Just Who is a "Degenerate Objectivist"--and Who the Frack Cares!
An Open Letter to Phil Coates and the Other Denizens of Objectivist Living:
For the past couple of days, I've been reading and re-reading the latest iteration over in the Living Room section of: "let's show our asses by bashing Phil for preaching to us about how to be better Objectivists." (Oh, I'm sorry -- it's not bashing, since it's all true, Phil deserves it, blah-blah-blah.)
I've managed to get a lot done in the past two days, just by "biting my tongue" each time I've had the impulse to jump in and make the odds a bit more even. (It helped to realize that the odds were just ~too~ odd.)
Anyway, I just re-read the Rules of Engagement, as it were, and here are the first two posting guidelines Michael and Kat laid down for us, many moons ago:
Objectivist Living Posting Guidelines and Legal NoticePosting Guidelines
1. Objectivist Living is a community of people with shared interests, people who are mainly interested in discussing Objectivism from all aspects (including checking basic premises from time to time), the Brandens, fine arts and creating works. Members also present articles and links to their own activities and items they find interesting to share. Thus the tenor is slanted toward understanding, discussion and sometimes education, not preaching or conversion.
2. The practice of good manners is a value sought and encouraged on this forum. Obnoxious and offensive behavior is not welcome. Excessive profanity, trash talk, bigoted remarks and such should be avoided. Should members start insulting each other (flame wars), the site owners will take discreet measures to resolve the issue. If this fails, harsher measures will be used. This should not be seen as a harness on anyone's intellectual ideas and expression. It is merely a standard for behavior between posters and the bar is fairly high on this forum.
It seems that because Phil got overly preachy (in some folks' minds), this was regarded as ~so~ obnoxious/offensive as to justify all manner of abusive, personally insulting remarks. (Ummm, sorry, I forgot. It's not really being abusive, if Phil deserves it, and it's OK to insult someone who has insulted you, even if inadvertently. So goes the mantra around here, anyway.)
Then Phil responded, first by pointing out a plethora (apparently a more acceptable term than "shitstorm"? though that seems to fall into a category our moderator/site owner has allowed to be used without censure, even when applied to people rather than behaviors) of fallacies people used in bashing him -- then by himself lapsing into four-letter words and personal attacks. And yes, it ~is~ "predictable." But what the frack do you expect, Michael, when a bunch of bullies poke sticks at a dog when it takes a crap on the ballfield? That it won't eventually try to bite back?
(As for what's truly "predictable," I already have a sealed envelope listing several things Jonathan will do in commenting on this blog post (if he deigns to comment at all): including calling me "pathetic" and a "hypocrite," accuse me of "not paying attention," "evading," and the list goes on. Oh...wait...I gave it away. Well, Jonathan is welcome to be creative and come up with some other insults -- or to express his disdain by saying nothing at all...)
<sigh> So, much for standards. Two wrongs apparently ~do~ make a right, even a second wrong that is piled ~much~ higher and deeper than the first. (I'd call the massive assault on Phil a "dog-pile," except that conflicts with the earlier metaphor of the schoolboys gang-poking the dog for leaving a pile in their play area.) I guess the only way for anyone to be banned, or even ~officially~ disciplined, around here is either (1) to be caught engaging in clearly deliberate, massive plagiarism or (2) to be caught using the word "cun... Oops, almost used it! (Whew, that was a close one.)
Anyway, on the premise that Phil really means well and that he really does have valuable constructive things to offer us, let alone the world -- and not just admonishments and preaching about how not to slip into depravity and undermine THE EVENTUAL TRIUMPH OF OBJECTIVISM -- I offer this modest, humble suggestion.
Remember, Phil, in The Fountainhead, where the young fellow is looking out over Roark's Monadnock development and says (or thinks?): "Don't work for my happiness, my brothers; show me yours; show me that it is possible; show me your achievement; and the knowledge will give me courage for mine." Pretty inspirational, right? Well, why not put it to work in ~your own~ life?
Try this: write that book you've been threatening to write. Pour a year or two of your heart and soul, your blood, sweat, and tears, into it. Publish it, which doesn't cost a lot these days. Then announce its availability to OL members. Even better, get a well-respected, prolific thinker and writer on OL to praise your book's merits and to recommend others buy it. Then, if you are unable to interest any of the OL'ers who have been prodding you to write your book--if no one on the site is willing to put his money where his mouth and professed ideals are, then and, I would say, ~only~ then will you be entitled to refer to people on OL as "degenerate Objectivists." Whether or not you would do so, and whether or not you would continue to spend time on OL, and for what purpose, would be your concern.
But Phil, I think that your original use of the term "degenerate Objectivist" was way over the top, certainly premature, considering what you wanted to accomplish. Your point was well taken (in my opinion), that there is an AWFUL lot of uninformed criticism and mis-application of Objectivism on OL, and that more careful study of the available Rand and post-Rand material would go a long way to eliminating the ignorant crap we have to wade through. But you expressed it in such a negative and condescending way that the response you received was inevitable -- though even less excusable than what you did to provoke it.
One of the things I learned in Al-Anon, and try to apply as consistently as I can, is to realize that other people's misbehaviors and defaults is not my responsibility, but theirs. I did not ~cause~ it, and I cannot ~control~ it or ~cure~ it. What I can control is ~my own~ behavior. When I manage to turn my focus away from those who have angered or disappointed me, to stop trying to change or improve them, and focus instead on ~my~ values and what ~I~ want to accomplish in life, I get ~so much more~ done. And I feel ~a lot~ happier!
Case in point: the past two days--instead of jumping into the general fray on your thread in the Living Room, I outlined the career manual I'm writing to offer along with my CDs on a flyer I'm going to mail out to all the universities in the country; and I outlined the logic-and-dialectics guidebook, which is my ~next~ writing project. I confess that this spurt in productivity and movement toward my goals was aided, in large part, by the salutary effects of hanging out with two very positive, constructive Objectivists--something that seems to be in rather short supply on OL. (It didn't used to be that way.)
I'm saying that, not because I've accomplished anything fantastic and monumental in the past several days, but because I've moved toward my happiness, rather than letting the shortcomings of others drag me down. In other words, to let you know that I'm taking my own advice -- in hopes that you will see that it ~is~ practical and desirable advice to follow, and that you will avail yourself of it, too!
Best wishes, Phil!
REB
13 Comments
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now