A modest proposal

Don't you guys watch CNN? Hell froze over last Thursday.

Regi will shortly commence work on his next e-book: Why Ayn Rand & I Were Wrong About Homosexuality.

:-)

Linz

Post 21

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 5:55pm

Oh, Linz, you are much too modest.

You didn't even mention what is destined to be most important chapter in our book, your own dialectic contribution to our synergistic effort, explaining why Objectivist gays must support the new paradigm of peaceful dialogue with terrorists.

You deserve the credit.

Regi

Post 22

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 7:25pm

I agree with Chris--let our boat be rocked and rolled to hell (where it is now distinctly pleasanter)--we can stand it. It's just that sometimes the tone adopted by opponents is antiintellectual and insulting.

Post 23

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 1:27am

I'm glad that most agree that SOLO should not censor out 'Non-Objectivist' posts. Jeff's comments seemed pretty strange to me. If SOLO is going to be a place open to the public, censorship makes no sense at all (If an all Objectivist-place is what you're after then simply use private lists surely)?

Censoring out 'Non-Objectivist' posts would do your cause no good what so ever. If you're so confident that Objectivist ideas are correct, then why would you be afraid of reasoned debate? The censorship route will only make the public think that you are a cult or worse.

Let me just quickly test the limits here to see whether or not I am censored...after all... Linz etc did say it was O.K to 'rock the boat'.... so here's my honest, totally blunt opinion about Objectivism...

Personally I think a lot of it is a load of crap. I don't consider myself an Objectivist. It just so happens I agree with one main area.... the Objectivist politics. I'm a Libertarian. It just so happens that Rand was absolutely right about one area...politics, and I enjoy reading the political postings here. But I don't for one moment believe that Objectivism is the correct justification for Libertarianism, although I do find some of Rand's ideas to be quite brilliant. I would be only too happy to explain in detail what is wrong with Objectivism, starting with her flawed metaphysics, moving through her flawed epistemology, passing through her flawed ethics and only congratulating her on her (fully correct) politics. ;)

There's too much emphasis on Ayn Rand, both here and in the Free Rad. If you devoted yourselves to Libertarianism instead of Objectivism I think you'd have a much wider audience. Just my thoughts.

(Edited by Marc Geddes on 5/09, 1:30am)

(Edited by Marc Geddes on 5/09, 1:32am)

Post 24

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 1:40am

Rodney said:

>It's just that sometimes the tone adopted by opponents is antiintellectual and insulting.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Marc's wisdom for the day: 'If one person with a stick beats someone else with it, they are likely to be hit back in kind. So I propose that the people with sticks agree to refrain from hitting each other, and instead engage in civil discourse'

Post 25

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 6:33am

Marc is right, in that Objectivists ought to hold off on polemics until they've fully understood the opponent and engaged him. I admit it is difficult when he starts right off being nonintellectual, but one should try.

The Socratic method is often very effective: you ask sequenced/nested questions, much like a psychologist.

Post 26

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 8:48am

I would be only too happy to explain in detail what is wrong with Objectivism, starting with her flawed metaphysics, moving through her flawed epistemology, passing through her flawed ethics and only congratulating her on her (fully correct) politics. ;)

Please proceed, Marc.

Post 27

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 11:22am

" If you devoted yourselves to Libertarianism instead of�Objectivism I think you'd have a much wider audience.� Just my thoughts."

didn't citizen rat try to make this exact same argument with regards to atheism?

I'm not here to win converts, and I suspect that Linz, Joseph, et al aren't either. I don't care about what ideas are "marketable" and which ones are not. I care about which ideas are correct. To hell with a "wider audience"! objectivism is a tool with which one is to live one's own life-- not a political cause to rally followers too: such a strategy reeks of marxism. the idea of deliberately bowdlerizing one's views to make them more marketable is an obscenity matched only by the proposal that this is "good advice".

I tend to agree with you that there are flaws in objectivism. there are things within the rand corpus which are completely off the mark. the difference is, unlike you, I accept her essentials: my objections are generally of a technical nature.
her epistemology is correct, although I do have some problems with her theory of concepts.
her ethics is more or less perfect, if at times ambiguous.
the only "large scale" objection I have to anything in the rand corpus is that I find "the romantic manifesto" to be poorly argued. note that I did not necessarily say it's wrong-- simply that it lacks the persuasive value of her other nonfiction texts.

Post 28

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 10:50pm

Interesting. I wasn't censored, but I've already been 'un-sanctioned' - lost my Atlas. The whole Atlas points thing reminds me of the Communist party and techniques by far-left professors to enforce 'political correctness' actually. Atlas points, moderation - what a load of utter tosh!

Robert, you are of course absolutely correct when you say that the important point is not which ideas are marketable, but which ideas are correct. I couldn't agree with you more. Only problem is, I fear that large chunks of Objectivism are not in fact correct ;) The politics is rock solid - I'm confident that Minarchist Libertarianism is water-tight. But all the other areas are still very much open to debate.

Interesting to hear which areas you think are strong and which are weaker. Actually, I thought 'The romantic manifesto" and the theory of concepts are the strong points! I have major problems with certain parts of the epistemology, and also major concerns about the ethical theory. I also have major problems with Rand's ideas about human nature.

Michael said

>Please proceed, Marc.

I might give a detailed explanation of everything that I think is wrong with Objectivism in one of the other forums (perhaps the General Forums or the Objectivist Q&A). I'll try to keep it all in one place - roughly 'fenced off' from most of SOLO so as not to start flame wars (this is an Objectivist web-site after all). I'm curious to see whether or not Objectivists can rebut my objections. I seriously doubt any of them will be able to, though it's worth a try.

Post 29

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 11:34pm

Marc:

I think I may create a thread specifically devoted to critiques of portions of objectivism. think of it as your space to run wild. however, I will request in advance that this thread demand very close, very detailed reading, with lots of citation: I'm going to want any and all critiques on this thread to be willing to look at all technicalities and nuances, to essentially go line by line, so we can, instead of making vague generalizations about dismissing various branches of objectivism, that we may instead see the full logical structure of each argument and evaluate which components work and which don't. if you're up for this sort of very heavy analysis, well, i'd be interested in your bringing what you have there. I do not have the energy to put much of interest there right now, so I will only create it now if people (read: you) are lined up with thoughtful and textually grounded critiques. anyone else reading this please let me know if you would be interested in participating in a thread that would focus on highly rigorous, heavily text focused analysis of objectivism's component arguments and concepts.

Post 30

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 5:45am

Robert:

I'll participate in such a thread. As a means of insuring that the exchanges are productive, I suggest we begin by asking each poster to agree that reason is an absolute.

Post 31

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 7:29am

"I suggest we begin�by asking each poster to agree that reason is an absolute. "

very good idea. in fact, i'm thinking that "reason is an absolute" should be the name of the thread

Post 32

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 7:42am

It might also be a good idea to read about Marc's views in past discussions. For example, if I recall correctly, he views the Bayes Theorem, a probability calculation, as representative of the base of all human knowledge, and argues that even the laws of logic are not fully certain. Would you still be willing to debate on that basis?

Post 33

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 8:17am

Rodney:

I would not debate -- at least not for long -- with someone who claims to know for certain that nothing can be known for certain. Of course, rarely is the principle admitted so explicitly. There are usually layers and layers of stuff there to disguise it. But once that is penetrated, there is no point in going on if the person won't change their mind.

Which is probably the exact point you are making.

Post 34

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 10:15am

Some ideologies, like mysticism and nihilism, are designed to derail any rational debate, or are self-negating. The best way to handle such folks is to point out to them that the only way they can argue their position is to derail the discussion and then kindly let them know that you won't participate.

Flaming such folks might be gratifying, but what's the point of flaming a brick wall? At some point they may awaken from their stupor, so at least leave them with a good impression of the Objectivist movement.

Post 35

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 1:25pm

Michael Smith wrote:
>>I would not debate -- at least not for long -- with someone who claims to know for certain that nothing can be known for certain. Of course, rarely is the principle admitted so explicitly. There are usually layers and layers of stuff there to disguise it. But once that is penetrated, there is no point in going on if the person won't change their mind.<<

If a person claims that "we can't know anything for certain" then, by applying the same reasoning to that statement, how do we know that's for certain? Such arguments undercut their own position by implicitly stating their own arguments are uncertain or unknowable. It's self-refuting.

The arguer implies that the truth of his own argument can't be known for certain. Bringing that to his or her's attention might get them to realize the inferiority of that position.

Post 36

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 2:38pm

Eddie:

Yes, obviously they are embracing a contradiction. Unfortunately, pointing that out is rarely enough to get them to re-examine their premise. Typically, people just re-state their position, oblivious to the contradiction.
You see it in this forum almost every day.

Post 37

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 8:20pm

ok marc, thread's up. lets see what youve got

Post 38

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 3:11am

Robert, I wouldn't hold my breath. Marc, if you recall, is our resident propagator of the nonsense that Androids are about to take over the planet. The idea that such a nincompoop would have insights that have eluded the rest of us as to what might be wrong with Objectivism is risible. The man must be as unhinged as his Androids would have to be hinged.

That said, it was not I who took away his Atlas icon. I don't "unsanction" anyone just because I disagree with him. I don't even approve of this "unsanctioning" business. If I think someone's post is bollocks, I'll say so, directly & in full view of the world. I believe recent history would bear this out.

Linz

Post 39

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 8:26pm