Ayn Rand and cults generally, In which I have a bet with Jimbo Options

[Peter Damian]

See Jimbo's talk page, and the [[Ayn Rand]] article which I have rewritten. The bet is how long it will stay in its rewritten state. I love the remark that 'Aristotle was sorely over-rated'.

'Aristotle was sorely overrated'. Ha! Wikipediot. Obscure greek Homer 42k, famous american Homer 65k. I would have bought this argument when Wikipedia first began. But as I pointed out above, the project is now mature, and we still find it difficult to attract editors who can write accessible material on more encylopedic subjects. The reason is abundantly clear: the place is infested with cranks, advocates of strange fringe theories, mystics, lunatics of all kinds. No sane intelligent person would go near the place with a bargepole. In any case, I have now re-written the introduction to Ayn Rand that makes it less obviously written by Rand fanatics. Let's see what happens from there on. If the introduction stands relatively unchanged, I lose my bet. If it is torn to shreds and returned to the unreadable ungrammatical state as before, I win, bigtime. Peter Damian (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...es_in_Wikipedia

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[maggot3]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing.

Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic.

This post has been edited by maggot3:

[Peter Damian]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing.

Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic.

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).

I'm not at all interested in the underlying content issue here. You're simply not acknowledging my point: it is wrong for you to insult a tenured academic who is expert in the area in question and at the same time whine about academic respectability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I have never noticed you had any interest in underlying content issues. Peter Damian (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hicks, by the way, also received a grant

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1917-S_hicks.aspx

from the Objectivist Centre.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Lar]

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).

More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).

More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough.

Lar, I was puzzled by your comments about LaRouche on the BLP board, but now it begins to make sense, because I can see that you are in fact sympathetic to Ayn Rand. Rand and LaRouche are pretty much diametrical opposites, and I think that this is the underlying basis for the rather extraordinary treatment of LaRouche at Wikipedia.

[Alison]

Lar, I was puzzled by your comments about LaRouche on the BLP board, but now it begins to make sense, because I can see that you are in fact sympathetic to Ayn Rand. Rand and LaRouche are pretty much diametrical opposites, and I think that this is the underlying basis for the rather extraordinary treatment of LaRouche at Wikipedia.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Lar went head-to-head with Fr. Rob Dye from Tulsa OK? Wow - there's a name from the past. I knew that guy too (in a trollish kinda way (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) ) from use(less)net, back in the 1990s. Small world ...

I reject altruism and I reject sacrifice, as I have defined it

Dude? That's kinda wacked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Lar went head-to-head with Fr. Rob Dye from Tulsa OK? Wow - there's a name from the past. I knew that guy too (in a trollish kinda way (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) ) from use(less)net, back in the 1990s. Small world ...

I reject altruism and I reject sacrifice, as I have defined it

Dude? That's kinda wacked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

But remember that Objectivists have caused endless confusion by redefining altrusim and self-sacrifice (as we historically have used the words) to suit their own purposes, so that they can reject them (in their new definitions) as strawmen and emblems of Kantian evil. The ordinary kinds of antruism and self-sacrifice that we know-- parents sacrifice for children, a soldier's sacrifice to defend his country, is perfectly fine with Randroids. And they'd be fine with self-sacrifice on Gods' orders too, since that would be in your best interest to follow orders of the Big Guy, except they don't believe in him. So self-sacrifice THERE isn't really the primary philosophical problem.

The deal is that Randians believe that a lot of people go around sacrificing themselves for reasons that don't make them feel good as empathetic acts, or supporting of their own beliefs. Kant said that if doing something makes you feel good or satisfied in any way, it can't be moral, even if (especially if) it involves self-sacrifice. Personally, I doubt this kind of Kantian type of morally thing thing is practiced very much in the real world, but Randroids think everybody reads Kant and knows him by heart, and that though Kant's many appologists, there are a lot of suffering unhappy altruists out there, and that this happens a lot, and they're convinced it's completely screwing up the world, taking away people's happiness. And Randroids aim to stamp this non-fun Kantian morality right out.

That counts as a "mad belief." But there it is. You can't convince them it's not true. They believe it on the world of Rand, and that's that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Duh.

Milt

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Kant said that if doing something makes you feel good or satisfied in any way, it can't be moral, even if (especially if) it involves self-sacrifice. Personally, I doubt this kind of Kantian type of morally thing thing is practiced very much in the real world, but Randroids think everybody reads Kant and knows him by heart, and that though Kant's many appologists, there are a lot of suffering unhappy altruists out there, and that this happens a lot, and they're convinced it's completely screwing up the world, taking away people's happiness. And Randroids aim to stamp this non-fun Kantian morality right out.

The Randroids' solution to the problem of Kantstipation boils down to "fuck you, I'm gonna be immoral." A more thoughtful response was provided by Friedrich Schiller, who posited the existence of the Schöne Seele ("beautiful soul",) the individual in which Pflicht (duty) and Neigung (inclination) were united, rather than at war with one another. He called this "educating the emotions," or in the vernacular, "growing up." Great classical art plays an important role in educating the emotions, as we often find in real-life examples of historical individuals who were not conflicted about doing the good.

The Randian tirades against altruism are just adolescent rage. Schiller writes, for example in this essay, that self-sacrifice can be the embodiment of real human freedom. Animals, like Randroids, are incapable of acting against the drive for self-preservation, and are therefore essentially slaves to it.

[Peter Damian]

Kant said that if doing something makes you feel good or satisfied in any way, it can't be moral, even if (especially if) it involves self-sacrifice. Personally, I doubt this kind of Kantian type of morally thing thing is practiced very much in the real world, but Randroids think everybody reads Kant and knows him by heart, and that though Kant's many appologists, there are a lot of suffering unhappy altruists out there, and that this happens a lot, and they're convinced it's completely screwing up the world, taking away people's happiness. And Randroids aim to stamp this non-fun Kantian morality right out.

The Randroids' solution to the problem of Kantstipation boils down to "fuck you, I'm gonna be immoral." A more thoughtful response was provided by Friedrich Schiller, who posited the existence of the Schöne Seele ("beautiful soul",) the individual in which Pflicht (duty) and Neigung (inclination) were united, rather than at war with one another. He called this "educating the emotions," or in the vernacular, "growing up." Great classical art plays an important role in educating the emotions, as we often find in real-life examples of historical individuals who were not conflicted about doing the good.

The Randian tirades against altruism are just adolescent rage. Schiller writes, for example in this essay, that self-sacrifice can be the embodiment of real human freedom. Animals, like Randroids, are incapable of acting against the drive for self-preservation, and are therefore essentially slaves to it.

What I don't understand is why self-interest is supposed to be rational. Why do we single out ourselves? It is clearly irrational to prefer the interests of people called 'Tim' unless there is a reason given for the preference. What makes ourselves different? Of all the people in the world, what makes me special, and what singles me out for special treatment?

You could argue that this is what people naturally do (I admit I tend to). But the point is, what makes this rational? Difficult.

It does seem as though many of the things you say can't be seriously intended, but I'm not sure my impressions will agree with your intentions. You've pointed out that Wikipedia is beset by lunatics, POV warriors, cult followers, the gullible, con men, the querulous and the hopelessly unequipped. We've also got the entire upside, so I'd say we're a pretty accurate representation of humanity in that respect. Most institutions with lofty goals have effective methods of weeding people out - unfortunately, as you've noted, we have a difficult time managing that important task. On the other hand, our inefficiency permits us to retain those well-educated few who simply are unable to consistently manage working with others online. Avruch T 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have missed 'the entire upside'. Where did you spot those? Peter Damian (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: