Settling the debate on Altruism

[bmacwilliam]

If we want to think of Morality/Ethics based on what we are, then man indeed DOES have a "duty" to his fellow man. This does not mean that he is a slave. A better Ethics is based on a scientific "qua", not a personal proclamation.

Oh, I get it! If you personally proclaim a conception of "qua" to be "scientific," then it's not a personal proclamation at all. Thanks for clearing that up.

That being said, I do not believe there is a fundamentally objective basis for Ethics at all. Is/ought separation is entirely intact. However, that being said, we either have no ethics at all, or we construct a "Objectivist-like" system as best we can, but based on a firmer footing in reality."

Let's see. No system of ethics can be "objective," but some can be "based on a firmer footing in reality" than others. What kind of reality are you speaking of here -- a purely subjective one?

This would lead to "my ideal" of ethics and politics that recognized that man should indeed be "forced" to be altruistic but only partially.

According to your acceptance of the logical chasm between Is and Ought, no moral "shoulds" can be objective. I must therefore assume you mean to say that how much force should be used depends on your personal proclamations.

It is morally good to be selfish AND it is morally good to be altruistic. Either extreme is not good. Therefore, while achievment and riches should be admired, so should generosity...

In order to avoid descending into the same depths of philosophical ineptitude as Rand, you should preface all such statements with, "I personally proclaim that...." No need to thank me for this sound advice. I wouldn't want you to become another Ayn Rand, after all.

Ghs

I only proclaim my "qua" is better, not immutable, based on E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. A concept that seems to be very frightening to you. Whether one should choose a "qua" or not is separate from the fact that she chose poorly. The point is that even if we leave her system fully intact, allowing the breach, reality kills it anyway.

"According to your acceptance of the logical chasm between Is and Ought, no moral "shoulds" can be objective."

That is correct.

"I must therefore assume you mean to say that how much force should be used depends on your personal proclamations."

Indeed a person can hold totally different set of morals, I can't say mine is better without the "ought". Not exactly clear on what you're getting at though.

"In order to avoid descending into the same depths of philosophical ineptitude as Rand, you should preface all such statements with, "I personally proclaim that...." No need to thank me for this sound advice. I wouldn't want you to become another Ayn Rand, after all."

I guess it's a really sore point that Rand's own argument, presented in her style, completely chokes itself out of existence as soon you apply the slightest bit of reality check to her premises. I can understand why you'd be pissed after spending 45 years of studying this, I really can.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Dan, I'd say in the sense of pragmatic justification of economic and social freedom. I am, though, not much of an Adam Smith authority.

--Brant

[Xray]

Saga (my chocolate Lab): a non-rational animal, but not irrational.

Mira (my cream-colored Golden Retriever), like all dogs, is rational enough to calculate in the abstract. For example, as a young dog, knowing that she was not allowed to climb on our beds, always waited until she was alone in the home and then, undisturbed, installed herself on a bed.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Saga (my chocolate Lab): a non-rational animal, but not irrational.

Mira (my cream-colored Golden Retriever), like all dogs, is rational enough to calculate in the abstract. For example, as a young dog, knowing that she was not allowed to climb on our beds, always waited until she was alone in the home and then, undisturbed, installed herself on a bed.

She had you all figured out, for sure. The rational thing for you to have done would have been to remove the beds, show her who's boss. This would also solve the is/ought problem: you ought not to get on the bed that isn't there. You do know, don't you, that your dog objectively values your (her) beds?

--Brant

makes a mess

[dan2100]

I only proclaim my "qua" is better, not immutable, based on E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. A concept that seems to be very frightening to you. Whether one should choose a "qua" or not is separate from the fact that she chose poorly. The point is that even if we leave her system fully intact, allowing the breach, reality kills it anyway.

"According to your acceptance of the logical chasm between Is and Ought, no moral "shoulds" can be objective."

That is correct.

I must admit to being a little confused here. Once you have that gap -- between Ought and Is -- then you're embracing some form of anti-realism in morality. (Moral realism is the view that there are moral truths -- so, in some sense, it presumes the Ought-Is gap is crossable. Moral anti-realism is the view that there are no moral truths. Both sets of view -- moral realism and moral anti-realism -- can take many different forms, but it seems, from your comments, you're definitely in the anti-realist camp.) So what would evidence or "E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E" have to do with anything here? I mean, isn't that a clear contradiction? Either there is a gap and no evidence will suffice to cross it or there isn't.

"I must therefore assume you mean to say that how much force should be used depends on your personal proclamations."

Indeed a person can hold totally different set of morals, I can't say mine is better without the "ought". Not exactly clear on what you're getting at though.

That you have no means of arguing for using more or less force here or anything. It's all a matter of just personal preference, so why bother to even talk of morality at all? Surely, if there are no moral truths, then what would be the point of using moral arguments? Everytime you say, "it'd be good to do X" or "one should do X" or "X is the right thing to do under these circumstances," you'd be more precise just to say, "I prefer doing X" or "I prefer you do X," etc.

"In order to avoid descending into the same depths of philosophical ineptitude as Rand, you should preface all such statements with, "I personally proclaim that...." No need to thank me for this sound advice. I wouldn't want you to become another Ayn Rand, after all."

I guess it's a really sore point that Rand's own argument, presented in her style, completely chokes itself out of existence as soon you apply the slightest bit of reality check to her premises. I can understand why you'd be pissed after spending 45 years of studying this, I really can.

I don't know about that. I actually accept moral realism and think Rand was on the right track in many places. I do think she made a number of mistakes, but I think your brand of thinking on this subject is completely on the wrong track -- or off the track all together.

I'm unsure what you mean by a "reality check" on her premises. Maybe you could elaborate. If you just mean stuff like people behaving altruistically, at times, that's not much of an argument or a reality check. One wouldn't argue, I trust, that since people get sick on occasion that they shouldn't strive to be healthy...

[dan2100]

Dan, I'd say in the sense of pragmatic justification of economic and social freedom. I am, though, not much of an Adam Smith authority.

I'm not sure that's Smith per se, but it is how he's normally taken, I believe. In other words, an Adam Smith conservative, to you, means someone who is for economic and social freedoms as instrumental to some other goal, such as having a prosperous nation. In other words, this type of conservative would give up economic and social freedoms in a pinch if she or he thought that other goal could be achieved via, say, mercantilism or government management of the media. That what you mean?

[Brant Gaede]

Dan, I'd say in the sense of pragmatic justification of economic and social freedom. I am, though, not much of an Adam Smith authority.

I'm not sure that's Smith per se, but it is how he's normally taken, I believe. In other words, an Adam Smith conservative, to you, means someone who is for economic and social freedoms as instrumental to some other goal, such as having a prosperous nation. In other words, this type of conservative would give up economic and social freedoms in a pinch if she or he thought that other goal could be achieved via, say, mercantilism or government management of the media. That what you mean?

Well, I haven't historically seen any society avoiding descent into statism eventually, but it seems to be a mechanical thing and rules, regulations, taxes, stupidity and minding the other guy's business pile on and pile up. Conservatives haven't been much help. Countries grow old and die, I think, because there is no special interest for freedom strong enough to stop the special interests for goodies and power.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

I must admit to being a little confused here. Once you have that gap -- between Ought and Is -- then you're embracing some form of anti-realism in morality. (Moral realism is the view that there are moral truths -- so, in some sense, it presumes the Ought-Is gap is crossable. Moral anti-realism is the view that there are no moral truths. Both sets of view -- moral realism and moral anti-realism -- can take many different forms, but it seems, from your comments, you're definitely in the anti-realist camp.) So what would evidence or "E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E" have to do with anything here? I mean, isn't that a clear contradiction? Either there is a gap and no evidence will suffice to cross it or there isn't.

That you have no means of arguing for using more or less force here or anything. It's all a matter of just personal preference, so why bother to even talk of morality at all? Surely, if there are no moral truths, then what would be the point of using moral arguments? Everytime you say, "it'd be good to do X" or "one should do X" or "X is the right thing to do under these circumstances," you'd be more precise just to say, "I prefer doing X" or "I prefer you do X," etc.

I don't know about that. I actually accept moral realism and think Rand was on the right track in many places. I do think she made a number of mistakes, but I think your brand of thinking on this subject is completely on the wrong track -- or off the track all together.

I'm unsure what you mean by a "reality check" on her premises. Maybe you could elaborate. If you just mean stuff like people behaving altruistically, at times, that's not much of an argument or a reality check. One wouldn't argue, I trust, that since people get sick on occasion that they shouldn't strive to be healthy...

OK...

"So what would evidence or "E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E" have to do with anything here? I mean, isn't that a clear contradiction? Either there is a gap and no evidence will suffice to cross it or there isn't."

Yes, that's right, but no contradiction. Two separate arguments.

1. Can't cross the gap.

2. Even if you do Rand is wrong.

Evidence applies to #2.

"That you have no means of arguing for using more or less force here or anything. It's all a matter of just personal preference, so why bother to even talk of morality at all? Surely, if there are no moral truths, then what would be the point of using moral arguments? Everytime you say, "it'd be good to do X" or "one should do X" or "X is the right thing to do under these circumstances," you'd be more precise just to say, "I prefer doing X" or "I prefer you do X,"

The problem is when they (his ethics) clash or interfere with mine. The prudent predator/thief. I can't say my moral code is better objectively, just that his is not compatible with mine. So when he comes to my house, I'll kill him - or better yet - pay someone else to (911). Do I think my moral code is better? Yes. Can I justify my code? Yes. Can I prove it objectively? No.

" I'm unsure what you mean by a "reality check" on her premises. Maybe you could elaborate. If you just mean stuff like people behaving altruistically, at times, that's not much of an argument or a reality check. One wouldn't argue, I trust, that since people get sick on occasion that they shouldn't strive to be healthy..."

Man is objectively partially altruistic (according to evidence, subject to change). Apply this to "qua". Throw it in with "productive work" and other things as a virtue. Make partial altruism a positive trait. Stay on your track of moral realism. But Rand's vision has now crumbled, it changes everything.

Bob

[Daniel Barnes]

Let me ask you a question: I have spent some 45 years years in a serious and sustained study of philosophy, and I have a high regard for Rand's philosophic abilities, however much I may disagree with her in some respects. The same is true of John Hospers (former head of the USC philosophy department and author of many highly-regarded articles and books on philosophy), Chris Sciabarra (author of several first-rate books on philosophy), and many other serious philosophers, such as Doug Den Uyl and Doug Rasmussen. So are we all dupes and/or fools who, lacking your keen insight, have been taken in by Rand's tricks?

Let me preface my comment here by saying I'm rather enjoying my exchanges with GHS, and his posts in general. He's at least as snotty as I can be, which is refreshing, and at least 100 times more erudite, so there is no doubt that I will learn quite bit from him over our exchanges. Having him here is a credit to OL.

However all these things don't stop him from being wrong now and again, as I'm sure he'd be the first to acknowledge. And I think GHS is clearly wrong here: this does read like an appeal to authority. His final question makes this obvious, which is in effect: are you calling these authorities wrong? Or worse, fools?

Actually, I think it's perfectly possible for the above authorities to be quite wrong. This is because Rand's key errors seem to me, following Popper, to be errors that have been around for a long time in philosophy - she's just another in a long line. So it's not a question of them being "all dupes and/or fools" so much as simply not being aware of some very subtle but important problems that underly their whole discipline. And of course let's not forget that Rand basically regarded 99.99% of all philosophers as dupes and fools - at best! - and claimed that all their fundamental assumptions were wrong. So if you're going to argue on Rand's behalf, it pays not to be too sensitive about the same type of criticisms played back at you.

[imurray]

Let me ask you a question: I have spent some 45 years years in a serious and sustained study of philosophy, and I have a high regard for Rand's philosophic abilities, however much I may disagree with her in some respects. The same is true of John Hospers (former head of the USC philosophy department and author of many highly-regarded articles and books on philosophy), Chris Sciabarra (author of several first-rate books on philosophy), and many other serious philosophers, such as Doug Den Uyl and Doug Rasmussen. So are we all dupes and/or fools who, lacking your keen insight, have been taken in by Rand's tricks?

Let me preface my comment here by saying I'm rather enjoying my exchanges with GHS, and his posts in general. He's at least as snotty as I can be, which is refreshing, and at least 100 times more erudite, so there is no doubt that I will learn quite bit from him over our exchanges. Having him here is a credit to OL.

However all these things don't stop him from being wrong now and again, as I'm sure he'd be the first to acknowledge. And I think GHS is clearly wrong here: this does read like an appeal to authority. His final question makes this obvious, which is in effect: are you calling these authorities wrong? Or worse, fools?

Actually, I think it's perfectly possible for the above authorities to be quite wrong. This is because Rand's key errors seem to me, following Popper, to be errors that have been around for a long time in philosophy - she's just another in a long line. So it's not a question of them being "all dupes and/or fools" so much as simply not being aware of some very subtle but important problems that underly their whole discipline. And of course let's not forget that Rand basically regarded 99.99% of all philosophers as dupes and fools - at best! - and claimed that all their fundamental assumptions were wrong. So if you're going to argue on Rand's behalf, it pays not to be too sensitive about the same type of criticisms played back at you.

My comment above (#644)confirms this and I'm wicked smart - so it must be true. Unless we've been duped because we don't have George's keen insight!

Edited March 26, 2010 by Panoptic

[bmacwilliam]

Let me ask you a question: I have spent some 45 years years in a serious and sustained study of philosophy, and I have a high regard for Rand's philosophic abilities, however much I may disagree with her in some respects. The same is true of John Hospers (former head of the USC philosophy department and author of many highly-regarded articles and books on philosophy), Chris Sciabarra (author of several first-rate books on philosophy), and many other serious philosophers, such as Doug Den Uyl and Doug Rasmussen. So are we all dupes and/or fools who, lacking your keen insight, have been taken in by Rand's tricks?

However all these things don't stop him from being wrong now and again, as I'm sure he'd be the first to acknowledge. And I think GHS is clearly wrong here: this does read like an appeal to authority. His final question makes this obvious, which is in effect: are you calling these authorities wrong? Or worse, fools?

Well, I can't blame him for this. I wasn't claiming that I was so unbelievably smart that I saw through Rand's brilliant ruse. I was claiming that I'm kinda dumb (or at the very least, relatively uneducated) and I can see right through it.

It's a nasty stab and I admit it. But it's the truth, and I'm right.

However his denial though of his appeal to authority, that's a bit more strange. I mean, duh.....

Bob

[George H. Smith]

I only proclaim my "qua" is better, not immutable, based on E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. A concept that seems to be very frightening to you. Whether one should choose a "qua" or not is separate from the fact that she chose poorly. The point is that even if we leave her system fully intact, allowing the breach, reality kills it anyway.

Okay, so you personally proclaim that your qua theory is based on evidence. So where are the facts that you personally proclaim to be E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?

Rand believed that she had justified her moral theory (including her qua statements), and she presented her arguments. But you have personally proclaimed, without presenting any counter-evidence, that this is smoke and mirrors and that Rand was a fraud.

Fine -- in a similar spirit, I personally proclaim that your allegations are bunk. And since you like to speculate about Rand's motives, I will join you in the free for all. I speculate that you are a punk with no intellectual accomplishments who is attempting to make a name for himself by showing how much more clever you are than Rand. I further speculate that this desire has caused you to reason backwards. In order to emerge victorious as a big gun who blew away Rand, you don't care in the least whether your allegations against Rand are accurate. You already have her death warrant in hand, and all you need do is fill in the blanks. Any cause of death will do.

These speculations could be mistaken, of course, but I doubt it.

"According to your acceptance of the logical chasm between Is and Ought, no moral "shoulds" can be objective."

That is correct.

"I must therefore assume you mean to say that how much force should be used depends on your personal proclamations."

Indeed a person can hold totally different set of morals, I can't say mine is better without the "ought". Not exactly clear on what you're getting at though.

My point is a simple one. Given your belief that no moral oughts can be objective, your moral oughts (e.g., about forcing people to be altrusitic)are merely expressions of personal preference. In saying "X is good," you are essentially saying nothing more than "I like X." And this raises the obvious question: Why should anyone give a shit about what you like?

"In order to avoid descending into the same depths of philosophical ineptitude as Rand, you should preface all such statements with, "I personally proclaim that...." No need to thank me for this sound advice. I wouldn't want you to become another Ayn Rand, after all."

I guess it's a really sore point that Rand's own argument, presented in her style, completely chokes itself out of existence as soon you apply the slightest bit of reality check to her premises. I can understand why you'd be pissed after spending 45 years of studying this, I really can.

You talkin' to me, punk? When you have accomplished something of intellectual worth in your life (high school essays don't count), get back to me, and we will shoot it out. Wannabes like you are a dime a dozen. I've encountered many in my life, and I have grown weary of target practice.

Meanwhile, if you expect me to take any of your personal proclamations about Rand seriously, provide some E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E for them.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Actually, I think it's perfectly possible for the above authorities to be quite wrong."

I never said anything about the philosophers I cited being "authorities," nor did I imply this. I merely asked how they could have been so easily duped by Rand, when she is so obviously a fraud that even Bob -- who appears to know virtually nothing about Rand's ideas -- can see through her. This is a perfectly legitimate question. There was no "argument" here at all -- a question is not an argument --much less an argument from "authority."

Again, I honestly don't know where you guys come up with this stuff. I would appreciate it if you would respond to what I actually say without engaging in the all the hermeneutics.

Ghs

[Xray]

Saga (my chocolate Lab): a non-rational animal, but not irrational.

Mira (my cream-colored Golden Retriever), like all dogs, is rational enough to calculate in the abstract. For example, as a young dog, knowing that she was not allowed to climb on our beds, always waited until she was alone in the home and then, undisturbed, installed herself on a bed.

She had you all figured out, for sure.

Precisely. And being able to figure it out was definitely a rational act.

BG: The rational thing for you to have done would have been to remove the beds, show her who's boss.

I disagree with part one, because since we needed our beds, removing them was no option.

Part 2 is correct, and Mira WAS shown who is boss imediately after being caught in the act. She was scolded harshly and never tried again.

This would also solve the is/ought problem: you ought not to get on the bed that isn't there. You do know, don't you, that your dog objectively values your (her) beds?

Sure, every dog will listen if you tell them they "ought not" to get on the bed. An "ought to" is ineffectively whishy-washy even for humans.

--Brant

makes a mess

Glad to be of help if you need assistance in tidying it up. I'm no 'altruist' though - I just like sorting things out.

It is fair to say that this was the primary meaning that Rand assigned to the term, though I concede there are places where she waffles a bit in her usage.

Rand seems to argue that this original, yet obscure version describing acts almost no-one has ever practiced somehow captures the "essence" of misc. general acts we normally consider altruistic.

"Essence" is one word for it. "Strawman" is another.

Comte, as you know, coined the word "altruism," and the meaning he assigned to it was accepted and carried on by many nineteenth century "positivists." Comte's meaning is "obscure" only to those who know nothing about the history of philosophy. Philosophers often use words in a more precise sense than we customarily find in ordinary usage. This is why John Locke (among many other philosophers) claimed that the "civil use" of language is sometimes "very distinct" from its "philosophic use."

As for your crack about Rand and "essence," that merely demonstrates your ignorance of Rand's ideas.

As for your comment about Comte's altruism being a version that no one has ever practiced, if by "practiced" you mean "practiced consistently," then Rand agreed with you. Indeed, this was the key to a major criticism that she made against altruism. For example, in The Fountainhead, Toohey says to Keating:

"Tell men that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one of them has ever achieved it and not a single one ever will. His every living instinct screams against it. But don't you see what you accomplish? Man realizes that he's incapable of what he's accepted as the noblest virtue—and it gives him a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness."

Toohey then explains how altruism has been used as a pretext and justification for political power.

Toohey's discussion of altruism in Chapter 14 of The Fountainhead is perhaps the most interesting thing that Rand ever wrote on the subject. I suggest that people who are discussing this topic read or reread it.

Ghs

So if per Rand, (the fictional character Toohey expressing her views here), "altruists" don't exist because it impossible for humans to live that way, then doesn't her crusade against those alleged altruists resemble a Don Quijote fighting against windmills?

Imo "Objectivists" don't exist either because it is equally impossible for humans to always act "rationally".

The "rational man" only finding pleasure in rational actions (I think Galt said that) is as much a figment of the imagination as the "altruistic man" only finding pleasure in living for others.

So while there exist believers in the philosophies (imo "ideologies" is the more suitable word here) of Altruism or Objectivism, we have yet to see an exemplar of the human species fitting the criteria required.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I think rational self interest is a valid foundational point and principle for the Objectivist Ethics. The problem is Rand not knowing much about human being generally speaking to adequately detail her way off that. People need freedom to explore and exploit their choices and individuality. I don't think Rand was much of an individualist save perhaps to herself and I don't think such a controlling personality was so much attractive as interesting considering her brainpower and certainty.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Just to back up a little: which of her "foundational ideas" do you disagree with here?

For starters, the "Law of Identity" and "Existence Exists".

You believe these are incorrect? Or do you believe that she misapplies them?

First of all, "Existence Exists", I have no idea what this even means.

Before a noise. , may become a symbol, something must exist for the symbol to

symbolize. So the first problem of symbolism should be to investigate the problem

of 'existence'. To define 'existence', we have to state the standards by which we

judge existence. At present, the use of this term is not uniform and is largely a

matter of convenience. Of late, mathematicians have discovered a great deal about

this term. For our present purposes, we may accept two kinds of existence: (1) the

physical existence, roughly connected with our 'senses' and persistence, and (2)

'logical' existence. The new researches in the foundations of mathematics,

originated by Brouwer and Weyl, seem to lead to a curtailment of the meaning of

'logical' existence in quite a sound direction; but we may provisionally accept the

most general meaning, as introduced by Poincaré. He defines 'logical' existence as a

statement free from self-contradictions. Thus, we may say that a 'thought' to be a

'thought' must not be self-contradictory. A self-contradictory statement is

meaningless; we can argue either way without reaching any valid results. We say,

then, that a self-contradictory statement has no 'logical' existence. As an example,

let us take a statement about a square circle. This is called a contradiction in terms, a

non-sense, a meaningless statement, which has no 'logical' existence. Let us label

this 'word salad' by a special noise—let us say, 'blah-blah'. Will such a noise

become a word, a symbol ? Obviously not—it stands for nothing; it remains a mere

noise. , no matter if volumes should be written about it.

[tjohnson]

I already explained that, but I shall try again. If I ask my dog "where's the ball?" and he goes and gets it I claim that he has a concept of 'ball' in his brain.

I must have missed that. I don't think that's an example of conceptuality in action -- or, at least, it's not an unambiguous case of it. I think a better example of conceptuality in a non-human would be trying to evince something more abstract. Imagine, for example, trying to see if your dog could get the concept of "roundness" by asking for a round object out of a pile of many different -- many not round -- objects and mixing this up so that each time the differentiating feature is roundness. (This sort of test is much more in line with ethological studies. It might be good to look the actual science here rather than just assume that because Rex fetches the ball, he has a concept of "ball.")

Are you serious? You want me to ask my dog to pick out a round object from a pile of objects? Look, if I ask him to get his ball and he does then he obviously knows what I'm talking about. In fact, not only does he have a concept of his ball, he even associates a label with it.

[George H. Smith]

So if per Rand, (the fictional character Toohey expressing her views here), "altruists" don't exist because it impossible for humans to live that way, then doesn't her crusade against those alleged altruists resemble a Don Quijote fighting against windmills?

Rand didn't say that altruists don't exist. She said, in effect, that altruism cannot be practiced consistently. Big difference.

Ghs

[Daniel Barnes]

I never said anything about the philosophers I cited being "authorities," nor did I imply this.

Well let's not argue over any supposed implications then.

I merely asked how they could have been so easily duped by Rand, when she is so obviously a fraud that even Bob -- who appears to know virtually nothing about Rand's ideas -- can see through her. This is a perfectly legitimate question. There was no "argument" here at all -- a question is not an argument --much less an argument from "authority."

It's a somewhat surprising question, as an obvious answer is this this well-known fable.

[Brant Gaede]

First of all, "Existence Exists", I have no idea what this even means.

If you did have an idea, what would you say?

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

First of all, "Existence Exists", I have no idea what this even means.

This is because you refuse to read Rand. You don't even understand that, for Rand, the tautological proposition "existence exists" is not a primary. But don't let this mix of ignorance and error prevent you from making sweeping judgments about her philosophy. It never has before.

If I joined a list focused on General Semantics, I would reread some major works by Korzybski and refrain from posting criticisms until I had acquired a basic understanding of his philosophy. I would do this, first, because I wouldn't want to come across as an ignorant blowhard; and, second, because I wouldn't want to waste the time of other people on the list.

Hint, hint.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I merely asked how they could have been so easily duped by Rand, when she is so obviously a fraud that even Bob -- who appears to know virtually nothing about Rand's ideas -- can see through her. This is a perfectly legitimate question. There was no "argument" here at all -- a question is not an argument --much less an argument from "authority."

It's a somewhat surprising question, as an obvious answer is this this well-known fable.

Oh, so I am now the emperor with no clothes, am I? Well, as long as I have removed my clothes, I will also remove my gloves.

You are being extremely boorish about this matter. If I misunderstood something you wrote and you assured me that you did not intend to say X, I would take you at your word.

You seem to think that, regardless of what I actually said, I was sneaking in an argument from authority that, if explicitly formulated, would go something like this: Authorities X, Y, and Z take Rand seriously, so Bob (or whoever) should take Rand seriously as well.

Now why would I say something so obviously dumb as this, especially considering that I have written extensively on arguments from authority in Atheism: The Case Against God, Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, and elsewhere? Do you really think I am that stupid?

If you must know, my question was a potential prelude to an argument, depending on how Bob responded, but since he didn't respond at all, there was no opportunity to develop it. This line of thought had nothing whatever to do with an argument from authority. Rather, it pertained to judgments of credibility -- something that I discussed in Why Atheism? Problems relating to credibility have long been of interest to me.

Now, if you would like to consult your animal entrails and inform me what my real intentions would have been if I had pursued this line of thought, feel free. Maybe your telepathic powers will prove more reliable this time.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

And then you try to make it look like I'm the crazy one for thinking that's what you meant by your constant insults? Your stuff wouldn't be published in the undergraduate review here and I know that for a fact because I've been on the committee that selects entries. So you can be as smug as you'd like in the incestuous self-selecting little club you 'publish' in - I'm not scared of you. I can hurl insults too if that's your idea of arguing.

My forthcoming book, Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, will be published by Cambridge University Press. I realize that Cambridge doesn't meet the high standards of your undergraduate review, but it will have to do, I suppose.

If you review my posts, you will find that my insults are directed mainly at people who display little knowledge or understanding of Rand's ideas, but who criticize her nonetheless. I have never had any tolerance for that kind of intellectual sleaziness. If someone wants to criticize Rand, fine -- I have done so many times myself (the first two times in 1971-2, when I published a lengthy two-part critique of her theory of rights and a three-part article on "Objectivism as a Religion") -- but at least make a reasonable effort to understand her first. This is a matter of common decency. People who don't show this minimal respect for Rand will get no respect from me.

Ghs

[imurray]

And then you try to make it look like I'm the crazy one for thinking that's what you meant by your constant insults? Your stuff wouldn't be published in the undergraduate review here and I know that for a fact because I've been on the committee that selects entries. So you can be as smug as you'd like in the incestuous self-selecting little club you 'publish' in - I'm not scared of you. I can hurl insults too if that's your idea of arguing.

My forthcoming book, Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, will be published by Cambridge University Press. I realize that Cambridge doesn't meet the high standards of your undergraduate review, but it will have to do, I suppose.

If you review my posts, you will find that my insults are directed mainly at people who display little knowledge or understanding of Rand's ideas, but who criticize her nonetheless. I have never had any tolerance for that kind of intellectual sleaziness. If someone wants to criticize Rand, fine -- I have done so many times myself (the first two times in 1971-2, when I published a lengthy two-part critique of her theory of rights and a three-part article on "Objectivism as a Religion") -- but at least make a reasonable effort to understand her first. This is a matter of common decency. People who don't show this minimal respect for Rand will get no respect from me.

Ghs

Well congratulations! You must "turn it on" when you're writing a book.

I have to be honest you've lost all credibility with me by refusing to admit you were appealing to authority when it's about as black and white as it gets no matter how hard you try to spin it. If you're willing to lie and sacrifice your integrity so you won't be "wrong" about something so petty I'd be extremely dubious of the rest of your scholarship. Of course you don't care what I think, but I'm calling you out on it anyway. You're a liar. Do you think everybody here is so stupid that you can just talk your way out of it? On top of that you try to convince us you, Mr. Insult himself (Mr. I'll decide who knows enough about Rand to speak in my presence) are the victim in this.You're a bully, plain and simple.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Panoptic

[tjohnson]

We mentally ill people are curious about such things.