RoR: Forum

George: Joe was talking about people in general and what they're like. Well that's just the culture. So all I did was look at the state of various cultures to see how well his idea worked. It's hard to fathom that this was too clever for you.

Maybe you have a dichotomy between the concepts "people in general" and "the culture"? It would be very interesting to see you attempt to explain the difference between them.

Post 41

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 9:50am

Shayne,

I imagine that there were the blissfully ignorant types running around "liking people" when, say, Galileo was imprisoned for being a genius. And I certainly wouldn't blame him for feeling contempt for these self-deluded "everything is great" people.

There are also some "liking people" people around who see many things, and they are not necessarily "blissfully ignorant."

These types have no problem whatsoever with getting into the face of someone who spouts off lot of pretentious horseshit in public and calling them to task on it.

Being a sourpuss is not wisdom. Feeling good about people is not stupid. Thinking and blathering the opposite (pure crap) is extremely stupid.

Have a good day, if you can...

Michael

Post 42

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 10:01am

Shayne, Joe listed the following attributes as being generally widespread among his fellow Americans:

Productivity, lack of criminality, ambition, commen sense, and a desire to seek personal happiness ect...

I have no dichotomy between Joe's examples of 'people in general' and American 'culture' in general. I have none, because none exist, they are one in the same; and Joe's list of virtue's are manifestly apparant in *both*. Surely the flaws and evasions you allude to are also apparant, but they are not in the ascendency. Americans tolerating 'stake burnings' has yet to become so common a feature that it quilifies as an attribute that one could say is 'generally' true of most people. Unless you choose to make a leap from the A to the Z of the evils that exist in our culture (such as, we are right now at this moment tottering on the brink of a Weimar Republic!), you will find Joe's breakdown as generally valid.

The true dichotomy exist among those that would ignore Joe's generalized list of virtues and focus apocolyptically on human stupidity and flaws.

George

Post 43

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:41am

The true dichotomy exist among those that would ignore Joe's generalized list of virtues and focus apocolyptically on human stupidity and flaws.

Thank you Michael and George. I think Shayne mistook Joe's article for the Ophrah show and decided to be a guest on the Jerry Springer show instead. Damn this town and its stupid talk shows. I'm going to Florida.

Post 44

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:22pm

Ah - just hasn't been the same since Phil Donahue, huh.......

Post 45

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:33pm

George: American culture? Where did Joe refer to American culture? Should I have assumed that when he said "people", he meant "American people"?

I'm glad that you see no dichotomy. That means that you probably see that the real question here is philosophical, and concerns the state of today's culture, and not some overly abstracted, dumbed down discussion about whether you're a people person or not.

And there's actually a really good Objectivist book concerning the state of American culture. It's called "The Ominous Parallels", by none other than Solo's favorite Objectivist, Leonard Peikoff. It doesn't come to the same Pollyanna conclusions as some Soloists would like to believe.

I'm glad that you entered the discussion George. You've helped me to see another, even deeper reason why I didn't like Joe's article. It is talking about what is really a very philosophical question concerning the state of the culture, but does it in such a way that one can easily loose sight of the philosophic issues. It's disintegrated relative to Objectivism. In this connection I'm reminded of a talk by Gary Hull: "Integration: The Dynamo of Reason".

Post 46

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:51pm

Shayne,

Does every article have to be a book-length treatise to have value? Joe's article dealt with a very small, specific issue; in my experience that's what he does and his insights are of enormous value.

YES, of course there is a larger problem with the culture. But as SOLO's credo states, we are not at war with every single person in that culture - SOLO is at war with the people who originate and actively promote the wrong ideas. There is nothing in Joe's article to suggest that everything is shiny and bright in the culture at large. And there is nothing in Joe's article to suggest that SOLO'ists are a bunch of Pollyannas. There is a war room on this site for god's sake!

I'm glad you entered this discussion, Shayne. It's helped me to see that you're not a SOLOist. The majority of the principle players on this site are innovators - they do not simply recite memorized Objectivist chunks of information, forcing them to fit the discussion at hand, as you did with almost every word in post #45. They respond to the issues actually being discussed and in general don't actually decide to respond to issues outside of the current context of the discussion. It's time for you to get out of the "overly abstracted" mode and come down to concrete reality, where Joe's article (and advice) actually implies.

And before you cry "ad hominem" I will say that George and Nature (and Joe in his response to you) said all that is needed to rationally convince an honest, truth-seeking individual of the merit of Joe's article. Hence why I'm directing this post at criticism of what you've said and, by extension, at you, in full honesty and with no deception.

Jason

Post 47

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:53pm

Shayne, I anticipated your answer and prepared a rebuttal in advance. Your response did not let me down! �lol- I did not have to change a single sentence.

Shayne, in a lecture I once heard Leonard Peikoff make, he broke down the concept of contextual knowledge into a heirchy as follows: the arbitrary, the possible, the probable, and the certain.

Notwithstanding Peikoff�s assertions in the Ominous Parallels (many of which are prescient and valid),American culture today does not stand at the threshold of �the probable� as an example of a nation whose culture is about to descend into chaos with a generally stupid sheep like populace doing nothing or applauding its demise.

It�s not January 30th, 1933 � Hindenberg is not about to sign Adi in as Chancellor, the streets are not filled with Communist and Nazi�s, the economy is not in it�s 15th year of triple digit inflation, the culture at large has not been some form of tyranny for 300 years, and you and I are not going to be arrested for this conversation we are having � ect ect�

One need not be a blind Pollyanna, to reasonably assume that at worst, this mixed-premised culture (and people) of ours is in its �the possible� stage of development in regards to a culture (people in general) that has become more rotten than virtuous. Trust me, I will continue to rant, warn and ring the bells of alarm, to those �all so evident� trends that could lead us into the realm of �the probable� � but until �the probable� arrives, I will try to temper my warning to something less than �the sky is falling�.

For now, I for one, see Joe�s description of this �cultures� virtues, being its most distinctive attribute.

I wrote an article, that corresponds somewhat to Joe�s. I am hoping that Linz or Joe reprise it because it relates to our current conversation, and a couple of others that are going on in different forums. If they choose not to, I will send you the link.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/13, 1:31pm)

Post 48

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 1:33pm

Jason: Your first sentence says it all. It doesn't take a book to make an important and relevant connection, or to keep an article in connected with philosophy--and reality--as a whole. As for your other points:

- I don't consider myself a "SOLOist"; I'm an Objectivist. If the majority of posts to this thread reflect what Solo really is, then I certainly don't want to be thought of as a "SOLOist", by you or anyone else.

- There's no dichotomy between "people in general" and "the culture at large". They are one in the same concept. Here's the biggest clue you're going to get as to how far off the track you really are. Evade it or recognize it, it's your choice.

- Your accusation against my honesty is laughable.

George: I don't think America is about to collapse. I never said I did. Why are you trying to rewrite my posts for me? Or does your empiricism not permit you to think in principle, so you concretely latch on to any random example I might give as representative of my whole thought? If so then there's no talking to you.

I don't think "the sky is falling". I think there are vicious, evil, despicable things happening in the culture, as well as good things. The culture certainly has promise, and I definitely take heart in some of the wonderful things I see, some of those rare but really good movies are among the things that give me the most hope. But that's hope in the future, not an evaluation of the present. Things in general, are definitely NOT wonderful right now.

Most of the posters to this thread are just stuck in wishful thinking, rationalizing it by claiming that I'm saying that things are worse than they are, or that I think one shouldn't have good will toward those you deal with. Honesty indeed.

Post 49

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 1:48pm

Shayne, there are certain logical inferences a person can deduce from what another person is so vehemently expressing himself against, and the analogies he uses to express that disfavor. Now, suddenly, I am an empiricist!

You may be right on one thing, I suppose from your vanatage point, there is indeed no use talking to me.

I sincerely wish you success in your endeavors.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/13, 1:49pm)

Post 50

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 1:49pm

I don't consider myself a "SOLOist"; I'm an Objectivist

I can't argue with you there. You've certainly memorized enough to earn that title.

Your accusation against my honesty is laughable.

Then laugh. But be sure you're not laughing at the metaphysically significant. Isn't that the party line?

Evade it or recognize it, it's your choice.

I'm glad to see your dogmatic arsenal is serving you well

Or does your empiricism not permit you to think in principle,

Here George is, trying to have a reasonable discussion, and you attack him. Ugh!

I think there are vicious, evil, despicable things happening in the culture, as well as good things.

Ah, the bad gets three descriptives and the good gets - well, none but a single adjective. Almost as if "the good" is an afterthought. That's telling. Much like Rand's later writings. Which confirms my suspicions that you've taken to heart Rand's style and adopted it as your own. Or were you always this eaten up with hate and bitterness? Did you instead acquire that along with Objectivism?

I can't think of a single decent thing to say to you at the moment, Shayne. How's that for Pollyanna?

Jason

Post 51

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 2:28pm

Ah, the bad gets three descriptives and the good gets - well, none but a single adjective.

I see that you snipped out the sentence I wrote that followed this one: "The culture certainly has promise, and I definitely take heart in some of the wonderful things I see, some of those rare but really good movies are among the things that give me the most hope." If you had a sliver of honest, benevolent thought in you, you'd have thought the opposite: "Shayne saw fit to give the evil only a few words but the good a whole sentence."

Your malevolent, hypocritical, "holier than thou" dishonesty is despicable.

Post 52

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 2:38pm

George:

Shayne, there are certain logical inferences a person can deduce from what another person is so vehemently expressing himself against, and the analogies he uses to express that disfavor.

So I guess this excuses you from reading what I wrote then. George, that's a truly shoddy rationalization. I said numerous times that I agreed with the idea of approaching new people with good will and benevolence. Which is ironic, since it's the hypocrites who are preaching tolerance and benevolence who have been the most malevolent in this thread.

I say that I don't like Joe's *article*, and what I get in return are attacks on my *character*. And in a thread titled "Liking People"! What a total Orwellian farce some of you are pulling.

Speaking of double-speak, I thought Jason's use of the term "SOLOist" was a classic. I first signed up to Solo because I presumed it was for those who considered themselves independent Objectivists, not associated with a group, i.e., "solo." I figured this is a place to converse with minds not shackled to any tribe or clique. But evidently, I'm the only true "SOLOist" present. Well OK, that's going too far: it'd be presumptuous to assume that Jason speaks for all of you.

Post 53

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 2:56pm

Shayne, I sent you a PM.

Post 54

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 2:57pm

deleted

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/13, 2:58pm)

Post 55

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 3:42pm

Shayne,

I'm baaaaaaaaaaack!

You are one curious dude, dude.

I got a couple of things to say, starting with the particular brand of snake-oil you are peddling under the label of "rational." One of the things I most love to do is to take the covers off what someone says and look at what is really there (good and bad) - identify the message coming through between the lines, so to speak. So let us begin:

To start with, I'm not going to let you sell your snake oil around here at my expense. Not by a long shot. Despite any insinuation by you, I am not dumb. I am not even unintelligent.

In Objectivism, I can talk the talk and walk the walk with the best of them. About 35 years of studying it from the horse's mouth and other famous Objectivist writers will do that - reading each book at least three times (some ten or more) from cover to cover.

And there is a corollary vial of snake-oil, you are not smarter than MOST ALL of the posters on SOLO. Once we get out of the realm of computer programming (which thankfully from your site you appear to do well) and parroting Objectivist jargon, I really wonder how you would stand up smarts-wise.

You can disagree with me, but there it is. And believe me, there are areas of human knowledge that you do not want to challenge me on.

As to rhetorical method, one thing I do not do is wallow in Objectivist jargon word games. As you are someone who does this constantly, I can see how I might come off as dumb to you.

On my end, I call these word games with others you like to do (particularly those accusations bantered back and forth of "evading" and "dishonesty" and a few other catch phrases) a circle jerk - just a bunch of frustrated uptight lonely guys seeing who can squirt the farthest.

Back to jargon. I use "normal" language on purpose - my particular focus with Objectivism is in applying it to living, especially everyday living and within the context of the society I live in. I choose to use the words that I find in the culture at hand.

Anyone who has read ITOE knows that different words can have the same definition. Anyone who has learned another language does too. My purpose right now in being simple is to (a) show that Objectivist ideas can be used in everyday affairs (here), and (b) communicate intelligently with those whom I am trying to interest in Objectivism (away from here).

I won't even get into the emotional content of words right now, but that is another reason for why I do this. Some things, like being nice, are just easier to do with everyday words.

(Sorry to digress. This explanation is not really for you, but for the others who are reading this post instead. I don't think you are able to allow yourself to appreciate what I am talking about right now. There's not much jargon for you to hide behind.)

The one thing that most takes me my breath away in your criticism of Joe's article is that you simply do not see that liking people is a sense-of-life issue, an emotional value judgment, if you will, to establish a context for making other judgments on the people you encounter. And you are a lot smarter than that.

Your own sense-of-life, the one that comes through in your posts, is a very negative one. I can't see anyone wanting to be like you (well, maybe there are some who like to sneer most of the time - they might identify). It is especially notable in that mouth of yours.

You are particularly obnoxious to almost anyone at the drop of a hat. I don't know where you learned you manners from. You sure don't hold good manners as a value.

I will give you that sometimes harsh words are appropriate in a discussion. But not what you do. Being obnoxious in public is not an affirmation or refutation of anything at all. It is just obnoxious.

But you know what I hear between the lines in your posts? I hear a desperate cry for attention - maybe even a cry for help. That's what I hear.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/13, 3:47pm)

Post 56

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 3:42pm

Thanks for the defense everyone. You've made excellent points. It's difficult to argue with the moving target Shayne has provided.

Shayne, let's just look at this debate again. You first comment was "I disagree with Joe's article. People are individuals, and they need to be judged individually, without a priori conclusions such as 'people are good' or 'people are evil' being applied to them.". That was your collectivist argument, which was thoroughly refuted.

You then said "Joe: You misconstrue my point and blow my comment about collectivism way out of proportion". Instead of gracefully conceding that your collectivist point was mistaken, you try to throw it back at me as if I am to blame for your mistake. I'm not. You were wrong. Normally I'd be happy to let a person save face by dropping the issue quietly. But instead of dropping it quietly, you had to go on the attack as a distraction. So forget the face saving. You were wrong. You weren't just a little wrong, you were entirely wrong. You were trigger happy with the collectivist argument without really understanding what collectivism is. And then you added rudeness to ignorance. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed how quickly you go on the attack whenever things start looking bad for you. It's a nasty habit.

Then you said "The real thrust of my critique, the reason I didn't like your article, was because I think you missed the central issue here". You got angry that I didn't address a point you think is important, which seems to be that you have to adjust your judgments based on new evidence. And you declare that you hated my article because of it. Let me first say that I think that point is so thoroughly obvious that it didn't deserve any attention. That you would hate my article for not going over the most obvious ideas is interesting. I notice you haven't once said "A is A" in your posts. Obviously your posts should now be considered worthless since you didn't mention this important point!??!? Give me a break!

But worse, this whole idea that I didn't write the article you wanted is just incredibly stupid. That's not a valid criticism. You haven't written anything I've wanted you to write. Who cares? All that comment means is that you're determined to not like my article regardless of its own merits. It's a smokescreen. You're just being an asshole.

After George handled that particular argument, you went back to the first argument! Collectivism! You said "Reality trumps sense of life. If you wish to feel good at any price, the cost will be: your mind." And in the same post "there were the blissfully ignorant types running around 'liking people' when, say, Galileo was imprisoned for being a genius. And I certainly wouldn't blame him for feeling contempt for these self-deluded 'everything is great' people." In both cases, you present liking people as a mindless delusion that ignores reality.

So again, you've gone back to the straw man of judging people on a priori wishes and characterize my article and the comments that follow as ignoring facts of reality in favor of collectivist beliefs. Evidently I didn't "blow your comment about collectivism way out of proportion". You're still making the same mistake.

And then you go on to make the claim that "culture" and "the people in general" are the same. And so effectively you've set it up to say that anyone who likes people in general must like the culture as well. Bravo! Except that you're entirely wrong again. Culture is not the same as "the people in general". Culture includes the institutions, the traditions, etc. It's the context in which people live. Let me provide a very simple example. In India (and lots of other places), there's a general corruption among the government officials. You have to bribe them to get them to do anything. What does this say about the people in general? Does it say they support that system? Does it say that they think it's fair? No. From what I've heard most people hate it. But they don't think it can change...they don't know how they can change it. The point is that good people are living in a particular culture (or context, if you will). It doesn't say anything about those people.

So you're deeper reason for hating my article is that you believe that since the culture stinks, the people must stink too. Well, you're wrong. Again. As you've been wrong throughout this whole thread. But this criticism is of interest. Instead of the typical collectivist argument you've used, your new argument essentially claims that my article is wrong because people are in fact evil (i.e., evil culture). In short, you're taking the position I argued against in my article. Interesting that you didn't consider my point worth writing about as you argued that I should have written a different article. And now we see that it is relevant. You're last few posts have argued against the main thesis of my article. You're arguing for a general hatred of people.

I'm not sure which is more sad. That the one person who really needed this article missed the point, or that his resorting to verbal attacks will always cause so much hostility that he'll always find the ample evidence he needs to rationalize his hatred.

Post 57

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 3:55pm

Joe said: Culture is not the same as "the people in general". Culture includes the institutions, the traditions, etc. It's the context in which people live.

In the heat of the argument I bought into this one (people=culture) without enough critical examination.

I stand corrected.

Thanks, Joe

George

Post 58

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 4:05pm

Jason Dixon: Post 46: "It's helped me to see that you're not a SOLOist"

The more statements I see like this, the less pride I will have when thinking about my association with SOLO.

Hmmph. I don't care if I am a SOLOist either. I just want to live a long, happy, meaningful life, one full of truth and lacking contradictions. Linz, Joe, Jeff, everyone, thanks for helping me have such a life.

Post 59

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 4:30pm