Well, I had been told by db0 that I would eventually be blocked from commenting on Evanescent’s site and indeed I have been. I think db0 had a similar experience. It was in part terrible use of bad language that eventually got me banned (yeah right). Poor ole evanescent and his unassailable logic where not able to handle certain collections of letters.
Ole Evan has swallowed Randianism so completely that he is no longer able to think in a non-randian way. Everything he thinks and writes is drawn directly from Randianism to the point where it is the dictionary and presumably everyone else that is wrong and Rand who is right. A few fringe lunatics following a novelist is not quite a majority last I looked. Still, if redefining the terms to suit yourself is what it takes to try to pretend you can think, Evenscent is more than happy to leap in and start messing with meanings.
I don’t mind that he is bad at thinking or that he is unbelievably pompous about it (sure it is irritating but each to their own) but Evanescent has done the most cowardly thing you can do on a blog. He has banned me from comment even though he goes right ahead and responds to my last post. By the way, for anyone interested the foul mouth language I used amounts to two words bullshit and holy shit. So essentially I said the word shit twice. I had been under the impression I was debating an adult by I suppose all the “I’m better than you, nananana” stuff should have given away that I was in fact arguing with a child. A brainwashed one at that.
Objectivism is Evanescent’s religion. I say this because he accepts everything Rand writes even the redefining of commonly well understood words. He is literally incapable of thinking outside of Randianisms. This is evidenced by the nearly incessant asserting he does without justifying the thinking. He claims I don't know enough about objectivism to comment. He is overlooking the fact that I was commenting on what he wrote, not objectivism. I should say at this point that from what I have read from Rand was also full of baseless assertion. Objectivism is not a philosophy, it is a dogma.
If anyone wants to take a gander at our little spat you can find it here in the comments section.
According to Evanescent I embarras myself while he gives me the spanking of a lifetime. I am not worthy of even sharing blog space with the great and mighty intellect that is EVANESCENT. I was out of my depth.....well according to him anyway. It seems it is a habit of his to ban people who don't just accept what he is saying is right. It is sad thing.
Perhaps he should have some kind of proviso on his web site banner warning people that questioning the almighty Rand will not be tolerated and any dissenting voice will be silenced. Would save some time.
Shame on you Evanescent. Having to have the last word and then banning. Shameful and cowardly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Then You should avoid posting at Triablogue also. :-)
Lucian,
You get banned from there?
"I think db0 had a similar experience."
Not just with Evanescent but with his mentor as well
I generally have a bit of a history with them ;)
You get banned from there?
Would this and this help answer Your question? :-) -- But, unlike You, who were a real gent, I really was pain-in-the-@$$ meanie. >:)
As someone following your exchange with Evanescent, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the situation.
For starters, saying Objectivism is his religion is little different from a Creationist saying that the theory of Evolution is your religion. You accept evolution as true because you're convinced by the evidence and the fact that it withstands rational investigation, not because you blindly accept anything Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins says. Most Objectivists I've encountered have accepted Rand's philosophy because they have examined it unemotionally, made an honest effort to understand it, and have come away convinced that Rand got it right.
It is a shame you were banned, as I enjoyed reading the exchange. You asked a lot of the same questions I had when first looking into Objectivism, though I do think you could have been more respectful. Perhaps you will post your response to his final post here.
On the issue of redefining words, I'd be interested in knowing why you think the dictionary definition is better/more accurate than the one Evanescent provided. Whether you accept Objectivism or not, the notion that anything is intrinsically valuable is difficult to defend.
Maybe it wouldn't hurt to take a breather and read back over the exchange with a cooler head. Arguing with Objectivists can be frustrating at times, but I've found the philosophy to help clear up some wooly-headed thinking on a number of issues for me.
Lucian,
Ah it is a strange thing to be banned. In my case though it was my terrible, utter stupidity in even attempting to argue with a n intellectual giant like Evanescent that saw me banned. I was bringing down the quality of the site apparently :)
I have never been banned before but it feels good in a way!
Knowing my penchant for not sugar coating things it probably won't be the last time I will get banned.
Db0,
I consider myself in good company being banned from there. I have looked over your skirmish with E. He really doesn't understand why we don't just admit that we are wrong. I guess we are just pathetic holdouts!
I enjoyed seeing the Barefoot Bum have a go too. Larry is a joy to watch when he gets going. :)
Eric,
In honor of your gentlemanly post I'll reply to Evanescent here. You are right of course that was far less than respectful when I responded to this
post. If you read the post in question I think it is fair to say than Evanescent was not exactly respectful to me or anyone else out there who self identifies as an atheist. Is it reasonable to suppose that attacking a large group of people with sweeping generalisations should be met with respect?
It is a shame that it went as nasty as it did. I would have preferred it didn't but I have limits on the amount of smug I can endure.
I should point out that while I don't agree with some of what objectivism holds to; I would not suggest that there is nothing sensible to be found there. I watched a video of Ayn Rand being interviewed and quite enjoyed it.
I'll try to make clear my objections to Evanescent's thinking and I suppose by extention objectivist thinking on the topics we covered.
I would invite you to respond from the objectivist perspective if you fancy it or if not could you let me know if I am getting the objectivist angle wrong. Thanks.
"If you read the post in question I think it is fair to say than Evanescent was not exactly respectful to me or anyone else out there who self identifies as an atheist."
Hmmm. I did read that post and didn't really find it all that disrespectful. He did a decent job of qualifying that "some" or "most" atheists feel a certain way. I'd say his post accurately described a significant portion of atheist activists. It definitely captured my worldview when I first started self-identifying as an atheist. You may not have liked what he said, but it was said in a civil manner.
In any event, I look forward to your response. I don't necessarily consider myself an Objectivist, as there are parts of it I still don't understand 100%. Any perspective I have on the philosophy represents only my own understanding at this point in time, not necessarily what Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff (or Evanescent) might say. That said, I'm probably more familiar with the philosophy than most of those who criticize it...which is kind of sad.
Eric,
A person who honestly seeks a rational worldview would do well to study Objectivism, especially those “rational” atheists out there who despise religion so much yet cannot justify many of their own subjective notions.
You might find someone refering to you as "rational" (obviously implying anything but) and making blanket statements about you civil, but to me they are asking for trouble. He may have described you well in that post but he didn't describe me or any of the atheists I know.
Where does the notion come from that you have to be familiar with the entire cannon of a particular doctrine to critize any particular part? I don't need to have read mein kampf to know that I think gassing jews is wrong.
What I mean to say is, I am not critising all of objectivist thought.
"You might find someone refering to you as "rational" (obviously implying anything but) and making blanket statements about you civil, but to me they are asking for trouble."
Re-read the text you quoted. He's referring to the atheists he's described throughout the post (atheists who cannot justify their positions with rational thought - only with subjective emotion, if at all). It's not a blanket statement about all atheists.
"What I mean to say is, I am not critising all of objectivist thought."
I understand. My comment was not meant as a dig at you. Just more of an observation about the general tendency among critics of Objectivism to attack poorly-constructed straw men.
Though I would add that actually reading some of Rand's complete works (or Tara Smith's excellent Viable Values) will clear up a lot of your issues with Objectivism much faster than internet arguments - and with half the frustration ;)
Eric,
A friend gave me a copy of "The virtue of selfishness" recently. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. It is on the list though :)
Post a Comment