Hello atlascott,

First time writer. 3 day observer.

Pardon. I had to look up the meaning of your Latin phrase. I could have asked Mr Pepoui. He's the Sartre man.

How come you're not riding shotgun with Elijah? Poor fella got assaulted by a bus driver, no less.

Scott, good man for starting up your own post. At least your not mixing your insane rants and insults with my posts. I'll keep off yours if you keep off mine. Cheers

What the heck exactly is "Neo-Objectivism!?

Adding the prefix "neo" in front of any philosophy isn't exactly a sign of true belief (for lack of a better word) in any philosophy.

If you were really interested in this, Callum, you would do a little research. Neo-Objectivism is easy to find on the internet, and the site and messageboards for NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism are also easy to find. I've also described my views here on this board several times, in detail and briefly.

You can find in part three of my Alice series and also further explained in the other parts. Here is a brief statement of my philosophy from that series:

Sartre believes we are still in a process of becoming. This allows for freedom, at least for the being for itself, the subject. His or her nature is incomplete. He or she works on it with every decision he or she makes. What Alice is doing right now is making what Alice is. This is not Objectivism or essentialism, where she has a pre-existing nature or essence into which she must grow. She makes herself. She makes her own nature as she goes.

Still, Alice thinks there is something she has in common with all other humans. There is a humanness which ties her to her great ancestors and other humans around the world. She has empathy for them. She knows that if she were to be tortured and killed, she wouldn’t like it, and she knows that neither would they. So, there is a pre-existing nature or essence that she has in common with other humans, but there is also her freedom to create her own nature or essence. There is paradox and contradiction, something orthodox Objectivists hate. In some ways, she is what she is. She has a universal nature. However, within those parameters, she is what she is and is not what she is. She is in the process of becoming. She is a subject, not an object. She is a NickOtani’sNeo-Objectivist.

Here is another brief statement I made on my board and others:

Basically, Objectivism is a lot like Realism in that it is assumed that reality exists independent of the perceiver. It is discovered rather than created, and it exists pretty much as it is perceived, but reason is also a tool which we use to integrate facts of our perception. According to Rand, A is A, and the law of causation is a corollary. She doesn't recognize all the problems with perception that more rigorous philosophers talk about, and she doesn't see that an immovable, objective reality conflicts with the idea of freedom for human beings. If we all have common essences and reality is not something we can control, then we are slaves to it or like pieces of clay shaped and molded by external forces beyond our control. Behaviorists and other determinists love to make this point, that freedom is only an illusion. Existentialism, however, sees reality as more of a human creation, at least we participate in making ourselves and our reality. It's not just external to us and beyond our control, forcing us to be what we are. We have freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility. We can't just blame things that happen to us on an external reality beyond our control. We can't just be victims. Since we create ourselves and our reality, we also bring about that which happens to us. In psychology, if the behaviorist is the objectivist (Of course Rand, herself, rejected Skinner as she rejected anyone who didn't agree entirely with her.), then the humanist would be the existentialist or subjectivist.

Writings on my website and messageboard go into further detail of my philosophy, comparing and contrasting it with others and continuing to explain and defend it.

Objectivists on this board will accuse me of not interpreting Objectivism correctly, of not noticing that Rand says "essence" is a matter of epistemology, not metaphysics, or that I am ignoring what she said about the metaphysical and man-made. However, they don't want to debate this with me. I suspect most so-called Objectivists don't really know what Objectivism is. If you think you do, I challenge you to debate with me.

bis bald,

Nick

bis bald,

Nick

What the heck exactly is "Neo-Objectivism!?

Adding the prefix "neo" in front of any philosophy isn't exactly a sign of true belief (for lack of a better word) in any philosophy.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

I enjoy the fact that you avoid me, Scott. I don't need to be bothered with people who don't know how to debate, who only know how to deride and insult. I'm looking for people who know something about Objectivism and philosophy and realize that Leonid doesn't. That isn't you, is it? Please feel free to stay away.

bis bald,

Nick

Bravo on your excellent summary of NickOtani's 'philosophy' if it may be called an integrated philosophy rather than an ever shifting mass of argument.

I'd like to reiterate that I am not asking that either of them be banned. Despite Nick's predictable baiting and suggestions that wasting my time with him is cowardly, the result of a mental deficiency or poor understanding of Objectivism, etc., I am ignoring him. He seems not to understand the problems which Linz, Leonid, Liz and myself seem to see as plain on their face. I state that carefully: SEEMS not to understand. He is careful to bandy about the term "good faith" in a bid to stay execution.

They seem not to be bothering anyone overmuch. I just thought it odd that such characters would enjoy the atmosphere here.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

One of the problems with bad faith is that one must infer it, from the evidence, since one can't climb inside another's head. That's why I always err on the side of leniency. Is it bad faith when Nick, for the zillionth time, treats Roosevelt's and Hitler's "murders" as morally equivalent, even as he grudgingly acknowledges Roosevelt was "supposedly" responding to aggression? Is it bad faith when he misattributes the A-bombings to Roosevelt rather than Truman? When he repeats arguments about "innocent Japanese" that have been debunked time and time again?

I did mistake Roosevelt with Truman. I apologize. This was a stupid mistake. I should know better. I was responding to Leonid's accusation that I said Hitler and Roosevelt were equal, but this is no excuse.

I do think the A-Bombings were not necessary and killed innocent Japanese unjustly. Not all Japanese people were responsible for Pearl Harbor just as not all Muslims are terrorists responsible for 9/11. I think dropping the A-Bombs was like taking a head for an eye; it was more than just retaliation. And, it is equvalent to dropping bombs on crowded Mosques in Iran.

I am not happy in my role as a punching bag. I do not want to be a target for flamming and insults. Objectivists are supposed to value reason. I would like to have civil debates with Objectivists who use reason and evidence. I'd like to engage in a contest of ideas, not personalities. I think it is a bit cowardly to keep avoiding me.

I'm curious as to how he managed to get kicked off O-Lying when that site specialises in moral equivalence and turning the other cheek?

My story is not the same as MSK's. I complained about his decision to delete my post, "The Bigot at the Bar," from his board. He will say that I was trying to defy his rules and dictate to him how to run his board. Later, I decided to leave his board and asked him if he would remove my posts. He said that I was trying to delete my own posts from his board. I complained about irreverent humor which showed discrimination against Asian people. Kat says I just think of myself as a victim and call everybody else a bigot. I do think the Objectivist Living site does not want to deal with real controversy. MSK censors anything that may be too hard hitting or provocative, like the "Bigot at the Bar." He wants things to not be antagonistic. This makes me conclude he is not interested in real, good faith truth.

bis bald,

Nick

One of the problems with bad faith is that one must infer it, from the evidence, since one can't climb inside another's head. That's why I always err on the side of leniency. Is it bad faith when Nick, for the zillionth time, treats Roosevelt's and Hitler's "murders" as morally equivalent, even as he grudgingly acknowledges Roosevelt was "supposedly" responding to aggression? Is it bad faith when he misattributes the A-bombings to Roosevelt rather than Truman? When he repeats arguments about "innocent Japanese" that have been debunked time and time again?

I'm curious as to how he managed to get kicked off O-Lying when that site specialises in moral equivalence and turning the other cheek?

If nick is happy with the role he's playing on this forum (punching bag) why not let him keep posting?

Haven't said I won't. I'm mindful that he's pissing folk off. I just ignore him, for the most part. That's still far and away the best option for the off-pissed.

Kevin Owen: Completely indifferent on that one. Although, in a way he's valuable. You can't get a true idea of how stupid Scientology is until you talk to a Scientologist.

I have to say I for one wasn't aware how stupid it was till I saw the exchanges here.

I like to say that if ours is a contest of ideas, then we must engage in it. The only caveat is not to engage in a contest that is futile with an adversary who has no intention of learning anything. But even then, as in the case of Brendan on the Hume thread, one can persist in allowing an obvious bad-faither to post because his posts are so illuminating. Did anyone fail to find his sudden introduction of "the good of society" as the standard of value, when any standard of value is supposedly arbitrary, instructive?

I never said Hitler was equal to Roosevelt. I did say they were both guilty of excesses. Murdering Jews is no less immoral than murdering innocent Japanese people, and murdering the innocent members of a murder's family is no more moral than what the murderer did. We should punish the murderer, not innocent members of the murder's family. Does Leonid disagree with this? If he does, let's punish him for the sins of his ancesters. Hitler and Roosevelt both committed murder. There is much more, however, to equating one person with another. Hitler was trying to preserve a master race, and Roosevelt was supposedly responding to agression from the Japanese. I don't think this excuses Roosevelt. He went too far in droping atomic bombs on innocent people. But he isn't the same as Hitler, who initiated the use of force.

I don't use logic for mind games nor to deny my own words, as Leonid characterizes. I use it for communication and thinking, for presenting arguments and examining other people's arguments. This is how philosophers have used it and how they should use it, how Aristotle meant it to be used.

Leonid's summary of my philosophy is terribly flawed. I do urge people to check it out on my sites and in my posts and talk about it with me if there is something not understood. Leonid is not a reliable spokesman for NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism. Alice, in Alice in Objectivist Land, is a reliable spokesperson.

Is anybody going to condemn Leonid for being mean to me, trying to ruin my reputation?

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid

Nick "No place do I say Roosevelt is equal to Hitler."
Nick “And, I have not been dishonest, ever."
Leonid
You said “This doesn't mean there were not excesses on the other side too" How dare you to compare Hitler's actions with those of Allied forces?
Nick
I dare quite easily. Injustice on one side does not justify injustice on the other, even if the injustices are not equal. If someone murders several innocent people in your family, it doesn't mean you are morally allowed to murder a few innocent people from their family. Wrong is wrong.

Nick “I stand by that statement”

Now I'm not a person who is familiar with formal logic. I use it for living, not for games. Maybe Nick with his degree in philosophy can explain how his permanent self-refutation and denial of his own words is not dishonest? Besides, maybe he can eventually explain what does he mean by excesses from both sides? Roosevelt dropped too many bombs and Hitler gassed too many Jews? What amount of bombs and killed Jews Nick would consider to be unexcessive?
I don't think that Nick and Kevin may clog up the site. The problem is that they may clog up some minds. They are two witch doctors looking for Attila.
Nick:” I believe in being authentic, being real. I am not dishonest. I do not try to deceive. I do not believe in faking reality, being in bad faith."
This is the summary of Nick's philosophy as it has been presented on this site:
1. In metaphysics: Reality is a flux without identity, of nothing in particular. We provide it with identity by taking snapshots-means primary of consciousness. A is A is only logical tool of communication (Of what?)
2. Epistemology: Logic is faith or social construction. It is not a tool to obtain knowledge or to describe reality. It’s just a game like chess. Logic has nothing to do with objective reality. There no knowledge, just probabilities. Real volition is based on an ability to make baseless choices.
3. In ethics-rabid relativism as has been demonstrated above and elsewhere (see Islam thread)
I can support each and every statement I've made by numerous quotas but I'm not going to do that. Everybody can easy check it on all Nick's sites. My question is: how a person who claims to be a scholar of Objectivism for 30 years can think that such a philosophy can be compatible with Objectivism? I see in this claim profound moral flaw, epitome of dishonesty, a whish to distort, degrade and corrupt ideas not because Nick is unfamiliar with them but because he knows them too well. This, as Ayn Rand once described, is hatred of good for been good.

Nick doesn't really clog up the site. if he did that might be a good reason to boot him or at least monitor him just for practical reasons but seeing as he isn't (imo) I don't think there's any good reason to give him the full boot. Although I don't find much value in what Nick posts (exception: all snide implications about SOLO aside, the fundamental ideas in 'Bigot at the Bar' where pretty solid) The ensuing discussions are sometimes interesting and often funny. If nick is happy with the role he's playing on this forum (punching bag) why not let him keep posting?

Kevin Owen: Completely indifferent on that one. Although, in a way he's valuable. You can't get a true idea of how stupid Scientology is until you talk to a Scientologist.

Points noted. I'm in Auckland at the moment for my radio stint and have limited opportunity to address SOLO matters. I'll be returning home at the end of the week, and will have a chinwag with Lance about these geezers at that time. I've left them alone up till now, even though "bad faith" leaped out at me often, because esteemed contributors seemed to get value from engaging them.

More in a few days.

Linz

I think you do not know what you are talking about. Leonid said many untrue things about me which I have had to correct. Where were you to say anything about his meaness to me?

I support my accusations. Do you? Or, do you just make them and run?

bis bald,

Nick

NickOtani--he goes into that category of peson who would be considered bright and successful--if he were not such a nutjob. And a mean, socially inept, nutjob, to boot. Clearly not an Objectivist, and having been exposed by those with the patience to suffer fools, he will not admit error, and exhibits the sort of sliminess one sees in those who see ideas as baubles--noting serious, just tools of their ego, ala "Look, no one can prove me wrong because I deluge them with thousands of words and constantly shift my postion, shift my arguments, ignore my defeats, and personally attack those who identify me for what I am." Read Nick and Leonid's exchanges, and watch as Leonid tries to pin Nick down. Observe Leonid's good manners and consistent action, and Nick's less than honest responses.

There are a number of unsupported generalizations in the paragraph above. Most are opinions which cannot be proven true or false. One statement can be checked for accuracy: “he will not admit error,”. I have admitted error, both on this board and others. If I point out exactly where, will it make a difference? Will Scott admit that he made a false statement about me and apologize? Is there anything I can do to defend myself against his tirade, his personal attack?

I honestly believe that if any rational and objective person, someone who knows Objectivism and philosophy in general, reads the exchanges between me and Leonid; he or she would have to conclude that I have consistently demonstrated superior reason and evidence than has Leonid. I have been more than fair with him and others who have engaged me. I have not shifted my position or my arguments. I have not ignored my defeats, but Leonid has. And, I have not been dishonest, ever.

I did come here to test my ideas. I’ve challenged Objectivism in my Alice series and in several other posts, and most of the issues I presented have gone unchallenged. If I am misrepresenting Objectivism, a competent Objectivist should be able to point out those misrepresentations, not merely dismiss me and walk away. They should be able to do so without personally attacking me, deriding me, shunning me, or banning me. If they can’t do this, then they deserve to be exposed as the kind of people who can only deal with critics by calling them nutjobs and accusing them, without support, of all the flaws which they, themselves, display.

It is people like you, Scott, who make Objectivism look bad.

Bis bald,

Nick

THANK YOU SCOTT!!
I like the way you think and your true grit style.

I absolutely agree with your thoughts that "There is no testing or sharing of ideas going on with these two: Scientology cannot be tested by anyone who rejects reason, and Objectivism cannot be tested by slimy persons of no integrity."

Nick's plain meanness, in his baseless reputation bashing of Leonid is just awful.
Where is the honesty of intention in that?
Couple Kevin and Nick's deliberate refusal to confront facts or choices with the intent to deceive and we have SOLO playing host to BAD FAITH.

My 2 cents
Liz

Leonid
Atlascott,thanks for your support
I,for one,already disengaged. I only response to obvious lies.I also removed my kid gloves and started to call a spade a spade and a scoundrel a scoundrel.