 |
Comments |
|
 | Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 5:51:07 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Sascha Settegast
E-mail: sascha.settegast(at)gmx.de
The problem with such people is that they are so stupidly irrational that it really doesn't matter what you tell them. No sound argument will convince them, and usually one does not know their neuroses well enough to say something that really gets them. And I don't think one should spend that much time and effort on negatives like that, trying to figure out how one can make them see or at least feel their own badness (as a kind of revenge for them insulting you or something that is crucially importing to you)... because it doesn't work. They won't be bothered. They are just an annoying pain in the ass and the best thing you can do for you is to cut them out of your life as soon as possible and spare yourself the annoyance. In dealing with such people, one can only lose.
I think a short and clear response that the discussion is over, plus the reasons why, is a good thing, even though they will probably not grasp it. I mean, one never knows and perhaps they have a bright moment. I usually ignore everything that might come in after that however. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 5:59:35 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com
I've come across this kind of person a couple of times before -- they seem to be confused and asking a genuine question, but when you give a charitable response, they reply with something hostile. In such cases, I assume that their original questions were just rhetorical jabs, not an honest effort to understand the truth.
Since this was email and not a public forum, I don't think that any good could come out of it. In a public forum, you might demand that the person rewrite his illogical and meandering reply into something resembling an actual argument. The simple question, "What is your evidence for claiming X?" will shut up a lot of hecklers and also illustrate proper reasoning to others. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 6:43:10 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Don Kenner
E-mail: dbkenner(at)gmail.com
You're response was quite civil, I thought, but certainly there's always that nagging doubt in such situations: If I had ignored the bile and insanity and pushed forward with reasoned discourse, might I have sowed the seeds of sanity in this mixed-up, belligerent person?
But this assumes that there are two alans out there: the one of the first email and the one of the second; like two parts of his whole battling it out, and you want to encourage the first alan, not the second, to emerge. But the first alan was a ruse. He wasn't really wondering about how to reconcile Rand's thought with "compassion." He was lobbing a small bomb as a prelude to the big missile. Reread your first response. There was NOTHING in there that would provoke his anger, IF his first email was sincere.
So the only reason to wish you had responded differently, in my opinion, is a selfish one: to hone your skills at civil argument in the face of incivility (something you are obviously much better at than I am). And to deny alan the kind of satisfaction common to small minds: telling his friends, "Dude, I really pushed her buttons!"
And you can be fairly certain that alan is not his brother's keeper. More likely he's his brother's parasite. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 7:15:32 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Stephen Macklin
E-mail: smacklin(at)optonline.net
A conversation like that is a lot like presenting a rational argument to James Taggart. There's not a lot to be gained by trying. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 7:56:31 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Jeff Montgomery
E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/
Emotionalism also may lead to bad spelling, bad grammar, and overuse of quotes.
I'm not sure that person was all there. As you say, I usually avoid such exchanges, but occasionally something grabs me and I devote a few minutes. It can be stimulating, and I also like to set the record straight.
It's the same for me with on-line comments, because there's so much bad stuff out there. If I think the occasional rational person may read it and benefit, I'll post it. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 8:21:49 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Bill
E-mail: bspears(at)easystreet.net
Since you asked, I like these sentences very much. "Ayn Rand does not advocate the "survival of the fittest." She advocates each person pursuing his own life and happiness by reason, with the voluntary, non-sacrificial cooperation of other rational people." The first is a very succinct and firm rebuttal of Alan's emotional and unfounded objection to Rand. The second sentence is a nice compact statement of the essence of her philosophy. With a rational or sane correspondent this could have been a nice jumping of point. As it turned out Alan had no interest in learning about Rand, his initial email was just a pretext for the kind of emotional word salad that passes for opinion among some. Your final sentence of the second email," Civilization requires people to deal with each other as rational persons. Since you reject that -- not just in the abstract but in your very method of spewing words without thought -- this conversation is over." is a perfect summation of the situation. There really is no gain to you, a rational person, in any discussion with someone who just spews. I always half expect people like that, somewhere in a conversation, to say, "Did I mean anything by that?" |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 8:59:19 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: RT
For cases like that, it seems fruitless to try to convince the person of anything. However, time-permitting, I think it is worth briefly correcting any mis-statements about Ayn Rand's views (along with brief references or quotes if possible) to prevent the person (hopefully) from continuing to spread falsehoods about her (or at least to remove any shred that it might be honest ignorance).
Beyond that, if someone openly embraces illogic/unreason/emotionalism (as seems to be the case here), then all that's needed is a brief statement on the dishonesty and immorality of such a view, along with a repudiation, and end of discussion. It may seem like it would have no effect, but rationally explained moral sanction and its withdrawal *is* a powerful tool. For people who just echo the mushy-headed emotionalism of our culture, it can be a bit of a 'wake-up call' to see that there is someone who considers those ideas to be beyond the pale of civilized discussion. In the case of the more deeply committed emotionalist, it pays to remember: there is no such thing as an 'honest' emotionalist. Somewhere deep inside, however dimly, they know they are being dishonest with themselves and faking reality; and however deeply buried, they have resultant feelings of guilt and 'unfitness' for reality. So it does 'hit' them to withdraw moral sanction. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 9:14:08 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Lemuel
E-mail: synthesist(at)ymail.com
I think you did what you could. This person had questions, you addressed them, and instead of asking for clarification or exposition - let alone accepted your invitation to join a discussion group - he went into attack mode. It's pretty clear that he wasn't in a receptive stance from the beginning, but you gave him the benefit of the doubt - most of the time you get burned, but sometimes you're surprised and you don't.
I participate in a few non-Objectivist forums as a defender of Rand & Objectivism whenever they're brought up. I only address those people that seem civilized, and talk to them as long as they are -- the rest I ignore, and when any discussion devolves into irrationality, I politely bail out.
A *few* times, though, I've managed to educate someone regarding something they misunderstood, and it's a small victory when they at least admit something like "it's not Objectivism per se, but those that claim to be Objectivists", indicating they understand there's a difference. I usually conclude such a discussion by noting that not everyone who speaks for or credits their motivations to Objectivism *is* Objectivist. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 9:55:38 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
Reminds me of the recent exchange with the "other" Trey--came off as confused but willing to discuss at first, then suddenly became a turd-flinger.
I guess it's an occupational hazard of being an intellectual with a currently-unfashionable point of view. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 9:56:34 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Santiago
E-mail: sanjavalen(at)gmail.com
In my own experience, engaging people like the one above in the manner he was engaged in has a dreadfully low success rate; in fact, for me, I believe its 0%. The reason is, I think, because the issue raised is not the real issue of contention. To take the first email as an example, what stands out at me most is two things:
Equating compassion with moral obligation / self-sacrificial duty (not explicitly but they are listed as "of a kind" with each other.)
Equating self-interest and the following of "pure" reason with destructiveness ("[not]...responsible for the pressing...needs of the moment.") This leads to the curious notion that a self-interested person can conceivably, knowingly and consistently act to destroy himself.
For this reason the real issue is not "Does Ayn Rand's philosophy leave any room for compassion?" (the explicit question) but a basic moral misunderstanding of what selfishness, compassion and selflessness entail. This is why in the second email the person degenerates into apparent insanity, placing Hitler as an advocate of selfish reason (!) which is patently untrue - and which you can see if you ever have seen a video of Hitler giving a speech, let alone studied the matter.
Generally, when issues run so deep, the best you can do is point them to resources which will help clarify the issue, if they are open to it (I would have pointed him to VOS in addition to the ASRG and explicitly state that I feel he has the entire idea of selfishness, compassion and selflessness incorrect.) Its not productive to engage them in such a way because, even with the most honest person, it will take them some serious introspection and at least some time to change their minds. This is best done, I feel, either in a scholarly setting (ie with an explicit teacher that they give the status of expert) or by yourself. As a peer, I have never seen anything get done.
Hope that helps a bit. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 10:02:55 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Santiago
E-mail: sanjavalen(at)gmail.com
I forgot to add to the above (at work and working in a notepad file):
The reason this person equates Hitler to someone who is an advocate of selfish reason is due to this terrible misconception of what selfishness and reason (along with altruism) entail. Because of that, so long as he holds his definitions, he MUST equate the two. He will dismiss reams of evidence of Hitler's patent emotionalism as irrelevant or done to "dupe the masses" (I have seen this occur; Hitler is a favorite example of people like this.) The reason is because he does not conceive of altruism as able to motivate people to do these things, whereas selfishness is; so he will conclude that any emotionalism Hitler displayed was a show put on to fool people into thinking he was genuinely compassionate, so he could get on with the 'selfish' business of ruining the country and genocide.
A priciple is a truth upon which other truths depend, to paraphrase. It goes with the bad principles as well as the good; if you hold the principle that selfishness is destructive and altruism compassionate, then you will always, always, always see destructive as selfish and compassion as altruistic. So I always try to get to the bad principle involved and, if not convince the person of their wrongness, point them in a direction that might get them there. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 10:14:16 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Erik N. Martinsen
E-mail: erik.n.martinsen(at)gmail.com
”To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
" Thomas Paine
In a one-on-one scenario like this, it's generally a waste of time. I only spent time writing responses when it can influence other readers. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 10:21:24 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Amy Nasir
E-mail: amynasir(at)aol.com
URL: http://greatlakesobjectivists.com
That's such a great question, Diana. I've had the same doubts occasionally. But, really, it doesn't matter how you respond, because the person on the other end isn't thinking clearly and is not able to receive your message. All you can do is advise that Alan be more careful with his thoughts, because his thoughts actually correspond with reality, and the experiences that he goes through in life correspond with those ideas and thoughts, which will guide his actions, and if he chooses the wrong actions, he will suffer negative consequences, therefore he needs to act on the correct thoughts, and he cannot do that if he does not clearly define them in the first place. What more can you advise?
It will not matter what you say to him, as he needs first-hand exercise in a reality-based method of epistemology. But you were right to warn him about his overly emotional "thinking." It's almost impossibly to tell a person that his mind matters, when he either doesn't actually know it yet, or has evaded long enough to blank it out. The only thing a person like this will "get" is hard life lessons. He'll fall flat on his face, and then he will need to decide whether to question his behavior, and then hopefully his thinking.
So I wouldn't worry much about your response. If he is honest and interested in identifying reality, he will thank you for it down the line. If not, like I said, he only has the consequences that reality will impose upon him. It's nearly impossible to tell someone to improve their epistemology and their cognitive relationship with reality. What you wrote is all that can be done. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 10:48:51 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Peter
All those quick rhetorical-like questions suggested a troll and this time he turned out to be one. Just tell him he's rude and eod, he'll be sure to twist that into 'you're a NAZI!' somehow anyway. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 10:54:10 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Sajid
I personally think you did great Diana. The standard for discourse is "innocent until proven guilty." You gave his views a fair hearing but he refused to do the same for you and you let him have it. Mutual respect is a very important basis for serious conversation.
It is possible of course that in your second email you could have been a little softer, just joked about the Hitler comparison and told him to check his facts. Or you could even express how offensive you find the comparison, ask him to be more polite and still continue the conversation. Sometimes this works, and sometimes this doesn't. It does serve to extend the conversation for maybe one more round.
However, I must also point out that by continuing to engage, you would choose to let someone into your private mind who has explicitly disrespected you. Not only does this set a bad precedent, but if the guy is skilled and knowledgeable at debating he could hurt you, all because you decided to take him too seriously. Also, by responding strongly, you are setting a standard for debate not only for yourself but also for your website. If everyone thinks they can attack Ayn Rand gratuitously and continue to get a "fair" hearing in these comments, every debate here will boil down to a weary and tired defense of the legitimacy of Objectivism instead of your readers getting a chance to think and comment about interesting issues from an Objectivist perspective. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 11:10:01 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Sajid
E-mail: sajid1760(at)yahoo.com
I also want to add that I am not completely against granting someone a hearing beyond what they deserve if I feel they are sincere, just misguided. Also, if I have a good chance of winning, it maybe a good opportunity to "win the person over." But one still has to be careful, because you maybe choosing to argue against someone whose sole purpose is not to acquire knowledge but to antagonize you and show you that even though he doesn't have a good philosophy or know everything, neither do you. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 11:47:33 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Robert
E-mail: RobtNasir(at)yahoo.com
Diana sez:
"Yet everything that I might say either seems too soft to be just -- or too harsh to be of any use. ... What do you think?"
I agree with Amy above (surprise, surprise!) ... though my initial reaction's a bit ... well, stronger.
Offhand, I found the first note from "Alan" is a splash of mental gargage and spooky voodoo nonsense.
The second is a sneering spew of whiny hatred.
Your over-generous replies are classic pearls-before-swine.
Your time is far, far too valuable for to spend more than a moment answering these types of postings.
A (short) answer is only worth directing at folks who might come across the exchange. Perhaps a quick, "I can see that your understanding of Ayn Rand's ideas is completely mistaken [or 'wrong' or 'stunningly, willfully ignorant' or 'pathologically biased' or 'akin to a knuckle-dragging primative savage'."
It's certainly not worth engaging "Alan" and his ilk (who won't understand - and won't want to understand - the smallest fraction of your reply).
Of course, my reaction is purely selfish, as I'd much rather see you spend all of your valuable spare time on your outstanding podcasts!
(And for what it's worth, I, too, have found myself engaging such folks more often than I should ... ) |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 12:00:24 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Trey Givens
E-mail: trey(at)treygivens.com
URL: http://treygivens.com
Was he calling YOU Hitler or was he referring to "people you mention that claim to be motivated by compassion & kindness & are indifferent to the suffering of innocent people?" The notes are so ramble-y, stringy, loopy that it's hard for me to tell what was meant exactly.
If he did intend to say you're Darth Hitler Randroid Dark Empress Hsieh, then I think your response is fine. But because those notes are written so poorly, I would wager that he doesn't actually know that he's delivered an insult. And if that's the case, I'm not sure how to properly respond because the first issue to solve before you can address complex ethical questions is one of basic communication skills.
Frankly, I'm surprised you read through the entire first note. I certainly don't have that patience. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 12:21:53 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Atul Kapur
Hello Diana,
To his first email, I would have responded in a similar way as you. I think it was important to direct him to Atlas Shrugged while pointing out his misconceptions about Ayn Rand's philosophy. His second email makes it clear that his motive is not 'to question', but to vent out his 'compassion'. You are right in telling him that he is just "spewing words without thought".
I would not have responded to his second email. Seems like he *needed* your first response in order to go ballistic. There was nothing in your first response to provoke his you-are-heartless rant. In fact, you made it absolutely clear in your first response that he is wrong Ayn Rand's ideas on kindness. Therefore, his first email was probably a ploy to draw you out, make sure that you care, and THEN spew out all the Hitler stuff in an attempt to make you feel disappointed. In essence, he is counting on your kindness in order to vilify you. So, I don't think your second response had any effect on him or his ideas.
Had you not responded the second time, it's not that you would have left his views "unchallenged". You are already challenging such views through your blog, podcasts, etc. in a much more effective way than an email response to a hopeless person. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 12:27:51 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Francis Luong (Franco)
E-mail: dispensable(at)definefunk.com
URL: http://justaddrationality.blogspot.com/
Diana,
I think your reaction is justified but that your time to put it into sentences, however cathartic, is a waste of time since AKG has proven himself in 2 letters to be unworthy of further consideration. I've been taking a few different tacts when encountering difficulties like this depending on my disposition with the person:
- Total Stranger or Distant Acquaintance: Indicate disagreement and dismiss
- Acquaintance with Potential: Indicate disagreement and ask clarifying questions, possibly identifying bad premises in their initial writing
- Friend: Ask yet more questions to make them argue and support their positions, attempt to identify source of confusion or re-evaluate their status.
Since my disputes of these sorts seem to occur in public-viewable forums, I go to some length to maintain cordiality. The problem with your too-soft/too-harsh dilemma, I think, is that you cannot have a cordial conversation with someone whom is intellectually hostile (or intellectually dishonest). Conversations require a rational basis.
-Francis |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 12:51:03 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Erik Wingren
E-mail: myfirstname(at)mylastname.com
Diana; In short, harsh sometimes can be of use. Not always, not as default, I'm sure a believer in honey better than vinegar. But sometimes a firm harsh clear point is what it takes to get through. I had all kinds of intellectual fun and inspiration when first reading Rand -- but the harsh condemning in "Apollo and Dionysus" was what slapped me out of my personal hippy-esque sloth. Tricky to find the right application, but I wanted to say that harsh isn't always "too harsh to be of any use." |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 13:13:05 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Dan G.
While there is definite value in exposing trolls in public forums, private encounters like this are also helpful in that they help your skirmishing skills (i.e. self improvement). The best strategy I've found in arguing with people like this (either to support Objectivism or Evolution) is to pose the question (or some surrogate thereof), "If Objectivism/Evolution is so evil/wrong/"teh bad", then why do you need to misrepresent it?" This does at least two things, it puts you in control of the conversation instead of following the troll's misdirection and insanity and second, the troll *will not* be able to address it, otherwise the mask is off, and all bystanders are witness to the fact that your opponent and his position are disingenuous. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 13:16:59 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Dan G.
Oh, and to whether you've accomplished anything. A successful blow could cause the troll to STFU and find something else to do (like video games). I believe that convincing trolls and their ilk to shut up (via an ass-whoppin') IS valuable, it improves the signal:noise ratio of the internet/civilization. Jackasses should be ashamed, or afraid of being embarrassed in a public forum, if they open their mouths. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 13:36:46 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: C Andrew
E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com
"Senor d' Anconia," delcared the woman with the earrings, "I don't agree with you!"
"If you can refute a single sentence I uttered, madame, I shall hear it gratefully."
"Oh, I can't answer you. I don't have any answers, my mind doesn't work that way, but I don't feel that you're right, so I know that you're wrong."
"How do you know it?"
"I feel it. I don't go by my head, but by my heart. You might be good at logic, but you're heartless."
"Madame, when we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say that when you'll scream, 'But I didn't know it!'--you will not be forgiven."
I've always liked this exchange. For me it's right up there with, "But I don't think of you, Mr. Toohey." As in, you're not offering value for value so why should I waste my time?
Of course Francisco had a few more back and forths than you did. But his interlocutor was at least observing the forms of polite conversation which yours was not. Besides, Francisco was actually talking to Rearden. If there is a possibility that someone else might see the exchange and take note AND you consider that possibility a good return on your time then the engagement has value. As posting the exchange on your blog has shown, it's certainly been valuable to us. And I think that it helps answer the question of how to determine when one is throwing good time after bad. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 14:04:19 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: temp
"Should I have responded differently?" Unfortunately you fell into his traps of loaded language. He was looking for a destructive exchange and it successfully transpired. His initial email is in the form of a question, but if you reread, it is a statement (one that is dismissive of your position before it is offered). This seems like a passive-aggressive person who wanted to make a statement but was afraid you wouldn't listen, so he was polite until you engaged. I think irrational arguers seek these useless exchanges to make you seem irrational; by knocking you off your game, they feel they have won the argument.
"Or not responded at all?" It is better to have experience. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 16:02:23 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Valda Redfern
E-mail: Valda.redfern(at)gmail.com
URL: http://valzhalla.blogspot.com
I think it's a waste of time to correspond with people who can't punctuate. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 16:23:55 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Dan G's #23 sums it up for me. My only addition to his words, is that if you're going to take the trouble to "smack a troll", make the email much **shorter**. Zing them with with the most glaring contradiction and/or evil implication of their viewpoint, and then stop there.
In this case, the stopping point is where you say "One cannot have a sensible conversation on that basis".... say it, and then MEAN IT.
There is no convincing such trolls. They only speak the language of bullying and intimidation. The only thing to do is to stand your ground, in a way that sends them a clear signal. Most bullies move on in search of easier targets once they get it. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 23:56:03 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
"alan: At this point I'm not clear on what you're trying to get out of this discussion. Your first e-mail sounded as if you were seriously interested in Ayn Rand's ideas, and I was willing to spend time on that. Your second one, with its comparison to Hitler and its use of the condemnatory word "elitist," sounds more as if you just wanted to start a fight. Is that your goal? Because if it is, I don't have time for it; discussion with someone who actually wants to learn has much more value for me."
Diana: I'm not sure that I would have been cool enough to write the above, actually . . . it's very easy to get drawn into this sort of thing . . . but I think it might be a suitable model for responding to such provocations. |
|
| Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 6:40:20 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Anthony R
RE: Comment #2
I do not have time to read every comment to this post but I want to state my agreement with Andrew. Engaging individuals with similar world views as Alan is far more productive in public forums. It will have zero effect on other ignorant and mystical individuals who read or join the discussion but it will introduce new ideas to the honest intellectuals, rare as they may be.
Instead of adding to all the other coulda, woulda, shouldas of Diana's reply to Alan I will simply state my personal first thought for a response. And that was, "Alan, I have a female friend who thinks just like you. She has been with her physically and mentally abusive husband for 8 years now. She refuses to leave him because she loves him and she feels he needs her to fix him. Who am I to argue with her heart?". I'd basically make my logical point while enjoying myself with the use of sarcasm at the same time. Win-win for me-me.
Anthony R. |
|
| Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 12:05:31 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: SelfSufficientEgoForTheSelfSufficientMotor
E-mail: Iamoura(at)ymail.com
URL: http://www.youtube.com/user/GaltsGulchPortal
"Until - when, Roark?"
His hand moved over the streets. "Until you stop hating all this, stop being afraid of it, learn not to notice it."
When you all - "learn not to notice it" - you'll know what MissRand is trying to describe as Dagny reads the changes in the faces of:
OwenKellogg upon resignation from TT: ..."He stopped. He shrugged and smiled - he was alive for a moment and it was the strangest smile she(Dagny) had ever seen: it held secret amusement, and heartbreak, and an infinite bitterness."...
Francisco d'Anconia: beginning with ..."It was a smile, though he was not smiling..."
Ken Dannager: "She stood reluctant to leave, looking at Ken Dannager in the manner of a last look at one departing for the realm of no return.
He guessed it, smiled and extended his hand. "I won't say goodbye," he said, "because I'll see you again in the not too distant future."
"Oh," she said eagerly, holding his hand clasped across the desk, "are you going to return?"
"No. You're going to join me."
Mrs.William Hastings description of her husband as "not prone to inner conflicts, he had always been sure of his actions and at peace with himself..."... but "he acted as if he was tortured by something, as if he were struggling with a personal problem he could not solve..."... - but then after a year of this he makes his decision and Mrs.Hastings' description becomes - "He seemed to feel a profound contentment. He had an odd serenity of spirit that I had never seen in him before."
This is the kind of inner certitude that you'll all know when you awaken to the fact that the invention of The Motor:Generator For Ayn Rand's Philosophy For Living On Earth takes happiness, life & living to a whole new level. And, that you 'didn't have to take any of that seriously,' did you?
Dr.Hugh Akston has "a lean face and gray hair that blended in tone with the cold blue of his eyes; somewhere beyond his look of courteous sternness, there was a note of humor, so faint that it vanished if one tried to descern it."
Then, Dagny meets Owen kellogg many months after he withdraws from dealings with the mystic/altruist culture: "His face had the clear, hard look she remembered having liked in the past. But the face had grown calmer, as if more serenely at peace. His clothes were threadbare. He wore an old leather jacket, and even in the darkness she could distinguish the scuffed blotches streaking across the leather." (8 probably one for the collection, huh Paul !?
Although many see the Dagnys and Hanks of the world as the heros fighting for Man's rightful, Reasonal existence - now that Miss Rand's motor is a reality that psycological battle for the intellect within the mystic/altruist common culture has only one solution - "withdraw your sanction, withdraw your support - stop supporting your destroyers." ...unless you like that inner-torture. For which case add 'masochistic' between mystic and altruistic above.
*Send an message or email for directions and information as to getting to Atlantis in June*
And I mean it.
I $ I |
|
| Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 15:38:51 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: JT
E-mail: JT30014(at)hotmail.com
To echo some of the above, I don't think that guy deserved that long a response. I don't object to what you said, but it doesn't seem worth it to me. My rule of thumb depending on the context is: If someone politely asks a question about AR and Objectivism and they seem honest, I answer briefly (maybe a few short sentences) and refer that person to something she wrote for a full explanation. If someone launches a baseless attack, I say he's wrong, briefly give my reason (again, in maybe a few short sentences), and then say I'm done with it. Is that intellectually satisfying? Not really. But you don't get intellectual satisfaction from dealing with people who are committed to irrationality. Can't be done.
Also, whenever someone writes something loaded with grammar mistakes and phrases like "Ya thank?", I infer that I'm dealing with someone who's flippant and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. It's likely a person who finds it convenient to quickly type whatever inane thoughts pop into his head and hasn't learned how to focus his mind well. |
|
| Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 18:23:42 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: garret seinen
E-mail: seine44(at)gmail.com
URL: http://seine.thinkertothinker.com/
I think yelling does no good and only serve to reward the poster. Better, silence if you are angry or a question if you want to initiate a discussion. I'd say looking at the first sentence, it is rather easy to see the writer has an 'undeserved' attitude toward wealth. I've treated 'hatred of wealth' type of statements with, "You realize you're condemning your fellow citizen when you condemn the wealthy don't you?" If I get some diatribe I leave but if I get a, what do you mean, I come back with Michael Jackson fans line up for hours to give their money, voluntarily, to see him for a couple of hours or every filled seat in the stadium has a person in it that thought the price at the gate was worth it. If it goes far enough that the individual admits that Walmart's owners are wealthy because the shoppers volunteer their money, I eventually tell them that Ayn Rand says he has the right to spend his effort where he want and his personal happiness is what he needs to fight for.
Don't often get that far, but I'm working on it. Even the guy who is trying to agitate, is a better convert than the guy who just sits on the couch. :-)
Cheers, gs |
|
| Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 23:33:12 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Richard Ruggiero
E-mail: exalt(at)optonline.net
I think that when you can't reach someone through reason you are left with just two objectives:
1. Make your case for the benefit of someone who might be listening and might benefit greatly from rational argument.(in this case those who have read this)
2. Make your case for your own benefit to help clarify in your own mind your ideas and his errors.
It seems you achieved both quite well.
-Rich |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
