.

I hope her head is in enough control she's being really careful about birth-control precautions. If she's badly infatuated, you might have no luck pointing out the guy's flaws, but you might succeed at encouraging enough long-range perspective she doesn't end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jeff,

It is easy to be wrong and at the same time to be convinced that we are right. Take the discussions of abstract painting for example. There were a few people who are absolutely convinced that abstract painting is art. Why? But because the colors are pretty and they derive some sort of pleasure from it—therefore it is art. [!!??] That is an emotion based conclusion.

That's if anything an even more egregious caricature than Shayne's "essentializing" the views of "the talent people."

Meanwhile, I was examining the question by observing the etymology of the word ‘art’ [that comes from a Latin origin referring to ‘skill’ --THIS among other arguments presented].

None of them good arguments, imo, Victor.

Ellen

___

[sjw]

The commonist means by which people attempt to escape from or subvert the primacy of existence, is not by open explicit advocating of the primacy of consciousness, but by unstated implication, the implication of this policy in regard to emotions. --Leonard Peikoff

[Dragonfly]

Meanwhile, I was examining the question by observing the etymology of the word ‘art’ [that comes from a Latin origin referring to ‘skill’ --THIS among other arguments presented].

None of them good arguments, imo, Victor.

Indeed. Since when is the etymology of a word determining its current meaning? "Hysterical" comes from the Greek ύστερα = womb - in former times it was thought that hysterical behavior was caused by a wandering womb. Does that mean that what we now call hysterical behavior of a person has anything to do with his(?) or her womb? Apart from that, who says that abstract art cannot be made with skill? That a lot of abstract art is made without skill is no argument, as that would imply that music and literature aren't art either.

[Rich Engle]

I still haven't plowed through all this, but for now:

I have never used the word "tolerationism" in my life. How can one be accused of preaching a concept that they have not ever used? That's the first thing, and it is a foul. Shayne has applied a label. He has processed, sorted, and labelled me. Foul.

The second item is that I do not preach. Ministers preach, and deliver sermons, among other duties.

I am not a minister.

So much for housekeeping issues. Perhaps it was a mistake, because one way that Unitarian Universalism (and it is true that I was confirmed as a UU last year, but that is only a piece of my being) describes its committments include the phrase "reason, tolerance, freedom." I am wondering if he heard me use the word tolerance; I rarely if ever use any but other than that root word. Or, he judged me to be one of these tolerationist people, a people I that I do not know even exist as a movement. I never even Googled it. News to me, I suppose.

So, as far as all the rest of it is concerned, I will read, but for now all I can do is point out that moment in the exchange between Shayne and I.

I do not believe that I have ever applied a particular label or grouping to Shayne. This is something I have never had a taste for. But if it can be found so that I did, I apologize in advance, and for sure would like to see where I did it, because if I did do that, I violated my own principles and I would wish to make means to correct.

rde

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

It is easy to be wrong and at the same time to be convinced that we are right. Take the discussions of abstract painting for example. There were a few people who are absolutely convinced that abstract painting is art. Why? But because the colors are pretty and they derive some sort of pleasure from it—therefore it is art. [!!??] That is an emotion based conclusion.

That's if anything an even more egregious caricature than Shayne's "essentializing" the views of "the talent people."

Meanwhile, I was examining the question by observing the etymology of the word ‘art’ [that comes from a Latin origin referring to ‘skill’ --THIS among other arguments presented].

None of them good arguments, imo, Victor.

Ellen

___

Ellen,

Egregious caricature? Cracking out the thesaurus, huh? [another work of art, no doubt]. This is simply more assertions without argumentation. Take it to the ‘art thread’ if you feel you have a compelling argument to make—an argument that is, please, more credible than what you thought was your ace card--the “borderline” Apple tree design thingy.

-Victor

Edited January 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

"That a lot of abstract art is made without skill is no argument, as that would imply that music and literature aren't art either."

You hear that, Rich? You aren't skilled becuase you are a musician.

-Victor

[Dragonfly]

"That a lot of abstract art is made without skill is no argument, as that would imply that music and literature aren't art either."

You hear that, Rich? You aren't skilled becuase you are a musician.

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

[Victor Pross]

"That a lot of abstract art is made without skill is no argument, as that would imply that music and literature aren't art either."

You hear that, Rich? You aren't skilled becuase you are a musician.

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

And communication isn't yours--since you give the thumbs up to 'art' that communicates nothing at all.

[sjw]

Take it to the ‘art thread’ if you feel you have a compelling argument to make

Indeed. Seems Ellen has a thing for ripping criticisms out of context from one thread and inserting them into another.

[Victor Pross]

Take it to the ‘art thread’ if you feel you have a compelling argument to make

Indeed. Seems Ellen has a thing for ripping criticisms out of context from one thread and inserting them into another.

Shayne,

To sum up where I stand: The virtue of Rationality means that we act on the basis of evidence--rather than emotions. It means that we don’t take our emotions as a “primary” and however formed. Our emotions are the product of our thinking (or lack of it). They should not be ignored. They are powerful gauges of how we have evaluated whatever is causing the emotion. But it is important to check that the thinking behind them is correct, before acting on them—and to do so as best as we can without regarding any lapse as a moral weakness. So I am not a 'tolerationist' or an 'emotionalist' --even by my saying that I am an emotional man.

As Edwin Locke said:

“Prime movers are neither blind emotionalists nor emotionless rationalists. They are passionate lovers of their work and of success, who use reason to guide their choices and actions. Reason comes first, emotion second.”

That is so me.

-Victor

Edited January 22, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I have noticed that there are different schools of thought in Objectivism. The toxic variety is Religious Rand-Worship Objectivism (which, fortunately, only crops up on OL at very infrequent times, hardly not at all).

But there are another couple of strains that appear once in a while and they tend to paralyze thought, divert discussions, prompt flame wars, etc.:

Oversimplificationalism

and

Rhetoricalism

I mean this strictly, too. These artifices are used in lieu of actual reason. Elsewhere they have been called "passion" and "integrity" and so forth. I reject that. Oversimplification is not "thinking in principles" and making smart-ass put-downs is not "passionate discourse."

Productive work and positive values are what real passion and integrity are all about.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Michael,

You forgot "Ismism." The need to categorize people and their perspectives into "isms."

[sjw]

Oversimplificationalism

and

Rhetoricalism

Michael,

You forgot "Ismism." The need to categorize people and their perspectives into "isms."

ROFL!

Edited January 22, 2007 by sjw