I'm assuming there's simply a pro-Tracinski faction that's stayed under the ARI umbrella. Any word to the contrary?

Jim

As he said, I responded to a message from him which purported to agree with me re the over-reaction to Tracinski. I replied that the Tracinski show trial was all premeditated, and encouraged him to "keep up the good work"—meaning calling you to account, Fred. Scarcely a "command." But I see from his post that he is just game-playing, and remains the two-faced pomowanking turd he was when I booted him. Lesson learned.

Linz

Ha! Just as I thought. Pope Perigo is issuing commands to his minions by "backchannels"! Proof Positive of Perigo's Perniciousness!

Other than that, does anyone know what Shneerk said?

[NB - I was about to send this as a cosy backchannel to Fred -- but thought my silence on list might be misinterpreted. I love Fred Weiss, and hope that readers will return to our wrasslin' well anon]

I have to dodge the directive, Fred. Not because I am a moron, or because my name is not William Scott Scherk, born in northern British Columbia in 1958, nor because I don't actually want to take you up on your suggestion.

It's not a bad suggestion, one of your several good points in your varied output this past while (yes, I disagree with Phil that you are a now nameless troll and subject to boycottage) -- impressed am I with the way you engaged Burgess the other day and your acceptance of Diana's FYI noting her disagreement with you -- a mild echo of the same disagreement I posted here (I do not assume she bothers to read my shit. I have said some really nasty things about her and never properly apologized -- though I am uncertain if she actually did get some laughs from the old "Universe of Evul" post. Yikes. I figure she would ban me on sight from her comments, and delete on sight any apology from me. Don't be surprised, though, when I post an "In defense of Diana Mertz Hsieh" blog item here at SOLO).

I am a Canuck, and thus can never walk by an abandoned infant in the forest without a wince due to Canucki brainwashing -- the thought of you screaming alone in the woods here in a dead thread at SOLO, perishing, I just can't do that. I'll be back, you Shnark-beater you).

I should let you know that Lindsay sent me a nice 'You go, girl' backchannel re: "Demonizing on Demand" which I had solicited like this:

     I agree with you. I just don't get it -- even if Fred
     and Diana could make a strong case that "What went
     right?" is wrong, it doesn't justify the dogpile.

     Even Mayhew gets his oats in the comment threads at
     NoodleFood.

     What a spectacle.

[to be fair to Lindsay -- I also had earlier mailed a cosy backchannel to Fred re: "Linz, The Proud Truck Driver:

     Got a chuckle out of that one -- there is a part of
     the anti-ranting critique that Lindsay is not yet
     able to accept. Bruuuummmmm. Brummmmmm. . .]

You must understand that my avowed role is as Jester poking and poking at the ick factor. I just don't get it when you go nasty, and I just don't get it when Lindsay does it.

If, to borrow your metaphor, you are a sort of an attack dog or whatever you said -- if you are the attack dog of whatever faction you belong to, then I am a modest Canucki shepherd/wolf cross waaaaaaay up here on the sidelines. From time to time we put on lurid and insane mexican wrestling masks and enter the rock 'em, sock 'em open pit that is SOLO at its most audience attracting.

I suspect that if we met we would shake hands and bicker over drinks about current events in the US and Canada. I apologize over all the heart attack references in my previous notes if you took it personally, But you probably took it as personally as I do when you call me a moron, or when I say "You put the asshole back in Objectivism." I also apologize for the Larry Budd Melmon reference. That should be reserved for Casy Fahey.

As you once noted, you knew you would be sooner or later be skewered by the evul clown wrestler El Sneeko Snarko.

Price you pay for putting on yer own mask and tights, dawg.

*     *     *     *

I have to go to a deathbed and so will be silent on SOLO for a while.

WSS

Ha! Good move, Phil. Everytime a Tracinskite opens his mouth -especially you - he makes it worse for his case.

once again, I strongly suggest people not engage with this guy (who posted just prior to me)

Snark,Sneerk - or whatever your name is, if you have some specific substantive point to raise in connection with *the content* of Tracinski's essay or of the now numerous critical responses to it, raise it now.

Otherwise shut the fuck up.

   Look, Snark - or whatever your name is,

That's cute, Fred. Somehow I think you know what my name is . . . since it is spelled out in full at the top of all my posts. Perhaps your habitual reckless blustering stems from this same difficulty in grasping simple things like names.

   the misquoting I am referring to is Tracinski
   lifting one piece of Peikoff's comments out of
   context and ignoring the rest which is clearly
   essential to understanding the Objectivist position.

I know what you are referring to -- I corrected you in my preceding post. Pounding the same sodden loaf as yesterday does not advance your thesis.

   By any reasonable standards of good scholarship
   what Tracinski did is blatantly dishonest.

No, this is incorrect. I don't believe you understand the basics of citation, so I excuse your ignorance.

   As it happens Tracinski...umm...*implicitly*
   agrees since he removed the quote from his later
   revisions.

No, this is wrong also -- unless you read minds.

   So, why the fuck are we still discussing
   it?

I have discussed your errors; you appear to recognize your errors with the same facility as you evince reproducing names.

   As for why I won't post to The Forum, I won't post
   to any forum where my comments can be edited or
   deleted and where I can be subjected to moderation by
   the very person I am debating.

Thanks for the pseudo-explanation. Too bad you are mixing up OO and Speicher's forum policies. In any case, you and the Speichers were remarkably cosy during your time there. I assume you told someone somewhere something about these reasons before. I await your addled reference to Speicher's sins . . . "It's somewhere, it's up to you to find it, moron."

   Lastly, why are you asking me to comment on
   questions in Tracinski's essay which I and/or others
   have already addressed, in some cases more than once?

Well, in fact, I challenged you to provide "first-hand analysis and rebuttal" -- but, as before, you give no specific reference to where you have supposedly addressed these questions.

   As for debating Tracinski, if you were at all
   paying attention (which is something you seem to have
   difficulty with) *that is precisely what I have been
   doing*.

This comment is risible, Fred. As if screaming at the TV in your basement is 'debate' ("Hey! Hey! you fuckers aren't listening! Hey, TV people, I am yelling at you!"). Good grief.

Handwaving and namecalling is not debate. Saying "I said something on this somewhere once, I can't quite tell you where or when, and you are really stupid" hardly achieves jerking off, let alone argument, let alone debate . . .

   It is Tracinski who is choosing not to engage
   me not vice versa. Let's see what he says, for
   example, about my charge posted today on NoodleFood
   that he thoroughly distorted Dr. Mayhew's critique of
   him.

Fred, are you really Larry Budd Melmon? The people in the TV can't hear you . . .

Why should Tracinski give a shit about your bilious ranting in obscure blog comments, Fred -- have you let him know Thus Spake the All-seeing Eye of the O-niverse? Does he even know you exist? Maybe if you sent him a thought-beam: "Hey, fuckhead, I am performing in a Three Stooges version of Shoot-Out at the Obectivist Corral? Come on over, moron."

Unlike me and your other loyal readers here, he is probably not vastly entertained by intemperate, sloppy, ill-referenced and lazy-minded bosh.

WSS

Look, Snark - or whatever your name is, the misquoting I am referring to is Tracinski lifting one piece of Peikoff's comments out of context and ignoring the rest which is clearly essential to understanding the Objectivist position. In doing so he clearly creates a strawman which he can easily knock down and which supports his thesis that the Objectivist view is , "a kind of trickle-down theory of intellectual influence, in which the philosopher is the originator and only source of the ideas that drive the course of history...". A view which of course is patently absurd to such an extent that even a moron such as yourself could see why - and which then wouldn't require Tracinski to comment on it.

By any reasonable standards of good scholarship what Tracinski did is blatantly dishonest.

As it happens Tracinski...umm...*implicitly* agrees since he removed the quote from his later revisions. So, why the fuck are we still discussing it?

As for why I won't post to The Forum, I won't post to any forum where my comments can be edited or deleted and where I can be subjected to moderation by the very person I am debating. That is in fact why I left The Forum over a year ago, well before this recent dust-up. (The perverse irony in that Forum practise is that Stephen Speicher left the O-O Forum for precisely that reason himself).

Lastly, why are you asking me to comment on questions in Tracinski's essay which I and/or others have already addressed, in some cases more than once? The burden is on you, Buddy, to defend the Tracinski thesis against the critiques which have been lodged against it. If you don't choose to do that, please do us the favor of ceasing to clutter up the thread with your lunacy.

As for debating Tracinski, if you were at all paying attention (which is something you seem to have difficulty with) *that is precisely what I have been doing*. It is Tracinski who is choosing not to engage me not vice versa. Let's see what he says, for example, about my charge posted today on NoodleFood that he thoroughly distorted Dr. Mayhew's critique of him.

I appreciate your response, Fred.

For those readers interested in Cline's comments, they appeared at Rule of Reason, in the short post "The Intellectual Activist’s lost guide."

You are wrong to assert that the quote from Peikoff's epilogue to OPAR was "a deliberate and blatant misquote soley designed to present a distorted view of the Objectivist view of causality in history."

Why is this assertion wrong? Because in the original citation (reproduced here *), Peikoff's words were clearly identified and referenced, and proper conventions were used. In fact, Cline misquotes the original (perhaps inadvertently).

There was no misquote, Fred. Your thesis thus dissolves. Indeed it could be argued that your sloppy and incomplete references to others' writings is dishonest (I don't find it dishonest, just lazy. I can't think of what it is that otherwise prevents you from providing the proper citations you demand of others).

Fred, it could appear you yourself are following the bandwagon. Hand-waving, name-calling, murky or absent references, bold assertions of dishonesty -- this is not very rational.

I would hope that you would engage directly with Tracinski's work, quoting his words, providing a clear reference. Since you don't do this, it can appear that you are simply an nasty echo.

I don't accuse you of evasion or cowardice or groupthink: I don't understand why, if you have a beef with Tracinski, you do not engage him directly in the Speicher forum.

Is there something preventing this (perhaps the boycottage pronounced by Diana Hsieh)? Since you engage here with people you consider intellectually-retarded, it is puzzling you don't bother to step into the ring with those you oppose.

Here's a challenge, Fred: with reference to the paragraphs from "The Pajama Epistemology," below**, why not give the SOLO audience some first-hand analysis and rebuttal -- as you expect of others.

WSS

________________

*   QUOTE(Rob Tracinski)
    Philosophy does have an indispensable role to play. It
    provides a crucial context for valid work in specialized
    fields, a context that provides the specialist with guidance
    on his basic method and with basic principles about the nature
    of the world and the nature of man. But philosophy does not
    and cannot dictate the content of a specialized field. A
    specialist cannot produce knowledge within his own field
    simply by "reading off" results from the assumptions taught to
    him by philosophers.

    Unfortunately, that has been an implication of the standard
    Objectivist interpretation of the role of ideas in history.
    Here, for example, is how Leonard Peikoff describes it in his
    epilogue to Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

        QUOTE(OPAR @ p. 452)
        Philosophy is not the only cause of the course of the
        centuries. It is the ultimate cause, the cause of all the
        other causes.... The books of philosophers are the beginning.
        Step by step, the books turn into motives, passions, statues,
        politicians, and headlines.

    This is a kind of trickle-down theory of intellectual
    influence, in which the philosopher is the originator and only
    source of the ideas that drive the course of history, while
    the public intellectuals and the men in the specialized
    sciences are mere transmitters and translators of those ideas.

______

** The first relevant fact to recognize is that achievements
in the special sciences like economics, psychology, and
biology, and in other specialized fields such as history,
law, and even journalism—all of these are not mere
"applications" of philosophy. That is, one cannot arrive
at them simply by deducing them from one's philosophical
knowledge. They require original observations and
integrations derived directly from experience.

Any valid new observation or theory in a specialized field
is based on an immersion in facts and observations, and on
a whole range of lesser integrations and preliminary
conclusions derived from those observations. Thus, there
is a very important sense in which specialized knowledge
is independent of philosophy. It is independent because it
is based on and integrated directly from observation of
reality. It is induced up from the facts, not deduced down
from philosophical principles.

Philosophy does have an indispensable role to play. It
provides a crucial context for valid work in specialized
fields, a context that provides the specialist with
guidance on his basic method and with basic principles
about the nature of the world and the nature of man. But
philosophy does not and cannot dictate the content of a
specialized field. A specialist cannot produce knowledge
within his own field simply by "reading off" results from
the assumptions taught to him by philosophers.

Unfortunately, that has been an implication of the common
Objectivist interpretation of the role of ideas in
history. In this view, all important intellectual trends
begin in books written by philosophers and are then
propagated downward into a culture's political ideas, its
art, its sense of life.

This is a kind of trickle-down theory of intellectual
influence, in which the philosopher is the originator and
only source of the ideas that drive the course of history,
while the public intellectuals and the men in the
specialized sciences are mere transmitters and translators
of those ideas.

But a productive thinker must ultimately get his
assumptions—both about method and about content—from
reality, not just from the philosophers. The philosopher
can give him a head start, by providing him with a broad
integration of previously acquired knowledge. But this
knowledge, to be useful, must be grounded in, validated
by, and built upon by the specialist's own first-hand,
inductive understanding of his field.

Thus, while it is valid to say that philosophy is the
"foundation" for the specialized sciences, in the sense
that philosophy explicitly analyzes and validates the
wider assumptions about reason and human nature that the
specialist employs, there is also a crucial respect in
which specialized knowledge is the foundation for
philosophical principles.

The only way to properly understand and validate a
philosophical principle is to understand how it is
grounded in the facts of reality. Since philosophy deals
in the widest abstractions, it is built upon narrower
integrations and conclusions derived from the previous
work of the special sciences. For example, before there
can be a science of epistemology—the branch of philosophy
that explains the means by which man acquires and
validates his knowledge—men must have already acquired a
significant store of valid knowledge in the fields of
physics, biology, mathematics, astronomy, and so on. And
more: they must have already begun to develop specific
methods of systematic observation, experimentation, and
inference.

Historically, it was only on the basis of the early
achievements of science that men were even able to
conceive of such a field as epistemology. It was only on
the basis of the achievements of science that philosophers
were able to distinguish reason as a method distinct from
reliance on authority or claims of divine revelation, and
it is only on the basis of the continued and
unchallengeable achievements of science that it was
possible to claim that reason is the only valid method of
acquiring knowledge. And in today's context, it is only
this kind of concrete, specialized knowledge that can
breathe life into one's understanding of the abstract
philosophical principles that are drawn from it.

The sic passim of Linz’s writings re the ARI affiliated -

Ed Cline points out that Tracinski dishonestly quoted Peikoff and identifies the fact that the philosophy of reason is the underlying driver to the discoveries in any specialized field. Mayhew points out Tracinski’s error in asserting that the development of the specialized fields in ancient Greece was somehow done absent explicit philosophy because Aristotle came later. And then, SOLO member Tom Rowland on his blog, identifies that Tracinski is rejecting Objectivism’s fundamental principles on the hierarchy of knowledge. All of these folks believe that Tracinski is either rejecting Objectivism's fundamentals or at the very least is well on his way to doing so. They have presented well reasoned critiques of Tracinski’s view. This is not “demonizing”. If fact, I would argue that some “demonizing” has been directed the other way, specifically at Dr. Mayhew.

Called on his misquoting of Peikoff by several critics, apparently this is one of several "revisions" Tracinski has made in his article over recent weeks. As he himself admits, "I have omitted or re-worded several references to the 'standard Objectivist theory' on the role of ideas in history." One is therefore to some extent arguing against a moving target as he asserts, then denies; proclaims, then modifies; gets his various apologists defending him, then having them go silent as some key point in their argument is demolished. This is not "chewing" as Linz weakly asserts (which btw I am still waiting for). It is dishonesty.

Ed Cline on Nov. 17th in one of the first critiques of Tracinski's essay cites the Peikoff misquotes, as does Harry Binswanger, and a number of others, including I believe Diana. Obviously Tracinski agreed that he was misquoting which is why he excised it from his later versions, though he never acknowledges that it was a deliberate and blatant misquote soley designed to present a distorted view of the Objectivist view of causality in history and to bolster his own.

As for Tracinski clearly distorting Mayhew's comments, I have provided more than sufficient evidence of that. But who knows, now that the distortions have been identified, perhaps his comments on The Forum will also be modified or deleted accordingly just as he has clearly done elsewhere. Distortion however is now a clear pattern, the most serious of which is of course the distortion of history.

Anyone can note - and therefore judge - that none of the three comments following mine presents a single actual argument either in rebuttal of me or in support of Tracinski. It continues the pattern I have now noted several times both here and on NoodleFood of replacing "argument from intimidation" (accusations of dogmatism, demonizing etc) with actual substantive argument.

That perhaps more than anything is the real attack on Objectivism, since it is an attack on its very method. But it is of course inevitable when one is defending unsupported speculations and blatant distortions. We have seen it many times before first from the Brandens, then from the Kelleyites. So it is no coincedence that these very same people are now jumping on the Tracinski bandwagon - perhaps more accurately described as the Tracinski Trainwreck.

"Demonising on Demand" is the dismaying aspect of the Tracinski-trashing. It should be possible to have this "chewing" about the role of philosophy in history without accusations of attacking Rand, subverting Objectivism at its root and all the rest of that customary Randroid rubbish. Fred and Diana are serving as Peikoff's dutiful attack dogs. Again.

Here's how it works: the word goes out—"Sic Tracinski." The sycopoodles duly sic. Saves the godfathers doing it.

Sick.

Linz

Fred Weiss, in his most recent post in this thread, claims, of Phil Coates:

    You quote him, "Rob Tracinski is not denying that philosophy
    CAN be the fundamental driving force in a culture."

Fred is mistaken. The quote is from "Vespasiano," a Speicher Forum member.

Fred is obscure on a "deliberate and blatant misquoting of Peikoff by Tracinski." Careful readers will search the five parts of "What Went Right?" in vain for any quote of the esteemed Dr P by Tracinski (perhaps Fred will pause in mid-coronary and let us know what quote he is talking about. Perhaps not).

Continuing the angina, Fred comments further on Tracinski, with an unsourced quote from today's Forum* followed by an assertion that the author "then proceeds to distort what Mayhew said in regard to ancient Greek philosophy" (which is back to front; odd that Fred would be so wobbly with timelines)

Fred does correctly quote Tracinski's assertion that "Instead, [Mayhew] says that I equivocate on the meaning of "philosophy," but gums up this move by claiming that this is a distortion. Careful, non-enraged readers will note the context of Mayhew's remarks (though Fred does not link) in the nineth paragraph of Mayhew's article published on NoodleFood.

Indeed, Mayhew does accuse Tracinski of exactly this equivocation.

We don't know if Fred is right that Mayhew's single use of the term 'implicit philosophy' means that Tracinski is distorting the thrust of Mayhew's critique -- though we are free to accept his argument on authority. Interested readers will check Fred's reading against Mayhew's text at NoodleFood, in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10.

Fred concludes that Tracinski and 'his supporters' (unnamed, un-referenced) must engage in "blatant distortion, equivocation, creating strawmen, or begging the question." As we see, Fred adduces some pretty flabby evidence for this. He can do better. Evidence does matter to Fred.

Although he is much more entertaining** while fulminating and blustering than he is when reasoning carefully, I don't hold it against him. Fred's other accomplishments in the world are good, solid, useful and productive (as with his publishing). I respect him very much for that.

WSS

*    But the main substance of Dr. Mayhew's disagreement with
    my article is not on the timeline of Ancient Greek
    intellectual history. Instead, he says that I equivocate
    on the meaning of "philosophy," and specifically that I
    fail to recognize that what was driving Ancient Greek
    culture from the beginning was "implicit philosophy."

    Perhaps I could have made my arguments clearer, and when I
    work on the final version for publication, I'll work
    harder to protect it from such misunderstandings. But I
    explicitly addressed this very objection in an earlier
    installment. In Part 4, "The Metaphysics of Normal Life,"
    I wrote:

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bi...cle.php?id=1096

    QUOTE
    I've had a few people object to the ideas in this article by
    saying that, while the examples I have cited don't involve the
    influence of explicitly stated philosophical ideas, they do
    involve men's implicit philosophy. But that is precisely my point,
    and spelling out exactly how good ideas are grasped implicitly, in
    what form and by what process, is part of what I want to address
    in looking at the global influence of scientific and technological
    education, global capitalism, and representative government.

______

** Fred Weiss is my second-favourite pure-entertainment poster at SOLO. The first is Russell Kay.

> supporters must engage in blatant distortion, equivocation, creating strawmen, or begging the question

troll ignored.

You say "he has now told people in simple English he does."

You quote him, "Rob Tracinski is not denying that philosophy CAN be the fundamental driving force in a culture."

Was anyone claiming that he had denied that? (In fact he explicitly acknowledges it, e.g. Aristotle's influence on the Renaissance).

Except of course that is not the issue. The issue is not whether philosophy "CAN be the fundamental driving force in a culture". What does that mean anyway? From time to time? Under special circumstances? Sometimes yes but usually no? Or is usually no but sometimes yes?

The issue isn't whether it "CAN" but whether it "IS".

Phil mushes the issue here just as he has done in the past. In the past it was by distorting the Objectivist position as: philosophy being *the only* causal factor in history (which of course is based on a deliberate and blatant misquoting of Peikoff by Tracinski).

The latest distortion centers around the notion of "implicit philosophy". Tracinski proclaims it here, "I've had a few people object to the ideas in this article by saying that, while the examples I have cited don't involve the influence of explicitly stated philosophical ideas, they do involve men's implicit philosophy. But that is precisely my point, and spelling out exactly how good ideas are grasped implicitly, in what form and by what process, is part of what I want to address..."

He then proceeds to distort what Mayhew said in regard to ancient Greek philosophy, "But the main substance of Dr. Mayhew's disagreement with my article is not on the timeline of Ancient Greek intellectual history. Instead, he says that I equivocate on the meaning of "philosophy," and specifically that I fail to recognize that what was driving Ancient Greek culture from the beginning was "implicit philosophy."

Except that is not what Mayhew said. Mayhew's single reference to implicit philosophy concerns the world-view of the Greeks *before Thales*, e.g. "the implicit philosophy or basic ideas that we find in Homer and Hesiod, c. 8th-7th centuries".

But after Thales it is explicit. And thus Mayhew tells us, "Not long after Thales (and two other Miletian monists, Anaximander and Anaximenes), another Ionian--Xenophanes of Colophon--presented an alternative to the monism of Thales (Xenophanes holding that all things were earth and water) and for the first time, as far as we know, presented *explicit arguments against the existence of the Olympian gods*. (Xenophanes himself seems to have been some kind of pantheist.) (emphasis mine)

In regard to Hippocrates, Mayhew argues that there is no reason to treat it as something "apart from ancient philosophy" since "many of the most important works in it (including On the Sacred Disease) represent fusions of philosophy and science in the manner of the presocratics".

He goes on, "From Thales and the Ionian materialists through the Atomists, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras to Diagoras of Apollonia, and including the unknown authors of the bulk of the works of the Hippocratic corpus, we are dealing with the progression of one cultural movement--the history of ancient Greek philosophy."

Not the history of "implicit" ancient Greek philosophy. But actual, explicit philosophy. It was not of course on the formidable systematized scale of Aristotle and he of course represents the culmination and pinnacle of ancient Greek philosophical thought. But no one has ever denied that either.

Mayhew summarizes his view, "it simply makes no sense to say: first there were major developments in medicine and history and the arts, and then there were the major developments in philosophy... They all developed at the same time and no doubt influenced each other--in complex, fascinating ways that specialists try to detail--and there was no doubt a spiraling effect. But there is no reason to think that anything other than philosophy--especially the basic philosophical outlook that I sketched at the outset--was the most fundamental force driving the culture."

Once again in order to maintain their argument Tracinski and his supporters must engage in blatant distortion, equivocation, creating strawmen, or begging the question. From Phil of course we have learned to expect no better. It is however not a pretty sight coming from Tracinski.

1. Once a conversation sinks beneath a certain level of intellectual responsibility in this manner, it is a mistake to discuss anyone's suggestion that people should 'boycott' the Forum website.

The proposal is simply and quite literally **too stupid to discuss**.

And it's a mistake to say more than this or argue against it. It's beneath contempt and beneath response.

This is true in the same way it was true when the suggestion was made a decade ago in the wake of the split between the Reismans and several Oist intellectuals-- was it Harry Binswanger?-- who suggested or sent out letters suggesting people should 'boycott' George Reisman's work?

2. RT has now made it *explicit* that this is his position, agreeing with someone on the Forum...and, of course, if one had boycotted the Forum one would never learn this:

"Rob Tracinski is not denying that philosophy CAN be the fundamental driving force in a culture. In the fifth part of his series, he is exploring the question of HOW that comes to be."

So let's not hear another word about how he doesn't believe this, when he has now told people in simple English he does.

(Case closed - go back to finding something sane to debate.)

Robert Tracinski posts twice this morning to The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans. He notes, in the thread Response To Charges Against THE FORUM, "when someone presents a bogus argument that Objectivists should boycott the Forum, I figure the best response is simply to cross the picket line and post here."

In a second post, in the thread Rob Tracinski on "What Went Right?" he writes, "I want to extend my thanks to everyone at the Forum who has contributed to this discussion. I intend to eventually publish the "What Went Right?" series in written form, and the discussion here and elsewhere has been very helpful."

-- perhaps those who disagree with Tracinski will post replies to Speicher's forum, in spite of the Noodler's call for a boycott.

WSS

I've posted the first part, "Ignoring the Hierarchy," of an extended essay replying to Tracinski at my blog: www.trowland.blogspot.com.  I'll respond to comments as time allows.

We return you now to your regular programming.

Tom

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2007/01/what-went-wrong-with-robert-traci...

Also here is Gus Van Horn's commentary. I particularly like the way he likens Tracinski's arguments to the (by now) very familiar Libertarian "virtuous cycles" arguments:

http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2007/01/quick-roundup-140.html

Both are well worth reading to understand Tracinski's errors and their danger.

I'll end this post with the comment placed by John Lewis in the Noodlefood Comments:

"The central point is clear, and correct: Tracinski is trying to diminish the causal power of philosophy in history, by inaccurately re-constructing Greek history in a way to fit with his own prior conclusion. Why does he do this? Because he wishes to see a brilliant future for us today, despite the profound philosophical corruption that has undercut every area of progress, and weakened our self-esteem and our will to defend ourselves.."

Proud ARIan Warmonger

"I wish RWT would stop calling himself an Objectivist because he isn't one any longer."

Well, that makes sense as advice to Tracinski if he, also, is convinced that he isn't any longer an Objectivist.

The Romans did not invent wine. The stem vino- in Latin and oino- in Greek (with a similar stem found in Egyptian "wyn" and in Semitic) are apparently borrowings from some other earlier source. It is plausible that this source may have been Levantine, but it is not Indo-European. Hence the Romans may have produced good wine, but they cannot be credited with introducing it to the Jews or to the Levant.

Ted "Oops! I said it again!"

> He reached a wider audience by compromising Objectivism. [Bill V]

Words have an exact meaning. A very serious charge. Prove it.

And don't appeal to authority (sometimes where there is smoke there is merely someone coughing his lungs out) or ask people to go elsewhere and comb through entire threads. if this is true, you ought to be able to make a case *in essentials* and with actual quotes, briefly not with bluster or vagueness or simply repeating the claim.

Put up or shut up.

Right here. Right now.

"I notice these kinds of statements a lot from you. Does this actually mean something that the rest of us should concern ourselves with?"

Consensus is not the standard of truth. For Objectivists that's a no-brainer. But when members of an intellectual movement start to challenge the conclusions and arguments of one of its supposed best writers, that isn't meaningless. Where there's smoke there's usually fire. In this case, Tracinski's philosophic errors are being identified and rejected by a growing number of Objectivists with the greatest displeasure directed at TIA's altruistic war policy.

But not to worry Jason, you are far too smart to ever give in to purges or group think. No, you'll go on urging restraint and apologizing for Muslims until they nuke your city.

Proud ARIan Warmonger

Always look on the bright side of life .

Jim

Holy Grail -- Life of Brian -- the religious ridicule starts to blend together after a while.

Thanks, Melissa!

I thought that that reference was from Life of Brian...

Reg: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
Brian: I do!
Reg: Oh, yeah? How much?
Brian: A lot!
Reg: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
Stan: Yeah, the Judean People's Front.
Reg: Yeah. Splitters.
Stan: And the Popular Front of Judea.
Reg: Yeah. Splitters.
Stan: And the People's Front of Judea.
Reg: Yea... what?
Stan: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
Reg: We're the People's Front of Judea!
Stan: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
Reg: People's Front!
Francis: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
Reg: He's over there. [points to a lone man]
Reg, Stan, Francis, Judith: SPLITTER!

Of course, my favorite part of the whole movie:

Reg: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
Xerxes: The aqueduct?
Reg: What?
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
Commando 3: And the sanitation.
Loretta: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
Reg: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
Matthias: And the roads.
Reg: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
Commando: Irrigation.
Xerxes: Medicine.
Commandos: Huh? Heh? Huh...
Commando 2: Education.
Commandos: Ohh...
Reg: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
Commando 1: And the wine.
Commandos: Oh, yes. Yeah...
Francis: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
Commando: Public baths.
Loretta: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
Francis: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
Commandos: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
Reg: But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace? Shut up!

Melissa

"Shiny. Let's be bad guys."

Ted, your post made me think of a word play on a line in Monty Python's Life of Brian:

"Heretic!  We're not for advancement of The Objectivist Center!  We're the Center for the Advancement of Objectivism!"

[fixed based on Melissa's inputs -- thanks, Melissa!]

"As I've indicated on the other Tracinski thread, there is a growing rejection of Tracinski among Objectivists." (along with a subsequent set of links)

I notice these kinds of statements a lot from you. Does this actually mean something that the rest of us should concern ourselves with?

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

Objectivist (1) Someone who accepts the primacy of existence and the objectivity of concepts. (2) Someone who advocates Reason, Objective Reality, Egoism & Capitalism. (3) Ayn Rand, and only Ayn Rand. (4) Someone who is acceptable to AR(r)I?

Please Bill, no one can do anything to Objectivism, excpet perhaps kill every last objectivist and burn every book. So far as it is the truth, it belongs to all, or to none.

Unless we set up some sort of comittee for the doctrine of the faith...

Reprinted from another thread:

Various other Objectivist Bloggers voicing their negative opinions of Tracinski:

http://charlottecapitalist.blogspot.com/2006/11/inconsistent-activist.ht...

http://charlottecapitalist.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-went-wrong-with-tra...

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2006/11/intellectual-activists-lost-gui...

http://objectivelyspeaking.thinkertothinker.com/?p=85

And this last has the best discussion I've seen to date about Tracinski in the comments. Its a discussion between Objectivist bloggers Gus Van Horn and Joseph Kellard (scroll down to comments):
http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2007/01/bushs-war-nyts-quagmire.html

Objectivist blogger Noumenalself analyzes Tracinski's "What Went Right" series:

part 1: http://www.noumenalself.com/archives/2007/01/tracinski_on_th.html

part 2: http://www.noumenalself.com/archives/2007/01/tracinski_on_th_2.html

"I think that this success is only a small down payment on what is possible in reaching a wider audience with an Objectivist perspective on the news."

This is bullshit. He reached a wider audience by compromising Objectivism. His commentary is indistinguishable in most cases from that of any garden variety conservative. As I've indicated on the other Tracinski thread, there is a growing rejection of Tracinski among Objectivists. You know the writing is on the wall when Robert Bidinotto comes to your defense against all those "ARIans". I wish RWT would stop calling himself an Objectivist because he isn't one any longer.