Objectivist Contradictions

[George H. Smith]

George,

I had added the following statement to my earlier post, but it did not make it into your quote box in time, so here it is instead:

(After all, look at the time of the forum and imagine some of the grief I have had to deal with. )

Michael

EDIT: I just thought about it, and I opt to forgo the pleasure of receiving a "laying on of hands" from Peikoff. I prefer to evade.

If you were to tell me that Peikoff laid hands on you, I would immediately think of two possibilities. The first -- that Peikoff tried to beat you up -- is bad. The second is far worse.

[George H. Smith]

Why are you getting so personal? Did you enjoy our last flamewar so much that you are itching for another one? Stick to the issues and we will have no problem.

Ghs

OK. Sorry.

Shayne

Thanks.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Why are you getting so personal? Did you enjoy our last flamewar so much that you are itching for another one? Stick to the issues and we will have no problem.

Ghs

OK. Sorry.

Shayne

Thanks.

Ghs

Thank you, Phil.

--Brant

mysterious ways

[George H. Smith]

Why are you getting so personal? Did you enjoy our last flamewar so much that you are itching for another one? Stick to the issues and we will have no problem.

Ghs

OK. Sorry.

Shayne

Thanks.

Ghs

Thank you, Phil.

--Brant

mysterious ways

It had not occurred to me that Phil would get credit for my determination not to get into another flamewar with Shayne. I don't want to be an enabler of Phil's addiction to civility, so now I am uncertain about what to do. Should I get really nasty for a while just to make a point?

Signed,

Conflicted

[sjw]

Why are you getting so personal? Did you enjoy our last flamewar so much that you are itching for another one? Stick to the issues and we will have no problem.

Ghs

OK. Sorry.

Shayne

Thanks.

Ghs

Thank you, Phil.

--Brant

mysterious ways

It had not occurred to me that Phil would get credit for my determination not to get into another flamewar with Shayne. I don't want to be an enabler of Phil's addiction to civility, so now I am uncertain about what to do. Should I get really nasty for a while just to make a point?

Signed,

Conflicted

I was about to tell Brant it had more to do with him than with Phil. Now he goes and ruins it all. ;)

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Why are you getting so personal? Did you enjoy our last flamewar so much that you are itching for another one? Stick to the issues and we will have no problem.

Ghs

OK. Sorry.

Shayne

Thanks.

Ghs

Thank you, Phil.

--Brant

mysterious ways

It had not occurred to me that Phil would get credit for my determination not to get into another flamewar with Shayne. I don't want to be an enabler of Phil's addiction to civility, so now I am uncertain about what to do. Should I get really nasty for a while just to make a point?

Signed,

Conflicted

I was about to tell Brant it had more to do with him than with Phil. Now he goes and ruins it all. ;)

Shayne

Gee, after all the work he did in his civility garden, I just assumed it had born this fruit.

--Brant

jumping to conclusions

[Ellen Stuttle]

In TOF she laid down the law that "Objectivism" is a doctrine frozen to whatever she said it was, no more, no less, no changes allowed. At this point Objectivism ceased being a philosophy and officially became a religion.

Could you provide her actual wording? We didn't save most of the issues of TOF, and I don't find a statement by Rand in any of the few issues we did save.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Peter quoted the following statement from OPAR. I've corrected "it's" to "its" and added the last sentence of the paragraph, indicated by //. The bold highlight is Peter's. The italics is in the original. The statement is on pg. 14.]

"A thing cannot act against its nature, i.e., in contradiction to its identity, because A is A and contradictions are impossible. In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity. /This is the action it will take, the action that is caused and necessitated by its nature./"

Snippets like this can be very misleading. If you wish to quote only a sentence or two from a longer dicussion, then you should mention not only the source but also the page number . I have neither the time nor the inclination to search through OPAR for the passage you quoted.

Ghs

Pg. 14. A passage on pp. 68-69 is where Peikoff fudges -- or, more depictively, shoe horns -- the Objectivist theory of volition into the only-one-action-possible-per-given-circumstance mold. Peikoff wasn't the first to do this shoe horning. Nathaniel Branden did it somewhere, I think in print (not just in a taped course), but I haven't yet found where. I'll look further this evening.

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

Why are you getting so personal? Did you enjoy our last flamewar so much that you are itching for another one? Stick to the issues and we will have no problem.

Ghs

OK. Sorry.

Shayne

Thanks.

Ghs

Shayne,

As long as we are being nice to one another -- and who knows how long this will last? --there is a post I wrote in our earlier flamewar that I want to apologize for. It is the one in which I sarcastically mentioned your self-published book. I have standards, even in the midst of a flamewar, and this remark was way out of line. Perhaps it didn't bother you all that much, but it left me with a sickly feeling and was a major reason why I quit that thread. When I start writing stuff that makes me feel like this, I know it is time to stop and get some perspective.

I admire libertarians with the initiative to publish their own material, and my remark, written in that "professorial" style that I detest -- having been the target of it many times in my own life -- was not in character for me. You should be encouraged and applauded rather than demeaned for your efforts. The fact that I disagree with some of your ideas is immaterial.

Ghs

[sjw]

Shayne,

As long as we are being nice to one another -- and who knows how long this will last? --there is a post I wrote in our earlier flamewar that I want to apologize for. It is the one in which I sarcastically mentioned your self-published book. I have standards, even in the midst of a flamewar, and this remark was way out of line. Perhaps it didn't bother you all that much, but it left me with a sickly feeling and was a major reason why I quit that thread. When I start writing stuff that makes me feel like this, I know it is time to stop and get some perspective.

I admire libertarians with the initiative to publish their own material, and my remark, written in that "professorial" style that I detest -- having been the target of it many times in my own life -- was not in character for me. You should be encouraged and applauded rather than demeaned for your efforts. The fact that I disagree with some of your ideas is immaterial.

Ghs

The original remark didn't bother me as much as this impresses me. Thank you George.

Shayne

[sjw]

In TOF she laid down the law that "Objectivism" is a doctrine frozen to whatever she said it was, no more, no less, no changes allowed. At this point Objectivism ceased being a philosophy and officially became a religion.

Could you provide her actual wording? We didn't save most of the issues of TOF, and I don't find a statement by Rand in any of the few issues we did save.

Ellen

I can't find a link that has the whole thing, I'd recommend reading it entirely and not merely the excerpt posted here:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index

It might be worth writing an essay expanding on my analysis of the implications of Rand's statements sometime...

Shayne

[Xray]

In TOF she laid down the law that "Objectivism" is a doctrine frozen to whatever she said it was, no more, no less, no changes allowed. At this point Objectivism ceased being a philosophy and officially became a religion.

Could you provide her actual wording? We didn't save most of the issues of TOF, and I don't find a statement by Rand in any of the few issues we did save.

One also has to take into account what Nathaniel Branden wrote in his (must-read) article: The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

NB: Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.

Imo no none knew Ayn Rand better than N. Branden. Also, I don't think he is the person who would misrepresent what she had said.

As for contradictions, I think it is a good method to distinguish between contradictions within a thought system (I'll call them "type A" contradictions here), and "type B" contradictions between a thought system and the facts of reality.

Both types of contradictions one can find in Objectivism.

As for the type A contradictions, NB writes in the article quoted above:

NB: It’s often been observed that the Bible says many contradictory things and so if anyone tries to argue that the Bible holds a particular position, it’s very easy for someone who disagrees to quote conflicting evidence. It’s been said that you can prove almost anything by quoting the Bible. The situation with Ayn Rand is not entirely different. Right now someone could quote passages from “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged” that would clearly conflict with and contradict what I am saying about the messages contained in those works. They would not be wrong, given that the works contain contradictory messages.

As for the premises of the Objectivist philosophy themselves, a substantial contradiction lies in Rand’s stating that to value is impossible without an existing alternative, and at the same time bringing up 'value-seeking' plants which clearly do not have any alternative (like e. g. not seeking water).

Then there are the problems she ran into with the "sacrifice" issue, as illustrated in the well-known "hat" example.

One can easily see that Ayn Rand had to make too many concessions to keep up the idea of an "objectively" higher/"objectively" lower value.

One big concession was that she said when one loves a person, doing something out of love is not a sacrifice. For to love is to value.

But when you test it through, it contradicts another Objectivist premise which says one should not put another person's happiness before one's own. (While the premise may not exist in this exact wording, it certainly is one of the key elements of the Objectivist ethics).

With Frank O'Connor for example, one gets the impression that he often put Ayn Rand's wishes before his own. Her happiness before his own. But since he obviously loved her, then this would not be a sacrifice according to Objectivism - correct?

But doesn't all this comes far too close to altruistic behavior?

So what would an Objectivist reply to my question whether one could regard Frank's behavior as altruistic because he put his wife's wishes and happiness before his own (as for example, in their moving from California to New York)?

If the answer is: “Since he loved her, his behavior does not qualify as altruistic - this would actually make the case for a person’s subjective value decisions (like loving a person P) being a criterion for morally judging this person’s actions. It would undercut the idea of objective value.

As for "type B" contradictions (contradictions with the facts of reality):

Re Rand's ethics:

It is extremely problematic to base a moral code on an organism's life as the "standard of value", and to declare: "that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" (Rand, TVOS, p. 17)?

For example, it collapses the Randian argument against "parasites". For not only are parasites extremely successful as organisms when it comes to survival; per Rand's own premises, she would even have to regard as "evil" that which threatens the life of the parasite (which, as a well-functioning and perfectly adapted organism is in no way different from the human organism who feeds on other life as well).

Rand: "that which furthers its [an organism's] life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" (Rand, TVOS, p. 17)?

So from the perspective of the potato beetle, the pesticides the farmer puts on the field are "evil". For the roundworm, the nourishment provided by the body of its human host is "good" since it furthers the survival of the worm's organism.

Imo any ethical system based on an organism's need for survival will shoot itself in the foot, because "life as the standard of value" applies to all organisms, i. e. also to those which are detrimental to the human organism.

As for human 'parasites' (the term being used in a connotative sense here): they too can thrive and prosper.

As Ghs has pointed out:

George H. Smith: "Ayn Rand's derivation of man's inalienable right to his own life rests implicitly on a moral sanction of life as such, and, if she is to be consistent, Rand must apply her rights concept to all life forms. A sanction of all life, however, is inconsistent with man's survival. To live, man must kill other life - he cannot survive on inorganic matter."

Source: George H. Smith, Ayn Rand and the Right to Life: A Critical Evaluation, Invictus 17, p. 8 (quoted from L. A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights, p. 16).

Not only must every living organism kill other life in order to exist - life killing other life is essential for our ecological system to preserve itself.

(The world as one "one big restaurant", like Woody Allen said in one of his films).

Another big contradictory issue is Rand's belief in capitalism having its essential foundation in the principle of individual rights. But when you look around, one can see capitalists being in flourishing business relations with dictatorial systems all over the world. And when a dictator is about to lose power, the capitalists seem to be more concerned about losing their profitable business relations due to "instability" in that country than about individual rights.

Imo Rand's traumatic experiences with the communist system led to her praising its opposite, capitalism, too much.

My point was originally raised as a response to the charge that Rand made Objectivism a religion by freezing it, i.e., by prohibiting its development by others, in effect. But Rand didn't do this; in fact, there is no realistic way that a person can prohibit others from developing variations of his or her philosophy. Rand's point was that if your ideas deviate from her ideas, then what you are defending is not Objectivism, because "Objectivism" means the ideas of Ayn Rand.

Like e. g. a Catholic who criticizes the ideas of Catholcism is not defending Catholicism?

The implications are quite dramatic, for it could mean that, strictly speaking, a Catholic criticizing the ideas of Catholicism is no longer a Catholic since he has abandoned the ideological home he came from.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Just for the record, I and many others would take issue with many of Xray's statements about contradictions in Objectivism if we weren't husbanding our time.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Why are you getting so personal? Did you enjoy our last flamewar so much that you are itching for another one? Stick to the issues and we will have no problem.

Ghs

OK. Sorry.

Shayne

Thanks.

Ghs

Shayne,

As long as we are being nice to one another -- and who knows how long this will last? --there is a post I wrote in our earlier flamewar that I want to apologize for. It is the one in which I sarcastically mentioned your self-published book. I have standards, even in the midst of a flamewar, and this remark was way out of line. Perhaps it didn't bother you all that much, but it left me with a sickly feeling and was a major reason why I quit that thread. When I start writing stuff that makes me feel like this, I know it is time to stop and get some perspective.

I admire libertarians with the initiative to publish their own material, and my remark, written in that "professorial" style that I detest -- having been the target of it many times in my own life -- was not in character for me. You should be encouraged and applauded rather than demeaned for your efforts. The fact that I disagree with some of your ideas is immaterial.

Ghs

The main problem with Shayne's book is not that it was self-published, but that he should have run the text by many more people for feedback first than he seems to have done. Since he's not an academic, putting it up on the Internet might have accomplished that. Consequently, when he came on to us about and with his ideas, he had already too much invested in them to properly use such feedback so there was too much digging in his heels generating conflict out of the various righteousnesses of it all.

--Brant

I'm planning a review of Shayne's book for OL--it will not be a review like an expert on rights and political philosophy would write; it will concentrate on what I see as it's key place in American/English intellectual culture qua rights and philosophical exposition especially related to Objectivism

Edited March 12, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

The main problem with Shayne's book is not that it was self-published, but that he should have run the text by many more people for feedback first than he seems to have done. Since he's not an academic, putting it up on the Internet might have accomplished that. Consequently, when he came on to us about and with his ideas, he had already too much invested in them to properly use such feedback so there was too much digging in his heels generating conflict out of the various righteousnesses of it all.

What a bizarre, incoherent, insulting, and presumptuous remark. You do not know who I ran the book by. And you claim here that by doing so on the internet before "publishing" it (what's the difference???) then I would have escaped the horrible consequence of disagreeing with you on something. Heaven forbid that I believe something! Evidently, publishing on the internet is not "too much investment," but uploading to Amazon and pushing a few buttons is?

Perhaps I should know you better by now Brant, but it seems to me that you're itching to insult and concocted a bizarre rationale to justify it. I mean, when I see something that is insulting and zany at the same time, I tend to think that someone really wants to insult me.

Shayne

Edited March 12, 2011 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

The main problem with Shayne's book is not that it was self-published, but that he should have run the text by many more people for feedback first than he seems to have done. Since he's not an academic, putting it up on the Internet might have accomplished that. Consequently, when he came on to us about and with his ideas, he had already too much invested in them to properly use such feedback so there was too much digging in his heels generating conflict out of the various righteousnesses of it all.

What a bizarre, incoherent, insulting, and presumptuous remark. You do not know who I ran the book by. And you claim here that by doing so on the internet before "publishing" it (what's the difference???) then I would have escaped the horrible consequence of disagreeing with you on something. Heaven forbid that I believe something! Evidently, publishing on the internet is not "too much investment," but uploading to Amazon and pushing a few buttons is?

Perhaps I should know you better by now Brant, but it seems to me that you're itching to insult and concocted a bizarre rationale to justify it. I mean, when I see something that is insulting and zany at the same time, I tend to think that someone really wants to insult me.

Shayne

Do not email or communicate with me again.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Prompted by Xray's post above, I just reread Nathaniel's essay, The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

After all the reading I have been doing recently on persuasion, neurplasticity, neuromarketing, and the like, I can clearly see now what I could not see when I read it the first time. Frankly, it was a joy to read just now. Nathaniel was right. There is a lack of technology in Rand's presentation on how to implement happiness, especially when your gut is giving you strong messages that get in the way.

Rand's favorite way of dealing with such obstacles was expressing moral contempt so she could dismiss the issue and move on to other things. That's a pretty good system if you are in the middle of a project and need to focus to get it done. It's a disaster for happiness, though, when you feel contempt for yourself for feeling those things. You can't get to happiness through self-contempt and repression.

I was also pleased to read what I--independently of any source other than my own conscious choice--have decided to be the essential attitude I want to foster on OL. I often express it as using Objectivism as a starting point, not and end point, and thinking for yourself.

Growing up relative to Ayn Rand means being able to see her realistically—to see the greatness and to see the shortcomings. If we see only the greatness and deny the shortcomings or if we see only the shortcomings and deny the greatness, we remain blind.

She has so much that is truly marvelous to offer us. So much wisdom, insight, and inspiration. So much clarification. Let us say "thank you" for that, acknowledge the errors and mistakes when we see them, and proceed on our own path—realizing that, ultimately, each of us has to make the journey alone, anyway.

We now have a discussion forum where this vision is happening. I believe it also needs to be expressed in story form (fiction) to make a concrete way of contemplating it. Actually it is present in many great fiction works, but with reference to other systems of thought.

More on this later.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

The main problem with Shayne's book is not that it was self-published, but that he should have run the text by many more people for feedback first than he seems to have done. Since he's not an academic, putting it up on the Internet might have accomplished that. Consequently, when he came on to us about and with his ideas, he had already too much invested in them to properly use such feedback so there was too much digging in his heels generating conflict out of the various righteousnesses of it all.

--Brant

I'm planning a review of Shayne's book for OL--it will not be a review like an expert on rights and political philosophy would write; it will concentrate on what I see as it's key place in American/English intellectual culture qua rights and philosophical exposition especially related to Objectivism

I didn't submit ATCAG to any readers before publishing it. (Of course, it went through one of the editors at Nash, but that was for copy editing.) When Sylvia Cross (the executive editor at Nash) said she wanted to submit the manuscript to John Hospers for a blurb, I said this would be a waste of time because Hospers would not like the book. And I was right. Hospers responded with largely negative comments. With some exceptions, such as Wallace Matson, ATCAG was not well received in the academic community. I didn't expect it to be.

A problem with soliciting prepublication comments is that you mainly end up with ideas about how other people would have written your book. This is more annoying than anything else, and this is probably what Shayne would have gotten if he had solicited comments on the Internet.

Ghs

[sjw]

The main problem with Shayne's book is not that it was self-published, but that he should have run the text by many more people for feedback first than he seems to have done. Since he's not an academic, putting it up on the Internet might have accomplished that. Consequently, when he came on to us about and with his ideas, he had already too much invested in them to properly use such feedback so there was too much digging in his heels generating conflict out of the various righteousnesses of it all.

What a bizarre, incoherent, insulting, and presumptuous remark. You do not know who I ran the book by. And you claim here that by doing so on the internet before "publishing" it (what's the difference???) then I would have escaped the horrible consequence of disagreeing with you on something. Heaven forbid that I believe something! Evidently, publishing on the internet is not "too much investment," but uploading to Amazon and pushing a few buttons is?

Perhaps I should know you better by now Brant, but it seems to me that you're itching to insult and concocted a bizarre rationale to justify it. I mean, when I see something that is insulting and zany at the same time, I tend to think that someone really wants to insult me.

Shayne

Do not email or communicate with me again.

--Brant

Sigh... how ironic, George and I have a few polite posts and now this happens.

I am confused by Brant's behavior. Evidently it's fine if he flings incoherent and unsubstantiated insults, but when I analyze the insult then that's not fine. Perhaps he wasn't intending to insult and actually had a coherent thought in there somewhere (it's happened before...), but he shouldn't blame me for taking his poor expression of whatever thought he had at face value, and if he didn't really intend to say what it looks like he did then there's no reason to take it so personally.

If the fault is mine for not taking into account Brant's present circumstance, I will apologize, but from my viewpoint I don't see anything wrong with responding to the logic of what he actually writes here.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To add to my previous post, I will say, for now, that I believe I have come across a fiction-writing system that is totally suited to doing something like this. It is called Dramatica (that's an affiliate link, by the way), and it comes with a full-blown theory of story plus software to keep you on track while you write. I can't think of a better system, so far, to present what I am after--and I mean specifically what the authors call the "grand argument story." As I am learning this system, I can see how easy it is to analyze Rand's fiction according to the principles it gives.

More later. I will probably open a thread in the writing section on Dramatica. (This last link is the same company, but not an affiliate link. You can get oodles of free stuff and classes on the system there.)

Michael

[sjw]

A problem with soliciting prepublication comments is that you mainly end up with ideas about how other people would have written your book. This is more annoying than anything else, and this is probably what Shayne would have gotten if he had solicited comments on the Internet.

Ghs

I have this habit of thinking theoretical thoughts while riding my bike. Sometimes it's about software, sometimes physics, sometimes rights theory. Also, a good friend and I have long discussed the issue of rights and why it seems so difficult to get people to believe them, and one day he asked a critical question that stimulated my thinking. Well as it happened, this thinking crystallized into a very particular idea. It was pure accident in the sense that I was mostly doing it for recreational activity to occupy my mind while I pedaled. At that point there was no point in thinking further on the topic, either I move on to the next recreational thought or do something with the idea. And it seemed almost criminal to me not to do something.

I did not want to write the book in the first place, so my first step in writing it was to survey some knowledgeable friends and acquaintances regarding my ideas to see if they could come up with some reason why my ideas were bogus or redundant (some of these people are credited; there was one who disagrees with me but gave valuable feedback and did not want to be listed). When they couldn't, I proceeded. I wrote one chapter at a time, and had a particular group of friends review it and asked them to challenge me about it. They helped me improve it in various ways. Would it have been fantastic to have someone like George H. Smith in this group? Certainly. But I take what I can get. As it happens, I did get some people saying the book should be this way or that, and I seriously considered their remarks. One person in particular led to important changes in first part of Chapter 1. He also did not like how Chapter 1-3 was somewhat academic, he wanted the more passionate style of 4, and he wanted 4 to be longer. I have no idea how to satisfy the first request, and the second has only to do with how much time I'm willing to spend analyzing evil. Chapter 5 is a mixture of actual disagreements I got while writing the book, as well as disagreements I anticipated getting.

The ordering of the ideas in the book was hard for me to sort out, when I started out I tended to write things in reverse order from where they logically ended up in the end. In retrospect it's easy to say where things go, but at the time it wasn't. The process of writing the book itself led to fundamental observations that weren't in my initial ideas.

I did some due diligence in looking at what other thinkers have done, but I had no desire to spend a lot of time reading what they wrote in detail. To this day I'm bumping into common ground covered by other thinkers, but so far I have not come up with a reason why my book is redundant.

In fact, I just bumped into something yesterday by Rothbard where he has a very similar idea to my idea in Chapter 1 that individual rights are scientific and objective and do not require morality in order to define or implement, that morality comes in when deciding that one ought to adhere to the logic of individual rights (rights are defined in order to satisfy a moral issue, but once you have the definition then rights can be systematically identified without referring to morality). He has precisely the same idea, but instead of talking about rights being objective, he talks about economics being objective (see "In Defense of 'Extreme Apriorism'") . This is probably the key difference between Rothbard and myself. Where he places scientific economic theory, I place scientific rights theory. My position is therefore closer to the Objectivist tradition, without actually being in that tradition, as Objectivism blends rights theory and morality together. Alternatively one could view this as an extension rather than a difference from Rothbard/Mises. They had the economic/moral case, I'm adding the legal case. My view however is that the legal case is far more important than the economic case. So there is a huge difference in emphasis. (The foregoing is more an estimate than the fully qualified truth, as Rothbard did write extensively on the subject of natural rights).

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

The main problem with Shayne's book is not that it was self-published, but that he should have run the text by many more people for feedback first than he seems to have done. Since he's not an academic, putting it up on the Internet might have accomplished that. Consequently, when he came on to us about and with his ideas, he had already too much invested in them to properly use such feedback so there was too much digging in his heels generating conflict out of the various righteousnesses of it all.

--Brant

I'm planning a review of Shayne's book for OL--it will not be a review like an expert on rights and political philosophy would write; it will concentrate on what I see as it's key place in American/English intellectual culture qua rights and philosophical exposition especially related to Objectivism

I didn't submit ATCAG to any readers before publishing it. (Of course, it went through one of the editors at Nash, but that was for copy editing.) When Sylvia Cross (the executive editor at Nash) said she wanted to submit the manuscript to John Hospers for a blurb, I said this would be a waste of time because Hospers would not like the book. And I was right. Hospers responded with largely negative comments. With some exceptions, such as Wallace Matson, ATCAG was not well received in the academic community. I didn't expect it to be.

A problem with soliciting prepublication comments is that you mainly end up with ideas about how other people would have written your book. This is more annoying than anything else, and this is probably what Shayne would have gotten if he had solicited comments on the Internet.

Ghs

He's an engineer writing about political philosophy. If I were a philosopher who had an urgent argument for engineering, I'd run it by a lot of engineers. In any case he acknowledged three people who seemed to have given him significant pre-publication feedback right up there in front of his book--so how do I only know shit about that? He left out a lot of people? Regardless, I'm outta this mix.

--Brant

[sjw]

He's an engineer writing about political philosophy. If I were a philosopher who had an urgent argument for engineering, I'd run it by a lot of engineers.

A good engineer is a philosopher. Just like a good fiction writer is also a philosopher. The twist is that engineers need more philosophy of science than philosophy of morals. But the basics are the same, and when it comes to rights theory, I think it is a benefit that Rand's view, which is biased toward morality, gets a counter-point with technical thinking about rights theory.

In any case he acknowledged three people who seemed to have given him significant pre-publication feedback right up there in front of his book--so how do I only know shit about that? He left out a lot of people? Regardless, I'm outta this mix.

--Brant

Your beef with me is as incomprehensible as most of your criticisms of me. I tend to like you so I'm not happy about that, but if you want to act this way that's your business.

Shayne

[sjw]

Consequently, when he came on to us about and with his ideas, he had already too much invested in them to properly use such feedback so there was too much digging in his heels generating conflict out of the various righteousnesses of it all.

Just to be clear, I take this statement of Brant's as a serious charge of gross irrationality on my part. It is an unsubstantiated charge. I don't take kindly to it. I can't imagine why he thinks I would, or why he would act so touchy when I take issue with the insult.

As far as I can tell he crossed the line first with the insult, and I merely defended myself, and then he got all pissed off with me because I wouldn't just sit back and take it. I am completely at a loss to comprehend his behavior.

I don't intend any animosity toward Brant and I wish him well in his current circumstance, which I think may partly explain his behavior. But it doesn't excuse it, nor does it put a burden on me to put up with it.

I like Brant so I'm not very happy about this but I don't know what else I should have done differently.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Escalation, Psychologizing and Criticizing Personal Traits

> he had already too much invested in them to properly use such feedback so there was too much digging in his heels [brant]

> I take this statement of Brant's as a serious charge of gross irrationality..I don't take kindly to it...As far as I can tell he crossed the line first with the insult [shayne]

This is an example of how escalation often works on this list (and in public issues more broadly): On another thread I mentioned how incivility often ramps up over a serious of posts. It starts from slight factual disagreement and by the end of a thread has become outright name-calling, insults, food-fighting.

(A) In this case, Brant is psychologizing: He is taking about a bad mental process, without having actual evidence that that explains posting activities. Brant should have just stuck to the ideas in this case. Not mind-reading. Or motivations-reading. (B)Shayne then overreacts and overstates the charge as 'gross irrationality' and an 'insult'. i) It's not: Every one of us from time to time will dig in our heels stubbornly and emotionally, not admit something that we should if we weren't so 'vested' in it. Rationality means dealing with those things over time and when we calm down admitting them. ii) An 'insult' is not the same thing as a mistaken view of someone's psychology or motivation...or even psychologizing.

,,,,,

Related Issue #1: It's legitimate to talk about someone's bad cognitive process when they are clearly there in the text. (I often do. I am doing some writing on 'thinking errors' and I will greatly outrage thin-skinned people when I point them out -- but that's their problem not mine.) As four examples: if one says someone is being rationalistic, overly angry, not paying attention, or being sloppy in presentation or argument (and he has evidence, and it's an important issue to discuss itself - in the sense that it gets in the way of rational discussion a lot). And those are legitimate sources of attention and important issues. And they are not the same as insults or discussing motives. But separate them and use them as pointers for improvement as very important issues and sources of error. But be clear of the distinction: don't just say them in an attempt to lash out or deflect or in an unsubstantiated 'floating' manner.

Related Issue #2: There is also a sense in which criticizing personal traits is a deflection/tangent from discussing a serious issue. If you are losing a debate or are bored and want to change the subject to "Why are you so angry about this? You should be more calm" for example. When the context is such that someone's outrage (if civilly expressed) is not relevant and is introduced mixed in with the arguments about the matter under discussion.

(Each of the issues i've underlined would require more discussion and examples.)

Edited March 12, 2011 by Philip Coates