SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees (Part 2) - General R...

Saturday
September 3, 2005

All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees (Part 2) - General Reasons by Joseph Rowlands

The all or nothing view, whether caused by rationalism, intrinsicism, or just mental sloppiness, cannot see important relationships, or maybe just doesn't care. It's not concerned with degrees, and can't deal with them. It draws very clear boundaries, and you have easy, definitive uses. It doesn't matter how close you are to the boundaries, the results are the same. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (26 messages)

Post 20

Wednesday, September 7 - 8:32pm

Link

Edit

MSK, it wasn't directed at you, if that's what you mean. I've been saying this for a long time now. It used to be that articles on SOLO generally had an explicit Objectivist connection (Objectivism was actually mentioned). We also ran pieces that worked with SOLO's themes, like excellence in arts and life. But we've seen a lot of "articles" that are just personal stories, without even an attempt to tie it in to Objectivism. I'm not happy with that. On top of that, people have started to recognize that personal stories are the big Atlas point winners, even if content wise there's very little. If someone is willing to air all their dirty laundry to the world, they get rewarded. On the other hand, articles that actually discuss Objectivism get significantly less Atlas points. And while "sob story" may be derogatory, I think it's accurate.

Dean, thanks for the comments. It actually does mean a lot to hear your thoughts, even if it's "excellent article". I think there's this idea that some writers always get positive feedback, so they don't really need it every time. But for me and some others I know, writing is a grueling process that takes a lot of energy. Each piece is important. Just because I got good feedback on a previous article, doesn't count for much with the new one. It's like periodically someone will post to my article saying "Excellent job as usual Joe", when to my knowledge they've never commented before.

Anyway, thanks.

Andy, I agree that people often treat misunderstandings as "all or nothing" deals, severing connections with people. It's certainly something that's come up a few times here on SOLO. This particular topic is one I've been thinking about a lot lately, and I intend to write more about soon.

Post 21

Wednesday, September 7 - 9:14pm

Link

Edit

Joe,

Thanks for the clarification. I am one who has aired some of my own dirty laundry, but the intent has always been to show how Objectivist values tie in and try to focus on the triumph of the human spirit, regardless of the source of the struggle (my last article took a cue from Ayn Rand's Introduction to a Victor Hugo novel, where she mentioned the value of valuing in itself as the theme of the book).

There were a few reactions by people who only looked at the "sob" and neither saw the triumph nor the Objectivist tie-in. They always left me a bit dismayed, wondering whether there was something I could have said differently to get it across.

But I have noted a few sob stories like you mentioned. Anyway, this thread is about your own brilliant article. As I said, this is my favorite of yours and I intend to do what I can to promote it.

Michael

Post 22

Wednesday, September 7 - 10:35pm

Link

Edit

I repeat here what I said when the Freerad publication of this article was first announced: it is excellent and successfully deals with what I deem to be the most important issue *within* Objectivism. I never cease to be appalled at instances of supposedly-smart Objectivists ignoring the simple rationality that Joe elucidates here. As I said before, I think this should be required reading.

If there's a lack of readership, I would guess it's because people are afraid to tackle something that's posted in parts. Of course posting it all at once would pose the same intimidation once the length is noted. A limit of the online medium, I guess.

Alec
(Edited by Alec Mouhibian
on 9/07, 10:36pm)

Post 23

Thursday, September 8 - 11:53am

Link

Edit

First off: Excellent article, as usual Joe! (And I know I've said that before)

I'm actually writing several articles that involve personal stories. My intent is to show how I came around to Objectivism and I think they'll highlight some other areas of interest as well. I don't give a damn if I get a signle sanction out of it, and will likely stipulate that position in the opening. It is always nice to get a sanction for some post, but I too value personal comments more and appreciate when someone takes the time to respond with a post. I only check my Atlas point updates to see what post it is that's being sanctioned and what, if any, comments followed.

Ethan

Post 24

Thursday, September 8 - 12:02pm

Link

Edit

Rich, the choice isn't between "all or nothing" and pragmatism. Both are dead ends. I argue here against ignoring degrees. I don't argue against principles, true dichotomies, categories, etc

Oh, no, Joe, I did not mean to imply it was a choice between the two. Pragmatism has its uses and its faults. I like James' idea of "stuff", as he describes it. What I don't go with is that the way his framework looks like it doesn't allow for events that occur outside of individual experience. That's more or less it. Bertrand Russell did a good job of talking about it in his A History of Western Philosophy, which is a pretty candid and detailed damn book, I must say, having revisited it recently. That's kind of a refreshing and funny book, considering the subject matter and the breadth and depth he takes on.

Cheers,
rde

Post 25

Thursday, September 8 - 10:21pm

Link

Edit

Thanks again Alec for the generous comments.

Ethan, thank you. Your comments are always welcome. And personal stories are fine, I don't have any problem with that. Some very interesting pieces have been about people talk about how they found Objectivism. Those are useful at least for letting people understand what parts of it was attractive, and what kind of obstacles there were along the way so we might be able to help. It just frustrates me slightly when there's not even an attempt to tie it to Objectivism in any way. They may be damn interesting stories, but this is a site for Objectivists.