On a rational view of definition, a definition organizes and condenses — and thus helps one to retain — a wealth of knowledge about the characteristics of a concept's units. On the nominalist view, it is precisely this knowledge that is discarded when one defines a concept: as soon as a defining characteristic is chosen, all the other characteristics of the units are banished from the concept, which shrivels to a mere definition. For instance, as long as a child's concept of "man" is retained ostensively, the child knows that man has a head, two eyes, two arms, etc.; on the nominalist view as soon as the child defines "man," he discards all this knowledge; thereafter, "man" means to him only: "a thing with rationality and animality." [IOTE, 104]
Note the complete absence of empirical examples to support Peikoff's contentions: which nominalists, after all, believe the people discard knowledge after defining words? Is it too much to ask for names, followed by documented evidence? This absence of evidence is not only intentional, but necessary: there can be no examples because it's unlikely any nominalist ever held the position attributed them by Peikoff in this passage. What Peikoff and other Objectivists still can't seem to grasp is that definitions define words, not concepts. The definition explains how a particular word is to be used. It gives the meaning of the word in different terms. Neither Rand nor Peikoff ever bothered to provide evidence for the assertion that definitions organize and condense knowledge about the characteristics of a concept's units. Since definitions only express the same meaning in different words, they add no knowledge about external matters of fact (other than knowledge about word usage).
I'm not aware of any philosopher, nominalist or otherwise, who believes the definitions allow one to "banish" all the other characteristics of a concept. The philosopher who comes closest to this position (at least in practice) is, ironically, Ayn Rand. While Rand certainly would not have supported the position that definitions allow one to discard inessential characteristics, she did suggest that such characteristics can be ignored due to the need for "unit-economy." Consider the following passage:
It is the principle of unit-economy that necessitates the definition of concepts in terms of essential characteristics. If, when in doubt, a man recalls a concept's definition [i.e., he focuses on the "essential" characteristics to the detriment of the "inessential" characteristics] the essential characteristic(s) will give him an instantaneous grasp of the concept's meaning, i.e., the nature of its referents. For example, if he is considering some social theory and recalls that "man is a rational animal," he will evaluate the validity of the theory accordingly; but if, instead, he recalls that "man is an animal possessing a thumb," his evaluation and conclusion will be quite different. [IOTE, 65]
Rand is using "unit-economy" as an excuse for adopting a cliff notes view of knowledge. The meaning of a concept may include (for Rand) all the characteristics of its referents, but in practice one can ignore most of these characteristics and concentrate merely on the essential ones, those which are used in the definition, because, she insists, the essential characteristics supposedly gives one an "instantaneous grasp of the concept's meaning." Judging merely in terms of practical consequences, it is difficult to distinguish between Rand's theory (where non-essential characteristics can be ignored) and the theory Peikoff ascribes to "nominalists" (where non-essential characteristics are "banished"). Whether banished or ignored makes not a jot of difference when it comes to practical consequences. In either case, characteristics deemed as "non-essential" play no part in the evaluation and ultimate conclusion.
Since nominalists are not in fact guilty of Peikoff's allegations against them, Rand alone stands indited. Like many ideologues on the extreme ends of the spectrum, Peikoff is guilty of projection. He is making accusations against his adversaries which more aptly describe his own philosophy and that of his mentor. Peikoff has long touted Rand's ability to "think in essentials." But what is this "thinking in essentials" other than an ignoring of non-essentials?
Peikoff continues his rant against nominalism in the following vein:
On the nominalist view, the process of defining a concept is a process of cutting the concept off from its referents, and of systematically evading what one knows about their characteristics. Definition, the very tool which is designed to promote conceptual integration, becomes an agent of its destruction, a means of disintegration. [IOTE, 104]
Why isn't "thinking in essentials" a "systematic evading" of "what one knows about a referent's characteristics?" Why isn't Rand guilty, when she ignores "non-essentials," of "cutting the concept off from its referents?" Rand and Peikoff are guilty of that which they (falsely) accuse their adversaries. Rand's very example of thinking in essentials demonstrates the cognitive destruction of her approach. Rand would have us evaluate social theories on the basis of her definition of man, i.e., on her (largely unsubstantiated) conjecture that man is a "rational animal." This definition would dismiss, without a jot of evidence, the immense body of work accomplished by sociologists like Vilfredo Pareto and social psychologists like Jonathan Haidt. If there is anyone guilty of evasion and cognitive "disintegration," it is Rand, not her (mostly imaginary) philosophical enemies. Rand wanted to believe that the course of history could be changed through arguments and definition -- that, in short, human nature could be altered through mere patter. It's not facts or hard data that Rand deals with, but only her own wishful thinking.
131 comments:
Your first criticism is that he did not cite his source with respect to his claimed “nominalist theory of definition.” That would be a fair criticism if his purpose here was to criticize nominalism. But that’s not his purpose. His purpose is to dismantle the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. This analysis of nominalism is only a step on the road to that goal. There would be no value in citing sources for such an incidental point.
The second question is whether his criticism is true.
Well, first, you cut out the part where we actually characterizes the nominalist view:
“The nominalist view that a concept is merely a shorthand tag for its definition”
Now let’s see whether Popper agrees with this characterization.
From K Popper, Two Kinds of Definitions:
"While we may say that the essentialist interpretation reads a definition 'normally', that is to say, from the left to the right, we can say that a definition, as it is normally used in modern science, must be read back to front, or from the right to the left; for it starts with the defining formula, and asks for a short label for it. Thus the scientific view of the definition 'A puppy is a young dog' would be that it is an answer to the question 'What shall we call a young dog?' rather than an answer to the question 'What is a puppy?' (Questions like 'What is life?' or 'What is gravity?' do not play any role in science.) The scientific use of definitions, characterized by the approach 'from the right to the left', may be called its nominalist interpretation, as opposed to its Aristotelian or essentialist interpretation. In modern science, only nominalist definitions occur, that is to say, shorthand symbols or labels are introduced in order to cut a long story short. And we can at once see from this that definitions do not play any very important part in science. For shorthand symbols can always, of course, be replaced by the longer expressions, the defining formulae, for which they stand. In some cases this would make our scientific language very cumbersome; we should waste time and paper. But we should never lose the slightest piece of factual information. Our 'scientific knowledge', in the sense in which this term may be properly used, remains entirely unaffected if we eliminate all definitions; the only effect is upon our language, which would lose, not precision, but merely brevity. (This must not be taken to mean that in science there cannot be an urgent practical need for introducing definitions, for brevity's sake.) There could hardly be a greater contrast than that between this view of the part played by definitions, and Aristotle's view. For Aristotle's essentialist definitions are the principles from which all our knowledge is derived; they thus contain all our knowledge; and they serve to substitute a long formula for a short one. As opposed to this, the scientific or nominalist definitions do not contain any knowledge whatever, not even any 'opinion'; they do nothing but introduce new arbitrary shorthand labels; they cut a long story short.
So it looks like peikoff has characterized nominalism correctly. It is “shorthand symbols or labels are introduced in order to cut a long story short” according to popper, and “a shorthand tag for its definition” according to peikoff.
Now to the question of whether nominalism involves “discarding” knowledge. And there, you’re just taking him out of context. He’s not saying a person discards knowledge from their mind – only that he discards it from the concept. which is also true according to popper.
For instance, as popper explains, the definition of “puppy” involves only two criteria -– “young” and “dog.” There are a lot more things to be known about “puppies,” of course. But there are only two things in the definition.
So Peikoff is right again, according to Popper.
Now is Peikoff right in his criticism of the nominalist approach? To determine that, you have to understand the type of concept peikoff is advancing – unit reduction. And a concept formed by unit reduction would include all sorts of stuff about puppies beyond their mere species and age – for instance, prior experiences with puppies, patterns of behavior, nutritional needs, etc. – as well as all the things about puppies I don’t know. Because the concept refers to _units_, and not merely to age and species.
Now is this type of concept-formation preferable to the naked “age and species” type? Why yes, it is. Because it allows for nuanced, complex, sophisticated concepts – it allows for a concept of puppy that includes everything about puppies – including the things we don’t know about them – because the concept refers to the entities, and not to two naked criteria – “young,” and “dog.”
So it looks to me as though peikoff is right the whole way through.
Your first criticism is that he did not cite his source with respect to his claimed “nominalist theory of definition.”
No, I'm criticizing Peikoff for claiming that nominalists discard knowledge after defining words. I'm not aware of any nominalist who does so. If there are some, Peikoff should say who they are and provide concrete, illustrative examples.
Popper: "As opposed to this, the scientific or nominalist definitions do not contain any knowledge whatever, not even any 'opinion'; they do nothing but introduce new arbitrary shorthand labels; they cut a long story short."
This quote does not prove that Peikoff is right, it only demonstrates that ungtss doesn't understand the point at issue. Popper is not claiming that "nominalist" definitions discard knowledge (how can they discard what they don't even contain?); no, he merely suggested that definitions add no knowledge, that in fact, they have no knowledge to begin with and therefore can't add what they don't have. In Popper's view, definitions merely define what sort of label we use to describe something. It's the description that contains the knowledge, not the label (and the definition merely connects the label to the description). Peikoff, on the other hand, is claiming, without a shred of evidence to back him up, that nominalists "banish" all knowledge of a concept not contained in the definition. (Peikoff still, at least by implication, ascribes to nominalists the belief that definitions contain some knowledge, a belief challenged by Popper.) He does so despite the fact that Rand recommended ignoring (and therefore, in praxis, "banishing") all the non-essential characteristics of a concept's referent when considering social theories.
"No, I'm criticizing Peikoff for claiming that nominalists discard knowledge after defining words."
He's not saying they discard any knowledge from their _minds_. He's saying they discard knowledge _from the concept_.
He's saying that on the nominalist view, the _concept_ does not include any information not included in the definition.
and that's true, on the nominalist view. according to popper, the concept contains only the formula. whatever isn't in the formula isn't in the concept.
peikoff is criticizing this, arguing for a broader understanding of concepts, which refers to the thing, not only to the definition -- such that our concept includes much more information than a mere definition will provide.
He's saying that on the nominalist view, the _concept_ does not include any information not included in the definition.
That's right; and that's precisely what I'm objecting to. No nominalists believes any such thing. The Popper quote doesn't assert such a thing, either. So where's the evidence that nominalists believe that concepts only include what their defintions include? (And incidentally, Popper should not be brought forward as a spokesman for nominalism. Popper himself was not a nominalist nor does he speak for that position.)
on the nominalist view. according to popper, the concept contains only the formula
Popper says no such thing. He only says that definitions contain no knowledge. Popper says nothing about concepts.
whatever isn't in the formula isn't in the concept.
Does any philosopher, nominalist or otherwise, say, let alone believe, such a thing?
such that our concept includes much more information than a mere definition will provide
Who does't agree with that? Peikoff, in his ASD essay, later admits that nominalists don't, after, confine knowledge to what is contained in the definition.
The only one guily of limiting knowledge to defintions is Rand herself, who, by her example (and how one behaves is always more important than what one says), sanctions use defining characteristics to judge social theories.
"Popper says no such thing. He only says that definitions contain no knowledge. Popper says nothing about concepts."
Popper equates words and concepts:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/popper.htm
Specifically, on the chart near the bottom, he says:
"On the left we have words or concepts and their meanings, and on the right we have statements or propositions or theories and their truth."
and again:
"One should never quarrel about words, and never get involved in questions of terminology. One should always keep away from discussing concepts."
>>whatever isn't in the formula isn't in the concept.
>Does any philosopher, nominalist or otherwise, say, let alone believe, such a thing?
yes, popper says it right there:). he says words, aka concepts, contain no knowledge:).
or, as he said in "objective knowledge:"
"One should always keep away from discussing concepts."
that said, peikoff is clear throughout that "essence is contextual" -- meaning that the proper definition of a concept is selected within a context so as to meaningfully and usefully distinguish it. he's not claiming there are absolute "definitions." he's claiming that definitions are proper or improper based on the context and the purpose for which they are being used.
i like popper in a lot of respects -- in particular his arguments that it's useless to argue about the "right" definition of words or concepts. he's right about that. but objectivism doesn't advance that position -- it advances the position that words/concepts can be correctly or incorrectly formed -- in other words, not that there's "one right answer," but that there is one right process, and any violation of that process leads to invalid concepts/definitions.
In other words, you and I might have different concepts of "God." Neither is the "right" one in any absolute sense. But it's quite possible that one may be correctly formed and the other incorrectly formed.
For instance, you and I may have different concepts of "equinox precession" -- you may conclude based on your analysis of the evidence that it is caused by wobbling of the earth's axis; i may conclude it's caused by movement of the sun through space. We have different concepts of the phenomenon, but both are valid within the context of our knowledge.
On the other hand, I may have a concept of "God" that arises from imaginings, detached from any experience with reality. Your concept of "God" may arise from a logical analysis of your real-world experiences.
In that context, my concept is invalid, and yours is valid.
In Popper's world, there is no validity or invalidity in concept-formation. It's arbitrary. Anything goes.
That's what's so dangerous about it.
Words and concepts contain a great deal of knowledge -- they are cognitive placeholders for knowledge that allow us to deal with more complex problems that we otherwise would be able to deal with. And they can be correctly -- or incorrectly -- formed.
If you build your study of reality on a faulty conceptual foundation, your conclusions can't possibly be right -- because your errors are built into your concepts. insidious. invisible. but nevertheless there.
Sigh... ungtss still can't separate a concept from a proposition.
A unicorn is a concept.
"Unicorns exist in the physical world" is a proposition.
That a concept can be used in false proposition or that a concept is described using some false propositions doesn't make it invalid.
nobody's saying it does. read more carefully what i described as an invalid concept. an invalid concept is one that is formed by an invalid method.
it has nothing to do whether it can be used in a false proposition or described by using false propositions.
"an invalid concept is one that is formed by an invalid method."
How then does one define an "invalid method" of forming a concept? If I am to imagine a mythical beast called a unicorn, what is it that says whether my method of forming this concept is correct or incorrect? Why is an imaginary concept any less "valid" than an observational one? This seems to presume that only concepts grounded in reality in some way are "valid".
Furthermore, what difference would it make? If the concept is what it is, why should its formation matter, if it can be used to convey a particular point of information?
Insidious and invisible? The danger has not been established.
"How then does one define an "invalid method" of forming a concept?"
With reference to, and in the context of, the purpose for which the concept is to be _used_.
For instance, if you are conceptualizing "unicorn" purely out of your imagination for purposes of a fantasy novel, then the concept is valid within that context -- the context of _fantasy_.
But if you are conceptualizing "unicorn" purely out of your imagination for purposes of _going on a unicorn hunting trip_, then you are using a _fantasy_ concept for purposes of _real world action_. you are seeking something _in reality_ that exists _only in your mind_.
Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding i see here about objectivism is the continual failure to recognize objectivism's focus on the _contextual nature_ of concepts -- that concepts are _tools_ to be _used_ -- and that the _use_ for which they are to be put determines the criteria for their validity.
"Insidious and invisible? The danger has not been established."
To see the danger, review the history of Anselm's ontological argument. He uses concepts derived solely from his own imagination, and applies them to making assertions about the real world.
There are many other means of improperly forming concepts. Context-dropping is just one. But it's a rather clear one, for purposes of this discussion.
In other words, in Objectivism, concepts do what propositions do.
in about the same way that bricks do the same thing as houses do. in other words, not at all.
"To see the danger, review the history of Anselm's ontological argument. He uses concepts derived solely from his own imagination, and applies them to making assertions about the real world."
Frankly, I don't see much difference between that and Rand's assertions about what a "proper" way of life for man is.
And whether I agree with Anselm's assertions or the way he derives them, that still doesn't really explain the "danger". In fact, this is a cheap way to avoid a fairly direct inquiry.
"What is the danger?"
"Instead of telling you directly, I will instruct you to look up a reference and then sort it out for yourself, thereby absolving me of the task of saying it myself in some kind of easily digestible form."
if you're actually interested, anselm's argument goes like this:
god is defined as the being than which no greater can be conceived.
greatness is conceived as as including the characteristic of existence.
therefore, by definition and syllogism, god must exist.
he has inferred the existence of a _real world entity_ (god) purely from definitions he selected. he has done so by developing concepts of god and greatness without reference to the real world.
this is of course completely different from rand's arguments regarding the proper way to live, which are explicitly based on real world observations.
as to your mischaracterization of rand's approach, this seems to be a consistently popular misrepresentation around here. she doesn't tell anybody how to live. she points to the facts, draws the inferences, and recognizes that people must decide for themselves.
"this is of course completely different from rand's arguments regarding the proper way to live, which are explicitly based on real world observations."
Not really, it's not all that different. Rand, after all, sought to define things by terms she preferred, and her observations aren't particularly rigorous in a scientific sense, so I don't see her arguments being any more real-world based than Anselm's - they both amount to a *real strong opinion* about what is true as opposed to any actually objective (not Objectivist) fact.
And that STILL, STILL doesn't define any danger. What's going to happen (or what has happened, since it's been around for a while) as a result of this improper concept formation? I expect some kind of glib non-answer like "well, just look around you!", but I am curious to see if you'll twist further on this issue.
"she doesn't tell anybody how to live. she points to the facts, draws the inferences, and recognizes that people must decide for themselves."
And then scornfully condemns (as do her acolytes) anyone who chooses not to swallow her conclusions as fact. She may not overtly TELL anyone how to live, but it's pretty clear she condemns anyone who doesn't do it her way. In a practical sense, there's not much difference between her and the preacher who threatens damnation for those who stray from virtue.
In a practical sense, there's not much difference between her and the preacher who threatens damnation for those who stray from virtue.
Except that the preacher is more entertaining. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4lFt-ubcNw
“Not really, it's not all that different. Rand, after all, sought to define things by terms she preferred, and her observations aren't particularly rigorous in a scientific sense, so I don't see her arguments being any more real-world based than Anselm's - they both amount to a *real strong opinion* about what is true as opposed to any actually objective (not Objectivist) fact.”
And again, the misrepresentation regarding her use of definitions. This has become something of a chorus on this blog. Over and over and over she explains that definition is contextual – that the proper definition of a word or concept depends on the context in which it is to be used. Thus to define “Man” when speaking of morality is to differentiate between a “virtuous” man and an “unvirtuous” man, while to define “Man” in a biological context is to speak of biological characteristics, or in the marriage counseling context, to speak of a gender.
You all seem to have created this "immaculate definitions" straw man, and are sticking to it like glue. But it isn’t there.
As to whether her observations were in fact “real world,” they are not the sort of observations that can be scientifically tested – they are the observations one makes by living real life. For instance, “some people are motivated by envy;” or “some people are motivated by a wish to harm the good for being good” or “the behavior people commonly describe as ‘selfish’ is in truth ‘self-destuctive.’”
You can’t test these in a lab. Nevertheless, they may be true or false. The only way to test these observations is by living real life. That’s what I’ve done. And I’ve found them to be overwhelmingly true. You may not, or may not choose to ask the questions, or may know the answers and choose to ignore them. That’s your problem, not mine.
“And then scornfully condemns (as do her acolytes) anyone who chooses not to swallow her conclusions as fact.”
And who have I scorned here for failing to swallow her conclusions as fact? I only scorn people who refuse to think, and hide behind social intimidation tactics, diversion, or evasion. I respect an opinion different than my own. And meet it head on with the reasons I think it’s wrong.
As to her scorning people who differed from her views, I have seen no evidence of it. I’ve seen her scorn people who are dishonest, evasive, manipulative, and abusive. Not those who disagree with her. On the contrary, the two main characters in AS (dagny and hank) both disagreed with her views throughout. Her heros (Galt and d’Anconia) hardly scorned them. On the contrary, they had the utmost respect for them – saying over and over, “you’re right, within the context of your knowledge.”
honestly, i think the biggest problem with AS is that people think she agreed with Dagny and Hank -- that she thought they were right in how they behaved. i'm not sure how people can believe this, since rand states in exhaustive detail exactly how dagny and hank were wrong. but most people don't seem to understand that the main characters of AS are not ideal exemplars of her philosophy.
Other Anonymous:
>She may not overtly TELL anyone how to live, but it's pretty clear she condemns anyone who doesn't do it her way. In a practical sense, there's not much difference between her and the preacher who threatens damnation for those who stray from virtue.
Yes, this is the woman who said we must "Judge, and prepare to be judged". As a result her work seems wracked in a perpetual paroxysm of condemnation, with praise mostly reserved for imaginary heroes and fantasy philosophy. Not exactly a very inspiring way to live.
"Yes, this is the woman who said we must "Judge, and prepare to be judged". As a result her work seems wracked in a perpetual paroxysm of condemnation, with praise mostly reserved for imaginary heroes and fantasy philosophy. Not exactly a very inspiring way to live."
as opposed to you, who are above the the temptation to perpetually condemn, mock, mischaracterize, and marginalize those with whom you disagree. right?
But my dear ungtss, as usual you have things quite backwards...;-)
Let's see. I don't spend my time scorning the achievements of the last two thousand years of philosophy and philosophers. I don't scorn almost all the great works in the Western (and non-Western!) canon of art, music, and literature as inferior and immoral due to the fact they were formed from "invalid premises" - that is, they had the misfortune to be created before the advent of my philosophy!
I don't condemn the vast majority of the human race as "second-handers" or "social metaphysicians" because they don't subscribe to my beliefs.
That you seem to think there is any sort of similarity between your heroine's tsunami of intellectual bile and aesthetic philistinism, and the fact that I co-run a blog that criticises her doctrines and her small coterie of fanatical groupies only goes to demonstrate once more that Randians choke on gnats while happily swallowing whales.
you've changed the subject. let me return you to what we were actually discussing:
"As a result her work seems wracked in a perpetual paroxysm of condemnation, with praise mostly reserved for imaginary heroes and fantasy philosophy."
what i hear from you, exclusively, are "paroxysms of condemnation." objectivists are stupid and wrong for this reason, and for that reason, and for these 20 reasons. that's the whole point of this blog. to criticize.
but what actual ideas do _you_ offer?
none. just criticism of somebody who died 30 years ago as though she wears the face of whatever overbearing, nagging family member impressed you to such an extent that you continually obsess that somebody dares call people wrong and bad.
do grow up. people are allowed to judge each other. you do it constantly. and when somebody points it out, you change the subject.
ugntss:
>you've changed the subject. let me return you to what we were actually discussing:
Actually, I wasn't 'discussing' anything with you. My initial comment was addressed to Other Anonymous. You then launched a rather trivial personal attack on me, so I returned fire. Now you seem to want to keep it up. Perhaps you crave my attention for some reason? You've been trolling this blog for a while now, and fewer and fewer people are responding to you. I wonder why. Gee, is there some "family member" that ignored you so much that you desperately still seek their attention with your feeble psychological and philosophical analyses? And of course I have asked you multiple times to summarise the original ideas _you_ think you have to offer on the subject of Objectivism. Of course you have never risen to this challenge. Ergo I judged that you don't have any; and further judge that you're just wasting my time. But please, continue to seek my attention if you really feel you need to...;-)
Daniel Barnes:
"Gee, is there some "family member" that ignored you so much that you desperately still seek their attention with your feeble psychological and philosophical analyses?"
Daniel, whatever the soundness of ungtss' position, I have to say that was really childish...
@Samadhir,
ungtss attempted to psychologise me as follows:
>[Rand] wears the face of whatever overbearing, nagging family member impressed you to such an extent that you continually obsess that somebody dares call people wrong and bad.
I too thought this was a rather childish line of attack on me, and was trying to highlight the absurdity of it by simply applying it back to him and his evident preoccupation with this blog.
I don't think I've ever seriously taken that line of argument with any interlocutor, nor ever will.
Oh right, sorry.
I... forget it, I'll just leave the discussion to you two.
in review: "all ayn rand and her acolytes do was and is judge and criticize others who disagree with them. and i'm going to discuss their views and behavior in great detail on my blog dedicated to judging and criticizing others who disagree with me."
and when somebody points out the hypocrisy, i'll change the subject. because i don't want to look at how absurd it is to criticize others for being critical.
"and when somebody points out the hypocrisy, i'll change the subject. because i don't want to look at how absurd it is to criticize others for being critical."
There's no hypocrisy. Back-and-forth critique is a function of the human exchange of ideas. If anyone is guilty of avoiding that fact, it's Rand, who isolated herself from any real critique, or shunned those who made it (Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged is reportedly what caused her to break with conservative movements of the day).
But the subtle difference is while this blog has its opinions and presents them, Rand and Objectivism have their opinions and portray them as incontrovertible fact, claiming higher moral standing and (supposed) intellectual superiority. And yet, for all that, followers of Rand have come in here to act like vicious junior-high cliques to attempt to knock down anything that dares to challenge Rand or her philosophy. It almost seems to be endemic to Objectivism itself.
Incidentally, the danger of an "poorly formed" concept still has not been demonstrated - if you want to talk about changing subjects.
ungtss:
>and when somebody points out the hypocrisy, i'll change the subject. because i don't want to look at how absurd it is to criticize others for being critical.
OK. As you have said you have English as a second language perhaps you really don't get the finer distinctions that need to be made here. So I will take the trouble to explain them further.
Of course there is nothing wrong with being critical. My preferred philosophy is called "critical rationalism". I co-run a blog that criticises Objectivism. I make critical comments myself all the time about all kinds of things. However, a criticism is not necessarily a condemnation. A condemnation generally carries a sense of moral judgement. For example, I respect a good deal of Austrian economics, particularly the economic calculation argument. However, I'm also highly critical of it as well, particularly its theory of the business cycle. Does this mean I'm a hypocrite, because I both find it worthy of some respect and am critical of it at the same time? Of course not. Karl Popper wrote one of the most devastating critiques of Plato's political doctrines, whilst simultaneously saying he regarded Plato as the greatest philosopher of all time for his insight as to the existence of the world of abstractions. For another example, here is Paul Samuelson on Keynes' "General Theory":
"It is a badly written book, poorly organized… it is arrogant, bad-tempered, polemical… it abounds in mare's nests and confusions… flashes of insight and intuition intersperse tedious algebra. An awkward definition suddenly gives way to unforgettable cadenza. When it is finally mastered, we find its analysis to be obvious and at the same time new. In short, it is a work of genius."
Note how strong criticism sits next to strong praise. Now, this style of sophisticated judgment, which I consider entirely admirable, stands in sharp contrast to Objectivism, which takes not so much a critical attitude as a condemnatory one. Rand's "Judge, and prepare to be judged" is an instruction to make moral judgements, not critical ones. For in Rand's vision, corruption, death, damnation, even a blaze of hellfire deep underground await all those who even unknowingly have strayed from the True Principles of Objectivism. Prominent Objectivists have been condemned cast out for the moral crime of merely giving a speech to a handful of libertarians, with Rand's writings providing ample justification for such actions. (Incidentally, Objectivism is far from alone in this; it is the price all holist theories pay when they attempt to fully "integrate" morality).
Criticism can of course lead to condemnation from time to time. But to illustrate this difference a great film critic, for example, doesn't sit around morally condemning almost every movie they see. Or put another way, it is hard to imagine Karl Popper calling his philosophy "condemnatory rationalism"!So to summarise, there is a clear difference between criticism and condemnation.
Now, you will also note that while I used only the word "condemnation", yet you have put the word "criticism" into my mouth in your reply. I am assuming, in the spirit of good faith, that this is simply an ESL problem. Hopefully that is now cleared up.
Incidentally, on the topic of moral judgements, one of the chief reasons for most people being reluctant to make them is that they are often complex, and notoriously easy to get wrong. Yet Rand teaches that such reluctance is a sign of philosophical error and even psychological dysfunction.
Now, turning to the final question of whether, because I not only criticise Rand's doctrines and, but also regularly condemn some of her and her followers' beliefs and attitudes, and hardly ever praise them, I am therefore somehow a hypocrite. The answer is obviously no, as I never claimed that all condemnation must be condemned either.
I have already answered this criticism here. However, I will restate it so there can be no further misunderstanding.
By her insistence on the near sui generis nature of Objectivism, her insistence on ideological purity and holism, and her vain desire to be seen as a radical and sensational lone genius like one of her fictional heroes, she derided most of the past 2000 years of Western philosophy, art, music, and culture as inferior to her doctrines (and don't even mention non-Western human achievements!).
This I not only criticise, but condemn as a foolish error. Modern democracy, for example, for all its demerits, I regard as one of the great human achievements. Likewise a "mixed economy"; for all its faults, it is a magnificent human achievement. Literature like Shakespeare, Tolstoy or Joyce may have also have faults, but shimmer with genius at their peaks. Picasso and Beethoven are giants of the imagination, and the libraries and galleries of the world contain an embarrassment of riches. There is certainly much to criticise, some to condemn, but a far greater amount to appreciate and celebrate.
But this is not, and cannot be the Randian view. Because art follows from philosophy, and almost all of this massive human inheritance was prior to Objectivism, apart from a few lone proto-Objectivists (like Aristotle) all this must be inherently corrupted by its invalid premises. Therefore it must be morally questionable, and ultimately condemned by truly rigorous Randian.
This has predictably led to the stifling orthodoxy of the movement, and far from ushering in a New Renaissance of Objectivist geniuses - the so-called New Intellectuals - has led to intellectual sterility and the rise of utter mediocrities such as Peikoff, Schwartz, Binswanger, and the flotilla of Randroids bobbing in her wake.
Notice what I am doing here: I'm not just criticising, I'm outright condemning the Objectivist movement, and condemning its obsession with moral condemnation! Does that therefore make me a hypocrite? Hardly. As I say, there is a big difference between condemning a minor philosophical doctrine and its small band of followers whilst appreciating and celebrating the full richness of our Western inheritance inheritance, and the converse - which is Rand's position.
If you can't understand that difference, then clearly you've got bigger issues than just English as a second language.
"Notice what I am doing here: I'm not just criticising, I'm outright condemning the Objectivist movement, and condemning its obsession with moral condemnation! Does that therefore make me a hypocrite? Hardly. As I say, there is a big difference between condemning a minor philosophical doctrine and its small band of followers whilst appreciating and celebrating the full richness of our Western inheritance inheritance, and the converse - which is Rand's position."
So you believe it's okay to condemn a few people, but not to condemn a lot of people. to condemn a marginal philosophy, but not a cultural trend.
the difference between acceptable condemnation and unacceptable condemnation is the scope of the ideas condemned?
that's social metaphysics at its finest:). it would be wrong to condemn catholicism when catholicism was the "glory of western civilization." but were it to become marginalized, it would be perfectly fine to condemn it:).
this is nonsense of course. you're creating an arbitrary distinction to rationalize your decision to condemn and to condemn people for condemn. their condemnation is "wrong" because they condemn too many:).
in any rational philosophy, the scope of what you condemn is irrelevant to the merit of the condemnation. all that matters is the content and _merit_ of the condemnation.
"But this is not, and cannot be the Randian view. Because art follows from philosophy, and almost all of this massive human inheritance was prior to Objectivism, apart from a few lone proto-Objectivists (like Aristotle) all this must be inherently corrupted by its invalid premises. "
How much objectivism have you actually read:)? rand repeatedly praised the artistry of authors such as victor hugo and Dostoevsky, notwithstanding her complete disagreement with their philosophies. She recommended people read them for artistic merit.
she wrote:
"You may read any number of more "realistic" accounts of the French Revolution, but Hugo's is the one you will remember. He is not a reporter of the momentary, but an artist who projects the essential and fundamental. He is not a statistician of gutter trivia, but a Romanticist who presents life "as it might be and ought to be." He is the worshipper and the superlative portrayer of man's greatness.
If you are struggling to hold your vision of man above the gray ashes of our century, Hugo is the fuel you need.
One cannot preserve that vision or achieve it without some knowledge of what is greatness and some image to concretize it. Every morning, when you read today's headlines, you shrink a little in human stature and hope. Then, if you turn to modern literature for a nobler view of man, you are confronted by those cases of arrested development—the juvenile delinquents aged thirty to sixty—who still think that depravity is daring or shocking, and whose writing belongs, not on paper, but on fences.
If you feel, as I do, that there's nothing as boring as depravity, if you seek a glimpse of human grandeur—turn to a novel by Victor Hugo."
Victor Hugo was of course a collectivist and an altruist. Les Mes is the liberal atlas shrugged. she loved it anyway, because of its artistic merit.
where do you get your strawmen from anyway:)?
" rand repeatedly praised the artistry of authors such as victor hugo and Dostoevsky, notwithstanding her complete disagreement with their philosophies. She recommended people read them for artistic merit."
Does 2 examples constitute "repeatedly"?
the word "repeated" referred to the number of times she praised other authors, not the number of authors.
other examples include Edmond Rostand, and Friedrich Schiller.
All of whom she disagreed with philosophically, but respected artistically.
ungtss:
>So you believe it's okay to condemn a few people, but not to condemn a lot of people. to condemn a marginal philosophy, but not a cultural trend.
Hey, by all means condemn the majority of Western civilisation and culture if you want - if you've got something better.
But Objectivism doesn't have anything better. It's been half a century since Atlas Shrugged and despite unprecedented publicity for a philosopher, Objectivism has produced almost nothing of any substance; no art, no science, no music, no philosophy, not even a halfway decent novel. In the great Scholastic tradition of verbalism, all it produces is conferences, internet forums, and various forms of blab. Its greatest achievement is that Rand has become a figurehead for people she either rejected - the Libertarians - or who don't even know what her philosophy is about - the Tea Party.
In fact I'll make a prediction: wait another 50 years, and Objectivism will still have produced almost nothing. This is because it's essentially a fake philosophy. It pays lipservice to originality and productivity; in practice it's a dead end.
You see, you just don't get it. When we condemn a Objectivism, it's not because it's minor. It's because because there's so much better stuff out there: better logic, better arguments, better science, better art, music, and literature, better pretty much anything. And there's so much of it! One of the long running principles of this blog is that almost anything you can find in Rand, you can find better in another writer. As the old saw goes, what she has that's good is not original, and what's original is not good.
So by adopting Objectivism, you're essentially exchanging 2000 years of science, art and culture for...a couple of novels and handful of essays, a sliver of dimwitted epistemology and perhaps the few Permitted Books on Ayn Rand's reading list. If that's your choice, that's your choice. But it's pretty obvious why we and many others might consider it a rather foolish trade.
"Hey, by all means condemn the majority of Western civilisation and culture if you want - if you've got something better."
so in order to be authorized to condemn, one must have something that daniel barnes thinks is better:). and since daniel barnes thinks everything ayn rand wrote was pretty much useless, then ayn rand is not allowed to condemn anybody over anything:). pretty slick trick:).
to the extent you don't like rand's novels, that's your judgment call of course. i disagree with your judgment. i think they're excellent, original, and earth shattering.
to the extent she hasn't been followed up in artistic achievements, that's largely true, but also irrelevant. not everybody is an artist. nor should they be. there are many more important things in life than art. objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth. i use it in living on earth, with great success. as do an ever-increasing number of people.
to measure the impact of objectivism, you need to compare today to 50 years ago, when it started. the cultural landscape has changed a lot since then. and if you look at the changes, objectivism's fingerprints are all over them:).
"to the extent she hasn't been followed up in artistic achievements, that's largely true, but also irrelevant. not everybody is an artist. nor should they be."
But shouldn't there be more? If the world at large produces X% of artists in its population, then if Objectivism has a ratio of less than X%, doesn't that say something about Objectivism as an artistic environment? Either there is some sort of anti-artistic factor involved in the philosophy, like an unseen background radiation, or there aren't more Objectivist artists simply because there aren't enough Objectivists to have a significant ratio of artists...
"But shouldn't there be more? If the world at large produces X% of artists in its population, then if Objectivism has a ratio of less than X%, doesn't that say something about Objectivism as an artistic environment?"
i understand some national polls have been put out which say 5% of people identify themselves as objectivist. anecdotally, i'd say 80% of the people calling themselves objectivists have only scratched the surface of her philosophy -- her most rudimentary political and ethical conclusions.
one must also look at the artistic output in the world at large today. which is by and large either crap or remakes of good art from prior eras.
with those factored in, i don't see any significant difference.
even the makers of the atlas shrugged movies obviously have no idea what she was talking about, beyond how the plot structure of the book can superficially be applied to politico-economic issues. they have no idea what the book was really about. and it shows.
of course they're better off than the entertainers and authors opposing objectivism, who don't even understand that much.
rand is over most people's heads. took me over a decade to really come to understand her. most people don't put that much time into it.
"one must also look at the artistic output in the world at large today. which is by and large either crap or remakes of good art from prior eras.
with those factored in, i don't see any significant difference."
Well, except that on the Objectivist side, there's not even a significant number of artists that manage to get to the level of "crap", as you put it - that is, at least stuff that is popular, if not of whatever standard of quality you're applying.
I can only think of two.
ungtss:
>even the makers of the atlas shrugged movies obviously have no idea what she was talking about...rand is over most people's heads. took me over a decade to really come to understand her. most people don't put that much time into it.
ungtss, the principal consultant on the Atlas Shrugged movie was David Kelley, head of the Atlas Society. He has studied Objectivism for most of his life, far more than just a decade. He even knew Rand personally, and spoke at her funeral. Producer and owner of the rights, John Aglialoro is also a long time student of Objectivism, even seeing Rand speak in person back in 1981.
Yet apparently, people like them have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to Objectivism.
This is part of the interesting double-think that goes on around Objectivism which I'll talk about briefly. People claim on the one hand that Rand is really deep, takes decades of intense study to truly grasp, and if you don't truly grasp it to the nth degree, failure will certainly ensue. Even the likes of David Kelley or John Aglialoro, after a lifetime of study, clearly don't understand it enough to avoid the multiple disasters of the Atlas movie series.
Yet on the other hand also we're constantly told that philosophy is needed by everyone, and that Objectivism is a philosophy that anyone can pick up, not like those complicated and obscure academic philosophies; that it's for "living on earth", not in some ivory tower of the intellect; that Ayn Rand always writes clearly and precisely, not like other philosophers; that the popularity of Atlas Shrugged as a novel is a sign of Objectivism is breaking through on a mass level.
What we're really looking at here is are two contradictory narratives, which are deployed alternately to protect the culty-bubble of Objectivism from criticism and explain away its glaring failures to deliver. Want to make a logical or empirical critique of Objectivism? Hey, don't you go trying that hi-falutin' academic stuff, Objectivism is a philosophy for humans, for reality, for living on earth! Then when you say ok, what has Objectivism actually delivered in the real world in the last half century, then we hear all about how complex it is, how far over ordinary people's heads it is, how easy it is to get disastrously wrong, and how almost nobody truly understands it.
"Well, except that on the Objectivist side, there's not even a significant number of artists that manage to get to the level of "crap", as you put it - that is, at least stuff that is popular, if not of whatever standard of quality you're applying."
That's true, but as I explained, one would not expect a significant number of artists, given that a) only about 5% of people self-identify, b) only some small proportion of them would be artists, c) only some small proportion of them would actually understand objectivism, and d) the degree to which a philosophy puts out art is not a measure of its influence.
barnes,
one's exposure to and participation in an organization does not equate to an understanding of the fundamental ideas underlying its founder's philosophy.
just look at what happened within a few decades of the death of jesus -- splinter groups all over the place, founded by his apostles, and even written pseudopigraphically. the new testament itself even documents the inability of jesus' followers to understand what he was talking about.
atlas shrugged is popular because of its defense of capitalism and what is taken as an ad hominem attack against government regulators. But in rand's own words, the theme was "the role of man's mind in existence."
the movie is exclusively focused on the political/economic aspects of the plot. but by rand's own explanation, those are merely plot devices to concretely illustrate the fundamental theme of the role of man's mind in existence.
all of the aspects related to the role of man's mind in existence have been removed from the movie.
in other words, they stripped out what rand herself called the theme.
Here's a good summary of a number of incidents in the new testament in which jesus' followers didn't understand him:
http://www.gci.org/gospels/disciples
I think Objectivism tends to encourage what we can loosely call left-brain thinking. Artistic creativity generally requires more of a right-brain approach. People who are strongly left-brain-dominant often gravitate toward Objectivism, which only accentuates their predilection for linear black-and-white thinking.
On the other hand, people who are more right-brain-oriented are probably less inclined to study Objectivism in the first place.
Artistic types, for the most part, are likely to be turned off by Objectivism for this reason, and any nascent artists may see their creative tendencies stifled. (Witness all the derivative, propagandistic, and just plain bad art done in the name of Objectivism.)
One reason some Objectivists are characterized as robotic "Randroids" is that they started out with limited social skills and an overemphasis on linear left-brain thinking, and then Objectivism reinforced this mindset, sometimes to the point of caricature. These individuals might have been better off pursuing activities that would stimulate the right brain and provide a more balanced outlook. Someone who is excessively verbalistic and rationalistic would probably benefit more from playing softball or learning to paint than from immersing himself in rationalistic texts.
However, this issue is hardly limited to objectivism; it seems to be a problem for intellectuals in general.
"That's true, but as I explained, one would not expect a significant number of artists, given that a) only about 5% of people self-identify, b) only some small proportion of them would be artists,"
If that were the case, then 5% of artists overall would identify as Objectivists, if Objectivism were not anti-artist in some way, right? And there's far too many artists out there, even filtering for "crap", for the few Objectivist artists of any note to constitute 5%.
"c) only some small proportion of them would actually understand objectivism,"
But that should not affect the number of artists who say they are Objectivists. Whether or not other Objectivists deem them to be properly indoctrinated isn't really germane to the question of why there aren't more Objectivist artists in any sense.
"and d) the degree to which a philosophy puts out art is not a measure of its influence."
Well, it's a measure of SOME kind of influence, if not all potential influence. But more importantly than that, one has to wonder whether a movement or ideology in which art rarely flourishes (if at all) is something worth pursuing. As Prescott suggests (and I think he's probably on the right track), it probably would not be - for artists!
If the world were (as they say on this blog, per impossible) to convert to Objectivism, then, could we expect a corresponding decline in the output (and quality) of art? Just from the facts we have on hand, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it.
"If that were the case, then 5% of artists overall would identify as Objectivists, if Objectivism were not anti-artist in some way, right?"
Not necessarily ... that's a statistical fallacy. As prescott points out, there are additional selection mechanisms in place, and artists may be underrepresented in objectivism because objectivism is more attractive to left-brained people.
that doesn't mean the concepts of objectivism are anti-art or otherwise illegitimate, only that certain personality types are attracted to it more than others.
Prescott's points are valid and appreciated, as always. I'd only add that while it's all statistically and sociologically valid, useful, and interesting, it does not invalidate the core ideas of objectivism. and i'm not saying you're claiming it is -- only pointing out that it isn't.
on the contrary, history shows that selection mechanisms can lead to absurd results, as people are not always attracted to the sorts of ideas that will help them, and often are simply attracted to the sorts of ideas that will reaffirm their biases and create an illusion of safety for them.
as prescott points out, this phenomenon is not limited to objectivism.
nevertheless, the sociology of objectivism as a movement provides some fascinating sociological material that i think further validates the fundamental premises of objectivism, and expands on them further. in particular, an "individualism club" carries some inherent contradictions that are bound to play themselves out in interesting ways.
And what about the influence of Objectivism on science? Objectivists are eager to condemn modern science, the corruption of modern physics, etc. Well, how many Objectivist scientists have presented us with real scientific results during the last 50 years? You'd think that would have been a long enough period to give us at least some examples of the power of their superior philosophical system. Where is John Galt if you need him?
naturally, the answer is the objectivism doesn't offer a novel philosophy of science. to the extent objectivism criticizes ideas that conflict with traditional philosophies of science (such as QM), the ideas are controversial even within the scientific community.
The lack of any literary or artistic works of merit by Objectivists is no surprise. "Romantic Realism" is simply Ayn Rand's answer to the "Socialist Realism" promulgated by the Bolsheviks. In both cases, the "realism" is subordinated to ideology, with predictable results. Stalin described artists as "engineers of the human soul" - and I suspect that most Objectivists who didn't know that would nod enthusiastically if you claimed it was a quote from Ayn Rand.
Do a google search on "Socialist Realism" and "Objectivist Art" and compare. In both cases, the emotion one senses is fear: a fear on the part of the artist that his/her work will be pronounced ideologically unsound; and a consequent stifling timidity. This is not a recipe for great art.
"Stalin described artists as 'engineers of the human soul' - and I suspect that most Objectivists who didn't know that would nod enthusiastically if you claimed it was a quote from Ayn Rand."
If so, they would have misunderstood rand's views at the most basic level. she did not believe one person could "engineer" the mind of another. her whole philosophy is premised on the reality that each person _must_ think for himself -- that there is no substitute for individual thought.
within that framework, she compared art to a "confirmation of one's beliefs," or "fuel," or a "salute." she viewed art not as engineering the soul, but as providing the soul with a vision it was seeking.
in other words, exactly the opposite of stalin's view, and exactly the opposite of what you're describing.
it's fascinating to me how the contributors to this blog seem to continually ignore what ayn rand actually said, and to continually replace it with something insane. the motive appears to be something other than an honest criticism of ayn rand. an honest criticism would be interests in things like "what did the object of my criticism actually believe?"
i'm not quite sure what the motive is yet, though. do you need to replace her ideas with something crazy in order to make the ideas fit more comfortably within your cognitive framework? does it feel better to imagine people as insane? does it give you an illusion of superiority to project things on others that are neither said nor believed?
Actually, I think that your description of Rand's aesthetic would exactly fit what a proponent of Socialist Realism would believe. A convinced Bolshevik would want art that provided him with a confirmation of his Socialist beliefs, and acted as "fuel," or as a "salute" to his Socialist ideals: in short, he would only appreciate art with the Socialist vision he was seeking.
Both Bolsheviks and Objectivists insist on subordinating art to ideology - and kill art in the process. If you want some examples of what I mean, check out the empty, soulless productions to be found at www.cordair.com - or other sites that cater to the Objectivist art market. There are no Michelangelos here.
"A convinced Bolshevik would want art that provided him with a confirmation of his Socialist beliefs, and acted as "fuel," or as a "salute" to his Socialist ideals: in short, he would only appreciate art with the Socialist vision he was seeking."
As opposed to rand, who appreciated and praised a large number of artists with philosophical views antithetical to her own: Edmond Rostand, Friedrich Schiller, Victor Hugo, Fyodor Dostoevsky.
I agree with you that the quality of the art is low. But I would blame it on "second-handedness," rather than some sort of analogy to stalinism. You're dealing not with original thinkers, but with people influenced by Rand's thought. That doesn't make them wrong or bad. But it also makes them largely unoriginal.
"it's fascinating to me how the contributors to this blog seem to continually ignore what ayn rand actually said, and to continually replace it with something insane. the motive appears to be something other than an honest criticism of ayn rand. an honest criticism would be interests in things like "what did the object of my criticism actually believe?" "
Do you not see the irony in assuming that is what's going on here? That you are assuming there's a such motive would seem to put you at odds with your own definition of an "honest critique". It's not enough that Rand is being questioned, no, it has to be dishonest in some way.
Perhaps your admiration for Rand and her philosophy makes you unable to see Rand's flaws. Perhaps it is you that needs to check your premises.
Incidentally, Atlas Shrugged (well, and much of Rand's work) is full of the very thing you accuse this blog of - since nobody ever actually says the things that Rand's villains say. Even overt leftists don't frame their issues as Rand has them do - nor are they without any defined ideas, as Rand accuses them. They merely have different ideas around which they build their worldviews. And yet if you read Rand, she is more than willing to prop up strawmen to say what she thinks is the view of all the people she opposes, putting "insane" viewpoints in her stand-ins to criticize what she despises in the real world. That she does it behind the veil of fiction is hardly any more an honest critique than anything of which you accuse this blog.
Objectivists always appreciate and praise anyone that Ayn Rand liked: her approbation is kind of an ideological Get Out of Jail Free card. Just check out the number of Objectivists who obsessively track which novels and movies Rand liked - so that they can feel safe in liking them too. There have been Objectivist literary courses whose reading list consisted solely of books praised by Ayn Rand.
Lenin also had broad artistic tastes - and his preferences provided similar ideological cover for Bolsheviks who wanted a little more to read.
However, this tolerance did not extend to anyone Ayn Rand did not like, and that kind of lunacy persists in Objectivist circles to this day: I doubt you'll find many Objectivists who are prepared to admit they like Anna Karenina, which Rand described as the most evil novel in world literature; or who will announce a dislike for Mickey Spillane, whose early novels Rand adored. Peikoff got rid of all his Brahms records when he found out that Rand didn't like Brahms; and she ended up splitting with the Blumenthals because they liked Impressionist art.
The "second-handedness" you describe is no accident: it's the inevitable result of subordinating art to ideology. An artist with an independent vision would have to either abandon Rand's aesthetic - or abandon his art. If you don't accept that, give me just one example of a talented, original artist who is committed to Rand's aesthetic.
ungtss:
>it's fascinating to me how the contributors to this blog seem to continually ignore what ayn rand actually said, and to continually replace it with something insane. the motive appears to be something other than an honest criticism of ayn rand. an honest criticism would be interests in things like "what did the object of my criticism actually believe?"
From my point of view, it's not so much fascinating as unfortunately typical that you continually ignore what contributors to this blog are actually saying, and replace it instead with something not so much insane as pedantic, beside the point, or merely evasive. Now, I will give you the benefit of the doubt as far as honesty goes; I would hope that you are honest, if misguided. It's quite likely you don't realise you're doing it. Objectivism is designed to evade objective criticism after all, and to conform only to its own standards. It succeeds, and can only succeed, by marking its own homework. That is why, primarily, it requires its own special lexicon of meanings in order to try to justify its doctrines. There have even been efforts to establish its own logical rules - these are either hinted at and never revealed, or when they do break cover, embarrassing disasters. Thus Objectivism attempts to subvert independent standards of criticism in order to evade it. And of course to these more rational subversions, it adds the emotional wallop of Rand's rhetorical style, which is all about the the virtuous, brilliant few - and yes, you can be one! - surrounded by the evil errors of the many.
It makes quite an intellectual cocktail. As such, it is quite common for those inside this bubble to see those outside to be talking almost a foreign language (hence the handle of our regular ex-Objectivist commenter, Echo Chamber Escapee); or even worse, fundamentally dishonest. This is where I think you're at.
Now all this of course can be replied to with a tu quoque - that really it's all of civilisation that is in fact the "bubble", with its basic tools such as language and reason corrupted by "flawed premises" such as collectivism and altruism. A lone genius, Ayn Rand, goes the narrative, identified these flawed premises and replaced them with true ones - and so in fact it is we Objectivists who are outside the bubble, who see reality as it is, and everyone else who is in it!
Now, that may well be the case - all of civilisation can indeed err. However, Objectivists should equally note that these sorts of beliefs are also common in cults and religious sects, and beware of falling into the same trap. ungtss, as I recall you were puzzled as per Michael Shermer as to how such an unlikely candidate for cultism nonetheless became a notorious one.
Well, we here at ARCHNblog are trying to explain this - if you will listen.
Gordon:
>The "second-handedness" you describe is no accident: it's the inevitable result of subordinating art to ideology.
Correct. This is why we can safely predict Objectivist art will not improve. There will be no more great Objectivist novels (even assuming Atlas Shrugged is great), or symphonies, or much of anything else.
It is an excellent indicator of the spurious nature of Objectivist philosophy that the ideologically approved art and literature of its followers is no more and no less than Ayn Rand's personal tastes, or attempts to second-guess those tastes. Recall that according to Randian doctrine, all art is a derivative of philosophy. Surely if a philosophy had truly objective basis, then a PC (philosophically correct) reading list would extend far beyond the individual tastes of any one person? Sadly, this appears to not be the case.
In fact what seems to happen is that despite its promises, the philosophy itself is simply too impoverished to offer a suitably rich platform from which good art literature and music might be drawn. Hence in practise it defaults to merely rationalising Rand's personal preferences - thus, the secondhandness of it all. Hence the ideological strangulation of Objectivist culture at birth.
" If you don't accept that, give me just one example of a talented, original artist who is committed to Rand's aesthetic."
Actually, to be fair, I can do that:
Steve Ditko.
Ditko is the co-creator of Spider-Man, and is responsible for most of the character's visual stylings. In comic book circles, he's regarded as an important master of comics, his work in the 50s and 60s providing much of a foundation for those who followed (if not as much as, say, Jack Kirby). Though comics mostly aren't considered "great" art, Ditko's work can be considered quite important to popular culture, even if his isn't an immediately recognizable name in the world at large.
And, he is a very firm Objectivist. As well as something of a recluse, these days. Since breaking from the mainstream comics (Marvel and DC), his work has often taken on a heavy Objectivist stance. One can read his independent work and hear echoes of Rand quite often.
A runner up could be fantasy novelist Terry Goodkind, whose "Sword of Truth" series of books have a strong Objectivist thread running through them (in my opinion, it works better in a fantasy setting where you can have mystic, utterly evil antagonists without annoying shades of grey), and were - at least for a bit - being made into a TV series on cable. But again, this is popular culture, not "great art". (Not that pop culture can't be great art, but most folks don't consider it as such.)
But that's all I can come up with - any others are along the lines of the cordair site.
Anonymous, thanks for your suggestions. I've not read any Goodkind, but you've certainly aroused my curiosity.
I'd be far from dismissing popular art: I think that in all its forms, it has become the true art of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Having said that, I'm intrigued that one of these artists does cartoon art while the other does heroic fantasy. Such work is indeed relevant to our world - but in a mediated way: you can take what you want from it without asking too insistently whether the artist walks down the same streets that you do.
Working in comics or fantasy gives you the kind of escape clause not available even to a Chuck Palahniuk or a Joseph Heller. In this regard, it's interesting to recall Michael Prescott's observation that Atlas Shrugged would work best as an animated feature. I think that's right - and it's a point that ought to make a convinced Objectivist very uncomfortable.
“Do you not see the irony in assuming that is what's going on here? That you are assuming there's a such motive would seem to put you at odds with your own definition of an "honest critique". It's not enough that Rand is being questioned, no, it has to be dishonest in some way.”
It’s not an assumption so much as an interpretation of evidence. Throughout this thread, Rand’s been accused of saying something, I’ve pointed out that she said the exact opposite, and the subject has been dropped. At least half a dozen times. By everybody but Prescott.
So no, I don’t see any irony in assuming I’m seeing what I am in fact seeing.
“Incidentally, Atlas Shrugged (well, and much of Rand's work) is full of the very thing you accuse this blog of - since nobody ever actually says the things that Rand's villains say.”
Since her explicit purpose was not to document reality statistically, but to selectively project a reality in the image of her values, this is not a criticism, but an acknowledgement that she accomplished her purpose. It’s how she viewed art, it’s what she set out to do, and it’s what she did.
Here, however, you are ostensibly describing real-world behavior. As such your distortion of reality is not appropriate to your purpose.
“The "second-handedness" you describe is no accident: it's the inevitable result of subordinating art to ideology. An artist with an independent vision would have to either abandon Rand's aesthetic - or abandon his art. If you don't accept that, give me just one example of a talented, original artist who is committed to Rand's aesthetic.”
Your premise is true, but you’re mistaken to say that independent vision requires abandoning the aesthetic of others. On the contrary, an independent mind can modify and improve the vision of others. Which is in fact what rand did. Probably 90% of her aesthetic was unoriginal. It was the last 10% that made her unique. But without that 10%, you’re just a second-hander.
Barnes:
“It makes quite an intellectual cocktail. As such, it is quite common for those inside this bubble to see those outside to be talking almost a foreign language (hence the handle of our regular ex-Objectivist commenter, Echo Chamber Escapee); or even worse, fundamentally dishonest. This is where I think you're at.”
What’s your evidence? I’m told that Rand said one thing. I point out that she didn’t. Topic change. I’m told that Rand said one thing. I point out that she didn’t. Topic change. What am I supposed to do with that evidence other than conclude that you don’t want to look at the facts as they are?
Re objectivist artists that don't suck, there is also Neil Peart of Rush, at least back in the day before he "denounced" her. "Free Will" is as explicitly objectivist as it gets.
ungtss:
>What’s your evidence? I’m told that Rand said one thing. I point out that she didn’t. Topic change. I’m told that Rand said one thing. I point out that she didn’t. Topic change. What am I supposed to do with that evidence other than conclude that you don’t want to look at the facts as they are?
No, it seems that you're projecting. All that happens is you constantly claim there's a topic change, or some other kind of evasion when in fact there isn't. Actually, you seem entirely evasive yourself, preferring to use the standard tactics of hairsplitting over terminology and supposed "context" and almost never directly answer any direct questions put to you. What else am I to conclude, other than that you don't want to look at the facts as they are?
To demonstrate this, as your posts have been so frequent and voluminous I have repeatedly asked you to briefly summarise the key arguments you were bringing to this forum, especially ones you considered original, new, or interesting, so we can take a look at them clearly - and also see where you are coming from.
Are you going to respond to this simple challenge, or are you going to evade it yet again?
"I have repeatedly asked you to briefly summarise the key arguments you were bringing to this forum, especially ones you considered original, new, or interesting, so we can take a look at them clearly - and also see where you are coming from"
My views are most explicitly not the topic of this thread. This thread is about Ayn Rand and her views. I'm interested in discussing her and her views with people who dislike her strongly enough to participate in a blog devoted to criticizing her.
I am not interested in laying out some impromptu manifesto of my personal views.
This is not an evasion. It's a straight up "No, Barnes, I'm not interested in participating in a conversation of that type."
"All that happens is you constantly claim there's a topic change, or some other kind of evasion when in fact there isn't."
Why don't you look at the comment we're discussing. It happened right there. Gordon said objectivists would nod if someone told them ayn rand said "art is the engineer of the soul." i pointed out that rand's views were exactly the opposite of that. he then changed the subject to whether a stalinist would agree with what i described of rand's views.
That is a change of subject. the topic was whether objectivism holds anything remotely similar to the idea "art is the engineer of the soul." when it was pointed out that this was plainly false, the topic changed.
"Your premise is true, but you’re mistaken to say that independent vision requires abandoning the aesthetic of others. On the contrary, an independent mind can modify and improve the vision of others."
You're right, that's what an independent mind does. And after he does that, he's dropped from the mailing list of the Ayn Rand Institute.
ARI has made it 100% clear that Ayn Rand's philosophy is not to be modified or improved. It is complete and perfect - like Athena sprung from the head of Zeus.
Does that mean that ARI is distorting the real meaning of Rand's philosophy? That Objectivism is a gift to independent minds, rather than a dogma? No. ARI is simply continuing the approach which Ayn Rand herself brought to all intellectual discussions. And when a creative artistic intelligence realizes this, he's likely to do just one thing - give these people the finger and walk out.
It's not just a matter of approach. The essence of Objectivism - arguments based on allegedly essential definitions, with no room for empirical counter-examples - positively mandates dogmatism and intolerance. You can't ignore the method and embrace the conclusions. The totalitarianism of the whole system leaves a person with only two options - surrender or abandonment. After many years, I'm happy to report that I chose the latter.
"You're right, that's what an independent mind does. And after he does that, he's dropped from the mailing list of the Ayn Rand Institute.
ARI has made it 100% clear that Ayn Rand's philosophy is not to be modified or improved. It is complete and perfect - like Athena sprung from the head of Zeus."
i don't know enough about ARI to speak to this one way or the other. but i do know enough about organizations founded on an ideological agenda that your description seems quite plausible. however, i wouldn't minimize the effects institutionalization has on the interpretation and application of ideas.
"The essence of Objectivism - arguments based on allegedly essential definitions, with no room for empirical counter-examples - positively mandates dogmatism and intolerance."
how do you determine the essence of objectivism so as to make this assertion? on what basis?
to me the essence of objectivism is exactly the opposite -- the recognition that truth is grasped in degrees, and grasped only by means of the exercise of individual thought. i base this conclusion on her exposition of those particular ideas, as well as the radical and explicit non-dogmatism of her heroes in AS. i see no room for dogmatism in her philosophy. although it doesn't surprise me that an organization built up around those ideas -- or any ideas at all -- would become dogmatic in practice.
"The topic was whether objectivism holds anything remotely similar to the idea "art is the engineer of the soul." when it was pointed out that this was plainly false, the topic changed."
Sorry, that wasn't the topic. The topic, which I repeated three times in three different ways, was: art cannot survive if it is subordinated to ideology - as it is in both Objectivism and Bolshevism.
And by the way, your interpretation of the Stalin quote may be obvious to you, but not to anyone else. I think it's "plainly false". Let me repeat, for the fifth time, what the real issue is here: art cannot survive if it is subordinated to ideology - as it is in both Objectivism and Bolshevism.
ungtss:
>I am not interested in laying out some impromptu manifesto of my personal views...This is not an evasion. It's a straight up "No, Barnes, I'm not interested in participating in a conversation of that type."
Uh huh. So why, exactly, would that be? Why would you refuse such a reasonable request? Why do you want your conversations here to be only criticisms our views, and never yours?
Of course, flat refusal without explanation is just another evasion. Explaining your own views is actually a matter of common courtesy in any extended discussion. I also use it as a good test for sorting out the wheat from the chaff on the internet because if your interlocutor refuses to do it, it's generally a sign they are just trolling, wanting always to play the questioner yet avoiding holding their own views up for reciprocal scrutiny.
So what we have here is yet another direct refusal by ungtss to clearly spell out his own views when challenged. I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions from this.
myself, i had extensive experience in ideologically driven organizations of religious, liberal secular, and military persuasions. they all had the same fundamental characteristics -- the same ones you're describing with respect to your experience with ARI.
don't dismiss the possibility that ARI is interpreting AR's ideas in a manner consistent with an ideologically-driven organization, but inconsistent with what AR actually had in mind:).
"Uh huh. So why, exactly, would that be? Why would you refuse such a reasonable request?"
Because my views are not the topic of this blog. AR's views are the topic of this blog.
"Why do you want your conversations here to be only criticisms our views, and never yours?"
I want the topic here to be AR's views. Criticism and defense. The blog is named after her, not me.
"Sorry, that wasn't the topic. The topic, which I repeated three times in three different ways, was: art cannot survive if it is subordinated to ideology - as it is in both Objectivism and Bolshevism."
That is your conclusion. You premised it on the following:
"Stalin described artists as "engineers of the human soul" - and I suspect that most Objectivists who didn't know that would nod enthusiastically if you claimed it was a quote from Ayn Rand."
I responded directly to your premise by saying:
"If so, they would have misunderstood rand's views at the most basic level. she did not believe one person could "engineer" the mind of another. her whole philosophy is premised on the reality that each person _must_ think for himself -- that there is no substitute for individual thought.
within that framework, she compared art to a "confirmation of one's beliefs," or "fuel," or a "salute." she viewed art not as engineering the soul, but as providing the soul with a vision it was seeking.
in other words, exactly the opposite of stalin's view, and exactly the opposite of what you're describing."
In responding to your premise, I undercut your conclusion. Therefore, my discussion of your premise was "the topic."
This is silly. My statement that art cannot survive if it is subordinated to ideology is NOT "premised" on the Stalin quote, which was simply illustrative. It's based on OBSERVATION of the theory and practice of Bolshevism and Objectivism. Apparently, you don't want to discuss that - for pretty obvious reasons, I think.
For the seventh time, let me repeat: art cannot survive if it is subordinated to ideology - as it is in both Objectivism and Bolshevism. If you want to talk about that, fine. If not, we're done here.
"This is silly. My statement that art cannot survive if it is subordinated to ideology is NOT "premised" on the Stalin quote, which was simply illustrative."
Well then your statement was premised on nothing. Just a bald comparison.
i guess i interpreted your statement that "art is the engineer of the soul" would be accepted by objectivists as a statement that the phrase is compatible with objectivism, such that your comparison between bolshevism and objectivism would have some support.
but i guess you didn't provide any support at all.
in which case there really is nothing to talk about.
in my world, if you want to make a claim, you provide some evidence. that's why i took your follow-on as "evidence" of your claim. and dispatched it. in your world, do claims not require evidence? is it interesting or satisfying in some way to just say what you feel without providing any support?
Gordon Burkowski said...
"Anonymous, thanks for your suggestions. I've not read any Goodkind, but you've certainly aroused my curiosity."
If you like fantasy-styled novels, the Goodkind books aren't half bad - I stuck with The Sword of Truth series to the end, myself - though at times you can tell when Goodkind is using his story to preach, and for me at least, that jars me out of the narrative from time to time. In the same way that many of Rand's characters come off as ludicrously incompetent or malevolent beyond all suspension of disbelief, so too does Goodkind lapse into making his villains' behavior the most extreme possible manifestations of those sins Objectivism despises, not so much because anyone has believable motivation to act in those ways, but because Goodkind needs to show those ideas being fought against and triumphed over. But as I said, in a mystic fantasy setting it's easier to gloss over that than in, say, the setting of a near-future society supposedly much like our own.
ungtss:
>I want the topic here to be AR's views. Criticism and defense. The blog is named after her, not me.
Actually, if you look very closely you will note the blog is not named after Ayn Rand, but after the book "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature". That's why it's called, um, "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature." It's a blog mostly about Greg Nyquist's views on Ayn Rand, as you will then detect by also closely examining the blog's sub heading. It is these views that are, one would think rather obviously, the main topic of this blog. Now, like all good criticism, ARCHN has an overarching line of argument. By once again examining the title carefully you may be able to detect what it is. For a somewhat more detailed summary, try here or perhaps here. And if you really want to understand the topic of this site, you could always spend some time reading some of the earlier posts, handily categorised in the sidebar, or even read the book itself.
Now, all the above is what is called context. Most people, and especially Objectivists, consider such context very important. Yet you seek to deliberately avoid giving any context around your own views. Tsk tsk. Not very good form, nor even very good Objectivism.
Further, you can't seem to abide by your own rule. as per here and elsewhere on this very thread where you seem to want to discuss my attitudes and personal psychology; topics that have nothing to do with Rand's views.
Obviously you are trying to attract my attention for some reason with trivial attacks such as the above. Well, I've now just given you the ground rules if you want to engage with me further - do some homework, and provide some wider context for your comments. If you don't want to do that, fine, but don't expect much response from me without it.
Gordon:
>Stalin described artists as "engineers of the human soul" - and I suspect that most Objectivists who didn't know that would nod enthusiastically if you claimed it was a quote from Ayn Rand.
I believe the Rand quote you are thinking of is "Art is the technology of the soul." The Stalin quote is "The writer is the engineer of the human soul."
Daniel Barnes:
Yes, the Rand quote is right on the money. I also note that in one of your previous posts, you gave the link to the ARCHN blog re Founder's College, with its reading list made up solely of Ayn Rand's favourite books. Very useful: for at least some of us, seeing is believing.
As you can guess from my last post, my exchanges with umgtss are done - permanently. I think I'm going to get a T-Shirt that reads: No More Trolls.
"It's a blog mostly about Greg Nyquist's views on Ayn Rand, as you will then detect by also closely examining the blog's sub heading. It is these views that are, one would think rather obviously, the main topic of this blog."
Regardless of whether it's primarily a blog about her views or a blog about a book about her views, it is not a blog about me, my views, or your criticism of my views.
"Art is the technology of the soul."
Immediately before that sentence is the sentence that shows gorden has no idea what he's talking about:
"As man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul."
That's "self-made." Not "propaganda made."
It's right there, in the same spot. It just gets ignored. That's what's so fascinating to me about you people. Your capacity to ignore what you don't want to see.
Yes, well, ungtss, I note that you still haven't explained the harm that an improperly formed concept can cause, despite a few reminders, so if the pot wants to call the kettle out for "ignoring things", I think we can gauge the relative quality of your accusations on that matter.
Anonymous:
You're right of course. But why bring it up? You're just feeding the Troll.
Gordon:
>Yes, the Rand quote is right on the money.
Part of the problem with Rand is, as Greg says, sorting out the complexity of confusions.
It's quite obvious that Rand does not set out to emulate Stalin, and this is precisely what makes the similarity between Social Realist Art and Objectivist Art, the artistic poverty of both, and the similarity between these two quotes, so interesting. Coming from the Soviet Union, Rand was certainly aware of how propaganda is designed to shape people, and tried to draw a distinction:
"Art is not the “handmaiden” of morality, its basic purpose is not to educate, to reform or to advocate anything....Any metaphysical issue will necessarily have an enormous influence on man’s conduct and, therefore, on his ethics; and, since every art work has a theme, it will necessarily convey some conclusion, some “message,” to its audience. But that influence and that “message” are only secondary consequences. Art is not the means to any didactic end. This is the difference between a work of art and a morality play or a propaganda poster." (Romantic Manifesto p 21, emphasis in original)
Well, if this is her view, how does she end up producing the mega-didactic morality play that is Atlas Shrugged? We get a clue in the paragraph before this quote:
"Art is the indispensable medium for the communication of a moral ideal . . . This does not mean that art is a substitute for philosophical thought: without a conceptual theory of ethics, an artist would not be able successfully to concretize an image of the ideal. But without the assistance of art, ethics remains in the position of theoretical engineering: art is the model-builder . . ." (ibid)
So in classic Randian fashion, she's giving basically contradictory edicts. Saying art is the indispensable medium for communicating moral ideals is essentially saying art is a morality play, a model of an underlying ethical doctrine. Yet in the same breath she claims art is not a morality play.
How are we to interpret this confusion? Well, I suggest worrying less about what she says, and look more at what she does. Given the didactic, moralising nature of her actual fiction, it seems she's issuing a disclaimer about "morality plays" and "propaganda" whilst in practice doing little but. (Rand was also rather lacking in self-awareness, and was surrounded by groupies and flunkies while writing much of her later work. There was no-one really around to point out such contradictions).
This is all of course consistent too with Rand's Utopian view of human nature, of man's perfectibility; and here now we find the link with the Socialists and their Utopian view. And we begin to understand how these at first unlikely similarities come about.
anon, i don't know how clearer i can make it. i used the example of the ontological argument -- concluding that an entity exists based solely on definitions, and not on any evidence from the real world. the reason that this is dangerous is that you conclude things exist that do not in fact exist -- to provide the illusion of legitimacy to an illegitimate idea. to the extent you don't think it's dangerous to believe in non-existent things, and premise action on the existence of those non-existent things, i don't know what to say. Perhaps you're not aware of what people do and permit to be done in the name of these non-existent entities. human sacrifice, national superiority, jihad. perhaps you've never been to prisons in saudi arabia where people are beheaded for crimes based on divinely decreed rules of evidence.
as to whether i dodged this issue, if you read through the thread, you'll see i hit it head on repeatedly, until the topic changed to whether rand did the same thing. notably, i didn't change the topic.
i'm also intrigued by this socio-linguistic phenomenon "don't feed the troll." it seems to be the modern pseudo-intellectual equivalent of "shun the infidel." the ultimate effect is identical -- to dehumanize, and socially intimidate/isolate, rather than dealing with the uncomfortable ambiguity inherent in recognizing that others think differently than you do. a "troll" is no longer a person with individual judgment. he's reduced to some subhuman organism, probably living in his mama's basement, arguing for the sake of arguing. it's interesting to see how modern pseudo-intellectuals have created a less obvious caricature that serves the same purposes as "infidel" or "heathen."
"to the extent you don't think it's dangerous to believe in non-existent things, and premise action on the existence of those non-existent things, i don't know what to say."
Well, let's examine that, then. Are you saying that it is inherently dangerous to believe in ANY non-existent things, including, say, Santa Claus and fairies? If so, then whatever.
But if some such beliefs can be essentially harmless, then it's not the concept itself or its formation that is inherently bad. There is a potential to put such concepts to bad use, but that seems to be less about the formation of concepts and more their interpretation, post-formation. You mention jihad, but don't account for the Muslims that live their lives as peaceably as they can manage. And somehow they both derive from the same concept.
This is, in fact, the non-answer I was expecting: "Look around you! See all the bad stuff in the world! Blame it on poorly-formed concepts!" But that doesn't really explain anything, doesn't analyze why it happens or accounts for times when it doesn't happen. It just points the finger of blame.
I've long since tired of ungtss. But for the benefit of anyone wondering whether Ayn Rand was the dogmatist that Daniel Barnes and others here make her out to be, or whether ungtss is right that her followers have misunderstood her, I offer the following:
"[Q:] Apart from basic moral premises, is it ever proper to speak of an Objectivist position on an issue. Shouldn't one's own mind be the sole determinant of one's stand?
"[Rand:] This is not an honest question. ...
"[I]f this questioner thinks his own mind should be the sole determinant of his stand on an issue, I'll ask him by what standard, and by what right? Right is a moral -- that is, philosophic -- concept. Why should his mind be the sole determinant? Is he properly equipped? No. He would have to be a professional philosopher, and then perhaps by middle age he would begin to be qualified -- that is, to pass judgment on issues strictly on the strength of his own mind alone, unaided by anyone else's philosophy. ...
"It's a philosopher's job to provide you with these principles; it's your job to apply those principles to your own life. Philosophy will foreshorten the difficult problem of knowing what to do in complex situations. Philosophy is the guide; you are the traveler."
This is from Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 143-145). a compendium of Rand Q&A edited by one of her ARIan devotees.
Now, Rand did write some excellent advice in Galt's speech about the importance of thinking for yourself, about a single error made on your own being better than ten truths accepted on faith. It's the hook she uses to sucker you in.
But Rand believed, with absolutist fervor, that she had the right answers to all the key philosophical questions; anyone who "thought for himself" -- and did not make any errors -- would have to agree with her. That's dogmatism: I'm right, you're wrong, now keep studying until you understand why I'm right. She declared she was looking for "intelligent agreement" ... but that's just dogmatism hiding behind a mask of rationality.
And incidentally, sometimes a troll *IS* just someone arguing for the sake of arguing, or just to see how much he can stir up trouble.
Let's face it: ever since you've appeared, you've attempted to debunk nearly every post Nyquist has made, and you always must get the last word, since the only time these debates stop is when people just give up answering you. You don't get any persuasion or concessions from these debates, and the only benefit you've claimed is the very smug "oh, but I'm learning so much from you non-rational beings" kind of line you drop from time to time. Is it that impossible to conceive that you might be seen as a troll? We of course don't know you enough to know if you fit the stereotype of the basement-living loser, but your actual methodology isn't that far off.
'i'm also intrigued by this socio-linguistic phenomenon "don't feed the troll." it seems to be the modern pseudo-intellectual equivalent of "shun the infidel."'
Having dealt with trolls on my blog, I can say that "don't feed the troll" is usually sound advice. It's not about stifling an opposing point of view. It's about preventing a purposely disruptive individual from throwing the blog into chaos. Trolls toss out one wild comment after another, making personal attacks and outrageous (even libelous) statements, in an effort to end any possibility of civil - or even coherent - discourse. Sometimes they also impersonate regular commenters by hijacking their screen names, or try to impugn the reputation of the blog by encouraging the crazies to come out of the woodwork and take over the comments threads.
On my blog I had to switch to comment moderation after a trollular infestation made the threads unreadable.
Although I don't agree with ungtss on a number of points, I don't see him as a troll. I've found many of his comments interesting, and I think his criticisms (whether or not they are well founded) are generally relevant to the topic at hand.
With regard to Rand and art, I think there's no doubt she used methods of psychological intimidation on her impressionable young followers, as when she wrote in one of her essays, "An artist reveals his naked soul in his work - and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it." Whether or not this is true (I think it is an overstatement with only a grain of truth), it can't help but have the effect of intimidating people who will inevitably start worrying about what their enjoyment of horror movies or Tolstoy novels (or their lack of enjoyment of "Perry Mason" and "Charlie's Angels") says about their soul.
An emotional response to an artwork can be motivated by extremely complex personal issues. It's a tad irresponsible for Rand to say that one can divine one's innermost values simply by assessing one's reaction to a book, movie, or painting. If psychology were that easy, there would be no need for therapists.
One of my favorite movies is the original "King Kong." It was also one of Hitler's favorite movies. It does not follow that Hitler and I have the same kind of soul. At least I hope it doesn't. ;-)
Incidentally, I've always maintained Rand could be personally more interesting than her dogma, and certainly far more interesting than her followers. I've always appreciated for example the Wildean insouciance of her elevation of Mickey Spillane above the supposedly more intellectual Thomas Wolfe. It's very modern, and well beyond anything Leonard Peikoff would capable of. She was a brilliant woman with a very original imagination. This is another reason why she's interesting to discuss. Somehow despite all her advantages she ended up like Thomas Midgely - trapped in clever machine of her own devising. it's a great pity really.
ECE quoted Rand:
>"It's a philosopher's job to provide you with these principles; it's your job to apply those principles to your own life. Philosophy will foreshorten the difficult problem of knowing what to do in complex situations. Philosophy is the guide; you are the traveler."
This is a excellent quote that illustrates how a logical dynamic, rather than just charismatic personalities, generates Objectivism's cultic turn. It works roughly like this:
Philosophy is the ultimate guide to your existence. But what philosophy is the right one? Why, Objectivism. And who is the ultimate authority in Objectivism? Ayn Rand. Therefore: who is the ultimate authority on your existence...?
Michael P:
>It's a tad irresponsible for Rand to say that one can divine one's innermost values simply by assessing one's reaction to a book, movie, or painting.
Note Rand also says the same thing about sex:
"Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life."
She was always coming out with this sort of thing. As I say, she took her idle speculations far too seriously, and lacked anyone who questioned her pretensions.
Thanks to Michael Prescott for the blogmaster perspective on trolls. It’s enlightening, as his posts usually are. However, anyone who has been following this blog for the last month or so will probably echo Echo Chamber Escapee when she writes that she’s long since tired of ungtss.
And the characterization of u’s technique by Anonymous is spot on.
"Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life."
I think one could demonstrate the problems with Rand’s assertion here by simply responding with a name: Frank O’Connor.
This may be time for a personal anecdote. In April 1965, I met Frank O’Connor and Ayn Rand. I was with three other Objectivists from Toronto; we had all come to New York to attend a Joan Mitchell Blumenthal art exhibit which was followed by an Allan Blumenthal piano concert. His encore was: “Jesu Joy of Man’s Desiring”. :)
The meeting with Rand and O’Connor lasted all of four minutes: Florence Hirschfeld (Nathaniel Branden’s sister) thought Ayn might be interested in us because one of our party was a female engineer named Dagny.
All this happened years before The Break between Rand and the Brandens; and at a time when The Affair wasn’t known or even conceivable. Barbara Branden’s biography was 20 years in the future.
At the time, I quite literally regarded Rand as the most important person on earth. So Frank O’Connor came as a shock. He certainly knew how to wear a tuxedo: he could have made a fortune if he’d worked as a male model rather than an actor. But to this day, 48 years later, I have never encountered a male with a more recessive personality. He presented like an Anglican cleric whose deepest passion was for his rose bushes. I’m not surprised that he later worked as a flower arranger.
All the way back to Toronto, I kept saying to myself: “Ayn Rand is married to a guy who looks eager to please! How in hell can Ayn Rand be married to someone who is eager to please?”
After decades of hard-won experience, it’s now clear to me that O’Connor was Rand’s ideal mate – but not for any of the reasons she would have given. The fact that she could convince herself that this guy was Francisco d’Anconia tells you everything you need to know about her limitless capacity for rationalization. Objectivists out there who are lashing themselves because their partner isn’t a John Galt or a Dagny Taggart should keep that firmly in mind.
thanks for your kindness and for your insights, prescott. i also agree there's such thing as a troll, although i think the word has been expanded greatly to be used as a social intimidation tactic. in the same way, there are genuine infidels, who destroy houses of worship and defecate in holy water and burn religious adherents in boiling oil.
but one does not attempt to socially isolate _real_ trolls or infidels by calling them such. one does not warn people not to talk to the man burning you in hot oil. one simply does what one must do with criminals.
but those words are then coopted, defined much more broadly, and then used as weapons against others one simply wishes to intimidate.
here, for instance, i'm told i'm a troll because i "set out to debunk nyquist's posts" and i'm "not persuaded by counterarguments." that is such a broad definition of troll it includes everyone who steadfastly disagrees with the dominant viewpoint.
which is exactly the point, i think. to characterize everyone who steadfastly disagrees as a "troll" or "infidel" -- to socially isolate by means of connotation -- to associate one's opponent with something horrible, thereby freeing onesself from the necessity of accepting that "somebody doesn't agree with you."
ECE, i think you're powerfully mischaracterizing what you're quoting. the question was whether one should "rely wholly on one's own mind." she's responding that if you attempted to do so, it would take you a lifetime of professional philosophy to arrive at basic principles. which is true. it's taken mankind at least 6,000 or so years even to get where we are. that's why we need the "aid" of other philosophies. she of course was also "aided" by other philosophies. she didn't reinvent aristotle's wheel. she picked and chose from him and from many other philosophers who had done the work ... and then applied those ideas to her life, and to new formulations.
in other words, when you read her response in the context of the question she was answering, i don't see dogmatism at all. i see a recognition that one cannot "rely on one's own mind" for everything. one cannot simply reinvent the wheel. one must borrow, unless one wants to devote one's entire life to rediscovering the truth that others have discovered.
that said, again, i don't know how these ideas are being interpreted in real time.
gordon, i think it's absolutely foolish to judge a man's character based on a four minute interview. preposterous. people have different moods. sometimes they're retiring, sometimes they're dominant. if you judged me from a four minute interview when my wife was the focus of attention, you'd conclude i was something i am not. if you judged me when in my element, doing what i do best, you'd conclude i was something quite different. i only hope you're wise enough not to judge _everyone_ based on 4 minutes of conversation with them.
it occurs to me that there are a lot of people on this blog who are "former objectivists" -- i.e. those who apparently "drank the kool aid" and "joined the club," and then discovered that the kool aid didn't work. it occurs to me that perhaps that selection mechanism is the origin of the problem. at a basic level, the contradiction is the creation of an "individual club," with a "think for yourself authority." but it seems it may play itself out even more problematically.
i, for instance, would never join an organization with the presupposition that the leader of the organization was the "most important person on earth." i throw up in my mouth a little, thinking about it.
of course, if one joins an organization with that presupposition, there are only two possible outcomes -- you sacrifice your own individuality to allow the "Blessed Leader" to think for you, or you reject that person for failing to adequately think for you.
because you're looking for a "most important person on earth," It's impossible for you to subtlely and intelligently pick and choose ideas based on their merit. you were looking for a master. and the master wasn't good enough. as no master ever is. because there's no substitute for your own thinking.
Gordon:
>I think one could demonstrate the problems with Rand’s assertion here by simply responding with a name: Frank O’Connor.
Yes, and I was also going to say: Nathaniel Branden.
Just a word on trolls, and trolling.
The ARCHNblog comments policy is FWIW here.
If I thought ungtss was a major troll, I would put him on moderation, something I've only had to do I think once or twice in the seven years this blog's been running. And that was for the semi-legendary Michael Hardesty and his multiple cast of sock puppets...;-). I haven't done this, or even considered doing this. He's just a bit of a time waster AFAICS with a few trollular tendencies as other commenters have mentioned. But to be perfectly clear, he's more than welcome to keep commenting on here, hence these are hardly very bad. (The general criteria for moderation I use is egregious offensiveness, sock puppetry, or if a troll spams the site so much it drives other regular commenters away)
Now, I will talk about being a lone commenter criticising the dominant opinion. For many years I regularly commented on a couple of prominent Objectivist sites. The atmosphere there was far more intensely hostile than you ever get at the ARCHNblog. You had to have a pretty thick skin. Yet while I'd hardly say I won any popularity contests, over time I can say I won some considerable respect as a commenter. I even developed some personal offline friendships with some of the Objectivist participants. So I know something about this sort of thing, and doing it reasonably successfully.
Of course, I would be regularly called a troll etc. I use a couple of basic rules of engagement to avoid this misperception.
1) I always comment under my own name. Trolls usually don't.
2) I always regularly give a broader framework to my interlocutors, to show that where I'm coming from has some thought behind it. Trolls usually don't. They tend to apply scattershot, nit-picky criticisms, yet do it in large volumes.
3) I rarely do meta. Trolls on the other hand are always whining about how irrational everyone else is, how biased the forum is against them, how misunderstood they are, and their conversations usually gravitate towards who-did-what-to-whom on the thread and away from any discernibly important point. This is because - surprise! - they usually don't have any discernibly important point to make.
So it's simple. If you don't want to be perceived as a troll, the less you act like one the less you will be...;-)
“Yes, and I was also going to say: Nathaniel Branden.”
Amen.
For years, my perception of O’Connor’s personal style back in 1965 was nothing more than a nagging little doubt, which I dismissed. After all, I asked myself, how significant really is a brief social encounter?
As it happened, it was very significant. First came The Split; then the Branden memoirs; and I realized that years before I had caught a faint glimpse of the tip of a very large iceberg. It is now plain that Rand’s personal universe involved a mind-boggling degree of rationalization.
Many people argue that the focus on Rand’s personal life amounts to little more than ad hominem attacks by people who don’t accept her philosophy. In fact, there’s a lot more at stake here than one love affair that ended badly.
At the center of Objectivism is the notion that a fully rational approach to the world will result in a fully rational set of emotions and behaviours. Rand believes that emotions involve the hard-wiring of value judgments that one arrived at or drifted into at some time in the past. That’s the whole point of Rand’s boast that she’d never had an emotion she couldn’t account for.
So it’s entirely fair to ask: if all her judgments and emotions were perfectly rational, how did she make such a mess of things? And why should anyone think they’re going to do better if they follow her method?
The folks at ARI understand this perfectly clearly. That’s why they try so desperately to uphold the image of a perfect Ayn Rand (and even more ludicrously, a near-perfect Frank O’Connor) in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is also, I suspect, why scholarly access to the Ayn Rand Archive remains so carefully controlled.
Objectivism’s theory of “psycho-epistemology”; its theory of sexuality; its aesthetics; all of them are ideas which are profoundly destructive to those who attempt to put them into practice. But the closer one looks at them, the more they seem little more than The World According to Ayn. And that world is beginning to seem more and more like a house of playing cards.
P.S. Thanks for explaining the troll policy.
"here, for instance, i'm told i'm a troll because i "set out to debunk nyquist's posts" and i'm "not persuaded by counterarguments." that is such a broad definition of troll it includes everyone who steadfastly disagrees with the dominant viewpoint."
You misunderstood what I was saying. For one thing, it's not that YOU were not persuaded, it's that you fail to persuade others - after repeated attempts. So trollish behavior is indicated by your persistence in the face of seeming futility - i.e., arguing for the sake of arguing and nothing more.
Likewise, it's not that you attempt to debunk Nyquist's posts so much as that's the only thing you do here, and you always do it, without fail. The only variation is when the resulting conversation drifts to another topic and you respond to THAT - always the last word, always in opposition. Your only function seems to be to oppose, and it almost seems compulsive.
Perhaps, as others say, you aren't a full-on, deliberate troll - but it does seem trollish to me.
"For one thing, it's not that YOU were not persuaded, it's that you fail to persuade others - after repeated attempts. So trollish behavior is indicated by your persistence in the face of seeming futility - i.e., arguing for the sake of arguing and nothing more."
I'm afraid this makes even less sense to me. A troll is one who can't persuade others of his views? That gives you absolute control over whether i'm a troll or not. if i repeatedly fail to persuade you, i'm trollish. if i persuade you, i'm not.
it has nothing to do with what i do. only with how you react to it.
"Likewise, it's not that you attempt to debunk Nyquist's posts so much as that's the only thing you do here, and you always do it, without fail."
And how do you differentiate between trollishness and honest and consistent disagreement? how do you know i'm not just consistently disagreeing because i consistently disagree?
ironically, this is actually a fantastic example of the dilemma over definitions that's been spinning around here. here, it's the definition of "troll." what is a troll? does it matter how we define it?
if you define a troll as someone who can't persuade people of his position, who ends up being a troll?
obviously, whoever doesn't change your mind.
is this concept proper formed? is it reasonable to ascribe personal character flaws to someone based on their inability to persuade you?
i don't think it is. i think the concept itself is improperly formed. and while there may not be a "One True Definition" of troll, there are many deceptive, improperly formed definitions. right here, right now, we're looking at one of them.
if you want to see the danger, realize, you go around calling people "troll" without reference to their intent, their behavior, their honesty, and whether or not they have anything of interest to add to the conversation.
barnes,
i must say, your last comment thawed the ice in my soul with regard to you:). i respect a guy who dives into enclaves of people who disagree with everything he has to say, and salvages some relationships out of it:).
"I'm afraid this makes even less sense to me. A troll is one who can't persuade others of his views? That gives you absolute control over whether i'm a troll or not. if i repeatedly fail to persuade you, i'm trollish. if i persuade you, i'm not."
No, you repeatedly fail - and PERSIST in the face of such failure. It has nothing to do with whether or not you succeed in persuasion, but rather whether you continue knowing there's no real point. Again, and I've said it clearly: arguing for the sake of arguing. (That you keep either misinterpreting or deliberately misrepresenting my words does not add to the "not-troll" side of the ledger.)
Likewise, it's not impossible that you "consistently disagree", but there's no way for any of us to truly know that, and a troll could be said to consistently disagree, as well.
You seem to not be willing to entertain the idea that your behavior could actually be trollish, even if you don't intend to be a troll. So is there any real reason to give you the benefit of the doubt? Do you believe you are entitled to that courtesy? (I understand that others do not view you as a troll - I'm just asking if there's any reason to do so beyond personal mannerisms and politeness.)
"No, you repeatedly fail - and PERSIST in the face of such failure."
My friend, if one is a troll for continuing to try to persuade in the face of failure to persuade, then we're all trolls. You included.
"So is there any real reason to give you the benefit of the doubt?"
No, of course not. But there is reason to use a meaningful definition of "Troll," so you don't run around calling people "trolls" based on a half-formed, vague, undefined, self-contradictory concept.
And the longer we go, the more meaningless your concept appears to me.
I don't care one way or the other whether you think i'm a troll. I'm interested in learning how to communicate the fact that you think i'm a troll without knowing what you even think a troll is.
Anonymous:
I think the definition game is a waste of time. Note that both Michael Prescott and Daniel Barnes consider someone a troll if his/her activities are damaging to their blog. They then act accordingly.
At the personal level, the question is: are exchanges with this person enlightening and/or entertaining? If they aren't, you stop the exchanges - as I have done with guess who. Trying to get this person to see himself only results in further exchanges - which rewards the behaviour. :)
"Trying to get this person to see himself only results in further exchanges - which rewards the behaviour. :)"
Premised on the idea that "guess who" is capable of nothing more than the pavlovian reactions of a dog.
Ultimately, on a personal level, the question is whether you're brave enough to accept the possibility that those who disagree with you are human, capable of reason, and expressing themselves honestly. Or whether you need to rationalize the cognitive dissonance away by treating them like dogs.
That
"Premised on the idea that "guess who" is capable of nothing more than the pavlovian reactions of a dog."
I wouldn't say "capable of nothing more", but I would say that there is a compulsive element to your interactions here. Both in that you have posted in reply to every last one of Nyquist's posts since you appeared, and that it appears you can let no challenge go unanswered - probably including this one - always getting in the last word. Perhaps this is not compulsive behavior, but on the other hand if you never change your pattern it's difficult to not conclude that you have some kind of deep-seated urge at work.
This is going to be my last post on this thread and possibly on any subsequent ARCHN posts for a while. I can break away at any point. (If you see another Anonymous post in the near future it probably isn't me.)
The question is: can you? I predict you will not be able to let this drop, and you will be compelled to respond in some way to this post I'm making - which would tend to support the whole compulsive behavior theory.
But please, prove me wrong.
"I wouldn't say "capable of nothing more", but I would say that there is a compulsive element to your interactions here."
Assuming you're right, then gordon's "don't reward the bad behavior" hypothesis is bogus, because compulsive behavior is by definition behavior that goes unrewarded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsive_behavior
"Both in that you have posted in reply to every last one of Nyquist's posts since you appeared, and that it appears you can let no challenge go unanswered - probably including this one - always getting in the last word."
Sometimes I'm accused of "ignoring good points," other times of "compulsively never letting a challenge go unanswered." depends what you're advocating i guess.
"Perhaps this is not compulsive behavior, but on the other hand if you never change your pattern it's difficult to not conclude that you have some kind of deep-seated urge at work."
You might consider the possibility of "being interested in the topic and eager to discuss it." but that would require you to conceptualize me as a volitional human being.
"The question is: can you? I predict you will not be able to let this drop, and you will be compelled to respond in some way to this post I'm making - which would tend to support the whole compulsive behavior theory.
But please, prove me wrong."
And what if i don't want to let it drop, because i'm interested? But again, that would require you to conceptualize me as volitional.
It's tough conceptualizing others as volitional. It means you have to treat them with some modicum of respect. I understand that. You're helping me understand it better.
For instance, you accuse me of "compulsively having to have the last word," ignoring that i'm not doing anything different than the person who got the last word immediately before me. But when you get the last word, it's volitional. When I get it, it's compulsive.
See how bogus concept-formation works? You can relegate your fellow human beings to the sub-human, the sub-volitional. And you can pretend your views are legitimate.
conceptualizing human beings as sub-volitional is one of the roots of the many horrors humans inflict on each other. which is why the capacity to omit it is such a well-developed, well-rationalized thought pattern. you can't sacrifice a child to molech if you think of the child has having a choice. or set up ovens for the jews. you have to think deterministically. they have to be evil "because of their race" -- or "because god has predetermined it" -- or more recently, "because of their psychological makeup." otherwise your conscience gets in the way when you try and treat people as sub-human.
ungtss:
>i must say, your last comment thawed the ice in my soul with regard to you:). i respect a guy who dives into enclaves of people who disagree with everything he has to say, and salvages some relationships out of it:).
Thanks...;-) Criticism is a very important thing! But IMHO there are better and worse ways to go about it.
Where's a facebook "Like" button when you need it?
"Thanks...;-) Criticism is a very important thing! But IMHO there are better and worse ways to go about it."
It's true. And like anything else, the only way to improve is by practice and observation.
And like anything else, the only way to improve is by practice and observation.
Surely you mean "The only way to improve is through properly formed concepts"! ;-)
Haha, and of course practice and observation are inescapable prerequisites of proper concept formation:).
Which comes first, the proper practice and observation of concept formation or the proper concept formation of practice and obersvation?
you do realize that the dicussion of trolls would seem insane to Ayn Rand, because to her the word "troll" would mean something else, and to her that would be the correct meaning, at least according to the linguistic theory of Objectivism.
Ben Legion, you make an interesting point. People on this thread have discussed concepts like "unicorn" which reference non-existent entities. The modern use of "troll" takes a word for a non-existent thing and uses that words to reference persons who do exist - although we might wish that they did not. :)
This happens in language use all the time: see "ghost" as a name for a CIA agent. And AFAICS, no one's conceptual processes have been sabotaged by doing so.
"Which comes first, the proper practice and observation of concept formation or the proper concept formation of practice and obersvation?"
they're mutually reinforcing. you start out with a proper, although rudimentary method of observation and concept formation -- the method of an infant. this leads you to new experiences that cannot be dealt with by your rudimentary approach. which requires you to develop a more adequate method by means of a more sophisticated concept of practice and observation. which leads you to more complex experiences. which demands a more sophisticated method.
"The modern use of "troll" takes a word for a non-existent thing and uses that words to reference persons who do exist - although we might wish that they did not. :) "
Yes, and as demonstrated above, the common use of the word "troll" is an improperly formed concept, used to intimidate and socially ostracize, rather than to actually describe anything meaningful.
"Criticism is a very important thing! But IMHO there are better and worse ways to go about it."
Daniel, thanks for this remark. It combines courtesy and pointedness to a degree which is almost non-existent on the internet.
I certainly took it to heart, as I think most of your readers will. Except, apparently, for the person to whom it was addressed. . .
"I certainly took it to heart, as I think most of your readers will. Except, apparently, for the person to whom it was addressed. . ."
i'd count this among the transparently immature means of criticizing people. kind of a cowardly, round the back "haha aren't we in agreement this guy is such an idiot he's not even worth talking to and he can't possibly take this to heart" sort of criticism.
very effective if you're on a schoolyard at the age of 6 i suppose. unless your victim isn't a coward. then it wouldn't even be effective then.
QED
yeah, that's pretty effective too, gordon. talk about people like they're not in the room, without addressing what they have to say. where'd you learn all these cool tricks? the school of social intimidation tactics?
QED #2
FWIW, I've found that a good way to maintain civility and encourage open discussion (either online or in the real world) is to assume that almost any point of view contains *some* truth. If you start with this assumption, you will find yourself looking for areas of agreement, rather than hammering away at vulnerable spots in the other person's position.
This doesn't mean that all statements are equally true, or that you have to agree with everybody. It's just an acknowledgment that in almost all cases, someone's opinion is based on his own experience, observation, study, or thought, and therefore it probably has at least a smidgeon of validity, and also offers a window into that person's thought processes.
I do think some viewpoints are completely false (e.g., the claim that NASA faked the moon landings), but these outlier cases are much rarer than we might suppose. Even viewpoints that seem outlandish may turn out, on closer inspection, to have some value. For instance, it's easy to dismiss the idea of "alien abductions" as patently absurd, but if we look into it, we may decide that some kind of actual psychological or neurological or out-of-body phenomenon is involved, even if it has been naively misinterpreted as a real-world event.
In Rand's case, while I disagree with much of her reasoning and dislike her hectoring tone, I think there are clearly some basic truths incorporated into her worldview: the value of independence, limited government, individual rights, personal integrity, etc., etc. Little of this may be original, but much of it is good, and she served to reach an audience that Hayek and Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson largely missed.
"FWIW, I've found that a good way to maintain civility and encourage open discussion (either online or in the real world) is to assume that almost any point of view contains *some* truth."
Point taken, Michael. However, I certainly don't need to tell you that Ayn Rand herself had absolutely no truck with such tolerance - and that attitude has cascaded down to most of her followers. I suspect that the current stridency of political debate in the U.S. is one of her less pleasant legacies.
Jennifer Burns has proved it's possible to discuss Rand usefully without losing one's temper. It's not an example I always follow, but it's a good one.
FWIW, I also don't insist on civility too much at the ARCHNblog. Civility often gets a bit stifling. In the 18th C, unless you were insulting each other you weren't considered to be seriously debating...;-)
I also agree with Keynes that "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." In fact what impresses most when encountering Rand is the sheer energy of the assault; to give her credit, clearly she knew there were and are a lot of unthinking people out there.
So I really don't mind strong words so long is there is strong thinking behind them. Objectivism, however is doesn't really have much to offer *other than* intimidatory rhetoric. Once the first impression of the Randian polemic has worn off, you realise how flailing it is. Most Objectivist critics of this blog have no arguments other than quibbling over the meanings of terms - no logic, no science, no evidence, nothing. As arguments are composed of terms, as ungtss likes to point out, if you spend all your time obediently refining your terms in the Aristotelian Scholastic tradition it is little wonder that Objectivists have never got around to any constructing any actual coherent arguments! (In fact he unwittingly has just provided an explanation for his puzzling over the infertility of the Objectivist movement...;-))
Hence the aptness of D.R. Steele's "Objectivist doctrine is bluff, buttressed by abuse of all critics". One of Rand's most frequently used weapons is the argument from intimidation (which in classic Randian doublethink fashion she also spoke out against). But such arguments only work if you are easily intimidated!
So in running a blog critical of Rand we have to be reasonably tolerant of, and capable of dealing with, abuse. That is, after all, all we are really likely to receive...;-)
much respect, prescott.
i see this as where the unconscious effects of anxiety have very undesirable effects. cognitive dissonance drives anxiety, which subconsciously causes "splitting," or black and white thinking. this prevents us from accepting the possibility of a seed of truth in what the other person has to say. we resolve ambiguity by eliminating the "good" in what our opponents have to say, to make them comfortably all dark.
i suspect this has a lot to do with the similarities i see between "post-objectivists" and "post-fundamentalists." when you break with an organization, it's tempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. less ambiguity makes for a cleaner psychological getaway.
blaming the stridency of political discourse on rand is, i think, rather an extraordinary example. today's discourse is extraordinarily tame compared to the old days, when people would beat each other with canes, and when the issues at stake were things like "are black people human?" our politics does not come close to the stridency of older days. and it doesn't come close to the stridency in politics overseas in current days, where fist fights still break out in parliaments.
but if one is in a black and white, splitting frame of mind, in which rand and everything associated with her is "all black," i can easily see coming to the bizarre conclusion that stridency in politics is rand's legacy.
e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI
http://voices.yahoo.com/ready-rumble-greatest-fistfights-us-congress-2129050.html
is this rand's fault:)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tYXr_VsQKY
"i don't want to be rude, but you have the charisma of a damp rag, and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk ... i sense that you're competent and capable and dangerous, and i have no doubt that it's your intention to be the quiet assassin of european democracy and of the european nation states. you appear to have a loathing for the existence of nation states. perhaps that's because you come from belgium, which is pretty much a non-country."
yep, let's blame that on rand too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jUavMXQrs
Michael, look what you've gone and done! I had him shut down for 10 blessed hours! Couldn't we have enjoyed the silence a little bit longer? :)
you had me "shut down?" rather, you had me bored. prescott always has interesting things to say, of value, thought-provoking, worth discussing. barnes has been winning me over lately too. but your sequential QEDs (presented as though somehow meaningful) are a striking counterpoint.
"Criticism is a very important thing! But IMHO there are better and worse ways to go about it."
I quoted Barnes - then pointed out that you didn't seem to be going about the business of criticism in the best way. Your response to this observation was the usual nasty ad hominem attack. This of course totally confirmed my point - and the QED's highlighted That. You may claim that for once you didn't try for the last word because you were bored: I think it more likely that you became aware that your nasty rejoinders were putting you into a deeper and deeper hole.
I'm done now. Have the last word. Six more times if you like.
Post a Comment