A Bold New Step for Objectivist Scholarship

[9thdoctor]

Subject: The Attack Dogs / Snark Pack in Objectivist Circles

Xray,

You made a couple good points on this thread about George's fallacies with regard to personal attacks. Let me summarize his technique:

[i say 'he' even though some of these techniques are shared by other posters - such as the other 3 heavily 'attack-style' types here - ND, Adam, and Jeff R]

1. He constantly indulges in personal attacks (rationalizations: I'm sharpening my writing tool; it's only polemics; it's clever; it's my natural style; it's a sidelight or a hobby which doesn't distract me too much from serious work.)

2A. When someone points this out civilly or seriously, he [they] will ridicule him as a 'schoolmarm' or 'boring' or repetitious ...or let's get back to the thread [and let me resume my attacks on it.]

2B. If he [they] can find an irritated or angry post, they will pounce on it: "aha! you're just as bad", "you do it too!"

3. George has taken 2B to another level: he complains that all my posts are vacuous, that I "insult people just as much" as anyone else...and therefore that my criticisms are "hypocritical".

4. If the criticism hits home too much or he can't think of a putdown, he will simply make a joke about it.

By blurring the line between attack or offense on the one hand and defense or criticism on the other, George, Adam, ND, and Jeff*** are allowed to continue their non-objective behavior.

*** There are others on this list who get into long foodfights, use personal attacks and insults, but in the four people I have named it seems a major personality trait: They seem to feel a need to do it regularly as if they were still chasing childhood demons or dealing with adolescent attackers. (I debated including Brant, SJW, MSK, or Ted on the list, but each of them seems to do it less frequently or perhaps more when provoked as opposed to getting off on it or having it psychologically as a dominant personality dysfunction: the unfortunate thing is this large a list constitutes now the *majority* of the most frequent posters -- which is why I refer frequently to the decline of the list.)

It's a shame because each of the four attack dogs/snark pack guys is intelligent and they often have worthwhile points to make.

Wow, I'm part of the elite attack force? What an honor!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwo3UDOWBOY

[George H. Smith]

Subject: The Attack Dogs / Snark Pack in Objectivist Circles

Xray,

You made a couple good points on this thread about George's fallacies with regard to personal attacks. Let me summarize his technique:

[i say 'he' even though some of these techniques are shared by other posters - such as the other 3 heavily 'attack-style' types here - ND, Adam, and Jeff R]

1. He constantly indulges in personal attacks (rationalizations: I'm sharpening my writing tool; it's only polemics; it's clever; it's my natural style; it's a sidelight or a hobby which doesn't distract me too much from serious work.)

2A. When someone points this out civilly or seriously, he [they] will ridicule him as a 'schoolmarm' or 'boring' or repetitious ...or let's get back to the thread [and let me resume my attacks on it.]

2B. If he [they] can find an irritated or angry post, they will pounce on it: "aha! you're just as bad", "you do it too!"

3. George has taken 2B to another level: he complains that all my posts are vacuous, that I "insult people just as much" as anyone else...and therefore that my criticisms are "hypocritical".

4. If the criticism hits home too much or he can't think of a putdown, he will simply make a joke about it.

By blurring the line between attack or offense on the one hand and defense or criticism on the other, George, Adam, ND, and Jeff*** are allowed to continue their non-objective behavior.

*** There are others on this list who get into long foodfights, use personal attacks and insults, but in the four people I have named it seems a major personality trait: They seem to feel a need to do it regularly as if they were still chasing childhood demons or dealing with adolescent attackers. (I debated including Brant, SJW, MSK, or Ted on the list, but each of them seems to do it less frequently or perhaps more when provoked as opposed to getting off on it or having it psychologically as a dominant personality dysfunction: the unfortunate thing is this large a list constitutes now the *majority* of the most frequent posters -- which is why I refer frequently to the decline of the list.)

It's a shame because each of the four attack dogs/snark pack guys is intelligent and they often have worthwhile points to make.

Relax, Phil. This isn't that big of a deal.

Thanks again for the free psychoanalysis. Perhaps, if I model myself after you and try really hard, I will one day be able to write bland, sputtering posts.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Wow, I'm part of the elite attack force? What an honor!

[video deleted]

In the clip, Achilles promises "immortality" for defeating Troy, a formidable enemy. The most we Myrmidons can expect for conquering the City of Phil is a free mint.

Ghs

[jriggenbach]

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along. I'm just here in this corner of the page doing the work I was always meant to do - degrading the list by making comments or asking questions that Phil regards as "snarky," a word (like "civility") which possesses exactly zero intellectual content. As used by Phil, "snarky" means "having one or more qualities Phil doesn't like."

Okay, there's my snarky comment. Now for my snarky question:

Why does Phil become so incensed when anyone speculates as to his motives for writing something he wrote, but it's okay for him to speculate on the psychology that "makes" those he doesn't like on the list write things he regards as "snarky"?

JR

[Brant Gaede]

Wow, I'm part of the elite attack force? What an honor!

[video deleted]

In the clip, Achilles promises "immortality" for defeating Troy, a formidable enemy. The most we Myrmidons can expect for conquering the City of Phil is a free mint.

Ghs

I'm not sure, but am I in the reserves?

--Brant

Phil should have some OJ before posting in the morning--get that blood sugar up

edit: JR's being logical again: Down JR! DOWN!!! (save it for the final assault!)

Edited March 8, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along. I'm just here in this corner of the page doing the work I was always meant to do - degrading the list by making comments or asking questions that Phil regards as "snarky," a word (like "civility") which possesses exactly zero intellectual content. As used by Phil, "snarky" means "having one or more qualities Phil doesn't like."

Okay, there's my snarky comment. Now for my snarky question:

Why does Phil become so incensed when anyone speculates as to his motives for writing something he wrote, but it's okay for him to speculate on the psychology that "makes" those he doesn't like on the list write things he regards as "snarky"?

JR

Phil has no motives except truth, justice, and/or the American way.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why does Phil become so incensed when anyone speculates as to his motives for writing something he wrote, but it's okay for him to speculate on the psychology that "makes" those he doesn't like on the list write things he regards as "snarky"?

Jeff,

This one is easy.

Phil is an Objectivist.

You aren't.

Ayn Rand provided the credibility.

Ayn Rand gave him the authority.

But you would have to be an Objectivist to understand that.

Michael

(Sorry, Phil. This set up was just too good to resist... )

[Brant Gaede]

JR's not an Objectivist? Too much objectivity? Sob. I'm so lonely!

--Brant

next Ghs isn't an Objectivist--it's more than one man can bear

(my Lab Saga isn't one either; Saga's an Eatest)

edit: Phil's still an Objectivist! Hooray! Hooray!

Edited March 8, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

Steve Martin gives a lesson in civility:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S5o8DFfYHS4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ghs

[caroljane]

I also want to note that many of the things I point out seem *far, far worse* at a venue like Lindsay Perigo's*** SoloPassion. I check out what's going on over there maybe once a month and I almost -never- see a thread which is not overwhelmed by bitter hatreds, personal attacks, ongoing feuds, etc.

That place seems to be an unrelieved sewer.

(At least on OL if someone is going to put me or someone else down or post a personal attack or ad hominem it is often at least entertaining, done in a tone or amusement or with a clever cartoon.)

*** Lindsay P. is the poster boy and role model for personal attacks in the Oist world

Phil, I check them out too. I am wondering:

What happened to Rosie the lawyer with the seatbelt? She seemed to be a fairly obsessive poster and then she just vanished. Is she posting somewhere else now?

Also, do LP's "op-eds" ever get published anywhere except on his own site?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[George H. Smith]

JR's not an Objectivist? Too much objectivity? Sob. I'm so lonely!

--Brant

next Ghs isn't an Objectivist--it's more than one man can bear

(my Lab Saga isn't one either; Saga's an Eatest)

edit: Phil's still an Objectivist! Hooray! Hooray!

None of us is an Objectivist. We are all Students of Objectivism. And some students are more unruly than others.

Ghs

[DavidMcK]

I have to say that I don't know why everyone gangs up on Phil, his posts are sometimes interesting and he and whynot have good points about the lack of civility on here. I know: it is more entertaining to see a good cat fight than to learn something but some of us are here more to learn than to be entertained. My .02.

[George H. Smith]

I have to say that I don't know why everyone gangs up on Phil, his posts are sometimes interesting and he and whynot have good points about the lack of civility on here. I know: it is more entertaining to see a good cat fight than to learn something but some of us are here more to learn than to be entertained. My .02.

Have you been following this thread? If you have, you will know that Phil has resorted to insults -- both in the form of name-calling and puerile speculations about people's motives and character traits -- more than anyone else by far. Meanwhile, Phil criticizes others for their lack of civility, while always claiming that his insults are justified.

This double-standard is why "everyone gangs up on Phil." Moreover, you will find that members of the gang in question typically write interesting and substantial posts. Poking fun at Phil has scarcely been the focus of our attention in the grand scheme of things.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Wow, I'm part of the elite attack force? What an honor!

[video deleted]

In the clip, Achilles promises "immortality" for defeating Troy, a formidable enemy. The most we Myrmidons can expect for conquering the City of Phil is a free mint.

Ghs

I'm not sure, but am I in the reserves?

Not exactly. You are our elite warrior -- our go-to guy should it ever become necessary to assassinate someone. I assume you know how to use a garrote.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> Have you been following this thread? If you have, you will know...

Another of George's little tricks: restrict his perspective to this thread.

[George H. Smith]

> Have you been following this thread? If you have, you will know...

Another of George's little tricks: restrict his perspective to this thread.

First, have people ganged up against you on other threads? If so, which ones?

Second, are you admitting that I was correct, so far as this thread is concerned?

Third, are you claiming that your insults on this thread were justified because of what I or someone else said about you on other threads? I try not to carry grudges from one thread to the next. You apparently do, however, judging from your snide and incorrect correction of me (about whether Carol is a socialist) on another thread earlier today.

When may I expect an apology for your unprovoked and insulting quip about my "usual penchant for accuracy"? Since you believe so strongly in civility, I know you will be eager to apologize for your mistake. A simple apology will do; groveling is not necessary.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I have to say that I don't know why everyone gangs up on Phil, his posts are sometimes interesting and he and whynot have good points about the lack of civility on here. I know: it is more entertaining to see a good cat fight than to learn something but some of us are here more to learn than to be entertained. My .02.

Phil can take care of himself, and since he goes after so many people many come back at him.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

Re: suicide bombers and vengeful suicides

But the common denominator is the destructive intent--whether you kill other people or merely hurt other people. The essential nature of the immorality involved is the same--using your life as a means to the end of ruining other lives rather than treating your life as an end in itself. The key ethical principle being violated is independence.

I don't agree with this. When you commit mass murder, for whatever reason, the key ethical principle being violated is respect for the rights of innocent victims. Whether or not you kill yourself in the process is relatively insignificant from a moral point of view.

Clearly we do have a difference of opinion here, but I want to clarify my own position. Your view is consistent with the fundamental premise of libertarianism, i.e., that our most important ethical-political principle is the social rule of noncoercion. I regard that as a derivative, second-level principle, resting upon the more fundamental premise of rational egoism. As human beings, we have an obligation to do those things which our nature requires for us to have a satisfying life. Rationality, independence, productivity—all those things are ethical principles because they represent objective requirements of human life. The social principle of dealing with others as a trader--neither sacrificing others for self nor self to others—derives from and logically depends upon the virtue of independence. If I am committed to fulfilling my own needs and not living as a parasite, I will have no reason to use force against others against their will or to destroy others out of my own self-hatred.

That's why I think the more fundamental ethical principle is the ego-based principle: independence.

And I think we're psychologizing when we say Muslims truly believe they will wake up in paradise. It's possible, I suppose, but we don't know for sure just how delusional their inner mental state might be. They would not be blowing themselves up if they were happy people, so depression and hopelessness are clearly involved.

I am not psychologizing at all. I am simply taking people at their word when we have no reason to doubt it. To suppose that people who are willing to die themselves in order to kill others cannot be happy, that they must feel depressed and hopeless, is to psychologize in a manner that flies in the face of countless historical examples. People who are willing, indeed eager, to die for a cause that involves killing others are a common phenomenon throughout history, especially in "holy wars." During the Middle Ages, popes frequently assured Christian crusaders that they would go to heaven if they died fighting infidels. As a result, there was rarely a shortage of volunteers. People really do believe this crap.

Ghs

I suspect we may be wading into a psychological quagmire here, speculating about what various suicidal people have felt throughout the annals of history. I question the validity of judging the psychology of crusaders from the Middle Ages. Given the era they were living in, God knows what their motivation might have been. Perhaps they did genuinely believe the afterlife/nirvana fantasy. But then are we to suggest that anyone who kills himself and thinks he is going to heaven is not really committing suicide? That makes no sense to me. I think it’s fairly clear that today’s suicide bombers are people with nothing to live for, and that we can’t ignore that fact.

Kamikaze pilots in World War II were supposedly killing themselves to achieve some sort of ultimate honor within the Shinto religion. I find that entirely believable, given the extent of their cultural indoctrination. But I don’t think that means their suicidal actions are fundamentally different from other suicides. Whether Shinto or Muslim or the crazies of Heaven’s Gate, suicide is suicide and it entails a rejection of life.

But I am willing to admit that all of this is very debatable, and that I may well be psychologizing as much as anyone.

Oh, hell. Who is John Galt?

[Dennis Hardin]

I agree with you that it's not a conscious decision we make at some point, and that on a practical level it's much more an issue of choosing to continue to live (or to take the actions necessary to do so). But from the standpoint of the Objectivist ethics, the question is whether the choice to live is moral or premoral. For Rand, ethics is entirely teleological--actions are judged by the standard of the goal we seek. But until we choose to live, technically there is no goal and therefore no morality. So what is the moral standing of the choice to live, if the choice precedes morality? And if someone simply decides life is not worth the effort, are we wrong to judge them morally?

In normal circumstances (this qualification will be assumed throughout my discussion), we choose to live, or choose to continue living (the exact wording isn't very important}, in the same sense that we choose not to consume rat poison, or choose not to jump off a cliff, or choose not to run into a burning building. All my examples are metaphysical alternatives. They are things we could do, but we do not view them as psychological options. They are filtered out before they reach the level of conscious awareness, so we never consider them.

The instinct of self-preservation runs deep in humans, so the relevant question is not so much Why do you choose to live? as it is Why do you choose not to die? It is usually death, not life, that requires a conscious decision.

Of course, it can be argued that my psychological observations, even if accurate, are irrelevant to the philosophical problem involved here, since the choice not to die can be converted into the choice to live. Well, yes and no. A demonstrated preference for living over dying does not necessarily indicate that a person values his own life in any morally significant sense. It may simply indicate that he is unwilling to take the effort required to kill himself. It is frequently much easier to live than it is to die, and people tend to choose the path of least resistance.

We now come to your question, "if someone simply decides life is not worth the effort, are we wrong to judge them morally?" Yes, in my opinion, this is wrong (in the sense of "mistaken"). You may regard their decision as mistaken or unwise, but I don't see what moral principle they have violated. Where is it written that we must continue to live even when we believe that our life is not worth living? What better reason can there be for ending one's life?

Ghs

You’re not quite addressing the technical philosophical paradox involving the premoral status of the choice to live, but that may be simply because you regard it as too esoteric. Fine. Since you don’t consider yourself an Objectivist, I can understand that. I agree with a number of your statements above. Many people, sadly, definitely do choose to go on living more out of fear of dying than love of life.

Regarding your question: “Where is it written that we must continue to live even when we believe that our life is not worth living?” If that belief derives from suffering or hopelessness, and the person truly has made a strong effort to overcome their problems, I could go along with that. But if someone simply turns their back on the precious value of life because it’s too much effort, I would definitely say they are immoral. And that would largely be based on the fact that the person was evading—defaulting on the responsibility to think--refusing to see something incredibly valuable, which fact is obvious to anyone who is willing to put forth the effort to look.

[Dennis Hardin]

The standards of evaluation don't change because the person commits suicide. Irresponsibility—the refusal to take responsibility for one’s own life—is a default on the virtue of independence, and it is immoral when a person lives in a way that involves being a burden or parasite on others. Drug addicts who are enabled by spouses or other family members are a classic example. If they burden others with their debts, their immorality consists in their failure to meet the requirements of their own survival. If a person commits suicide and leaves behind debts for others to pay, his immorality again consists in his lack of independence. If he is responsible and remains alive long enough to resolve the debts as best he can, it is out of a human being’s moral obligation to himself and his own life, not an obligation to others.

Drug addicts cannot burden others with their debts unless those others willingly accept such burdens. This is a two-way street.

That’s true, but it does not really change the fact that the addict lacks independence and is being immoral. Getting others to support our immorality does not make us moral.

I don't understand how your views on independence pertain to the issue of suicide. You seem to say that a person needs to pay off his debts, or at least make a good faith effort to do so, before it would be morally proper for him to commit suicide. Why? Because obligations to others are really obligations to oneself. You then mix this in with the virtue of independence. I don't follow your reasoning here, so I will read your post again later on.

Ghs

The virtue of independence means that each of us must live by the work of our own mind and take responsibility for meeting our own rational needs as living beings. We cannot live successfully as parasites. If we borrow money, we have an ethical obligation (to ourselves) to pay it back—if we care about being moral. Repaying debts is not altruistic.

On the other hand, being moral only applies within the context of wanting to live. So the virtue of independence would not apply at whatever point a person decided life was no longer worth living. A person might well choose to try to resolve the debt to avoid burdening his heirs with it, but that would be the person’s choice and not really a moral issue. If the person did it out of love, it would not constitute 'living for the sake of others.' It would simply amount to benevolence.

[Dennis Hardin]

I agree with you that it's not a conscious decision we make at some point, and that on a practical level it's much more an issue of choosing to continue to live (or to take the actions necessary to do so). But from the standpoint of the Objectivist ethics, the question is whether the choice to live is moral or premoral. For Rand, ethics is entirely teleological--actions are judged by the standard of the goal we seek. But until we choose to live, technically there is no goal and therefore no morality. So what is the moral standing of the choice to live, if the choice precedes morality? And if someone simply decides life is not worth the effort, are we wrong to judge them morally?

You have correctly pointed out substantial contradictions in the whole "morality" package of Objectivism. It doesn't mesh. Keep digging. After all, going by Rand's very own premises, it is crucial for a philosophy to be free from contradictions.

One reason this topic fascinates me is because people such as yourself can use it to attack Objectivism. Needless to say, there is a solution, which you adroitly fail to mention.

Choosing non-existence over existence is clearly not a mere "whim", but much more than that.

All advocates of objective morality (like e. g. the Catholic Church) have the problem of "morally judging" these acts.

And even the Catholic Church meanwhile has modified its harsh judgement. So much for "objective" morality. It just does not exist. Why is this so hard to accept for many? Do they believe everything is going to collapse if they abandon the belief in this fallacy?

So true. Choosing nonexistence over existence is the grandest of ambitions. Zero worship. None of us should knock it until we've tried it.

[BaalChatzaf]

Dennis Hardin wrote:

One reason this topic fascinates me is because people such as yourself can use it to attack Objectivism. Needless to say, there is a solution, which you adroitly fail to mention.

I ask:

What is the solution?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

What is the solution?

The solution is to put your money where your mouth is.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Ted Keer

[BaalChatzaf]

What is the solution?

The solution is to put your money where your mouth is.

Could you clarify that?

Thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis Hardin wrote:

One reason this topic fascinates me is because people such as yourself can use it to attack Objectivism. Needless to say, there is a solution, which you adroitly fail to mention.

I ask:

What is the solution?

"All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil."

"...[Your] life belongs to you and . . . the good is to live it."

We don't need morality to tell us that choosing life is good and choosing death is evil. The purpose of morality is to evaluate the consistency of our actions with that prior choice--a choice which can be evaluated as good or evil, not moral or immoral.

The Choice To Live

I published this article almost 20 years ago. I'm still waiting for someone to explain where I am wrong.