A public apology to forum members.


Mike11

Recommended Posts

Originally I was going to simply PM MSK, then thought this should be public record so thought I should post here.

I don't respect the forum the way other users here do. I've been burned in the past, repeatedly, so decided several years ago to simply practice a kind of Golden Rule - give unto others as you anticipate them giving unto to you. However I've almost always erred on the side of cynicism. On some threads I think I've made actual contributions to discussions because the posters involved seemed to counter my cynicism.

However, as others have graphically seen I have too little restraint when dealing with those extreme cases that others seem to be able to take in stride. Further, I contributed nothing to the actual topic, merely vented the content of my Immense hatred for the poster. My intent was not to start the ensuing posts against Kolker nor was I trying to bait or encourage the moderators to ban my account.

Such is the nature of my all too blind cynicism and anger at many who bring the internet to a lower standard. A standard which I have often pathologically tried to lower. Its like the behavior that drives a public, propagandizing misogynist after being ditched by his wife.

I was going to remove the post in question but decided to keep it also on the public record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike11,

Don't worry about it. Everything's cool. From your writing I know you are not racist or anything like that and I do understand outrage against calls for needless killing. (Also, no guilt trips on OL time. :) ) You didn't really influence my post to Bob against racist outbursts, either. This has been building for some time.

Apropos, if you don't mind, I do want to take advantage of this moment to mention one aspect of Ayn Rand that is very little discussed: decency. Plain old common decency.

Kurt Vonnegut once said we need a little less love in this world and a little more common decency. I think he's right.

Despite all the stories about Rand and her breaks with friends in later life, her works stand as monuments of treating people with common decency. She did not love peace at all costs, but she did hold peace as one of the highest values involved in human cohabitation. Without peace there is no long-term productivity or technological advances (except bellic ones). There is no long-term happiness.

Rand's heroes and heroines treated the people they encountered with courtesy and respect until attacked. They didn't come on strong mouthing off with hatred. The underlying default attitude was common decency and matters progressed from there.

Rand herself helped countless people over her lifetime with their needs when they wanted to study and improve. She never made a big deal out of it, either. Although she despised a homeless begger being held up as an ideal, I know of no instance where she went up to one on the street and spit on him or kicked him. I would be shocked to hear such a thing. On the contrary, I can easily imagine Rand calling for help if she saw a begger in an emergency.

Rand wrote little about common decency but she certainly lived it. (I exclude her affair with Nathaniel since strong personal emotions were involved and break-ups after great passion are always messy.)

If there is one thing about Ayn Rand that I admire and try to emulate hands-down, it is the sense of common decency I get on contemplating her life and works. This is one part that boneheads always miss when they try to carry Rand's banner and allegedly defend her honor. Most of them aren't even decent to each other, so who in hell are they to talk about a better world in Rand's name?

Common decency is not a goal, though. It is a fundamental requirement for the good life. It is merely the starting point.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK:

~ I've apparently missed the source of Mike11's concern, but, re your referral to Rand's concern in discussions in your reply herein, I think the accurate concept she was concerned with was respect, which certainly implies 'decency.'

~ Once insults/flames get fanned...then everything's "deuces wild".

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Let's say that respect is the moral aspect and common decency the psychological counterpart.

Respect doesn't always result in decency and vice-versa. When both are present, though, I see the good life as attainable.

Michael

Michael:

Again, well put. Wisdom compels listening. To be silent and listen, that is a rare quality today. It is one thing to "hear" [for potentially my new compatriot Ba'al {sound waves bouncing off the eardrum} trifecta bones], but it is another to "hear" what someone is attempting to say. You do it well.

A wise man told me very early on that a cynic is a humanist with experience.

Once again - KUDOS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK:

~ Would you clarify your view, as you specify as being clearly contrary to my point, how showing 'respect' allows one to behave as...NOT 'decent?' --- Unless, by 'decent', you mean nothing more than merely being 'polite'...which is a quite optional aspect, morally, in behaviour (I'm thinking of HOUSE :) )

~ To me, this sounds like talking about a cat which is not an animal. Are we having a General Semanticist prob here?

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK:

~ Agreed...but...regarding my request for clarification re your view of a NON-overlapping distinction 'twixt 'respect' and 'decency' (as in your implication that 'you can have the latter without the former'), your response leaves me still confused; you can, or...you can't? Which?

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

When you have a rational morality without a sense of common decency, you get a burocratic and/or snarky mentality, and often some really mean nasty people. Since their primary values do not include being decent to other people, they sometimes seek to get off on technicalities, use morality as a whip, or offer boneheaded arguments about the sanctitiy of the right to starve babies to death (and so forth).

When you have common decency without a rational morality, you get do-gooders who like to join causes that ultimately enslave all of us to their rules and values. When their common decency gets over-selective and the urge to tell all the others outside their immediate focus what to do is really strong, they become attracted to altruistic morality because it gives them the moral authority to impose on others. There are too many of these to mention.

In both of these cases, the one moral/psychological element that is missing in a big honking way is common sense.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selene, be wary of cynicism. You might want to think about H. L. Mencken's statement that "A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin."

Barbara

Barbara, you haven't skipped a beat from when I saw you the first time at 16. lol - I am actually not a cynic, but I've always liked that phrase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

MSK:

~ I notice that you had nothing to say about 'respect.'

~ Your refs to 'snarky' and 'nasty' automatically imply DIS-respect.

~ I'm not clear on your answer to my question about the relation 'twixt 'respect' and 'decency,' since one can't be 'snarky', 'nasty', (shall we add 'insulting'?) etc, without advertising one's lack of Rand's stressed concept: 'respect.' --- If there's respect, there's 'decency', no? If none of the latter, then none of the former, correct? That's all my point was about.

~ You brought up 'rational morality' (by which I interpret you mean as 'rationalized moralizing'...not the same!); I merely brought up 'respect.'

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Maybe another approach will help.

You can respect a person philosophically and still commit grave psychological mistakes. The same goes vice-versa.

You need to respect a person as a human being (psychologically) and as a valuer (philosophically).

Otherwise, as just one example, you call good decent people dishonest because they didn't think about something they already knew about. Technically, they may have evaded at a specific moment because it was painful (or whatever) to think about something and that could be a form of dishonesty in the 17th definition of the term (as regards epistemology). So in philosophical terms, it is correct to call them dishonest. (I think it is a real stretch to think like that, but I will concede the point for the moment). But calling them dishonest in public for that as if they were outright liars is pure disrespect to them as human beings. It is belittling them in public before others based on a technicality. People are really touchy about their public image and that is a psychological value, even if it is not so much a philosophical one.

I could make a laundry list of other kinds of examples just from observing how people behave on discussion forums.

The point is that philosophy is not a substitute for psychology nor is psychology is not a substitute for philosophy. You need both for a well-integrated life.

Making a false dichotomy between the two, or trying to ignore one while acting solely on the premises of the other is what I call lacking in common sense.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selene, be wary of cynicism. You might want to think about H. L. Mencken's statement that "A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin."

Barbara

Hoo Ha! That is good! That Mencken was a genius. A similar saying: a cynic is a person who knows the price everything and the value of nothing. Then there is always the one about the Liberal: A Conservative who has not yet been mugged. Anyone who remains a Romantic or an Idealist after the age of twenty five is a rare bird indeed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now