Rules of "Deep Thoughts"

[Oleksandr]

One and only rule:
Do not make claims that Objectivism says something without a direct quote from one of Objectivist works.




Reasoning and explanation of the rule:


Deep Thoughts can be a fun section to read, but there is one thing I do not wish to see. And that is unsupported claims on what Objectivism says.

It's one thing to think through various stuff, and totally another to misrepresent Objectivism by making unsupported and false claims.

I will act as a moderator of the forum, and posts that contain claims "Objectivism says X" without a quotation (or a reference to the quotation in another post) will be removed and sent back to the author with a request to add a quotation or rethink the post. Providing a link to the article is not enough to make a definite claim what Objectivism says. You need both the article link and the quote you picked from the article.

Note, this rule only concerns claims of "Objectivist says X". It doesn't extend to questions or similar.


Enjoy "deep thoughts."

[Arakasi Takeda]

Message deleted - sent PM to the administrator instead.

AT

[Oleksandr]

I don't know why AT needs secrecy but his questions were:

1) What you consider the appropriate standard for using a quote.

2) The precise formula you'd like the citation in.

3) Whether you will be editing per the direct text, or your own personal interpretation of the text.

4) And what you mean by stating that this applies 'only to Objectivism says X' - Are you giving special status to truthfulness of claims about Objectivism but not to anything else, or are you going to demand that any such claim about any particular system be equally supported?

The only meaningful question here is #4. I will clarify the reasoning behind this but not for AT, b/c I don't think he'll understand me anyway.

I am indeed stating that statements for or against Objectivism will have a higher standard that claims against other philosophies, with exception of maybe Aristotelian. This is so primarily, because most philosophies don't define anything on purpose, instead leaving a gray mass to confuse others into thinking that they actually make sense.

AT is free to complain but I won't be starting any debates with him.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I have a question about this:

While I see your purpose, I don't see how this rule will prevent it from happening.

Anytime someone has said, "Objectivism says X", they didn't just decide to make something up... its because it was read somewhere and misinterpreted. Does this mean they should then define everything they say all the way down to A is A?

While I understand that you want Discussions to go on without much interruption of bad interpretations of Objectivism, I don't quite see how this will prevent it. From my experience, it has been mainly misinterpretations of some text, not unsupported claims. (unsupported meaning: not referenced)

Roger, Over.

[Oleksandr]

I don't think it's a matter of misunderstanding. Misunderstanding doesn't go that far. Purposeful misrepresentation does. And I do think it works quite well.

For a study, I've been a member of two forums for about a year now:
http://forum.objectivismonline.net/
http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/

Last one uses such moderation and it has led to very good results.

Over.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

So you notice a different between Oismonline and 4aynrandfans?

roger, over, 10-4

[Arakasi Takeda]

I don't know why AT needs secrecy

There was no need or intent for secrecy - just appropriateness. Since my questions were specific to how you would exercise your authority as a moderator, I felt the questions were more appropriately directed to you. I decided after typing out my response that it was more efficient and direct to use the medium of a private message rather than the forum.

If you feel they are better answered on the forum, you were welcome to post them, as you did.


AT

[Arakasi Takeda]

The only meaningful question here is #4. I will clarify the reasoning behind this but not for AT, b/c I don't think he'll understand me anyway.

I am indeed stating that statements for or against Objectivism will have a higher standard that claims against other philosophies, with exception of maybe Aristotelian. This is so primarily, because most philosophies don't define anything on purpose, instead leaving a gray mass to confuse others into thinking that they actually make sense.

AT is free to complain but I won't be starting any debates with him.

There's no need for a complaint or debate; your answer explains your purpose quite clearly. You intend to enforce a double-standard for Truth - one for Objectivism, and one for everything else.


AT

[Oleksandr]

So you notice a different between Oismonline and 4aynrandfans?

roger, over, 10-4

Yes, a big difference.

[Jim Degriss]

Objectivism is a philosophy defined by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Follow the link below to read her own words.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... vism_intro

I am new to "DEEP THOUGHTS" and this is the first thread I viewed. It is right at the top. In the "anouncements" section, I see RULES.

oooh Shit.. I had better read that... I might have to regulate my language or something.
Nothing so easy.


If you are also new here and like me, left a bit confused by it all you are not alone. But don't sweat it, read on. There are other good topics below, and nobody seems to be concerned with "THE RULE"


I see that the last post in this thread was way back 2008, and it looks to me like Arakasi and Tolthar have got Olesksandr backed up against the wall.

Not a word since.

I do not know If the rule still stands or if Olesksandr is still moderating us?

If you are still there Olesksanr. I suggest we moderate this entire thread and start a new one called "Introduction to deep thoughts".
Perhaps include the quote and link above.
*edit.. I would like take this comment back for I am free to start my own forum with or without rules.


Do we need rules here?
A better question would be.
Is the there such a thing as a reasonable demand?

I know of only one.... Be reasonable.

Here is were we touch minds with reason as our only absolute.

enjoy