tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post7578424254977393860..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Misplaced VitriolGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-34636170037223901202010-07-01T15:47:50.467-06:002010-07-01T15:47:50.467-06:00Hi,
If you've a feed reader, the comment feed...Hi,<br /><br />If you've a feed reader, the comment feed is: http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/feeds/comments/default<br /><br />HTH,<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-40475683007244771322010-07-01T13:59:13.570-06:002010-07-01T13:59:13.570-06:00Don't have anything to add at this point. Just...Don't have anything to add at this point. Just want to sign up to receive notification of future comments.<br />Thanks for starting this topic.HaynesBEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11263223513305886233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-74789156914548460282010-06-30T21:31:40.238-06:002010-06-30T21:31:40.238-06:00C.,
Thanks for making the connection between the ...C.,<br /><br />Thanks for making the connection between the main point of my post and the earlier one regarding optional values explicit for me. I suspected that the two were more related than simply one's optional values being part of one's individual circumstances, but did not see this aspect of the problem.<br /><br />Your PS is also good, although the problem need not even be intrinsicism. The same thing can occur when someone mistakenly believes actual knowledge supports his optional choice "over" another or has mis-integrated error into similar such "support". <br /><br />That said, intrisicism (or its psycho-epistemological remnants) can certainly fuel this kind of attitude, by "flattening" all values, optional and non-optional alike, into intrinsic/arbitrary ones.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-86654318727537152922010-06-30T21:15:23.761-06:002010-06-30T21:15:23.761-06:00Gus,
I liked that you brought in your previous que...Gus,<br />I liked that you brought in your previous question about optional values into the question of misplaced vitriol. <br /><br />I have a theory regarding optional values and the chronic mutual disrespecting that goes on there.<br /><br />Most people fall into their optional values through chance; that is, they see something, think it is interesting and pursue it. It becomes part of their sense of life and they never sit down and analyze why they like it. (I'm not suggesting that one MUST do that regarding optional values.) So, when someone comes along and doesn't fall in with them in agreeing that "X" is the most interesting way to spend your free time, it FEELS like they are attacking you personally instead of recognizing that they are just making an optional value judgement of their own. And you reciprocate by "dissing" something they like. <br /><br />Since I grew up without a TV in the house until the last semester of my senior year in high school, my entertainment choices were well out of step with my peers. So expressed comments "dissing" my choices never resonated with me. My usual reaction was, "Well, since you aren't me, I should listen to your opinion of what I should do because???" <br /><br />I am less likely than I used to be to declare someone irremediably stupid, obtuse, etc., because I came to realize that it was often a question of time, knowledge and motivation. Your 4 points about cognition (and their derivative problems) are a nice concretization of my heretofore rather inchoate conclusion. Thanks! <br /><br />C. Andrew <br /><br />An afternote just occurred to me. How likely is it that this conflict stems from an unchallenged mode of thought that assumes instrinsic knowledge. In the form of, "Well, I'm no genius and if I know this, then how can this idiot opposing me not know this?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-36064319467368373712010-06-30T16:26:20.703-06:002010-06-30T16:26:20.703-06:00Excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of c...Excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of considering that I have not yet spent much time looking at the different positions in this controversy myself. (As far as that goes, I have listened once to the podcast, skimmed a post by Amit Ghate, seen a post by Trey Givens, and read Paul Hsieh's post, which I found excellent. I'm not on Facebook, and so will be unable to access everything.)Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-21837387760011211052010-06-30T14:57:48.121-06:002010-06-30T14:57:48.121-06:00"One thing that would help greatly to prevent..."One thing that would help greatly to prevent this from happening would be to always be clear about what actually IS Objectivism and what ISN'T, such as specific conclusions in the special sciences."<br /><br />This is also my approach to the mosque controversy.<br /><br />Both sides do agree that an all-out war with Islamist terrorist-sponsoring governments is necessary, and also that our government isn't even coming close to fulfilling that end. This conclusion follows from the Objectivist principles of egoism and the purpose of government.<br /><br />But with the correct normative principle being flouted by our government at every turn, we are left, as Paul Hsieh noted, with a tactical debate over least-bad options. This brings in people's specific understandings of history or law as tipping the balance one way or another.<br /><br />For me, I was so disgusted with the Bush Administration's war effort (and disabused of my own wishfully positive interpretations of the government's goals and competence back then) that I simply cannot trust that giving the government more power -- absent a rational, principled, and non-muddled purpose articulated by our leaders.Andrew Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11001665674703307354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-45213346479092314112010-06-30T14:16:07.061-06:002010-06-30T14:16:07.061-06:00Jim,
It is interesting that you mention the Kelle...Jim,<br /><br />It is interesting that you mention the Kelley split, which IS about fundamentals. I have thought for some time -- and think it could still shake out this way -- that "the next split" (if there is to be one) could result from a vehement disagreement over the proper way to apply the philosophy.<br /><br />One thing that would help greatly to prevent this from happening would be to always be clear about what actually IS Objectivism and what ISN'T, such as specific conclusions in the special sciences. In one sense, this was ultimately the root of the Kelley split.<br /><br />(Regarding things that are NOT parts of Objectivism, and to take yet another cut-and-dried example: I would say that someone who (1) claimed that the Law of Gravity was invalid and (2) he was an Objectivist probably didn't know what he was talking about on either count. Neverthless, it remains true that the Law of Gravity, as a fact identified by a special science, is not A PART of Objectivism. (Nor, obviously, are any of the myriad more spectulative theories of the various special sciences.) This is for the same reason that Ayn Rand said in her West Point speech that, "Philosophy would not tell you, for instance, whether you are in New York City or in Zanzibar (though it would give you the means to find out)."<br /><br />Having said all that, perhaps the fact that the reason for the split remained murky for so long was because it was such a difficult identification to make in the first place. The conclusion I reached here, although it seems obvious to me (and maybe, to anyone reading this post) now, eluded me for quite some time.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-21493178237124172662010-06-30T13:04:49.460-06:002010-06-30T13:04:49.460-06:00How can this happen between two sides sincerely in...<i>How can this happen between two sides sincerely interested in unearthing the truth, living by it, and getting the word out about it?</i><br /><br />And that, Gus, is the nub of it right there. It's the question I asked when I first learned in the mid '90's about the David Kelley flap.<br /><br />A few weeks ago, a libertarian colleague asked me about the "open system" debate, and he eventually boiled his question down to this: how do Objectivists handle an unresolved debate over fundamentals, in particular when one side of that debate does not agree that the difference is fundamental?<br /><br />His question got me to remembering a phenomenon that has pissed me off for years: what I have termed <i>an argument of the form "blah blah blah mind-body dichotomy"</i>.<br /><br />By this, I mean a discussion between two Objectivists where one side starts from the disagreement over some particular application, moves through a block of rather opaque argument ending with "....and so therefore you are guilty of a mind-body dichotomy" (or some other very fundamental error). The other person is left wondering "WTF just happened?"<br /><br />That sort of thing was going on a lot in the mid-90's when I first encountered the David Kelley flap, and biased me considerably in favor of the Kelley side before I eventually resolved the issue for myself in favor of Dr. Peikoff.<br /><br />I have yet to listen to Dr. Peikoff's podcast, and so I have not concluded that this is another case of "blah blah blah mind-body dichotomy". The echoes coming from comments by those who have listened to the podcast and disagree with it, sure are hinting at it.<br /><br />Today I answered my colleague's question. I said that disagreements will happen, and that is a function of all philosophies and belief systems, not of Objectivism in particular, and that if a disagreement is unresolvable, there can indeed be a split.<br /><br />I also told him that it looks like we're about to go through another such test. <br /><br />As to how we're going to handle it this time, I draw reassurance from Paul Hsieh's position <a href="http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/06/observations-on-nyc-mosque-debate.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>; I hope that Paul's is the approach and attitude that prevails this time around.Jim Maynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-15144207704817067682010-06-30T09:39:18.767-06:002010-06-30T09:39:18.767-06:00"'to view in caricature.' What a wond..."<i>'to view in caricature.' What a wonderful concept! Congratulations! Worthy of Rand herself. I shall henceforth claim it as my own.</i>"<br /><br />Heh!<br /><br />"<i>Will it 'harm' the baby? Maybe slightly, but they don't think there is any serious risk of major damage.</i>"<br /><br />Now, again, I haven't thought much about breast feeding, but suppose there were rock solid evidence that NOT doing so caused some kind of major harm. If the argument isn't out there, or isn't straightforward, their decision can be perfectly rational -- but wrong, due to an error of knowledge. If someone beat them over the head with "Breastfeed your babies, idiots!" without making said rationale clear, why WOULD they consider the issue further?Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-76551520778080366192010-06-30T09:07:55.880-06:002010-06-30T09:07:55.880-06:00"to view in caricature." What a wonderfu..."to view in caricature." What a wonderful concept! Congratulations! Worthy of Rand herself. I shall henceforth claim it as my own.<br /><br />In simple situations, like breast feeding, circumcision, and various diets, for someone to become angry at another for failing to agree with their own conclusions, has to mean that they think the identifications and values they've applied in coming to their conclusions are unassailable and unique. This is hardly ever true. We reason, as individuals, for our own benefit. We apply our values, not universal values. We can be wrong, for example, whenever I think a stock will increase in value, I am wrong. <br /><br />For example, with regard to breast feeding, I've had two women tell me that the idea of them breast feeding creeps them out, seems 'animalistic'. Thus, they will probably not breast feed. Will it 'harm' the baby? Maybe slightly, but they don't think there is any serious risk of major damage. So they're willing to take that chance. That is the essence of reasoning. Identify, value, decide.Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-16286079813941205552010-06-30T08:40:38.949-06:002010-06-30T08:40:38.949-06:00I think the ugliness is definitely caused by femin...I think the ugliness is definitely caused by feminism, and on multiple levels at that. Just to take two: (1) To the extent that whatever variant of feminism someone accepts deviates from actual individualism (and she acts on it), it will goof up her decision process. (2) Many people will pigeonhole an argument based in part on feminism with its more collectivist manifestations, often to the point of ignoring the whole thing.<br /><br />That's not all, of course...Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-67596123365750719742010-06-30T08:30:52.969-06:002010-06-30T08:30:52.969-06:00The "Mommy Wars" as such have fascinated...The "Mommy Wars" as such have fascinated me, and having been on the receiving end of such vitriolic accusations, this is something I have faced. I suspect many parents have faced it as well.<br /><br />I think your points are excellent. Another factor I believe plays into the heightened emotions and eagerness to mischaracterize the opponents as immoral, irrational, etc. is unearned guilt. I wrote about it here:<br /><br />http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com/2010/04/unearned-guilt-and-mommy-wars.html<br /><br />And another:<br /><br />http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com/2009/03/thought-about-mommy-wars.html<br /><br />I have seen this in friends and acquaintances--making a major parenting decision such as whether or not to breastfeed for altruistic or not-well-thought-out reasons, and then being overwhelmed with guilt and frustration about it. Often they take anyone else's different decision about the matter as a personal attack. <br /><br />My decision to have c-sections or breastfeed my children has nothing to do with anyone else's decision to make the opposite choices. I feel free to judge them, and they are free to judge me, but their judgments don't bother me because I have made good sound rational judgments to the best of my ability. So I am able to argue my cases without getting emotional or defensive.<br /><br />I'll stop for now, but this is a BIG topic, and it's rampant in our culture these days. Okay, one more thing before I stop--I wonder if some of this is an unintended consequence of feminism, because this issue crops up with non-parents too, especially the Career Woman (non-mommy type) vs the Career Mommy vs the Stay-at-Home Mommy. Discussions gets really ugly, really fast.Jenn Caseyhttp://rationaljenn.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com