User talk:TallNapoleon

Archives

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, TallNapoleon! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SwirlBoy39 22:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest•Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage,Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[1]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand article

Combine Ayn Rand with no formal training in philosophy and the result is JazzFan. I'm ignoring him. CABlankenship (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is fascinating to find that people like that exist however, worth a paper in its own right.

TallNapoleon - re your question on Peter's page. You might want to look out Complex Adaptive Systems theory - increasing in use in IT systems and more generically in management and social science. My degree is Philosophy and Physics and I find it fascinating. --Snowded TALK 16:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Training in philosophy without training in science is a recipe for disaster. Rand's biggest flaw was her complete lack of interest and understanding of science. Her followers seem determined to repeat this mistake. CABlankenship (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with that, and the naturalising tradition in Epistemology is among the most exciting developments in the field. Gives the word "objective" coherence! --Snowded TALK 10:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So I have a good deal of training in science, but fairly little in philosophy--the only philosophy course I've taken was an ethics course on Morality and Self-Interest. I actually forwarded JazzFan the final paper I wrote for that course, which was a very, very harsh critique of Rand. Anyway, that will change next semester when I start my Master's in History, but even then most of the philosophy I'll be getting will be primarily critical and historical. Since my epistemological background is minimal, what do you mean by the "naturalising tradition"?

I'm curious what you guys think about the importance of philosophers knowing science. Certainly, I think it's very important for scientists to know philosophy, if only as a humbling experience. I know a great many scientists, mathematicians and engineers with very little understanding of philosophy, and this tends to breed an incredible intellectual arrogance. I remember very vividly a freshman last year telling me "Science is how we know EVERYTHING" and having a field day carving up the logical problems in that statement. Unfortunately, that attitude appears to be highly prevalent amongst many within the technical fields. Anyway, I've wandered a bit. Have a nice night! TallNapoleon (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand recognized and asserted the validity of science as the result of man's mind to perceive reality, that in fact there IS such a thing as reality, that it can be analyzed and understood, that to propose otherwise is absurd and self-contradictory. This isn't to presuppose infallibility or omniscience but that knowledge can be gained and applied. Or do you see some hole in this proposition? TheJazzFan (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in particular. I just find Objectivism's characterization of modern science as anti-reason or irrational to be ridiculous. Again, Rand did not accept evolution. Near as I can tell she positively rejected quantum mechanics. As Branden put it, she was profoundly skeptical of any scientific advances since Newton (perhaps because his billiard ball model of the universe was disproven in favor of a probabilistic one?). TallNapoleon (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"...she was profoundly skeptical of any scientific advances since Newton..." Got any citations on that other than Branden? I find that to be a somewhat odd and broad assertion. I know she wasn't a big fan of the environmentalist movement, found it to be alarmist, based on pseudo-science and harboring a hidden agenda, just like contemporary crticisms of it. But she was certainly aware of space exploration, nuclear energy, etc. She exhalted technological innovation in her novels.

"...Rand did not accept evolution." From what I gather that's not an accurate characterization of what she said. She apparently regarded it as a theory, but didn't dismiss it, and didn't claim the expertise to make a definitive statement. As I understand it, in fact it's a work in progress to this day.

But even if she made statements about specific matters of science that were inaccurate it's really a side issue - it in no way undermines the foundation of her assertions regarding the efficacy of reason & logic, that it *is* possible to know.TheJazzFan (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand's rejection of Plato is in my opinion one of her most serious errors. Regardless of whether or not there is a "world of forms", the metaphor of the cave is an incredibly powerful epistemological concept--one that, as usual, Rand has misunderstood. True knowledge is rather more difficult to achieve than she makes out. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your paper on the Holocaust

Sure, I'd be interested in seeing your paper. I assume you have it in e-mailable form? Send it to izzaspamcatcher at yahoo daht com

And I see how CAB's been "ignoring" me.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, read through it. It's disingenuous to characterize it as a paper addressing the Holocaust which isn't even mentioned. Nazism is referenced only in passing. It's an anti-Objectivism polemic.

A book I'd suggest is "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff, which is an examination of the Holocaust.

From a summary of the book "Peikoff argues that the deepest roots of German Nazism lie not in existential crises, but in ideas — not in Germany's military defeat in World War I or the economic disasters of the Weimar Republic that followed, but in the philosophy that dominated pre-Nazi Germany. Although it was mediated by crises, Peikoff demonstrates that German Nazism was the inevitable climax of a centuries-long philosophic development, preaching three fundamental ideas: the worship of unreason, the demand for self-sacrifice and the elevation of society or the state above the individual."TheJazzFan (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't characterize it as a paper on the Holocaust. I characterized it as a paper concluding that Rand and her followers are idolaters. Certainly plenty of other people (see Ozick) have traced the Holocaust to idolatry, however.TallNapoleon (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The wording you used suggested to me it was primarily about the root causes of the Holocaust and somehow tying in Rand's ideas:

"I have in fact given a great deal of thought to the root causes of the Holocaust, and assure you that I feel no moral ambivalence whatsoever about it. My conclusion is that events like the Holocaust are caused by idolatry--the worship of human constructs or worse, human beings. Having read all of Rand's novels and much of her nonfiction, I also conclude that she and her followers are idolaters, and would be glad to forward you a paper I wrote a couple of years ago that argues just that."

At any rate you've greatly misunderstood & mischaracterized what she said. In short, "you don't get it". I would largely attribute it to the fact that you embrace religious tenets as valid. Objectivism and religion are incompatible.TheJazzFan (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I do "get it". If man lives by self-interest and reason, what happens when his reason tells him that it is in his self-interest to violate the rights of others? The best Rand can come up with is a feeble "it won't". Unfortunately Rand does not and cannot govern the reason of her followers. All her arguments to the contrary, selfishness--the idolatry of the self--is not a virtue, and if embraced will lead naturally to the sacrifice of others. Look at Rand's own life and what she did to those around her if you do not believe me. Furthermore, her worship of the superman must necessarily end with human sacrifice--despite all her assertions to the contrary. Let me be perfectly clear. Her hero, John Galt, is directly responsible for the deaths of millions, and the entirety of Atlas Shrugged screams at the reader, "They had it coming." Any philosophy that justifies the casual destruction of millions is insane. John Galt is Moloch personified--and Ayn Rand worshipped him.

As for my religious beliefs, unless you can substantiate an error in my argument that is attributable to them, they are irrelevant. But please, enlighten me: what don't I get? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"what happens when his reason tells him that it is in his self-interest to violate the rights of others?" For example?

"...idolatry of the self--is not a virtue..." I would first dispute your use of the term "idolatry". You're simply labeling any principle, anything valued as "idolatry". She stated each individual should value their life primarily, that no one - the State, the Fuehrer, has the right to declare a greater claim on your life than you. To state that valuing reason leads inevitably to slaughter is beyond ludicrous. The alternative is to NOT hold reason as the ultimate standard. That's what gives you death camps with the meaningless "Work Makes You Free" over the gate.

"...her worship of the superman must necessarily end with human sacrifice..." Really? Define sacrifice. Then show an example of this superman worship ending with human sacrifice as an obvious result.

"Her hero, John Galt, is directly responsible for the deaths of millions..." He did nothing whatever to them. He removed himself from a society that proclaimed he owed them his life simply because they demanded it. He had offered them his abilities in a value-for-value exchange, but they demanded he live and work as a slave. As a rough analogy, he and the others essentially "escaped to the North", leaving the slaveholders to tend the fields themselves.

"As for my religious beliefs, unless you can substantiate an error in my argument that is attributable to them..."

You state by quotation of someone else that idolatry is valuing (which is what you really mean by "idolatry") “Anything that is instead of God. Anything that we call an end in itself, and is not God Himself”

Given the rest of what you've said, "anything" means any principle, any moral value, value of self, of life, of loved ones, of material possessions, achievement, triumph (all being not "God") to be a sin of the highest order, but worship of some vague, undefined, unknowable mystical entity is the only virtuous state. The inner contradictions are endless - how do you know this being exists? How do you know what this being wants of you? How do you know any of these things are sins? How do you know ANYTHING? Certainly not by way of reason, you've already proclaimed holding reason as a virtue is wrong. TheJazzFan (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it appears that it is you who has not understood my paper. If you truly believe that I have confused value with idolatry--or that Ozick has--then there is frankly no point in having a conversation with you, because it is very clear that you don't "get it". But I think it's necessary to make the distinction between value and idolatry clear anyway. An idol is, essentially, a moral trump card. It is not just a value, it's a value that supersedes all other considerations, including moral ones. For example, I love (in Rand-speak, value) my family, but I do not worship them. Thus, this is not idolatry. However, if I were to worship my family, or to believe that I must obey their every dictate without question, or that the interests of my family trumped all other moral considerations, including, for instance, the lives of innocent people, that WOULD be idolatry. So when Rand writes that man's happiness is his highest moral purpose, that essentially means that it's a moral trump card--i.e., an idol. On the other hand, if she were to hold simply that happiness is ONE of man's moral purposes. The only possible moral trump card is God, because God, if he exists, is by definition moral. Note that this definition does not excludes atheists. An atheist need not be an idolater, so long as he does not seek to replace God with something else. Similarly, the most outwardly pious can in fact be idolaters (NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!), if they project themselves onto the God they worship. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your words "Rand worships three idols of particular relevance: individual happiness, the “heroic being”, and Reason." There's no question you've confused "idolatry" with "value". She arrived at her conclusions not by way of indoctrination but by a process of investigation.

How she arrived at her conclusions are irrelevant; they are still idolatrous. Marx (with later help from Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot) and Hitler both founded idolatrous philosophies, and so far as I can tell they arrived at their conclusions "not by way of indoctrination but by a process of investigation." How you can maintain that I have confused "value" with "idolatry" when I have explained the distinction quite clearly is beyond me. As for parroting, I quite comprehend Rand's words--that is why I find them so repugnant.

Sure, I understand quite well. You've parroted a few of the words she used but with no grasp of the meaning behind them. If you were to present this paper at an Objectivist forum, I expect you'd be laughed off the stage.

To quote Victor/Victoria: "Being thrown out of here is significantly better than being thrown out of a leper colony." I wouldn't be caught dead at an Objectivist forum.

"God, if he exists, is by definition moral" He is huh. "If" he exists? You're not sure but still have some (yet unspecified) definition for him? And if this God happens to think you should toss virgins into volcanoes, then that's what defines moral behavior? And you determine what God is or dictates by way of....?

My point is that the argument about idolatry is not predicated on the existence of God. Granted I am making the assumption that if God exists he is benevolent--i.e., that he does not want virgins tossed into volcanoes--but I believe this is a reasonable premise. My point is simply that the argument works if God exists, and if he doesn't.

I saw your original paragraph above stating there's "no point in discussing it with me." I've raised specific questions regarding specific points. I've asked you to define terms, to explain your meaning, provide examples. In your revised paragraph you've gone on some more about idolatry but added nothing new. It's incumbent upon you to support your position and clarify these points. You challenged me to point out a flaw related to your religious beliefs and I did so. If you had any genuine interest in intellectual discourse you'd make an attempt. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I challenged you to point out how my religious beliefs negatively impacted my arguments. My point is that my arguments stand independently of my religious beliefs. They draw strong inspiration from rabbinic Judaism (not my religion, incidentally), but my arguments are not predicated on an existence of God.

Words have meaning, Jazz. You cannot claim that happiness is a man's highest moral purpose and that he must rely for knowledge solely on his own reason, and then insist that the rights of others should be inviolable. Again, what if a man should conclude that killing his neighbor would make him happier? The ONLY answer Objectivism has in reply is "Well, no it wouldn't, so you shouldn't kill him." Doesn't that strike you as a little... feeble? Do you think that would stand in our hypothetical would-be murderer's way? Seriously, Jazz, doesn't the way Rand systematically dehumanizes her opponents--both real, and in her novels--seem a little... well, dangerous? Doesn't the way she so casually tosses around the world "evil" to describe things or people she disagrees with strike you as a little, well, odd? The woman wrote a novel whose plot is, essentially, "Everyone who disagrees with me dies, and deserves to." Doesn't that bother you in the slightest? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Doesn't that strike you as a little... feeble?" It strikes me that again, you're not even being accurate. Rand spoke of rational self-interest. If you read and understood what she said, you'd understand the distinction. Rand recognized mens rights - personal and property rights. Men are entitled to live their lives free from the unprovoked initiation of force by others. This is an explicitly stated, fundamental tenet of Objectivism that you've managed to remain ignorant of despite alleged familiarity with the subject. Self-interest does not equal lawlessness or acting on malevolent whim. If killing your neighbor because you want his property was fair game, then you too are subject to being murdered by another neighbor. Life in Somalia -vs- Mayberry.

No, I KNOW it is an explicitly stated by Objectivism. I am stating that it contradictory and feeble. See here's the thing: Rand doesn't get to be the judge of rationality or of what makes people happy (utility). Only individual actors can judge the rationality and utility of any given action. Thus if happiness is my highest moral purpose, and my own personal reason my only means to knowledge, then if I judge that violating the rights of others will further my happiness the most then it follows that I must do so. The only answer Objectivists have is that it wouldn't really make me happier. That's what it boils down to. Thus Rand's belief in the absolute nature of human rights is contradicted by other elements of her philosophy.

The ONLY answer Objectivism has.. Again, that's just factually wrong as outlined above.

"How she arrived at her conclusions are irrelevant" Apparently you find the fundamental differences in the substance of their beliefs to be irrelevant.

Their beliefs are equally dangerous because they are all rooted in radical idolatry. The only reason Objectivism does not have the blood of millions on its hands is because it has never gained power, and God-willing it never will. I will note, however, that the 19th century, which Rand so adored, was a pretty shitty time to be a worker, or an Indian (of either type), or an African, or really anything other than a wealthy white male. The Social Darwinism of the time was itself idolatrous, willing to sacrifice the lives and health of workers and subjugated, colonized peoples on the altar of "progress".

"my arguments are not predicated on an existence of God." It's preposterous for you to state that only belief in God is virtuous and nothing else - anything that is not God - is, which is the closest you've come to defining idolatry and then declare that your religious beliefs have no impact on your assertions.

If God exists, then He is infinite. If he does not exist, nothing is. One of the definitions I offered in my paper for idolatry was the conflation of the finite with the infinite. Now, an atheist could make a very, very strong case that ANY religion is inherently idolatrous, but that is neither here nor there. Incidentally, idolatry does not mean belief. It means treating something as a moral trump card, as I said before.

""Everyone who disagrees with me dies, and deserves to." I guess you just wanted to punctuate how profoundly you've misunderstood. Re-read what I've said above about John Galt's withdrawal from the world of the slavers.

The world of the slavers... yup, that's about it. Everyone except Galt's little band of supermen is a slaver, or supporting the slavers, and so deserves to die, and does. And oh, I do understand that Objectivists consider taxation and regulation to be slavery. It amuses the hell out of me that y'all can say stuff like that and still hope to be taken seriously. You guys ought to look up a little something called social contract theory some time. It will rock your world.

"Words have meaning" Yup. Here's a list including points that I previously brought up that you've failed to address.

Define idolatry

I already have, repeatedly and in detail. You have either failed to read what I have written, failed to understand it, or are trying to waste my time. None of these reflect well upon you. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Define sacrifice

The term has many meaings. However, in my paper I am using it in the sense of "killing something--in this case, someone--to appease a bloodthirsty deity". Think Aztecs or, for that matter, Moloch. Incidentally, Rand's definition is highly idiosyncratic, and is used by virtually no other philosophers. She defined the term for her own purposes, and then uses her definition to attack philosophers who were using it in a different way. So she was either being shoddy, or disingenuous. Take your pick.

Define virtue

A very tricky question to which there is no easy answer. As you well know, books have been written on it. For the purposes of my argument, the only ethical premise that needs to be accepted is that murder is morally wrong.

Define God

Any God for which I could provide a satisfactory definition would be an idol, because it would be a creation of my own imagining. Again, my arguments do not stand on the existence of God.

Define Faith

The acceptance of any proposition without definitive proof. Note that this does not mean "without evidence".

How do you know God exists?

I accept it on faith (see above). I also accept on faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, though I have no way of proving it.

Show an example of this superman worship (as per Rand) ending with human sacrifice as an obvious result.

Read Rand's train scene in Atlas Shrugged. She is quite explicit that everyone on that train deserves to die... and it is a very short leap from saying someone deserves to die to doing the deed. Or, when Dagny shoots the guard at the end. To her he's not even a human being any more. The lives of the people Galt

Is there a way of obtaining knowledge other than through reason, logic, use of one's senses and mind?

If one includes emotions and intuition under the rubric of mind, then no. I would also note that there are many different kinds of knowledge, and most of what we "know" is really just a probabilistic estimate. In this case the only things we can know for certain are those which we derive deductively and rigorously from axioms. However, I would submit to you that "almost certain" is usually good enough. Furthermore I would argue that tradition forms an important body of wisdom that should be drawn upon, although not uncritically.

Who has a greater claim on your life than you?

Not who, but what. I believe in a deontological morality: that morality exists independent of human interests. Proper ethics does not create a moral system, but exposes existing moral truths, rooted in human and--if one accepts the existence of God, which is not necessary for deontology--divine nature.

Is self-sacrifice virtuous?

Short answer, it depends. Slightly longer answer: In Judaism, it is permissible to break any of the religious laws to save a life, including one's own, except for three. Under no circumstances may one murder, and under no circumstances may one commit sexual crimes, and under no circumstances may one commit idolatry. So, while an observant Jew might lie to save a life (and indeed would be obligated to), or eat a ham sandwich to avoid starving to death, he could not worship an idol or kill an innocent person to avoid being killed. Obviously, to risk one's life to save others is noble and heroic, but I would not argue that there is necessarily an obligation to do so. However, the argument is again irrelevant to my arguments against Objectivism.

When you've addressed all of these points, I might consider continuing a discourse.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why I should consider that a privilege. So unless you wish to actually engage with my thesis, we're done here. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well...you said that you don't find reason something to be held in high regard and by golly you've presented no evidence to the contrary.TheJazzFan (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we're done. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ You might want to ask one of the admins with authority (I can never remember what they are called) to permanently delete your article from TheJazzFan's talk page, otherwise it remains permanently available. A simple request here with the diff should get it actioned quickly. Let me know if you get it published by the way, useful reference and I liked the use of Milton --Snowded TALK 11:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

World domination

Hi. World domination is really a mess, as you pointed out. Would you care to join the discussion there on major changes? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In your evidence section you might want to add diffs showing Nilges pushing an anti-Rand POV and you defending the article from him. I'd add it to mine, but I'm right at the word limit. Idag (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration evidence

Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning, Stop Name Calling

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is not a matter for debate.

The terms Randist, Randite, Randroid, cult, cultist and so forth are simply uncivil name calling, and are considered personal attacks. No matter what anyone thinks, people who identify themselves as Objectivists or Rand supporters should be referred to respectfully by their own self identification, and not some alteration of Rand's name. Any further comment will be reported to administration.Kjaer (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Diffs with your insults

In case you missed it, here are just two examples of yours and others offensive use of name calling:

we have quite a history of people using the word cultist to refer to editors here as well as other derogatory terms. So, under the assumption that everyone wants to keep the dialog out of the gutter, just as we do not use slurs against Catholics and Jews and others, please do not make up derogatory names to describe us Objectivists. Other terms are a violation of WP:CIVIL. Kjaer (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)