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.

[Milton Roe]

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.

Animals act against the drive for individual self-preservation all the time! Most especially when it comes to matters of reproduction and protection of young, or even the group (in social animals-- think of bees dying to sting for the hive, etc). Rand had no problem with any of this, even for humans, but felt that it had to derive from some internalized set of values (educating the emotions would not be a foreign idea to Objectivists) which furthered the individual's purposes and self-worth. Whereas, presumably, animals do it "instinctively" or without intellectual justification or comprehension. Rand hated the thought of self-sacrifice if it didn't feel good to do it, with the good feeling deriving from a logical reduction of proper action to proper emotion. Basically, Rand sought for a rational reason for individuals to do what animals often do without thinking (as in a mother standing between danger and her children). I think that in this she failed spectacularly, and (as usual) ended up only with "after the fact" justifications for doing whatever she wanted to do, or felt impelled to do. Which things were sometimes selfish and sometimes what the rest of us call "altrusitic," except as regards the last, she refused to recognize both the word and action for anything she did, and merely denied it and called it evil.

Alas, re-labeling something does not make it, in essense, into something else. Randroids again and again sought to remake their world by remaking their language, but never quite figured out that one does not control the other (except, perhaps, in the virtual reality of a computer, which may be why you find so many Randians stuck in online worlds, and down the drain of word-controlled VR).

But look, we need to simply back off and see where Rand came from. She was a Russian Jewish girl whose family store had been stolen by Communists. She was pissed off about this all her life, and had every right to be. She identified the problem as the "State" (particularly the heavily socialist state) seeking to demand the same kinds of self-sacrifice from individuals that ordinarily they are willing only to make to their closer kin-groups, for example their children. The maffia Rand would have understood; the Communists she never did. But instead of merely recognising that the Communists are just a bigger variety of the maffia-- a bunch of psychpathic bastards who demand that you sacrifice you and yours, for them and theirs, Rand went looking for some philosophical underpinnings to the likes of Lenin and Stalin. And for some reason (God knows why) she fastened on poor Kant. But it wasn't Immanual Kants' deathcamps and secret police. Paranoid psychos like Stalin or Saddam don't need Kant to put such things in place. Reality is so much simpler.