[001]
StudiodeKadent
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
Your first suggestion, about removing the term \
to:
Your first suggestion, about removing the term \\\"insane\\\" and replacing it with less emotional language (for example; \\\"Rand was not the only person to oppose it\\\"). I agree with you here. Whilst I believe both Rand and Mill did indeed find Comte\\\'s altruism to be deeply troubling to the point of being \\\"insane\\\" (figuratively speaking), I agree the term does not belong in this summary.
Your second suggestion is one I also agree with. The language you target is not language I added to the artice and I agree with you that Comtean altruism indeed accepts that the life of the self \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' have instrumental value. Comtean altruism is a deontological morality, and as such advancement of the self \\\'\\\'would\\\'\\\' be justified under pure Comteanism as a means to the ultimate end of the advancement of others. So yes, I agree that rewording that section is justified.
Your third suggestion, contrasting Objectivist morality with both Benthamite Utilitarianism and Kantianism, is indeed fruitful. I can\\\'t really \\\'\\\'object\\\'\\\' to it per se; the problem is that there have been forum threads in the past that have argued the main page is too long. Adding additional paragraphs about the difference between Benthamite Utilitarianism and Kantianism would lengthen the article futher, although in theory I support your idea.
There is one more practical consideration I must raise. I am an open-system (TOC/Atlas Society) Objectivist and I do not demonize Kant in the way that some of the more orthodox Objectivists do. I disagree with Kant and I agree Rand\\\'s critique of Kant makes relevant criticisms of \\\'\\\'Kant\\\'s intellectual progeny\\\'\\\' (Fichte and Hegel most obviously) but I wouldn\\\'t agree her criticism is accurate with respect to Kant \\\'\\\'himself\\\'\\\'. Kant\\\'s ideas were modified by many successor minds, each of which spun his ideas in many other directions. Kant, after all, was a classical liberal that believed individuals were not means to social ends. The danger (which I admit is reasonably small) from including a comparison of Rand\\\'s ethics with Kant\\\'s is that some of the more... ahem... orthodox Objectivists may object to the phrasing.
Your fourth suggestion, about the definition of politics. I agree that your wording is far more neutral. Given this is the Objectivism page and not the Political Ideologies page, I think it is fair to stick with the liberal conception of politics and define politics in the manner you propose (\\\"proper organization of society\\\") but state that Objectivists accept the liberal understanding that the essential issue of politics is the role that the State plays in society. So I agree with you that your proposal results in a more neutral framework.
Finally, your statement that it would not be redundant to warn readers that this page doesn\\\'t have a criticism section was redundant before the moderator removed the earlier statement that \\\"this page doesn\\\'t aim to promote or detract from Objectivism, merely to say what it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\'. Given the moderator has removed this statement, it is not redundant to say that the page focuses on explaining the philosphy rather than critical analysis. However, again there is the problem of 1) the criticism section becoming absolute EditWar central and being filled with stupid and defamatory critiques (quite unlike those you\\\'ve proposed), and 2) it might annoy the moderator.
Irrespective, I do think you have made some very sensible, fruitful and intelligent suggestions and I\\\'m greatly thankful for your intelligent, insightful and polite commentary. My thanks. I\\\'ll try and incorporate your suggestions into the main article as soon as possible.
\\\'\\\'\\\'UPDATE\\\'\\\'\\\': I can\\\'t make your edits because apparently I have been Edit Banned from this page (and this page only).
I\\\'m considering leaving the site over this.
Your second suggestion is one I also agree with. The language you target is not language I added to the artice and I agree with you that Comtean altruism indeed accepts that the life of the self \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' have instrumental value. Comtean altruism is a deontological morality, and as such advancement of the self \\\'\\\'would\\\'\\\' be justified under pure Comteanism as a means to the ultimate end of the advancement of others. So yes, I agree that rewording that section is justified.
Your third suggestion, contrasting Objectivist morality with both Benthamite Utilitarianism and Kantianism, is indeed fruitful. I can\\\'t really \\\'\\\'object\\\'\\\' to it per se; the problem is that there have been forum threads in the past that have argued the main page is too long. Adding additional paragraphs about the difference between Benthamite Utilitarianism and Kantianism would lengthen the article futher, although in theory I support your idea.
There is one more practical consideration I must raise. I am an open-system (TOC/Atlas Society) Objectivist and I do not demonize Kant in the way that some of the more orthodox Objectivists do. I disagree with Kant and I agree Rand\\\'s critique of Kant makes relevant criticisms of \\\'\\\'Kant\\\'s intellectual progeny\\\'\\\' (Fichte and Hegel most obviously) but I wouldn\\\'t agree her criticism is accurate with respect to Kant \\\'\\\'himself\\\'\\\'. Kant\\\'s ideas were modified by many successor minds, each of which spun his ideas in many other directions. Kant, after all, was a classical liberal that believed individuals were not means to social ends. The danger (which I admit is reasonably small) from including a comparison of Rand\\\'s ethics with Kant\\\'s is that some of the more... ahem... orthodox Objectivists may object to the phrasing.
Your fourth suggestion, about the definition of politics. I agree that your wording is far more neutral. Given this is the Objectivism page and not the Political Ideologies page, I think it is fair to stick with the liberal conception of politics and define politics in the manner you propose (\\\"proper organization of society\\\") but state that Objectivists accept the liberal understanding that the essential issue of politics is the role that the State plays in society. So I agree with you that your proposal results in a more neutral framework.
Finally, your statement that it would not be redundant to warn readers that this page doesn\\\'t have a criticism section was redundant before the moderator removed the earlier statement that \\\"this page doesn\\\'t aim to promote or detract from Objectivism, merely to say what it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\'. Given the moderator has removed this statement, it is not redundant to say that the page focuses on explaining the philosphy rather than critical analysis. However, again there is the problem of 1) the criticism section becoming absolute EditWar central and being filled with stupid and defamatory critiques (quite unlike those you\\\'ve proposed), and 2) it might annoy the moderator.
Irrespective, I do think you have made some very sensible, fruitful and intelligent suggestions and I\\\'m greatly thankful for your intelligent, insightful and polite commentary. My thanks. I\\\'ll try and incorporate your suggestions into the main article as soon as possible.
\\\'\\\'\\\'UPDATE\\\'\\\'\\\': I can\\\'t make your edits because apparently I have been Edit Banned from this page (and this page only).
I\\\'m considering leaving the site over this.
