Wait ... there's a Dianetics for Cool Kids, too?

I solemnly swear that I did NOT hack lileks.com and plant the quoted missive.

It should NOT be necessary for me to note that a major line of argument here is that one should "grow out" of some position and magically subscribe to some other at some unspecified age.

However, it apparently IS necessary.

See, if a position is deficient (or a philosophy or ideological viewpoint incorrect), one needs to present argument, evidence, logical analysis or SOMEthing substantive so as to make at least a feeble attempt at turning the offending idea upon its head. I'm still waiting for such.

In fact, early on (as Zweeb will recall) I expressed an underwhelmed feeling as to Lilek's posts - not because I disagreed with his pieces, but because of what wasn't there. I couldn't tell the basis for WHY he liked or disliked something.
Maybe I'd coincidentally agree with some position or other, but one can't be convinced by the unsaid.

[I now suppose that what makes Lileks good at what he does (humor commentary) is that which is a characteristic of many good comedians: he's somewhat nihilistic, in that he's an effective critic. He criticises everything. Rarely do I see him unequivocally come out FOR something - but then, that's not really the feature writer's job.]

It's not enough to merely state one's opinion (if one intends to be persuasive). It's some help to one's position, true, to simply state it so that the opposition knows that ITS position is not unanimous. But simply to state a position (even with examples, as with Zweeb's recent post related to capital punishment on LJ and featuring the Brit guy) is not to convince. The position and the examples must be united and illuminated by an argument. Mere name-calling or statements of "this is bad" don't bring new support over from the other side.

It was probably not the intent of the two above blogmeisters to provide me with a classically easy bag of non-arguments to bat around, but here they are.

And I have a question for the above said two: What is the difference between Objectivism and Dianetics?

(PLEASE come up with a respectable answer for this; I'm honestly pulling for you two.)

Let's put things another way. If you guys think Objectivism is wrong, foolish or even dangerous, you need to do more than call it names. I often point out that conservatives tried that against Marx for 100 years and were steamrollered by his followers, who could simply argue that the opposition couldn't handle the technicalities of the arguments. Conservatives marshalled such weapons as whispers about Marx's personal hygeine and married life problems and what resulted was the loss of the universities. And conservatism DESERVED to lose, because to defeat an idea, you need a better one.

One more thing: in the part quoted by Zweeb from Lileks, specifically -

"...but it's a novel."

I just recognized a different form of an "argument" common in academia during the 70's and 80's. Some teachers and academics would claim, when Rand's work came up, that "Ayn Rand is not a philosopher" (and I actually witnessed this in the early 1980's on one occasion). I never witnessed the point developed in any way nor heard of it being done on other occasions, merely that the point was repeatedly asserted. I presume that the reason one doesn't hear it much anymore (in those quarters, anyway) is that it's too easy to counter. For example, who says who's a philosopher and who's not? Academics? Pick up any intro to Philo and you'll see many big names listed who weren't professional teachers and they still are cited through the ages: Socrates (at least not a prof with organized classes), Spinoza (a lens grinder), and Soren Kierkegaard, who was practically unknown for any reason. Some weren't strictly in the philosophy business (a la university) as in the case of Berkeley, who was an Anglican church official. John Locke had to publish under a pseudonym in order to avoid prison, so he wasn't exactly professing in front of a class at Eton. And so on.

Back to the "it's a Novel, not philosophy" claim (as I'm styling it here, not literally quoting). Lileks may be getting close to the truth, but getting it backwards: philosophy doesn't come from novels, but goes into them. One may be personally miffed by what Rand has her characters say and do, but philosophy is properly showcased by drama (in other words, she's not doing anything illegitimate). From the drama field, consider that Tennessee Williams does pretty much the same thing Rand does with characters, but from another perspective. Rather than her direction (having heroes and villains argue about what moves society and then act accordingly), he has some bum blurt out at length (a la certain LJ admissions by certain folk, as Zweeb will recall) the motivations and mistakes manifested on the way to the realization of a wasted life.

Another relevant matter would be that somebody concerned with what motivates people and with the answers to the eternal questions should almost be expected to come up with novels in order to show how the writers' recommended approach actually would affect real lives. Lileks' logic would suggest that in order to get into the head of some thinker, you'd consult No Exit and it would be OK to bypass Being And Nothingness in the work of (you can find that guy on the internet if you don't already know).

Lileks has been sloppy. He has a right to his own opinion, certainly, but to try to claim that Objectivism is just novel material is disingenuous. The books are full of philosophers I don't like but I don't try to keep them from the table. I don't go for Heraclitus, Hume or Hegel, but they deal with the salient issues of reality's nature, the basis of knowledge, proper and improper motivation, acceptable logical structure - and so, unsettlingly for some, does Rand.

And as to those it unsettles, I implore them to simply deal with it - not behave as Lileks does, just stating disagreement and then diving for cover, as in his last paragraph (on the original page of his, not the UZ quote).

Oh, and to expand on that last (original) quote:

"B) I have been over this in emails and discussion groups for a very long time, and have no desire to read any emails on the subject."

This leaves open the distinct possibility that he was chased away from or laughed off of said groups after giving similar "argument" to the effect of his being exempt from defending a proposition he raised. No problem, though; the method of attempting to promote a position by raising it and then refusing to defend it has not been historically effective. Since UZ has read more of him, I hope for Lileks' sake that better argument can be located by UZ or anyone in the archives, because Lileks bungled this attempt.

No, Pete. Neither Lileks nor I owes you any argument whatsoever. We both occasionally offer our perspectives on issues in our own forums and in no way do we owe you the time and effort out of lives to argue with you about it. And the fact that I have no desire to instigate a session of pontificating and bloviating in voluminous detail on your intricate knowledge of Ayn Rand's fabulous little philosophy has less to do with your being "right" about it than trying to get you to see that not everyone's LJ is a PHIL 1301 term paper laid out expressly for Ralphie's scrutiny and approval. I honestly don't give a shit whether you agree with me and Lileks and the proof of that is that I don't care enough to argue with you about it. You need to adopt a slightly less ego-centric view of blogging. Not everyone is posting so that you will serve as their personal philosopher, psychologist, music reviewer, political scientist and all around commentator-extraordinaire.

I have to assume by the volume of your reply that I touched a nerve, but your call for argument will not be heeded. You're itching for a fight you won't get. Neither my post nor his was made with the intent of changing anyone's minds. I don't owe you a full-page justification of why I think a convicted mass-murderer ought to be strung by his genitals and beaten like a pinata; it's my livejournal, I post as I please. I posted the link here because I thought what Lileks said was funny. Do me (and perhaps yourself) a favor and stop 1) telling people what their journals must include, and 2) using them as launching points for your own diatribes. You've taken this entry way too far into the realm of argument. You need to lighten up, fella.

But you SAID "Let's get it on"...

Hard to tell who's baiting who on this page.

That was part of the joke, Pete. Go ahead and assume that if my post header matches a Marvin Gaye song, I am NOT saying, "Let's have an involved discussion about the respective merits of Objectivist philosophy and rational self-interest." Thrillhouse's reply would seem to indicate that he read this in the proper spirit. It was just for kicks and grins. Leave the heavier stuff to the bohemian coffeehouses filled with beret-clad poseurs sporting artfully designed chin hair and smoking unfiltered cigarettes.

Ah, gimme (Pete) a break. The nerve touched was a comparison of a conviction of mine to Hubbard's stuff. Any one of us should be expected to object in some way when presented with that. I can't say if Lileks knew exactly how low I (or any of his readers) place that stuff, but that's certainly an examination we can put off for another time.

Hey, I'm with ya, man... Sometimes posting is just posting... the philosophical ramblings make my eyes bleed.

...but...

Leave the heavier stuff to the bohemian coffeehouses filled with beret-clad poseurs sporting artfully designed chin hair and smoking unfiltered cigarettes.

My chin hairs are in no way artful!! Leave them out of this!! :-D