News from the Insane World of Terry Goodkind, Part 2

[Zahir al Daoud]

Ahem. That is not a paradox. That is a riddle.

And binary thinking is not always true at all. The most clear way this is inaccurate is by venturing into the area of quantum physics, where something CAN be both true and not true at the same time (just as something can be two places a the same time, results can precede cause, etc.).

Much more importantly, binary thinking is an example of applying rules inappropriate to scale. When you take a principle that works very well on a very basic level then try to apply it into a more advanced level you are asking for trouble. To give a vivid example, binary thinking tends to make people view the world in terms of facts that are Known versus those that are Unknown. Well, the truth is tricker than that. For one thing, there's a third category--that which is Unknowable. For another, determining exactly what is and CAN BE known is much tricker than it seems at first glance--or tenth, or hundredth glance. Look at criminal trials where juries are bound to only convict if guilt is proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Yet how many people in the last few years have been proven innoncent after their convictions using that very standard?

Of course theoritically, that shouldn't be a problem, should it? But it is, and any philosophy that does not deal with the genuine consequences of ideas and how they really are implemented is too esoteric to be of my use in my value system.

[Mme Erzulie]

Objectivism

Ser Vinglan: If you think three of his books were good, I'd recommend a head check.

Search for my Goodking mauling thread. The books are HORRIBLE, dude. Every sentence is PAIN.

[Nous]

That is a paradox. If it were a riddle there would be an answer within the parameters specified.

From wikipedia: "A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that seems to lead to a contradiction or to a situation that defies intuition." Link

Paradoxes may be useful in discovering contradictions in certain contexts, as indicated by the example of Zeno's paradox and the concepts of motion and time. I still don't view them as fundamentally important in philosophy. Paradoxes are negative in the sense that they may point out a contradiction and need for a better answer, but they don't provide answers in themselves.

And binary thinking is not always true at all. The most clear way this is inaccurate is by venturing into the area of quantum physics, where something CAN be both true and not true at the same time (just as something can be two places a the same time, results can precede cause, etc.).

You mean binary thinking is always true and not always true? I don't know much about quantum physics, just the standard university level stuff, but usually when I hear people saying things like that they are jumping into conclusions completely unjustified by observations. One example is people saying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle shows that our mind alters reality at quantum level, which is complete BS.

Science and rational thought itself are based on law on non-contradiction. Essentially, you are saying science has proved that there is no standard of proof. Now, what could possibly be wrong with that?

If a theory has contradictions, it shows the theory is false, not that reality is contradictory. In fact, the law of non-contradiction is the only way to test any scientific theory - when you spot a contradiction between theory and observation, you know there's something wrong.

There is a term in Objectivism for applying principles outside of the context where they apply -"context-dropping". I don't understand where you are going with your example. Could you clarify?

[Zahir al Daoud]

Quantum physics is not "pure BS" as you put it. It is a disturbing and difficult-to-grasp fact that when you begin to look at reality on the quantum level, then things like the law of non-contradition literally no longer apply. Two particles can occupy the same space at the same time, by not moving at all and yet at the same time moving faster than the speed of light but going backwards in time. The quantum level is a realm of true chaos, and the more we look at it the more bizarre it seems to beings who a native to this level of realty.

BTW, Heidegger's thought experiment is just that--don't take it too literally. However, it does demonstrate why we can never know what is going on in the universe outside human perception. Think about it--how could we? We assume that things pretty much operate the same way whether we're looking or not. Maybe we're right. We don't have much choice but to assume that. However, it must remain an eternally unprovable and untestable premise.

And I showed your example to some friends, who also agreed that was a riddle. The answer of course is either (a) The barber is a woman, or ( The barber is bald. Of course there's also the idea that the barber goes out of town to have his hair cut.

Paradoxes are things that seem to be contradictions. For example--good people do evil things. And evil people do good things. This feels wrong, feels like a contradiction, but in fact is a total truth. Because everyone does both good and evil acts, without exception. Paradox is laced throughout our lives and shows up in all kinds of phrases like "Cruel to be kind" or "Only Nixon could go to China" or "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Several show up in famous quotes, like "Democracy is the worst of governmental systems, except for all the others" (W. Churchill) and "There is no answer; There has never been an answer; There will never be an answer; That is the answer." (G. Stein)

My example refers to how the way our assumptions about logic and truth often lead to things illogical and untrue (another paradox, btw). It is all very well and good to speak about the law of non-contradiction, but when people actually do see the world in terms of binary opposites they are more likely to jump to conclusions. The fact a jury is expected to render one of two verdicts and is deemed a failure if they arrive at the perfectly legitimate third one--"We cannot decide." Indeed, for a huge number of questions in life that third option is the accurate one, but binary thinking insists we need a "Yes" or a "No." But any genuine scientist (as opposed to an engineer) will tell you that reality isn't like that. It is actually a sliding scale of probability.

To give a concrete example, conspiracy theorists kept looking at the assassination of JFK and insisting that one bullet simply could not have done all that the Warren Commission said that it had. Impossible, they said, when in fact it was only unlikely. Last year, a team in Australia decided to see if they could reproduce the path of the so-called "magic bullet." They used the exact same type of gun, with precisely the same distances and movements. More, they had a specialist company reproduce the bodies of JFK and John Connelly out of artificial materials based on x-rays--bone, skin, etc. They placed the 'bodies' in precisely the same position as the Warren Commission said.

And reproduced the 'magic bullet' to within a millimeter. The path was unlikely, but perfectly possible.

The problem is, as I said, a leap of scale. One can pretty easily (for all practical purposes) say that a given bullet exists or not, what calibre it is, what its physical composition might be, what rifle fired it, etc. But when you move further back, away from the zoom-in close-up (to use a camera metaphor) then the uncertainty increases simply because of the complexity involved. This doesn't mean things are necessarily unknowable (although they might be) but it certainly means finding them out tends to become progressively harder to do. Another example of a sliding scale, rather than a simple binary model--you either know or don't know, can find out or cannot, etc. Things are actually more complex than that, more a matter of degrees of certainty, and even then with perfectly competent human beings disagreeing on what those degrees are--and anyone can turn out to be wrong. Sooner or later, everyone will be.

The habit of binary thinking is a not form of discipline, but rather a kind of short-hand, a rule of thumb used in place of genuine critical thinking.

[Werthead]

Terry Goodkind and quantum physics in the same thread? Woah!

[Nous]

As regards the riddle, you got me. In the form I posted it, it is indeed a riddle. This is because I posted it from memory, and wasn't specific enough. The real Barber Paradox cuts off those loopholes that would make it a solvable riddle. This is the kind of thing I mean when I speak of paradoxes. Zeno's paradoxes, liar's paradox, etc.

Now, what you mean by paradox is somewhat similar, but different - all things that seem to be contradictions. I would never classify human inconsistency as a paradox, though. Far too easy.

Concerning QM: I agree that world behaves in strange ways at particle level. Just because the rules are not the same as in macro level, doesn't mean they are not there, though. Just because we don't understand something, doesn't make it pure chaos. Now, you say the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply on quantum level. I'd like you to substantiate that. Give me an example of something that has no definite identity, that both is and is not something at the same time and in the same respect. Also, please tell me the observations from which the existence of this thing was deduced.

I never said QM is "pure BS". I was referring to the idea that Heidegger's uncertainty principle shows the act of observation itself somehow alters reality. You say maybe there's something there, as the thought experiment shows that we can't know what world is apart from our observations. The problem with your approach is that it grants the arbitrary consideration it doesn't deserve. On the same basis, you can say that maybe gigantic stealth rabbits come every night to gnaw on our fingernail clippings. We assume they don't, but since they are stealth rabbits we can't really know that. Arbitrary statements, ungrounded from observation or inference therefrom, don't deserve consideration.

The fact a jury is expected to render one of two verdicts and is deemed a failure if they arrive at the perfectly legitimate third one--"We cannot decide." Indeed, for a huge number of questions in life that third option is the accurate one, but binary thinking insists we need a "Yes" or a "No." But any genuine scientist (as opposed to an engineer) will tell you that reality isn't like that. It is actually a sliding scale of probability.

If the jury doesn't have enough evidence to decide whether the defendant is guilty, they need to let him go. Guilty until proven innocent, etc. That's, of course, a judicial principle, not epistemological one.

Probability is actually a concept that applies to human knowledge, not reality. When we say "it's probably true" we don't mean it's somehow undecided in reality, vacillating to the direction of true. We mean that we are not sure if it's true, but the knowledge we have points to that direction. Reality is not a sliding scale of probability; human knowledge is. More accurately, there is a continuum of evidence. From "possible" to "probable" to "certain".

Your issue with binary thinking, the thing you are objecting to, seems to be willingness to reach conclusions when there is not enough evidence to do so. I am not contesting that people often do that, or believe it's somehow right. As I said, there's a continuum of evidence and certainty. To avoid making mistakes, it's necessary to understand the facts that lead you to principles, and the context in which they are formed.

[Zahir al Daoud]

Well, first of all, the act of observing something does alter it. That is not nonsense or theory but observable fact. On our level of reality it doesn't usually matter, but when you start looking at things like electrons (insomuch as you can) then your observation of the electron alters it quite a bit. The process of using an electron microscope directly impacts whatever is being observed, for example.

You might also want to take a further look at quantum physics and mechanics here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

As for paradox, you seem to be trying to dismiss it simply as a contradiction, but that defeats the point. A paradox is an illustration of when assumptions and intuitive thinking are wrong, hence is a valuable logic tool. More, there's a slight inference in your words that human inconsistency is avoidable or even always undesirable. I dispute the former and frankly question the latter.

Even more fundamentally, I would point out that I am talking not so much about logic as a field of its own but rather of how perceptions shape thinking and behavior. It isn't enough, IMO, to say "Well, the jury made a mistake." More important is why did they make that mistake? Too many advocates of Ayn Rand's ideas (including myself) have taken the view that jurors have simply not applied their minds in the ways we believe they should. Which is all very well, save that we make the same mistakes! For example, you made the interesting misquote of "Guilty until proven innocent"... Hmmmm.

Probability is actually a concept that applies to human knowledge, not reality. When we say "it's probably true" we don't mean it's somehow undecided in reality, vacillating to the direction of true. We mean that we are not sure if it's true, but the knowledge we have points to that direction. Reality is not a sliding scale of probability; human knowledge is. More accurately, there is a continuum of evidence. From "possible" to "probable" to "certain".

The problem here is that the only way for us to perceive reality (i.e. the truth) is through the lens of ourselves. In other words, for all practical purposes, truth IS human knowledge, because only in the context of human knowledge does the concept of truth have any application. At least, to humans.

Your amusing idea about stealth rabbits is fun, but the really upsetting thing is--you're right. There is absolutely no way to know if that is the truth or not! Still, without some reason so believe stealth rabbits are real, how does it impact our lives to even think about them? Suppose these stealth rabbits do gnaw out toenails at night. So what?

Far more compelling is when the question is not something so obscure/esoteric as to be meaningless. Jury trials are a case in point. So too is every single decision made in terms of public policy--the single greatest error of which is usually that those who are most influencing policy makers (experts, lobbyists, folks who pay lobbyists, voters, contributors, advocates of different causes, etc.) very rarely check their premises against actual facts. Among other things, they tend to draw up political boundaries along a totally linear model--how liberal/left is an idea versus how conservative/right it is. Ayn Rand herself tended to do the same, although with a different line--with herself on one end and a whole mass of different philosophies and ideas on the other. I would maintain this is a false model and encourages error. Worse, it fosters the habit of error in terms of genuine human behavior.

I must admit one of my real problems with Ayn Rand was that her tone and attitude frankly got in the way. They distracted from a collection of genuinely interesting, thought-provoking ideas. But her manner also revealed some of tendencies I'm speaking of here--of dividing the world into us versus them, of insisting somebody (guess who?) knows THE TRUTH in huge glowing letters, the implication that looking at another point of view is a kind of ethical sin, the dismissal of some complexities in life because they make the picture too "messy." Fundamentally it was an attitude of arrogance that quite rightly repelled people, and has been assumed by many advocates of Rand's ideas (including Goodkind, from what interviews I've read with the man--Lordy he comes across as an asshole!).

[Galactus]

Heidegger's uncertainty

Surely you mein *Heisenberg's" Uncertainity Principle?

[Nous]

Well, first of all, the act of observing something does alter it. That is not nonsense or theory but observable fact. On our level of reality it doesn't usually matter, but when you start looking at things like electrons (insomuch as you can) then your observation of the electron alters it quite a bit. The process of using an electron microscope directly impacts whatever is being observed, for example.

Ah, but there is a subtle difference. It is not the act of observing that changes what is being observed, but the manner we use to observe something. It is not your mind, or observation itself that changes the momentum of the particle, but the kick from the electron sent by the microscope. When you are walking outside and see, say, a tree, your observation doesn't change it at all.

I am not dismissing paradox. I was simply pointing out that you use the term in a more inclusive manner than I do. Paradox, as I use the term, can be valuable tool sometimes, though not in the primary sense, as it can only point out mistakes in technical areas of philosophy, not give answers. Regarding human inconsistency: it's avoidable, and not desirable. (This presupposes rational principles, applied within their proper context.)

More important is why did they make that mistake? Too many advocates of Ayn Rand's ideas (including myself) have taken the view that jurors have simply not applied their minds in the ways we believe they should. Which is all very well, save that we make the same mistakes! For example, you made the interesting misquote of "Guilty until proven innocent"... Hmmmm.

I hope your hmmm doesn't mean you are attributing some sort of psychological significance to my misquote. That would hardly be appropriate, no matter how fun making such an insinuation would be.

And in many cases this is so: jurors may make mistake because they are not using their minds in the right way. The principles of rational thought have to be learned, they do not come automatically. Yes, none of us is infallible. But someone who has learned to use his mind well is far less likely to make a mistake, as opposed to average juror.

Now, you point out all knowledge is human knowledge and the concept of truth only has relevance in this context. That was precisely my point! Truth is a mind's recognition of reality; if the mind makes a mistake, it's not truth at all. The facts are the way they are, and that is the ultimate standard.

My stealth rabbits are an arbitrary construct, without any relation to what we can observe or infer. They are not to be dismissed because if they existed it wouldn't matter, but because they are arbitrary. The same principle would apply to a claim that the sun's flare activity is increasing in a manner that threatens to burn out all our electronics. This doesn't sound completely implausible, and would certainly matter if true. Still, it's an arbitrary claim and shouldn't be given any consideration just because somebody wrote about it in an Internet board.

You accuse Ayn Rand of not checking her premises and using ideology rather than facts as the basis of many of her positions. Not being concerned with truth, but with us vs. them. There is a something you miss: us vs. them mentality itself may be a result of recognition of facts. Ideology may be based on careful observation and generalization from facts. Without general context of ethical or political theory, and without good epistemology, facts themselves are meaningless. There is no way to assess their significance to your life, to society, or to anything else. When it comes to most people, I'd agree with you: their ideology is contradictory to the way world is, and inconvenient facts are explained away. Not Ayn Rand. She was the ultimate advocate of premise-checking.

The other problem you have with her is her tone and attitude. You object to us vs. them mentality. I'd say that in many contexts it is right to divide the world into us and them, and proper to denounce "them".

You object to her implying that she knows the TRUTH. I'd say that when you have reached certainty, and can back up your conclusions, it is entirely proper to say so. She didn't appeal to faith - she stated the reasons for her positions.

Where did she state or imply that looking into another way of living is kind of ethical sin? Not granting respect to positions you find false is not the same thing as not doing your best to understand those positions.

It seems I've detected the root of your problems with her. It seems you are opposed to her way of making inductive generalizations and thinking in principles, and being sure of them. But that's the way human mind has to work to be effective! Without conceptual principles we would be no more than animals. When facts indicate your principles may be false, it is proper to check them. Otherwise, you need to act based on them, or act on whims or pleasure-pain mechanism. Groundless doubt is just as irrational as groundless certainty.

[Zahir al Daoud]

You keep getting your premises wrong. Ironic, isn't it?

When you look at a tree, you are changing it. There is no means of perceiving anything at all that does not involve some form of interaction. The sum effect of such interaction may be neglible to the point where we can safely ignore it--in this case, such is almost certainly the case--but the cumulative effect of those tiny changes is ultimately profound. There is no known way of perceiving anything without interacting with it. All you can do is decrease the interaction as much as possible and try to compensate. This actually works for most matters, so it isn't something we need think about too often.

I would make the argument that inconsistency is in fact VITAL in understanding the rest of the human race. Sitting in judgment of others is counter-productive nine times out of ten, mostly because the judgments made are too quick and with far too little self-awareness. The vast majority of human beings--and I mean the really VAST majority, if not the sum total of the species--are in some sense inconsistent. Standing outside such a subtle but pervasive element of humanity interferes with understanding, with empathy and with decision-making. More, it shows a profound lack of self-knowledge. You and I and Ayn Rand and everyone else are inconsistent. Pursuing consistency may be (I would argue certainly is) a positive thing, but actually achieving it would require such a massive effort as to leave no time for any other achievement and would result in nothing of value. Quite the opposite. Such a person would be fundamentally alone in a way that recalls the terribly crippling condition of sociopathy, where the sociopath feels himself to be the sole human being in a world peopled with robots. The totally consistent human being would be so removed from the rest of the race--and would have to work so hard to maintain this state--I don't see any benefit.

And the lack of any awareness of that, of the disregarding of genuine understanding of our fellow human beings, is one of the things I find so objectionable in so many Objectivists. They see other human beings not as people like themselves but flawed creatures the Objectivists will deign to lead into the status of Homo Superior.

Not for a moment do I believe very many Objectivists consciously believe any of that. Not for a moment do I doubt a fair number of them feel that way.

I suppose my biggest problem with Any Rand and her ideas is that they demand--with, as noted, a strident tone to which many rightfully react poorly--the habit of seeing oneself in a very inaccurate light. One of the greatest American achievements, IMO, is the US Constitution and study of the deliberations resulting in that document are fascinating. One of the most profound was from Benjamin Franklin, who got the delegates to agree to a document not one thought was close to ideal. He bade them consider for a moment, that maybe just maybe they as individuals were wrong about some things. Franklin really didn't like a bicameral legislature, but, he said, I'm willing to admit maybe time will prove me incorrect about that. He invited the other delegates to consider that to some extent each of them were perhaps as much in error.

This grain of wisdom, once absorbed, radically improved my own understanding of ideas and people. It improved my skills as a writer and designer and actor. Likewise, it frankly took away a great deal of pointless seeking for answers I did not need. Most Objectivists I know insist on very abstract solutions to genuine problems, and nothing even remotely practical. The Middle East, for example, will calm down if people simply learned to throw away religion. Okay, do we really need to go very far into precisely why that is a worthless suggestion?

The bit of wisdom that I do not sense in Ayn Rand is any awareness that she could be wrong. Now, after a certain number of years on this planet I finally got it into my head that everyone (including, to my horror, me) is always wrong about something. The trick is figuring out what--but of course, then we're wrong about something else. Because that is part of the human condition, and a pretty vital one. Without an awareness of that--and by awareness I don't mean lip service--then any set of ideas or group of people are bound to fail in some fairly spectacular way.

I would also point out that, IMO, one of the real problems in all of history is the tendency to divide the human race into "us" versus "them." History shows that the habit of doing so is a gnat's whisker AT MOST from classifying the human race into "people" and "animals." A fairly mild example would be the book referenced elsewhere in this thread seeking to prove the "viciousness" of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. Personally, I took both their books with a grain of salt--as any intelligent reader should. But then, I did the same with Ayn Rand. I don't see much of a fundamental difference between those three, after all. The author of the aforementioned book, at least in the blurbs and reviews I read of same, comes across as someone who cannot conceive of an innocent human error. If there is an inconsistency, then he clearly is implying such is an act of more-or-less deliberate deceit. What about the fallibility of human memory? What about the simple difference you get from a different POV? Again, based purely upon the reviews, my impression is that he simply did not consider either one. That is a tendency I've seen over and over again, in Objectivists and in others who simply long for a linear, binary world yet live in this messily complex and spacial one. Alas for such, this world is not black and white, or even black and white with varying shades of grey. It is a full spectrum of color, including some that are not visible to the naked eye.

Finally, I must reiterate that making a distinction between "truth" and "human perception of truth" is false in a very real way. Human perception is all we have upon which to build a view of our world. For all practical purposes, there is no truth but human perception. It is quite a conundrum from scientists. Nor, I must point out, is it a matter that the mind does not impact reality. Most certainly it does, simply by existing. To use an obvious example, your mind is fed by calories that could easily be used elsewhere towards some other end--another mind, for example.

[Nous]

Aha! But it's not the fact that you are looking at the tree that matters. When you really go into that level, you get into the point where the mere fact of you existing changes everything else. The gravitons your body throws around necessarily have a minuscule effect on almost everything within c*t radius, where t is the time you have lived. The perceiving doesn't matter. There is no known way to exist within the universe without interacting with it. Now, none of this means we can't achieve understanding of the universe as it is; we must simply take account of the tools of measurement and their limitations.

It seems we are arguing around each other again and comprehending the terms differently. What I understand by human inconsistency is professing a certain set of principles, but not following them consistently. I don't see the need for a person to be inconsistent to understand why other people might be. Nor do I see acting on principle as harmful for successful living, quite the opposite. Again, this presupposes proper principles and their contextual application. Could you tell me what, exactly, you mean by consistency?

I have no problem at all with being aware of of the fact that I'm fallible. Then again, in any particular issue, to simply remind me of that should not be enough to make me doubt my position. There has to be a reason why I'm wrong. Have I made an improper generalization? Is there relevant information which I don't take into account? Are my premises solid? Are my sources valid?To simply take the fact of your fallibility and accept that as a reason to doubt everything you know is not justified. Accepting that ultimately means that you doubt both gravity and the latest claims of National Enquirer, and for the same reason - because man is fallible. By that standard, it is the National Enquirer that gains and the whole scientific enterprise that loses. There is no reason at all for me to admit I may be wrong in a specific case when I don't have any valid reasons to believe so, and every reason to believe I'm right. Of course, I have to be willing to take into account all relevant new evidence and all valid objections to my reasoning.

I don't really personally know any Objectivists, so I can't comment on your experiences with them. Concerning Middle-East, the stuff written by Objectivists suggest that they believe the roots of the trouble are in religion and bad ideas. They are identifying a causal relationship, not suggesting that you could simply solve all the trouble right now by getting people to ditch religion. To understand what causes trouble is helpful to solving the problem. For example, if the religion is the problem, simply attempting to remove poverty from the region is a bad solution. The Objectivist writers I've read advocate attacking nations supporting militant Islam as a short-term solution.

Now, you take issue with Valliant's book because you feel he probably hasn't given enough benefit of doubt to Branden's and automatically, dogmatically assumed they couldn't have been innocently mistaken. Ironically, you yourself are denying the benefit of doubt to the author, and assuming that just because he reaches a damning conclusion, he can't have legitimate reasons to do so. (Or maybe it's the reviewers you've read.)

I haven't read the book myself, though I intend to do so. I have read threads in a forum where the author defends his conclusions against some pretty severe critics, and comes out with flying colors. He certainly doesn't come across as someone who states a damning conclusion without good reasons.Link

About truth and human perception: I'm not claiming that truth is independent of human mind's grasp of it. What I'm saying is that reality is independent of human mind. All the nitpicking aside, the world is the way it is, and what we think of it doesn't (apart from our actions) change it.

[Nous]

Whoops! Of course, it's "Heisenberg's" Now, I don't know if the thought experiment Zahir referred to was Heidegger's or Heisenberg's, I just jumped from the first to second after he used it.

[Zahir al Daoud]

I was not specifically accusing the author of anything, but noting that the impression I got from the reviews was on parr with the world-view I have seen in many Objectivists (and which, btw, certainly includes Terry Goodkind--who, I repeat, in his interviews comes across as asshole of vast purportions). You, on the other hand, have done exactly what I'm complaining about--leapt to a binary, linear conclusion. Because I see something critical of one book, I must dispute everything in it. Because I see something possibly critical in an attack on a positon, then that means I must agree with that position.

Yes, existing changes everything. And observing also changes everything--just usually no so much we have to pay any attention to it. But contemplating that fact, I strongly maintain based on persona experience, can be a nice antidote to ARROGANCE.

Arrogance is the overwhelming characteristic I have found in most people who call themselves Objectivist. It has been the habit of those I've known to refuse to argue any concrete details or even deal with consequences of policies and ideas. Instead they go after "premises," insisting they are each totally qualified to figure out what everyone else's premises are and to judge the accuracy of same. I have had Objectivists, for example, tell me about the process of writing--these are people who in fact are not writers themselves and whose advice (let me tell you) is far more appropriate for the writing of intellectual pamphlets than even essays, much less fiction (which is what I was writing). Make no mistake--these folks were giving me orders, and seemed oblivious when I questioned their right to do so. After all, they had "checked their premises" and "elimanated contradictions" which made them so much more qualified than me, the writer, to decide what and how to write.

I'm not kidding. They were that arrogant. In my talks with others, I've encountered the same thing--how most of those who claim to be Objectivists are unbelievably arrogant and (usually) vastly ignorant to boot.

Here is an example of what I mean. The argument about "checking your premises" is nearly always (and this is certainly the impression Rand herself created) a matter of finding even one contradiction in someone's world view (in the Objectivists's opinion, anyway) and thus dismissing every single thing that person has to say.

Well, that isn't how it works.

In fact, if you apply that criteria to Ayn Rand herself, you'd be forced to toss out everything she ever wrote (ever read her explicit views about the proper relationship between men and women?). I don't do that, because I realize that life is a bit more complex than that. Just as I value Rand's ideas in spite of the often-obnoxious style with which she presented them (and that style was often extremely obnoxious, as well as not a little bit disengenuous).

However, it isn't like great human beings are necessarily nice ones. Einstein, FDR, Wagner, Hugo, Wright etc. all had some very dark sides indeed. But my personal experience has led me to believe that--although it was certainly never her intention--Objectivism as it was presented tends to attract a very unpleasant, ignorant and arrogant type of person. And even more importantly, it encourages some very poor habits of thought and feeling.

There is a fundamental difference between humility and self-loathing. There is a fundamental difference between compassion and pity. You would not the impression of either of these facts from reading Ayn Rand and even less from listening to many who call themselves Objectivists. Most Objectivists I've known routinely assume that it is the easiest thing in the world to translate correct premises into meaningful action. It is getting the correct premise that is tricky, they say. Well, I maintain the exact opposite. Coming up with a kernal of truth isn't too hard at all! But finding a way to apply them is extremely difficult, and--contrary to their dogma (the folks I'm talking about DO treat this as dogma) --it is extremely common for intelligent, sane, well-informed people to disagree on how to do that.

I have become convinced that Objectivism as a philosophical school has much to offer, but is myopic on several levels--and the most telling of these is in trying to deal with anything non-linear and/or non-rational (as opposed to irrational). More, it encourages an arrogance that even the nice folks who call themselves Objectivists refuse to acknowledge.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Objectivism

Ser Vinglan: If you think three of his books were good, I'd recommend a head check.

Search for my Goodking mauling thread. The books are HORRIBLE, dude. Every sentence is PAIN.

That thread was a thing of wonder. *sheds a tear*

Does anyone know the URL for werewolf's board? I upgraded my browers, and my history is FUBAR. :cry:

[Sophelia]

*whistles innocently*

Psst... it's here.

*wanders on, still whistling*

[Xray the Enforcer]

*nonchalantly strolls by, reaches down, and picks up the URL*

*drops payment in the nearest potted plant for pick-up*

[Faceless Man]

I don't like that webite...and this is why:

We love how Goodkind touches us

*shudders*

[Xray the Enforcer]

I don't like that webite...and this is why:

We love how Goodkind touches us.

*shudders*

Holy crap. Isn't that illegal?

[Faceless Man]

I don't know if it's illegal...but if it isn't...it should be

once again:

We love how Goodkind touches us

[Nous]

As I said, I can hardly comment on the characters of Objectivists from first-hand experience, since I don't know any personally. The kind of behavior of which you speak is certainly stupid. I have read plenty of stuff by better Objectivists (including Rand) where they bash that kind of thinking. In Objectivist terms, it's rationalism, or having your ideas and principles disconnected from the concrete, real world. One writer termed it "the common cold" of Objectivism, so I have no doubt there are plenty of people like that, and they would naturally be the loudest ones. I don't believe that the worst kind of true believer holds on to Objectivism for long, however. It's hardly the best philosophy for that kind of mentality.

If you've met "true believer"-types it would hardly be surprising if they were arrogant. According to Eric Hoffer, that kind gets its kicks from the creed they follow, and from the absolute truth they alone are privy to, as opposed to any real virtues or achievements of their own.

Now, I try to have a realistic understanding of my own character and abilities. You may find contemplating the idea of observer altering the observed to be a nice antidote to arrogance, but I think that mere introspection is enough for me. Deal?

As for Terry Goodkind, I haven't read any of his interviews, nor have any interest in doing so. And concerning the book: I commented on what you said about it, not about anything else you might feel about it. Where exactly did I say you agree with Branden's, or dispute everything in the book? I said that either you jumped to an unjustified idea concerning the author's methodology or it's just a matter of the reviewers you read. BTW, the author does not define himself as an Objectivist.

Premise-checking is not primarily about finding contradictions in other people's worldviews, and Rand definitely didn't say so. It's your own premises you need to check whenever you spot a contradiction. It is an epistemological tool, and a very important one at that.

I don't dispute that sane, rational, well-informed people can disagree, and nor does Rand. In many cases, though, one of them is right and another is wrong.

Objectivism myopic? Well, I disagree with you on that. I wonder, how would any philosophy deal with nonrational? I can't see any alternative besides trying to make sense of it, that is, try to understand it rationally.

EDIT: Correction: Apparently the author of Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics does define himself as an Objectivist, cotrary to my statement in this post.