tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post4621477111405291652..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Quick Roundup 232Gus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-24554880621033781842007-09-03T01:52:00.000-06:002007-09-03T01:52:00.000-06:00Amen, so to speak!Amen, so to speak!Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-57178203262352919762007-09-03T01:32:00.000-06:002007-09-03T01:32:00.000-06:00On the other hand, I tend to regard movements such...<I>On the other hand, I tend to regard movements such as libertarianism and tolerationism as unfortunate and unavoidable temporary side effects of Objectivism's increasing visibility and success. </I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely true. As the ideas spread from the source out into the world and mix with competing ideas, they will be misunderstood, mocked, modified, satirized, bastardized -- you name it. From libertarianism to Bioshock, it can only be expected to get worse as a direct consequence of our success, since individuals have free will. You can't hustle without kicking up some dust.<BR/><BR/>Our job is to ensure that Objectivism itself is clearly understood as the original brand, The Real Thing(tm), What Started It All.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-18948018300018340822007-08-31T06:41:00.000-06:002007-08-31T06:41:00.000-06:00Dismuke,thank you for the thoughtful comments rega...Dismuke,<BR/><BR/>thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding Libertarianism. <BR/><BR/>All I meant by the comment you wrote about was that because Libertarianism is making it harder, by sowing and perpetuating confusion about the need for the principles underlying freedom (and the principles themselves), that movement is making it harder for those of us who know what they are to wage the intellectual battle that needs waging.<BR/><BR/>Whle it is true that, were it not for libertarianism, there would be something like it, that does not mean that the movement isn't hurting the intellectual cause for freedom. <BR/><BR/>Given the importance of ideas in guiding the course of history, I see such a hindrance to be much greater than anything they ever did in electoral politics.<BR/><BR/>Ergo,<BR/><BR/>I <I>think</I> you're missing my point.<BR/><BR/>"In cases where the degree of differences is minor (like political differences among Objectivists or libertarians), I'd like to avoid using the word 'tolerance' and instead use acceptance or some such related concept."<BR/><BR/>You also argue that "tolerance" could be taken to mean not morally condemning honest errors, which is, of course, part of the proper way to react to error.<BR/><BR/>Libertarians are all about pretending that <B>fundamental principles</B> are unimportant. <BR/><BR/>While I, as an Objectivist, could side with even those I substantially disagree with on some narrow issue where it is easy to avoid confusion (e.g., some church that was in the right opposing, say, a new zoning ordinance), that is a far cry from the libertarian approach, which would be to count that religion as some sort of intellectual ally regarding property rights after their preacher says that the Bible tells us that man has a right to property.<BR/><BR/>So what I decry here as "tolerance" is not the recognition that I share some political conclusion with someone else, but the evasion of the fact that in cases where we seem to have arrived at the same conclusion through two entirely different philosophical paths, at least one of us does not <B>really</B> know what he's talking about.<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-43138125000827753822007-08-31T00:30:00.000-06:002007-08-31T00:30:00.000-06:00Amit's post is superb! A very succinct identificat...Amit's post is superb! A very succinct identification of fundamental differences.<BR/><BR/>Gus, I just want to point out something minor. Epistemological tolerance (I don't like using the word tolerance, but I'll explain that later) can not just indicate tolerating sloppiness but also tolerating honest errors of judgment or identification. In that sense, it's not a vice as opposed to the virtue of political tolerance.<BR/><BR/>Now, with regards to the use of the word tolerance, I wrote a post about it on my blog. Notice how the word "tolerance" never needs to be used in relation to that which is objectively identified as good or moral. <BR/><BR/>Nothing good ever needs to be tolerated. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, if you are being asked to tolerate something, then you are essentially being asked to either accept a compromise on the good or deal with something outrightly wrong.<BR/><BR/>In cases where the degree of differences is minor (like political differences among Objectivists or libertarians), I'd like to avoid using the word "tolerance" and instead use acceptance or some such related concept.<BR/><BR/>In cases where the degree of differences is significant and fundamental (say, between Objectivists and fascists), to say that one tolerates the differences is actually a vice, and intolerance and condemnation is the proper virtue.<BR/><BR/>One can accept the good, but one never tolerates the good. Thus, when I see that I never need to use the word “tolerate” in relation to something I have identified as a good or a value, I begin to realize that the *only* instances when I *do* need to use the word “tolerate” is in relation to something I do not approve, have not identified as good, and perhaps is a threat to what I hold as good. For all other minor differences of opinion, there are proper alternatives to use, such as "acceptable" or "permissible."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-84985350188396465282007-08-30T23:52:00.000-06:002007-08-30T23:52:00.000-06:00""It is too bad that its impotence in the politica...""<I>It is too bad that its impotence in the political realm is not matched by a lack of influence on the public debate."</I><BR/><BR/>I am not sure I understand. What influence has the libertarian movement had on the public debate? I cannot think of a single example. <BR/><BR/>The movement has been around for well over 30 years now and it is obscure as ever in terms of mainstream visibility. My off-the-cuff guess is that it's peak was sometime around the 1980 election and has become increasingly more marginal ever since and has rapidly moved more and more to the outer fringes since 911. Liberals and Conservatives alike regard them at best as being a bunch of utterly impractical eccentrics and more often as a bunch of kooks. <BR/><BR/>The only impact I see is some of the better Conservatives sometimes describe themselves as being "socially libertarian" in order to differentiate themselves from the Religious Right. But those individuals are actually using the word in its original and correct meaning and rarely do they have much regard for the modern libertarian movement. In most cases, I rather doubt that their opposition to the Religious Right is a result of the libertarian movement.<BR/><BR/>The libertarian movement absolutely has had the effect of confusing people who are new to Objectivism. But I only <I>wish</I> that such confusion was part of the public debate.<BR/><BR/>If what you mean is that that, had the libertarian movement not existed, Objectivism might get a higher level of visibility from those who are receptive to a pro-freedom message - well, with that I agree.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I tend to regard movements such as libertarianism and tolerationism as unfortunate and <I>unavoidable</I> temporary side effects of Objectivism's increasing visibility and success. <BR/><BR/>If you think about it, without Ayn Rand, neither movement would have ever been possible in the first place. And what both movements have in common is a desire to approach Objectivism in an <I>a la carte</I> sort of manner. <BR/><BR/>I really don't think that there is any way to avoid such movements from springing up. Objectivism is a very radical philosophy. In some cases, people are going to be recognize the virtues of parts of it but be utterly clueless of being able to grasp the larger philosophical issues that give rise to the concrete positions that they value. In other less innocent cases, some people are simply unwilling to challenge or give up certain conventional ideas they grew up with. So the result will be that the more visible Objectivism becomes, there will naturally be more people who will be motivated to come up with or support some sort of watered down alternative version. <BR/><BR/>If you notice, both the libertarian and the tolerationist movements seem to be fading away. Many of the better sorts of people who supported those movements during their height have since disassociated themselves from them. This is the inevitable result of the many contradictions which are inherent in both movements. Those contradictions become more obvious over time which enables the better people to see through them and recognize their errors. What remains is a hard core of nihilists who joined the movements based on what they were <I>against</I> and not they claimed to be for.<BR/><BR/>When I was a kid, the libertarian movement primarily appealed to people who leaned towards the right and were outraged by the growth of government over the economy and into people's personal lives. Today the movement is increasingly taking on the look of the militantly pacifist "Angry Left" and I have even seen comments on the web here and there by people who characterize themselves as libertarians say nice things about Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. <BR/><BR/>Thus they truly HAVE become what Ayn Rand said they were: the hippies of the right. Of course, they have ALWAYS been that. But in 1980, one could easily have pointed to a lot of rank and file supporters who did not fit that mold and who would never have supported what that movement has since become.<BR/><BR/>My guess is we are going to see the rise (and fall) of other similar movements as time goes on of people who attempt to find some sort of compromise between Objecitivsm and more mainstream views that people hold dear and find difficult to give up. Yes, it is always a bad thing if someone seeks to water down and bastardize the philosophy. But consider the alternative. If people didn't seek to cash in on it and bastardize it, it would probably be a sign that people are no longer paying attention to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-26571798027146943282007-08-30T15:27:00.000-06:002007-08-30T15:27:00.000-06:00You're welcome, Amit.You're welcome, Amit.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-6256579076193540322007-08-30T15:16:00.000-06:002007-08-30T15:16:00.000-06:00Thanks for the link Gus! And BTW, I really liked ...Thanks for the link Gus! And BTW, I really liked your point on tolerance, I agree people equivocate on the two very dissimilar meanings all the time.Amit Ghatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812792299608268787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-50884566299292217722007-08-30T14:03:00.000-06:002007-08-30T14:03:00.000-06:00That is an excellent point. Thanks for posting abo...That is an excellent point. Thanks for posting about it.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-72270609243193191102007-08-30T11:00:00.000-06:002007-08-30T11:00:00.000-06:00That article you linked to reminds me of the whole...That article you linked to reminds me of the whole “atheist movement” happening on youtube and in the “outer world” in general headed by Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris’s ect. <BR/><BR/>On youtube there was this guy called “The Amazing Atheist” who wanted to start a group for atheists called “Atheist Scum United”. But after a while it all fell apart because of to many disagreements between all the Atheists, the Atheist Scum wouldn’t Unite.<BR/><BR/>http://youtube.com/watch?v=sLurDuigUEE<BR/><BR/>But how could it have not failed? Just to give an example, The Amazing Atheist attacks Ayn Rand in many of his videos. There go the Objectivists . . .<BR/><BR/>I don’t think that any movement based on promoting atheism can ever succeed, because it is based on promoting a negative (disbelief in god), not a positive (belief in something else).<BR/><BR/>The key is to unite people based on something more fundamental, they don’t even bother to ask why are you an atheist? Are you an atheist because of nihilist hatred? Or based on philosophical skepticism? Or based on reason, logic, and the facts of reality (or lack of)?<BR/><BR/>I’ve come across atheists that believe in reincarnation and karma and others that are just plain nihilist subjectivists, like the Amazing Atheist. You can’t unite that. They all come to the same conclusion, but its just coincidental.<BR/><BR/>The only proper way to “promote atheism” is to promote respect for reason, science, logic and individualism. But then you are not promoting atheism, you are promoting reason, and Atheism is just a secondary incidental consequence. <BR/><BR/>The same phenomenon seems to be happening with libertarians.Apollohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701446110959016481noreply@blogger.com