About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, April 14, 2003 - 12:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One of the things I think you should keep in mind, is that you should think for yourself.

Mrs Rand was certainly a great Female, with some excellent ideas, however, it does not automatically follow that you should defer to her when forming an opinion on everything....or, indeed, anything at all.

Mrs Rands writing should be used as a general inspiration, rather than a rule book.

If Mrs Rand had suggested, for example, that the Earth was flat you would hardly be agreeing with her, however supportive of her other writing you may be.



Post 1

Monday, April 14, 2003 - 1:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris, I'll look forward to this. While in my view the neo-cons are doing something right (sic) within the current context I'd like to hear what I'm missing in the radical picture. I'm sure not neo-con, but you may put me right :).

Sam



Post 2

Monday, April 14, 2003 - 2:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Chris
Yours is a welcome rational voice where there has been despairingly too much passion and too little rationality on Solo these past weeks.
The war on Iraq poses a serious ideological challege to Objectivists, which, as you have intimated, has far wider implications than we can imagine.
Once the blood-lust has subsided, we will need to examine these issues with cool, logical heads. And as Objectivists, what better springboard for debate that the writings of Ayn Rand?
I think your work clearly illustrates that you are more than capable of thinking for yourself - and more than capable of meeting this challenge.
I look forward to your article with great anticipation.



Post 3

Monday, April 14, 2003 - 3:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the feedback, gents.

I did want to say one thing in response to Elijah Lineberry, however; he is absolutely right on this. Just because Rand said it, doesn't make it so.

A biographical note: The very first book I read of Ayn Rand's was CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL. To this day, I believe that anthology to be one of the finest ever published. What amazed me about it then, is what amazes me about it now: Rand's capacity to ~integrate~ the facts of reality in a manner that made visible the ~roots~ of social crisis, while pointing in the direction of a revolutionary resolution to that crisis.

IF you accept the essence of her critique, but not all of the details (and this description certainly fits my own approach to this), then you'd still need to come to grips with the fact that the essence of Rand's critique of foreign policy is bound up, inextricably, with her critique of domestic policy, with ~interventionism~ in general.

So even if we reject the specifics of that critique, we need to do a better job, as Objectivists, of coming to grips with its essentially ~radical~ character---and here, I mean "radical" in a methodological sense: Rand's search for roots and fundamentals, and her attempts to trace those forces within a remarkable network of interrelated factors.

~This~ is what is being dispensed with in most Objectivist commentary on the war and on the global crisis. And even if people disagree with what Rand said---or what I say (in the details)---they still need to spend a lot more time on the ~methods~ that Rand uses to understand ~any~ social problem---be it global, domestic, or something happening right in your neighborhood.

I'll have a lot more to say.

Cheers,
Chris

---
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm
---



Post 4

Monday, April 14, 2003 - 5:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ooops... I'm so used to seeing "Kayton" and "Barry" put together, that I suddenly realized it was BETTY Kayton. My Lord! Forgive my blindness... but, apparently, great minds run in the Kayton family! :)

So I amend my "thanks gents" with a thanks to LADIES AND GENTS.

All my best,
Chris



Post 5

Monday, April 14, 2003 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Something I have found invaluable is the link below:

www.webcom.com/beacon/welcome.html

Richard Mayberry is not only a financial adviser, he is an historian par excellence. In this context, Rand (as usual) is absolutey correct. Issues must be examined from every possible angle, using noncontradicatory razors of rationality versus whim, ie., mysticism, not the least of which is history. In his excellent book, "The Thousand Year War" Mayberry reports, in detail, the Crusades and the search for the "Holy Grail". From this he traces events to present day and why the the West is at war with the Middle East. His basic premise is interference versus noninterference in foreign affairs and in all social interaction, and how mysticism plays a crucial role in all matters social and political.



Post 6

Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 3:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey, Alicia, thanks for the above link. I wasn't aware of Mayberry, but I like the emphasis on examining things from every possible angle.

I should point out that the need to examine the full context (and multiple angles) of any issue is paramount---and also a main ingredient in Ayn Rand's method.

Interestingly, I did receive some offlist correspondence precisely on this point, which questioned the accuracy of my hyperbolic claim in this article that "In all fairness, however, neither side to this debate has paid enough attention to the methods that Ayn Rand herself used in analyzing any social problem."

The truth is that I've not seen ~enough~ emphasis in either the prowar or antiwar commentary on the actual ~methods~ that Rand uses in her analysis of social problems. That doesn't mean that there is ~no~ attention being paid to these methods. Indeed, there are a few exceptions to the trend I noted (e.g., see Arthur Silber's various foreign policy posts at: http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P466_0_1_0>. I've also contributed to Silber's blog on these topics, and you can find my commentary listed among the links at: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm , what I call my "Not a Blog.")

I hesitate to say much more at this time; my formal piece will be published in another couple of weeks, and we'll have time enough to discuss its contents.

Cheers,
Chris



Post 7

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 10:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
People who simply follow "leaders" usually don't have much radical spirit.




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.