|
Ayn Rand and cults generally, In which I have a bet with Jimbo |
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
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'. QUOTE '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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(maggot3 @ Sat 10th January 2009, 9:13pm) 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). QUOTE 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.aspxfrom the Objectivist Centre. This post has been edited by Peter Damian:
|
|
|
|
Lar |
|
"His blandness goes to 11!"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 10th January 2009, 4:44pm)
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 |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Lar @ Sat 10th January 2009, 1:53pm) QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 10th January 2009, 4:44pm)
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 |
|
Skinny Cow!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 10th January 2009, 10:45pm) 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 ... QUOTE(Lar @ Back in the dim, distant past) I reject altruism and I reject sacrifice, as I have defined it
Dude? That's kinda wacked (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Alison @ Sun 11th January 2009, 2:33am) 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 ... QUOTE(Lar @ Back in the dim, distant past) 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 |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 11th January 2009, 2:22am) 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 |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 11th January 2009, 10:47am) 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.
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 11th January 2009, 11:47am) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 11th January 2009, 9:38am) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 10th January 2009, 11:38pm) I'm scratching my head trying to envision somebody the diametrical opposite of Ayn Rand. Timothy Leary?
Not so insightful. Rand and Leary were drifting in the same direction. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) I think a remarkable and IMHO ridiculous statement like this needs some expansion. Compare and contrast, and good luck. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) I'd like to avoid the extremes of verbosity that often occur in our disputations. Also, a caveat: I have not read Leary in depth (I have, however, read his partner, Richard Alpert/Ram Dass, in depth.) OK: Rand and Leary both reject the idea of a universal human identity, where the individual is primarily concerned with his relationship to history and a sense of responsibility to past and future generations. Alpert/Dass made this explicit with the slogan "Be here now." Leary said he was founding a "new paganism," which jibes rather well with LaVey's take on Rand. I hope that's sufficient. QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 11th January 2009, 12:13pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 11th January 2009, 10:47am) 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 you've made my argument for me, which is that animals have a sense of self-preservation that encompasses more than just the individual, and so does Rand, in a roughly analogous way. On the other hand, the idea of self-sacrifice for an idea, after the model of Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc. is foreign to both animals and Randroids. QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 11th January 2009, 1:31pm) Finally The idea that my thinking that the Larouche article needs balance is because I'm some secret disciple of Ayn Rand? That's misdirection.
You said the article needs balance? Why, who could disagree with that! But you also seemed to find it plausible that LaRouche would be classified as a "fascist." I have seen a tendency among libertarians and/or objectivists to use the term "fascist" in a very broad way to describe people who, for example, don't support the decriminalization of recreational drugs, prostitution, or other so-called "victimless crimes." Likewise, persons who advocate federal regulation of financial markets are called "fascists." I believe that this is an incorrect use of the term. The same applies when Moulton calls moderators who limit his posting "fascists." I think that government institutions have an obligation to find a happy medium between giving free license to individual impulses, and protecting the interests of what our constitution calls the "General Welfare" -- it may be fair to call this "Big Gummint," but not "fascism."
|
|
|
|
Lar |
|
"His blandness goes to 11!"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 11th January 2009, 11:29pm) QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 11th January 2009, 1:31pm) Finally The idea that my thinking that the Larouche article needs balance is because I'm some secret disciple of Ayn Rand? That's misdirection.
You said the article needs balance? Why, who could disagree with that! But you also seemed to find it plausible that LaRouche would be classified as a "fascist." I have seen a tendency among libertarians and/or objectivists to use the term "fascist" in a very broad way to describe people who, for example, don't support the decriminalization of recreational drugs, prostitution, or other so-called "victimless crimes." Likewise, persons who advocate federal regulation of financial markets are called "fascists." I believe that this is an incorrect use of the term. The same applies when Moulton calls moderators who limit his posting "fascists." I think that government institutions have an obligation to find a happy medium between giving free license to individual impulses, and protecting the interests of what our constitution calls the "General Welfare" -- it may be fair to call this "Big Gummint," but not "fascism." No. My own opinion of Larouche is completely irrelevant. Who libertarians call fascists is completely irrelevant as well. Onwiki, I make no statement whatever about whether Larouche plausibly is or isn't anything in my own personal view. What I find plausible is that Larouche is regarded as a fascist by enough notable critics to make it one of the things that belong in the lede. As the cites Will provided show. Nothing to do with my views at all. Will and I have our differences, and if he pushes to have Chip and Dennis be the main sources/cites/whatever, I'd push back. But he's right about putting this term in the lede. Which is all that big long discussion was about, what to put in the lede. Mostly I stay out of political article discussions, and the potential for this sort of mischaracterization of my motives is one of the reasons I intended to stay out completely. This particular matter is settled so maybe I can go back to not paying attention to political articles.
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
Peter Damian Ayn Rand and cults generally Peter Damian Wow, already "She has attracted an almost fan... GlassBeadGame
See Jimbo's talk page, and the [[Ayn Rand]] a... Peter Damian Er, thankyou Moulton.
The other argument that i... Milton Roe RE: Ayn Rand and cults generally Moulton A true educator does not add knowledge.
A true ed... Peter Damian I win the bet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph... Peter Damian
Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand... Lar
'Cruising for a block' is an obvious thre... Peter Damian
'Cruising for a block' is an obvious thr... EricBarbour
No, it's an observation of your behaviour. I ... Cla68
Yes, Larry, you don't threaten.
Or do you?
... tarantino
If you were there to actually write an encycloped... Lar
[quote name='Lar' post='150628' date='Sat 10th Ja... Peter Damian
All you care about is the crappy civility thing... Milton Roe
[quote name='Lar' post='150628' date='Sat 10th Ja... Kelly Martin Wikipedia is a giant changable vulgar online Baede... zvook
We get it. You're not there to write an ency... Milton Roe
Lar, I was puzzled by your comments about LaRouch... Proabivouac
Lar, I was puzzled by your comments about LaRouch... wikiwhistle
LOL.
:D Peter Damian
[quote name='Milton Roe' post='150667' date='Sun ... Lar
Paranoid psychos like Stalin or Saddam don't ... Milton Roe
Will and I have our differences, and if he pushes... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='Lar' post='150621' date='Sat 10th Ja... Kurt M. Weber
I still find it absolutely unbelievable that peop... cyofee
I still find it absolutely unbelievable that peo... Anonymous editor
[quote name='Kurt M. Weber' post='150829' date='M... sarcasticidealist For the record, the correct spelling is lead, not ... Lar
For the record, the correct spelling is lead, not... Milton Roe
[quote name='maggot3' post='150618' date='Sat 10t... UseOnceAndDestroy
Trolling again, are we, Kurt?
This feels famili... Moulton Los Obliviados y Los Olvidados
[quote name='maggo... dtobias
In one week, I'll be 64 years old.
Will any... Moulton [quote name='Moulton' post='150902' date='Tue 13th... Milton Roe
About twenty years ago, I discovered that I have ... Bottled_Spider *Percy Bysshe Shelley, 19th century poet who knew ... Milton Roe
*Percy Bysshe Shelley, 19th century poet who knew... tarantino Great post, Milton. WR has missed you.
I might ad... Milton Roe
Great post, Milton. WR has missed you.
Why, tha... EricBarbour
[quote name='tarantino' post='150643' date='Sat 1... wikiwhistle This randy-ism seems to be in essence LaVeyan Sata... Milton Roe
This Randism's not necessarily my particular ... Herschelkrustofsky
This randy-ism seems to be in essence LaVeyan Sat... Milton Roe
I'm scratching my head trying to envision so... Moulton Title: Mister Randman
Artist: Peter Damian
... wikiwhistle "Give him a heart so he's not a Nazi
And ... Peter Damian And here on my talk page this afternoon I find thi... dtobias Whatever may be good or bad about the respective p... Peter Damian And back to the point of this thread. Adherents o... Lar
And back to the point of this thread. Adherents ... Peter Damian
Extended personal attacks? What are you talking a... dtobias
Extended personal attacks? What are you talking ... Friday
[quote name='Peter Damian' post='150720' date='Su... Somey Lar's description sounded pretty accurate to m... Peter Damian
It may be that Mr. Damian is opposed to the entir... Sxeptomaniac
[quote name='Friday' post='150960' date='Tue 13th... Peter Damian There is some progress in that SlimV has taken it ... Bottled_Spider
The main question to be deliberated, which has be... Peter Damian Update.
I am planning a blog post for this one, h... sarcasticidealist These are the members of Wikipedia's senior ad... sarcasticidealist And now the mediation case has been rejected and a... Herschelkrustofsky It's interesting to watch the new, anti-establ... Peter Damian I discuss this in my philosophy blog here
http://... Peter Damian A minor stir in the blogosphere following my email... dtobias From one of the blog postings referenced in one of... Moulton For those who give a fuck about such idiotic philo... Peter Damian
For those who give a fuck about such idiotic phil... dtobias
Perl programmers do that too... variables in tha... Herschelkrustofsky
Perl programmers do that too... variables in th... gadfly arbcom may be getting ready to act. The randians s... EricBarbour
arbcom may be getting ready to act.
Linky? gadfly
[quote name='gadfly' post='155700' date='Tue 10th... EricBarbour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...n_Ra... Jon Awbrey
Since when do people get to decide what other p... Milton Roe
[quote name='dtobias' post='152737' date='Sat 24t... EricBarbour I've got an even more concise way of dealing w... Moulton Ah, yes. Weemba (Matthew P. Wiener).
He and I us... Peter Damian This
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..... Jon Awbrey
This
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti... Bottled_Spider This
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl... Peter Damian
If I can add some well-meant criticism of the Wik... Herschelkrustofsky
I've heard that Connelley is legendary but th... Bottled_Spider If I can add some well-meant criticism of the Wiki... EricBarbour
As for why he failed to get a nomination - well, ... Herschelkrustofsky Were you aware of this? It seems to be in the gest... Peter Damian
Were you aware of this? It seems to be in the ges... Kato The article is dreadful.
In the lead, it asserts... Peter Damian
The article is dreadful.
In the lead, it assert... Herschelkrustofsky
[edit] And the dreadfully written "She promo... Peter Damian Arbcom decision just out.
http://en.wikipedia.org... snowded
Arbcom decision just out.
Well at least they mad... Peter Damian On the Ayn Rand talk page right now:
(Part of a... Jon Awbrey
On the Ayn Rand talk page right now:
(Part of a... GlassBeadGame
On the Ayn Rand talk page right now:
(Part of ... Jon Awbrey One of the things I don't understand is why al... Peter Damian
One of the things I don't understand is why a... Jon Awbrey
One of the things I don't understand is why ... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='Peter Damian' post='162988' date='Su... Jon Awbrey
The difference of course is that Descartes, Hume,... GlassBeadGame
The difference of course is that Descartes, Hume... Jon Awbrey
[quote name='Jon Awbrey' post='162994' date='Sun ... dtobias I remember back when I had just read Atlas Shrugge... Jon Awbrey
I remember back when I had just read [i]Atlas Shr... Somey I remember back when I had just read Atlas Shrugge... CharlotteWebb
Occasionally I would ask, "So... do you thin... Peter Damian The barbarian at the gate
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |