A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[remirol]

when they break the rules of philosophpical discussions.

Sure, I'll bite. What rules are these, where can I find them, and how would I have known what those rules were before thirty seconds ago?

 

[Akri]

I'll be honest--I'm not talking to Kevin in this thread. It'd be pointless. My reasons are exactly what I posted above.

My point was that he isn't talking to us either. So it's not that we're refusing to talk to him; it's that both sides have agreed that there's no discussion to be had.

Sure, I'll bite. What rules are these, where can I find them, and how would I have known what those rules were before thirty seconds ago?

A good first rule for you would be "don't present obviously false statements as though they were true". For more I'd recommend looking up a list of logical fallacies.

 

[remirol]

A good first rule for you would be "don't present obviously false statements as though they were true". For more I'd recommend looking up a list of logical fallacies.

Ah, I see, no honest answers to be found here as Dinwar has also evaded this question. How unsurprising; he evaded questions previously until specifically called out, and now he's complaining that my questions, despite being pertinent and to the point (and not incidentally skewering his sacred cow), broke some "rules".

Humorous, especially since Objectivism only works if everyone plays by the rules -- I shouldn't be surprised that Objectivists get horrified when someone cuts through the BS and asks them something direct.

 

[Dinwar]

Unfortunately you don't seem to want honest discussion, but HONEST discussion, wherein we are all very uncritical and ask no hard questions.

I'm not going to defend myself again. However, if you'd like to list a few questions you think I haven't answered, I'd be happy to try. Bear in mind that my intent is not to convince anyone that O'ism is correct, but rather to ensure it is not misrepresented; how it will be implimented (if ever) is not a topic I see any point in addressing at this point. We can discuss that after we're all on the same page.

It isn't our fault that Objectivism walks blindly into moral quandaries a child could come up with.*

It IS your fault for not knowing enough about the philosophy to know that they've already been addressed, however. What most people are doing is akin to asking a Marxist "What does this "prol" word mean? Anyway, you're a moron and your philosopher can't write worth a darn."

Yet none of these have been answered satisfactorily.

There's the rub: satisfactorily TO WHO? The fact that a Communist doesn't find my answers to be satisfactory is irrelevant--we know that going in. But okay, I'll give a good-faith effort.

"How does Objectivism handle the Tragedy of the Commons?"

They consider property rights inviolate. Thus far, not a single example has been given of a situation where some legitimate harm was done that doesn't include violation of property rights. The reason the O'ist stance is considered unsatisfactory is that we differ on what is considered legitimate. Some consider the loss of property values to be a legitimate harm, while O'ists take the view that investments are inherently risky.

The Tragedy of the Commons exists only when there IS a commons. In other words, when there's property no one has a legitimate claim to (not necessarily ownership of, but a claim to). The tragedy is that everyone tries to get what they can out of it before everyone else, and the system inevitably colapses. If property rights are held as inviolate there's no risk that others will get theirs before you get yours, so there's no tragedy. In cases where property rights can't be applied, such as air, the principle of assumed risk and justice come into play. If you move next to a power plant, you assume the risk of the outflow (after all, it was there first). If they do what they can, in the limits of their knowledge, to eliminate (not reduce, but make not exist) anything that you don't agree to allow on your property, then we find out later that something got out, they're guilty of not knowing something, not a criminal act. They should pay to clean it up, but not punative damages. But that's just an example--the exact implications is legal theory, an area I've never claimed expertise in.

"How does Objectivism enforce adherence to its philosophy?"

Who said it did? We haven't answered this question because it's nonsensical. O'ism is not some top-down organization with bylaws and a secret handshake; it's a set of principles. If you agree with them, you are an Objectivist. If not, you're not. I don't have a secret decoder ring, and I'm the only one that holds me to these principles. That said, we do tend to check up on one another--we're an opinionated bunch. We argue a lot.

The main mechanism is to walk away from the people who egregiously violate the philosophy's principles, and to speak out about those violations. I submit as evidence Diana Hsieh's essays on Nethanial Brandon and the former chair of the Fed.

"How does Objectivism handle moral issues which appear to be permitted by the system?"

Depends on the person. There are issues that are forbidden, and thus made illegal. Theft, for example, or the initiation of force. Then there are issues which are frowned upon, but which cannot be made illegal for various reasons. With those issues, it is OUR responsibility as private citizens to enfource the norms. This is typically done via economics. Most Objectivists have boycotted Chik-Fil-A for a long time, for example. Sure, it's not much, but we can refuse to allow our work to support their evil. And O'ism does not mean that you'll always win; rights are inviolate, which means that as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights you're just going to have to put up with some idiots.

They're simple questions

If you think addressing the Tragedy of the Commons is simple, I'm sorry, but you don't understand what you're talking about. NO ONE thinks that the answer should be simple. We've been debating this topic for DECADES. Go to any university-level environmental studies class and say that the Tragedy of the Commons is a simple question. You'll get laughed at--and most of them will be Socialists or full-on Communists. It is completely irrational to demand that any philosophy that does not specifically state it has a simple answer for such a complex problem to provide one--after all, no one expects any other philosophy to do so!

This is an exmaple of people holding O'ism to different standards than other philosophies. Whole books and lectures and political paradigms have been constructed to answer some of these questions, but I'm supposed to answer them in a brief post because I'm an Objectivist. I'm sorry, but that's simply not going to happen. Complex problems have complex solutions.

You claim to want to discuss the philosophy, then refuse to discuss it.

Try criticizing Marxism with the level of knowledge most people here have about O'ism sometime. It's hardly irrational to say "Learn more than the name, then get back to me".

Sure, I'll bite. What rules are these, where can I find them, and how would I have known what those rules were before thirty seconds ago?

I'd suggest picking up a copy of "Asking the Right Questions". Any work on epistemology and rhetoric will do, but I'm most familiar with that one and can personally recommend it (the authors, by the way, are hardly Objectivists). Or you can go oldschool and pick up the Greek works on the subject, though I wouldn't recommend it (translation errors make them more complicated).

 

[Dinwar]

Ah, I see, no honest answers to be found here as Dinwar has also evaded this question.

Not at all. The second rule would be understand your medium. I may not have been as fast as you wanted, but that's because I put some thought into my response. I specifically addressed this issue, posting a reference from people who disagree with my conclusions. By any rational standard I've adequately addresed it.

Get over yourself.

 

[remirol]

I'd suggest picking up a copy of "Asking the Right Questions". Any work on epistemology and rhetoric will do, but I'm most familiar with that one and can personally recommend it (the authors, by the way, are hardly Objectivists). Or you can go oldschool and pick up the Greek works on the subject, though I wouldn't recommend it (translation errors make them more complicated).

You neglected to respond to the important part of the question: How would I have known what those rules were before thirty seconds ago?

And aside from that: seriously, is philosophy such a self-important set of disciplines that only people who march in lockstep can be allowed to play, otherwise the philosophers throw their toys out of the pram and lash out at people asking what seem to them to be perfectly logical questions?

Really, now.

 

[Akri]

Ah, I see, no honest answers to be found here as Dinwar has also evaded this question.

I gave you a specific answer that was neither dishonest nor an evasion. If you didn't like my answer then that's your issue.

 

[Dinwar]

You neglected to respond to the important part of the question: How would I have known what those rules were before thirty seconds ago?

I didn't neglect it--the question is answered by the copyright information for the book. I gave you the reference; I assumed you were educated enough to be able to look up that information on your own. I also referenced Greek philosophy. If you think Greek philosophy started thirty seconds ago, you're beyond my help.

Would it help if I'd mentioned that the people who wrote the book are now retired professors? I'm starting my career, so that's proof that they are at least a few years old.

As for how you would learn them....Honestly, all I can say is that if you're walking into a philosophpical discussion and don't know the rules of such discussions, you have to expect to not be taken seriously. The fact that you don't know them is not my problem. You want to talk about philosophy, you have to put the effort in. If you are admitting to not having done so, congratulations--you've just made yourself irrelevant.

And aside from that: seriously, is philosophy such a self-important set of disciplines that only people who march in lockstep can be allowed to play, otherwise the philosophers throw their toys out of the pram and lash out at people asking what seem to them to be perfectly logical questions?

Not at all. However, a flagrant disregard for the rules, such as you've displayed, certainly is going to annoy people. These aren't arbitrary rules, like those for chess or badmitten--these are rules derived from the nature of logic, epistemology, and human cognition. If violations of these rules seems logical to you YOU ARE IN ERROR. Period. There's no other explanation for it. We can debate whether or not you ARE in error, but in 3,000 years or more it's never been demonstrated that these rules can be broken without the violator behaving irrationally.

You want to debate the rules, let's start a new thread. It's an interesting discussion, and may help you figure out why you've come across as such a collossal jerk in this thread. (And don't bother saying I have as well--I haven't intended to come off as polite, and have no need to considering hte fact that this thread started as nothing more than people insulting me without any actual data or arguments. I at least acknowledge that I'm being rude, and the reasons for it.)

 

[remirol]

I gave you a specific answer that was neither dishonest nor an evasion.

It was an evasion: it did not answer the question that was asked, which was regarding the "rules of philosophy".
It was dishonest: it indicated that you were not interested in discussing the subject matter honestly, because I ask hard questions.

And your current post is dishonest, because you have lied about the above two things. The irony here is staggering; the person who spent a large chunk of time accusing me of being dishonest has themselves been hoist with their own petard.

Now that we've had that little spat and I trust you've learned your lesson, would you care to step back on topic at all, or do you want to sling some more personal insults around and see if you can garner more positive opinions of Objectivism and -ists in particular?

 

[Dinwar]

remirol, pleae explain why you feel you don't need to abide by the standards of philosophy that every philosopher has held to since ancient Greece. If your next post is not "I believe I don't need to abide by those principles because...." I'm done with you. You ARE NOT better than us. The fact that you don't understand the principles of rhetoric and philosophical discussion makes you objectively WORSE THAN US, as far as this discussion goes, unless you can give a good reason why we should think otherwise. (No personal attack here--it's no insult to say someone who doesn't know the rules is a worse chess player than someone who does. It's merely a fact.)

 

[remirol]

As for how you would learn them....Honestly, all I can say is that if you're walking into a philosophpical discussion and don't know the rules of such discussions, you have to expect to not be taken seriously. The fact that you don't know them is not my problem. You want to talk about philosophy, you have to put the effort in. If you are admitting to not having done so, congratulations--you've just made yourself irrelevant.

Well, I couldn't have asked for a better display of how Objectivists are all about "I got mine, so screw you". Thanks, I get the picture -- nobody who hasn't devoted their life to philosophy is welcome in such discussions. I'll continue to respond and ask 'hard' questions that break the rules as I choose, of course, and you can continue to ignore me and complain because I broke your precious rules, while trying desperately to avoid what the fact that you have to hide behind such rules says about Objectivism in the first place.

As far as why I haven't had time to learn those precious rules of philosophical discussions, well, I've been busy with software and digital X-rays for about ten years now, sorry. You know, those things that make people's lives _actually better_ by reducing the amount of radiation they were exposed to as compared to film? By about a factor of ten?

And I can guarantee that what I did was a better use of my time than philosophy ever would have been. So if you'd like to come down from that ivory tower sometime and talk with us "little people", we can probably try this again from the beginning. But insisting that only people who are willing to conform to a rigid set of external standards join in a discussion on a freakin' _webforum_, of all places? I think a quote here serves best:

"Get over yourself." -- Dinwar

remirol, pleae explain why you feel you don't need to abide by the standards of philosophy that every philosopher has held to since ancient Greece. If your next post is not "I believe I don't need to abide by those principles because...." I'm done with you. You ARE NOT better than us. The fact that you don't understand the principles of rhetoric and philosophical discussion makes you objectively WORSE THAN US, as far as this discussion goes, unless you can give a good reason why we should think otherwise. (No personal attack here--it's no insult to say someone who doesn't know the rules is a worse chess player than someone who does. It's merely a fact.)

Please refer to prior quote. Seriously, dude. Listen to what you're saying. You're telling me that I'm not good enough to have an opinion here.



Let me know how that works out for you in reality.

 

[Akri]

It was an evasion: it did not answer the question that was asked, which was regarding the "rules of philosophy".

No, the question was regarding the rules of philosophical discussion. Which are basically the same as the rules for any other debate.

It was dishonest: it indicated that you were not interested in discussing the subject matter honestly, because I ask hard questions.

You're going to need to show something better than me giving an answer you dislike if you want to claim evasion and dishonest on my part.

And your current post is dishonest, because you have lied about the above two things.

Demonstrate where I have lied (not just claim that I've lied, but demonstrate it).

Now that we've had that little spat and I trust you've learned your lesson, would you care to step back on topic at all, or do you want to sling some more personal insults around and see if you can garner more positive opinions of Objectivism and -ists in particular?

I didn't step off the topic, you did. I made a lengthy post responding to several things you said, but because I did not want to give you a list of benefits to Objectivism, and then you declared that I was only willing to talk to Objectivists despite ample evidence to the contrary.

If you actually want to have a conversation feel free to say things that are relevant. Otherwise I'm going to limit myself to talking to the people who are worth talking to.

 

[Dinwar]

Your refusal to accept the basic standards of debate that are demanded in any other discussion speaks volumes about your views of this discussion. I'm done with you.

 

[remirol]

Demonstrate where I have lied (not just claim that I've lied, but demonstrate it).

Done, in this post.

Otherwise I'm going to limit myself to talking to the people who are worth talking to.

Yes, Dinwar has made it clear that us little people aren't allowed to have opinions. Lucky for me I'm a rebel and I'll have one anyway.

 

[Akri]

Thanks, I get the picture -- nobody who hasn't devoted their life to philosophy is welcome in such discussions.

See, statements like that are why we keep calling you out for being dishonest. You can't possibly know if other people in this thread have devoted their lives to philosophy. I certainly haven't done so.

 

[Dinwar]

By the way, Beelzebuddy: I honestly look forward to your criticisms of the answers I gave (I'll admit my statement about your view of the Tragedy of the Commons was harsh, but it's true that this is a tremendously complex issue). I'd like to know where you think O'ism fails in those issues.

I'm not done with the conversation, only with attempting to explain why it's necessary to treat O'ism the way every other discussion is treated. Anyone who can't understand that isn't going to give O'ism a fair hearing, and since that's what I'm arguing for it's a waste of my time to discuss it with them.

 

[remirol]

Now that we've allowed the ivory tower academics their little tantrum, perhaps one of them can answer a question related to this:

How _does_ Objectivism view title and payday loans, BTW?

You're obviously not paying attention to the conversation. It's simple: you can enter into contractual agreements. O'ism doesn't prevent you from being stupid. You make a bad call, you suffer for it. Of course, payday loans aren't always bad (they just usually are).

And you don't see this as a complete fail for Objectivism? I mean, seriously, the people who get screwed by car title loans and payday loans don't suddenly cease to exist just because they're now broke and carless. It's sure easy to sit back in our comfy chairs and type on the Internet about how "they should've been more careful", but it's not possible to be familiar with every scam out there.

Objectivism would create an environment where the best thing to be is a person who's smarter than everyone else, and could come up with ways to take advantage of everyone else quicker than they could come up with solutions. With 300,000,000 people in the USA alone, it would be trivial to keep finding people who hadn't heard about car title or payday loans. When that gets played out, come up with a new one... maybe Amway?

As Myriad put it: This is a recipe for a crapsack society.

So can someone explain to dumb l'il ol' me, keeping in mind that I just don't know the dang rules (having clearly just come from the hay farm), why it's a good idea to be an advocate for a system that allows the smart and/or rich people to take advantage of the dumb and/or poor people in such a manner?

P.T. Barnum was a very perceptive man, to be sure, but he also didn't pretend that it would be a good thing for society to have what he did be common to everyone. He knew he was taking advantage of people and didn't apologize in the slightest for it.

 

[Akri]

Done, in this post.

So it's a lie because you say it's a lie. Good to know. I think we're done here.

 

[Dinwar]

See, statements like that are why we keep calling you out for being dishonest. You can't possibly know if other people in this thread have devoted their lives to philosophy. I certainly haven't done so.

It's one freaking book that I recommended--and not a very big book at that! And these principles are easily learned in debates here. Don't commit logical fallacies. Conclusions should stem from reasons. Assumptions are always present, but should be logical. Honestly, I'm not sure how a person can become an adult without learning these things. I learned these things at my grandparents' supper tables.

It simply baffles me how someone can claim to not be required to follow the principles of logic and still demand to be taken seriously.

 

[Akri]

It simply baffles me how someone can claim to not be required to follow the principles of logic and still demand to be taken seriously.

Well, see, once you abandon the principles of logic you no longer need logical reasons for anything, now do you?