Rand's notions of Kant and Hume

[Dragonfly]

Well, I've known George for nearly forty years and I've known Phil for around fifteen years, and I've engaged in numerous conversations with both of them on philosophical, historical, and literary topics, and I'd say that George's claim to have forgotten more about the history of philosophy than Phil will ever know is a simple statement of fact, comparable to "it rained yesterday in Texas."

Which doesn't rule out the possibility that Phil now knows more than George about the history of philosophy...

[George H. Smith]

1. > You cannot even quote the Wiki article on "Argument From Authority" without selectively snipping it to suit your purposes. [GHS]

Nothing wrong with snipping or selectivity: No one has time to see reposted an entire article or post.

There certainly is something "wrong" with snipping an article when you select a portion that (you think) supports your claim, while ignoring a key part that directly contradicts your claim.

It's not as if the passage I quoted was buried deep in the article. It appears in the preface, so you couldn't have missed it if you had actually read the article. And assuming you have even average comprehension skills, you could not have helped but notice that the article in fact supports my position rather than yours.

In other words, you not only misrepresented, via your snippet, what that article says -- you actually made it seem to say the exact opposite of what it actually says.

Your inaccurate snipping was therefore the result of either incompetence or intellectual dishonesty. Take your pick. I'm inclined to think it was incompetence, since that supposition also explains many other things you write.

You yourself repeatedly quote passages from various books on Kant removing other points of the authors, 'selectively snipping' and including arguments that - in your judgement- are good or you wish to comment on.

I don't misrepresent my sources. You frequently do.

I am under no obligation to repost every single point you make.

I never said this. But when you do respond to a point that I make, common courtesy dictates that you give a fair sampling of my reasons. And quoting only parts of sentences taken out of context, as you sometimes do, can be downright sleazy.

I use my judgment and I -never- consciously missrepresent. Quite frankly, you often tend to be long-winded and a bit pedantic. [And, yes, I know I've been accused of the same thing.]

My pedantry consists of giving reasons and citing facts. Your pedantry consists of repeating yourself over and over again. Big difference.

Ghs: None of the examples you quoted from me -- all of which are taken out of context -- commits the fallacy known as the "argument from authority."

All of them do. What kind of context did you expect me to add to a groundless appeal to your superior authority like ""I have forgotten more about the history of philosophy than you will ever know"?

In this case, the context was very important. The line you cite was part of my response to your condescending remark that I should pay more attention to the "full context" of Peikoff's approach to history. There was no argument here. I responded with a polemical comeback line, one that happens to be true.

Ghs: These are all true statements by me, not arguments.

PC: They are premises -in- an argument.

Oh, I get it! You often felt that I was making an argument, even though I never actually made one. And you felt that, had I made the argument you imagined me to make, I would have committed the fallacious argument from authority. Thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea we were discussing your fantasies.

........

FINAL POINT (hopefully):

All of us may occasionally in the heat of argument commit a logical fallacy. I know I have from time to time. It's not a moral failing. But a simple mistake. What I would hope is, when it is pointed out, someone will go back and say "Whoops. I didn't intend to claim knowledge about your knowledge of history that I cannot possibly have or to claim that you are a liar. I withdraw that."

(An apology isn't necessary, but a retraction usually is once one calms down and has time to think about it.)

You are correct. I have no way of knowing if you are a liar or not, so I retract that statement. All I really know is that you are a incompetent dunce.

I trust my retraction will restore the good will between us.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The Art of the Smear

> display neither knowledge nor ignorance of the history of philosophy

You're quibbling here in attempting to dodge a simple and relevant question.

They're about the history of ideas (including philosophy) because they have to do with Peikoff's idea that only philosophy is a cause of events. As opposed to other factors. For example, the devastating war on German soil I mentioned that traumatized and led to a desire for a strong leader.

The reason you choose to dodge the question seems to be that acknowledging that I made some good points in that post would paint me as less than a total ignoramus. (Whether it be on history, the history of ideas, or how philosophy.)

That's another fallacy that both you and GHS specialize in -- smearing and ad hominem against your opponents.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Philip Coates

[jriggenbach]

You're quibbling here in attempting to dodge a simple and relevant question.

They're about the history of ideas (including philosophy) because they have to do with Peikoff's idea that only philosophy is a cause of events. As opposed to other factors. For example, the devastating war on German soil I mentioned that traumatized and led to a desire for a strong leader.

I'm sorry, Phil, but this is simply incorrect. Your point about the Thirty Years War neither displays knowledge of the history of philosophy nor ignorance of it. It could easily be made, word for word, by someone who had no idea there was such a thing as the history of philosophy.

The reason you choose to dodge the question seems to be that acknowledging that I made some good points in that post would paint me as less than a total ignoramus. (Whether it be on history, the history of ideas, or how philosophy.)

Sorry to keep troubling you with my abject ignorance, but what is "how philosophy"?

JR

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Washing My Hands of George H. Smith

You're right I didn't 'snip' and include this part ---> "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism".

That's because Wikipedia is wrong on that 'only' statement and what you did is **another form of the appeal to authority**. You did this appeal to superior authority instead ---> "there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter "

You state that you have not just above-average or expert knowledge but an -order of magnitude- greater knowledge than I do. And by this you clearly imply that you have greater authority to determine issues regarding the truth of rightness in these areas. Else why would you include such a claim?

(And I'm not even mentioning the foolishness of making claims about the overall knowledge in a whole field of someone else based on a handful of posts on one topic from that field. I don't know if there is a specific fallacy for this.)

,,,,,,,,,,

In addition to argument from authority, your statements combine a host of other forms of bad reasoning, such as arbitrary and unfounded statements, argument from intimidation, ad hominem, etc. ==>

"I have forgotten more about the history of philosophy than you will ever know" [post #61]

"[Rand's] interpretation is so off-base, both in regard to Kant and Hume (who differed widely in their approaches to ethics), as to be acutely embarrassing to anyone in the ARI crowd who knows anything about the history of philosophy" [start of thread post]

"Plato's influence on the Renaissance is "totally non-controversial" for anyone who has read even a modicum of history of the period.[#93]

"Any reasonable person with a knowledge of history would admit that there are some areas in which Aristotle's influence was deleterious." [#102]

"A professional in a given field is usually far more qualified to talk about the standards and practices of his discipline than an amateur....The presumption that you are "equal" in matters of historical judgment to people who have actually studied history is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part" [#124]

Oh I forgot the ad hominem /personal attack ones -- "you shameless liar", "you incompetent dunce". And, no I don't want to quibble with you further whether character assassination technically falls under 'ad hominem' or goes someplace else. Any idiot who reads the statements can SEE THAT THEY ARE INAPPROPRIATE without having to parse them much further.

I also left out the ways in which you commit the fallacy Rand called 'the argument from intimidation'....but...oh what the eff is the use!!!)

Edited May 15, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

Subject: Washing My Hands of George H. Smith

You're right I didn't 'snip' and include this part ---> "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism".

That's because Wikipedia is wrong on that 'only' statement and what you did is **another form of the appeal to authority**. You did this appeal to superior authority instead --->

Let me get this straight. When you cited this Wiki article to support your point, you were not fallaciously appealing to an authority. But when I quoted the same article to correct your selective snipping, then I was committing this fallacy.

This is un-fucking-believable. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

You state that you have not just above-average or expert knowledge but an -order of magnitude- greater knowledge than I do.

It matters pertaining to history, one need not have expert knowledge, or even above-average knowledge, to have an order of magnitude greater knowledge than you do.

In the historical areas I have discussed on this thread, I would say that I have above-average knowledge but not necessarily expert knowledge. There are few areas of history where I would claim the latter; for example, I am not an expert on the Renaissance by any means.

And by this you clearly imply that you have greater authority to determine issues regarding the truth of rightness in these areas. Else why would you include such a claim?

I would say that I am in a better position to evaluate historical claims (in the areas we have discussed thus far) than you are. I would also say that there are many, many historians -- tons of them -- who are in a better position to evaluate historical claims than I am. This doesn't mean that I always defer to the judgments of those historians; on the contrary, I often disagree with them. But when I do disagree with them, I have legitimate reasons for doing so. I don't simply dismiss everything I don't like about their claims as an "argument from authority."

In addition to argument from authority, your statements combine a host of other forms of bad reasoning, such as b]arbitrary and unfounded statements, argument from intimidation, ad hominem, etc. ==>

FOUL! You have just used an argument from intimidation. You are attempting to use your supposed knowledge of these fallacies to intimidate me. And by claiming to know what these fallacies are and how they apply to me, you are also using an argument from authority! FOUL!

But I jest, of course. Given your failure to understand what the "argument from authority" means, there is no reason to think that you have even a rudimentary understanding of those other fallacies.

Oh I forgot the ad hominem /personal attack ones -- "you shameless liar", "you incompetent dunce". And, no I don't want to quibble with you further whether character assassination technically falls under 'ad hominem' or goes someplace else. Any idiot who reads the statements can SEE THAT THEY ARE INAPPROPRIATE without having to parse them much further.

FOUL! Did you catch that everyone? Phil said, "Any idiot who reads the statements can SEE THAT THEY ARE INAPPROPRIATE without having to parse them much further." This is clearly an argument from authority and an argument from intimidation. It might even be an ad hominem argument, but, to be certain, I would first need to check the definitive work on this subject, Phil's Big Book of Fallacies: Clichés For Every Criticism.

More seriously (but not by much), let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are in fact an incompetent dunce. Would it be inappropriate for me to identify this fact of reality? Just curious.

I tell you what, Phil. Should you ever get around to writing that defense of the Rand/Peikoff approach to history that you mentioned in an earlier post, I will respond to it in a civil manner. Of course, if I offer even minor criticisms, I will doubtless commit an abundance of logical fallacies, but I suppose that is a chance I will have to take.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

One could make a much better claim for Nietzsche or Darwin being the cause of Nazism.

Neil,

As I understand it, the intellectual ancestry of Nazi doctrine includes the German strain of "Social Darwinism," which was big on racial conflict and war.

But Social Darwinism was a development from 19th century evolutionary thought in general. Social "Darwinism" was more often Lamarckian, recapitulationist, or Spencerian than Darwinian in any strict sense.

Also, there was at one time a flavor of Social Darwinism for every political persuasion, including socialist Social Darwinism, pacifist Social Darwinism, and feminist Social Darwinism.

Bob K,

Although evolutionary has no normative implications in principle, Charles Darwin didn't always avoid normative entanglements; there is still a notion of progress in his writings.

And Herbert Spencer conflated fitness in the descriptive sense (surviving and reproducing) with fitness in the moral sense.

Robert C

[Brant Gaede]

I'd give you guys an argument from Brant, but I don't have any that are fallacious.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I'd give you guys an argument from Brant, but I don't have any that are fallacious.

--Brant

If your arguments are directed against Phil, then he will find fallacies galore, believe me.

Since I know next to nothing about computers, I think I should write a little piece, based entirely on guesswork, about how computers really work.

Then when Phil, who knows a lot about computers, points out that my article is full of silly errors, and when he further tells me that he knows this because he has worked with computers for many years, I will accuse him of using an argument from authority.

Then, when Phil becomes so frustrated with my ignorance that he tells me that I should actually read something about computers before shooting my mouth off, I will accuse him of using an argument from intimidation.

Then, when Phil reaches his wit's end and calls me a computer ignoramus, I will accuse him of using an ad hominem argument.

At no point, however, will I need to defend my theory of how computers really work.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I read The Ominous Parallels ages ago.

As time passes, I am questioning more and more the importance of the role philosophy plays in creating and maintaining evil dictatorships. Irrespective of whether Kant or any other philosopher was at root in some of the ideas in the air in Germany at the time, for the life of me, I don't see how those ideas changed and/or dissipated with military victory. By that logic, either the now-peaceful Germany should be trying to do it all again, or the only way to convince certain populations who hold the "wrong premises" in metaphysics and epistemology is to bash them over the head until they get it.

This is important. It is at the root of the entire ARI approach to hostile cultures, i.e., crush them without mercy. In other words, kill off those who think the wrong thoughts and scare the bejeezus out of those who flirt with the wrong ideas.

I see the emergence of dictatorships arising from much more than philosophical premises. Just off the top of my head, I see personality cult. I am unable to think of any really brutal dictatorship without the person--the dictator--ruling it. Take away strong personalities and the dictatorships weaken.

Another cause that is, happily, being taken care of by technology, is access to information. When people do not have access to information and can be fed lies without being contested, it is far easier to control them than it is an informed population.

Another cause is the "group emotions" or strong identification with a group that resides in all of us. We all seek meaning in trying to belong to something larger than ourselves, whether it is God, quest for spreading freedom, defending man's mind, etc. This attempt to place ourselves within a larger context and belong to something important is innate and we all do it. When a group, say the German race, becomes that "something larger," people will naturally turn to the ones who claim to represent it for guidance.

I could go on, and I am interested in exploring this further, but not now. I just want to register that I am beginning to disagree with the very premise that philosophy is the puppet master of history, but that bad ideas (not just bad people) can be defeated by guns--and that seems to be the premise the ortho-Objectivist world operates under.

In fact, I see the glimmerings of the very causes of dictatorships (causes according to my analysis) within the history of ARI. In other words, strong personalities with disciples and minions around them, restriction of information to the public, and strong encouragement of the "us against them" mentality. I find that disturbing...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

GHS: "Since I know next to nothing about computers, I think I should write a little piece, based entirely on guesswork, about how computers really work. Then when Phil, who knows a lot about computers, points out that my article is full of silly errors, and when he further tells me that he knows this because he has worked with computers for many years, I will accuse him of using an argument from authority. Then, when Phil becomes so frustrated with my ignorance that he tells me that I should actually read something about computers before shooting my mouth off, I will accuse him of using an argument from intimidation. Then, when Phil reaches his wit's end and calls me a computer ignoramus, I will accuse him of using an ad hominem argument. At no point, however, will I need to defend my theory of how computers really work."

What's more likely to happen is that I would simply explain why there are errors, rather than attempting to pull rank in the first place. For example, if you or someone else wrote a piece claiming that Microsoft Windows Vista was a better operating system than the Mac OS, I'd simply try to either refute the individual claims of areas where it's better. Or I'd argue why those areas are less important than other areas. And I wouldn't normally become "so frustrated" that I would claim the writer has read nothing. I assume they read enough to have a mistaken impression (maybe just reading Microsoft journals oR magazines? but it would be pointless to speculate since that is distracting from the detailed argument.) Next, I wouldn't be at "my wit's end" because someone is mistaken and I have difficulty convincing them. This has actually happened. I've had debates about the PC vs. the MAC and I don't recall that I've called anyone a 'computer ignoramus' or done other name-calling or sliming someone over a simple factual dispute. Hardly the best way to get someone to see your points.

"At no point, however, will I need to defend my theory of how computers really work." --- If my interlocutor wasn't giving any reasoned defense, was making arbitrary statements without evidence or examples, I'd probably simply point out the exact nature of the mistake. To do so is not an argument from intimidation, or an appeal to authority, or an ad hominem. Then I'd wait to see if he grasped the point. If not, I'd probably exit from the argument (unless there were points I was wanting to demonstrate to other readers.)

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

MSK: "I read The Ominous Parallels ages ago. As time passes, I am questioning more and more the importance of the role philosophy plays in creating and maintaining evil dictatorships."

Michael, here's another point: If Peikoff is right in his only fundamental philosophy changes a culture profoundly theory, then why does Germany for six decades after WWII seem like a very different place than it was under the Weimar Republic then the Nazis? Did the major philosophers they were reading suddenly change? Did they suddenly discover more rational major philosophers?

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond gives arguments for other factors that drive history than just "philosophy only. The influence of climate, natural resources, disease-breeding conditions. The fact that beasts of burden didn't thrive on certain continents. They are very necessary early in ancient civilizations to make man's labor more productive, free up energy, etc. And more...

( Of course, I can't possibly have read this book or the many others on my bookshelve or learned anything because Jeff and George have already concluded that I'm an ignoramus. )

[George H. Smith]

What's more likely to happen is that I would simply explain why there are errors, rather than attempting to pull rank in the first place. For example, if you or someone else wrote a piece claiming that Microsoft Windows Vista was a better operating system than the Mac OS, I'd simply try to either refute the individual claims of areas where it's better. Or I'd argue why those areas are less important than other areas. And I wouldn't normally become "so frustrated" that I would claim the writer has read nothing. I assume they read enough to have a mistaken impression (maybe just reading Microsoft journals oR magazines? but it would be pointless to speculate since that is distracting from the detailed argument.) Next, I wouldn't be at "my wit's end" because someone is mistaken and I have difficulty convincing them. This has actually happened. I've had debates about the PC vs. the MAC and I don't recall that I've called anyone a 'computer ignoramus' or done other name-calling or sliming someone over a simple factual dispute. Hardly the best way to get someone to see your points.

You have made my hypothetical far too easy.

I believe that computers have free will. I believe this because computers behave erratically; they will sometimes perform X, but at other times they won't, so they are obviously choosing whether or not they wish to cooperate.

Would you like to debate this issue and see how far you get before you are pulling your hair out? I will simply employ the same tactics against you that you used against me.

So explain to me -- say, in one paragraph -- why you don't think computers have free will. Go ahead, Phil, be a sport. Make my day.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond gives arguments for other factors that drive history than just "philosophy only. The influence of climate, natural resources, disease-breeding conditions. The fact that beasts of burden didn't thrive on certain continents. They are very necessary early in ancient civilizations to make man's labor more productive, free up energy, etc. And more...

( Of course, I can't possibly have read this book or the many others on my bookshelve or learned anything because Jeff and George have already concluded that I'm an ignoramus. )

Our debate was never about the "philosophy only" thesis. Even Peikoff doesn't argue that.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

I'm kind of down to the basics.

I'm thinking if I see that rocket ship one more time, I might have to either a: hang myself, or b: go on a wild killing spree.

That's the first basic. I think it is best that you limit yourself to two, which is almost too much.

The second one is that I'm trying to figure out where the rocket ship went, and I have this odd, uncomfortable feeling that it might have mis-shot, and is lodged up in my ass. It it explains the deeply uncomfortable feeling: uncomfortable, for sure, but strangely familiar, having read Phil's writing, before.

rde

Houston, we have a problem, here.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Rich Engle

[George H. Smith]

I read The Ominous Parallels ages ago.

As time passes, I am questioning more and more the importance of the role philosophy plays in creating and maintaining evil dictatorships. Irrespective of whether Kant or any other philosopher was at root in some of the ideas in the air in Germany at the time, for the life of me, I don't see how those ideas changed and/or dissipated with military victory. By that logic, either the now-peaceful Germany should be trying to do it all again, or the only way to convince certain populations who hold the "wrong premises" in metaphysics and epistemology is to bash them over the head until they get it.

This is important. It is at the root of the entire ARI approach to hostile cultures, i.e., crush them without mercy. In other words, kill off those who think the wrong thoughts and scare the bejeezus out of those who flirt with the wrong ideas.

I see the emergence of dictatorships arising from much more than philosophical premises. Just off the top of my head, I see personality cult. I am unable to think of any really brutal dictatorship without the person--the dictator--ruling it. Take away strong personalities and the dictatorships weaken.

Another cause that is, happily, being taken care of by technology, is access to information. When people do not have access to information and can be fed lies without being contested, it is far easier to control them than it is an informed population.

Another cause is the "group emotions" or strong identification with a group that resides in all of us. We all seek meaning in trying to belong to something larger than ourselves, whether it is God, quest for spreading freedom, defending man's mind, etc. This attempt to place ourselves within a larger context and belong to something important is innate and we all do it. When a group, say the German race, becomes that "something larger," people will naturally turn to the ones who claim to represent it for guidance.

I could go on, and I am interested in exploring this further, but not now. I just want to register that I am beginning to disagree with the very premise that philosophy is the puppet master of history, but that bad ideas (not just bad people) can be defeated by guns--and that seems to be the premise the ortho-Objectivist world operates under.

In fact, I see the glimmerings of the very causes of dictatorships (causes according to my analysis) within the history of ARI. In other words, strong personalities with disciples and minions around them, restriction of information to the public, and strong encouragement of the "us against them" mentality. I find that disturbing...

Michael

I have a number of things I would like to say about your interesting post, but I need to give some thought about how to formulate them succinctly.

Meanwhile, some of your remarks lead me to think that you would like the book The Myth of the State (1946), by the brilliant Kantian scholar and historian Ernst Cassirer.

Cassirer agrees with Peikoff on some things, such as the influence of Hegel on 20th century totalitarian ideologies; but, unlike Peikoff, he understands that Hegel's philosophy was a thorough repudiation of Kant's.

In addition, Cassirer devotes an entire chapter to Thomas Carlyle, whose book On Heroes, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History (1840) was a favorite among Nazi ideologues. Peikoff, in contrast, doesn't mention Carlyle once in The Ominous Parallels.

Probably of most interest to you would be Cassirer's observations in the last chapter, "The Technique of the Modern Political Myths." Here is a brief sampling:

This description of the role of magic and mythology in primitive society applies equally well to highly advanced stages of man's political life. In desperate situations man will always have recourse to desperate means -- and our present day political myths [Cassirer was writing during WWII] have been such desperate means. If reason has failed us, there remains always the ultima ratio, the power of the miraculous and mysterious...(p. 350).

For myth has not really been vanquished and subjugated. It is always there, lurking in the dark and waiting for its hour and opportunity. This hour comes as soon as the other binding forces of man's social life, for one reason or another, lose their strength and are no longer able to combat the demonic mythical powers...(p. 352).

The call for leadership only appears when a collective desire has reached an overwhelming strength and when, on the other hand, all hopes of fulfilling this desire, in an ordinary and normal way, have failed. At these times the desire is not only keenly felt but also personified. It stands before the eyes of man in a concrete, plastic, and individual shape. The intensity of the collective wish is embodied in the leader. The former social bonds -- law, justice, and constitutions -- are declared to be without any value. What alone remains is the mystical power of the leader and the leader's will is supreme law.

It is, however, clear that the personification of a collective wish cannot be satisfied in the same way by a great civilized nation as by a savage tribe. Civilized man is, of course, subject to the most violent passions, and when these passions reach their culminating point he is liable to yield to the most irrational impulses. Yet even in this case he cannot entirely forget or deny the demand of rationality. In order to believe he must find some "reasons" for his belief; he must form a "theory" to justify his creeds. And this theory, at least, is not primitive; it is, on the contrary, highly sophisticated...(pp. 352-3).

Myth has always been described as the result of an unconscious activity and as a free product of imagination. But here we find myth made according to plan. The new political myths do not grow up freely; they are not the wild fruits of an exuberant imagination. They are artificial things fabricated by very skillful and cunning artisans. It has been reserved for the twentieth century, our own great technological age, to develop a new technique of myth. Henceforth myths can be manufactured in the same sense and according to the same methods as any other modern weapon -- as machine guns or airplanes. That is a new thing -- and a thing of crucial importance. It has changed the whole form of our social life...(pp. 354-55).

I daresay that there is more wisdom in these few excerpts by Cassirer than in all of Peikoff's book. Not bad for an anti-mind, anti-life Kantian.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

George's Most Recent Bad Questions and Comments [from Post #206]:

> Let me get this straight. When you cited this Wiki article to support your point, you were not fallaciously appealing to an authority. But when I quoted the same article to correct your selective snipping, then I was committing this fallacy. [GHS]

No, neither one is an appeal to authority. One was a -mistake- about what constitutes such a fallacy. Get it?

> You are attempting to use your supposed knowledge of these fallacies to intimidate me.

No. I'm using it to try to convince. Intimidation is not the same as persuasion giving reasons. You can' t just use the word 'intimidate' that loosely. Is this truly unclear?

> let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are in fact an incompetent dunce. Would it be inappropriate for me to identify this fact of reality?

Well, yes, of course it would be inappropriate! Do you not see this? Here are three reasons:

1. It's not literally ACCURATE; it is not a statement of fact but an emotional smear. Someone who was literally an i.d. would be incapable of carrying on a conversation, not merely mistaken.

2. It's UNNECESSARY: All you have to do in an argument is present your case and totally refute that of your opponent. Then the reader can draw his own suppositions from the argument about the intellectual level of your opponent.

3. It's DISTRACTING (from what can be difficult anyway, to change someone's mind, get him to see something): Attacking someone's intelligence is going to offend, to escalate, and to lead away from the clear lines of argument. If you really believe you have the better case, the last thing you would want to do is this to allow things to be side-issued this way. Your attitude would be 'just the facts, maam'.

That's my summary of why logicians and others frown on using personal attacks, ad hominems, name-calling, or character assassination.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Jeff R [Post #197]: Remind me sometime to tell you about my conversation with Phil a decade or so ago about Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Sonnets from the Portuguese.

I know what my -current- views are, having taught the book a little over a year ago, but don't remember my discussion with you. Why don't you post it on the Great Literature thread, since that's the topic? (I'd much rather talk about that than the crapola that has been going on here).

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Or maybe you'd rather create a new thread.

Entitled: "Phil's Totally Ignorant and Worthless Conversations Over the Years - transcribed Verbatim from drunken flashbacks by his Occasional Biographer"? :-). Subtitled: "Why Didn't I Just Walk Out of the Room?"

Then, if you have still more to say, you could supplement it at your leisure with threads called: "Phil's Worst Posts--Literature" and "Phil's Totally Ignorant Posts--History".

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

Ghs: You are attempting to use your supposed knowledge of these fallacies to intimidate me.

PC: No. I'm using it to try to convince. Intimidation is not the same as persuasion giving reasons. You can' t just use the word 'intimidate' that loosely. Is this truly unclear?

Oh, this is truly classic! To be lectured by Phil about not using words like "intimidate" loosely! I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Thanks, Phil, for the yucks.

(Btw, it isn't necessary to respond seriously to jokes. But if that makes things easier for you, be my guest.)

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

[To JR] Or maybe you'd rather create a new thread.

Entitled: "Phil's Totally Ignorant and Worthless Conversations Over the Years - transcribed Verbatim from drunken flashbacks by his Occasional Biographer"? :-)."

JR drunk is more sober than you sober.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Ghs: let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are in fact an incompetent dunce. Would it be inappropriate for me to identify this fact of reality?

Well, yes, of course it would be inappropriate! Do you not see this? Here are three reasons:

1. It's not literally ACCURATE; it is not a statement of fact but an emotional smear.

Oh, you mean like calling Kant an intellectual godfather of Nazi concentration camps? Is this what you mean by an emotional smear?

Look at the bright side, Phil: At least I haven't accused you of hating the good for being the good, nor have I called you the most evil man in the history of Western civilization (you don't even make my top 100 list). Thus, by Randian standards, my polemics are still on the side of the angels.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

I have a number of things I would like to say about your interesting post, but I need to give some thought about how to formulate them succinctly.

I'm thinking that is going to hurt, isn't it? Assuming that you survive the attempt.

It Still Smells Like A Fucking Coffin, In Here~the Phil-stench even overrides grander efforts. It is, in fact, like spraying Fabreeze on a dead varmint; all you get from that is dead varmint-smell, mixed with Fabreeze.

rde

Man, I can even taste it.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Neil Parille]

George,

Tirala was mentioned in Human Action and Omnipotent Government, which is where I suspect Peikoff found him. I did a search on Tirala on Amazon books and apparently the Nazis thought he was something of a crackpot.

-Neil Parille

[Philip Coates]

PC: "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond gives arguments for other factors that drive history than just "philosophy only". [#213]

GHS: Our debate was never about the "philosophy only" thesis. Even Peikoff doesn't argue that.

"Philosophy only" is a shorthand for "only fundamental philosophy changes a culture profoundly", which I used in the very preceding post [#212] so I wouldn't have to keep repeating a long phrase. Surely that ought to have been clear from the context.

And even that is shorthand for the idea that Peikoff has expressed that philosophy trumps everything else. If there are bad ideas or mistakes in other intellectual fields they are caused by or short-circuited by philosophy and if there are bad events, such as the conditions in Germany or the geographic conditions worldwide discussed by Jared Diamond, they would have been far worse if not for good philosophy and would have been overcome if the culture was imbued with a positive philosophy.

But GHS would have seen that if he'd read my several posts questioning Peikoff's theory (or finding it limited) more carefully.