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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 7:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Shayne, somehow I rather doubt that Robert is laughing at Peikoff in order "to help [his, Robert's] public image." Rather, it is the public image of Objectivism that he -- and I -- are concerned with.

By the way, have you read the discussion, in the General Forum, entitled "On Mudslinging?" It might be be of value to you.

Barbara



Post 61

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 9:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've met Yaron twice (once being interviewed for a job and another time discussing/arguing some fundamentally different views on education)and both times he was friendly, professional and passionate. Traits that I think he exhibits well in his lectures.

Post 62

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 9:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Peikoff is and always has been a Rationalist, in the philosophical sense of that term. Rand spent endless hours over many years trying to cure him of this error, but although he would often seem at least momentarily to grasp the nature of his mistake, it never left him. It is a serious mistake which undercuts his understanding of Objectivism; and it permeates his lecturing and writing, as James Heaps-Nelson has ably pointed out."

This is an interesting opinion, Barbara, but it isn't proof that he is a Rationalist. 


Post 63

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 10:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 So I conclude, sadly, that Objectivists must divorce themselves from that movement, clearly distinguishing an Objectivist political alternative.
I agree. I live in Toronto Ontario Canada. I'm with The Freedom Party of Ontario and we are that Objectivist political alternative. 


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 1:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I expected my article to be controversial. But I'm happy to see that there are so many people who say that I have a point about the evils of ARI being exaggerated.

Andre Zantonovich says I should ask Dr. Brook about SOLO. (post 9) I'm not sure if that question is all that important to me, because I'm not heavily involved with SOLO. However, he has asked me to help in setting up another meeting for him in which he is going to try to sell us all on the idea of contributing to ARI. When and if that happens, I'm going to explain to him that I am a supporter of the Libertarian Party, and will continue to be until ARI starts running candidates for public office. ;) I'm also going to tell him that I think it is very important to teach Libertarians about Objectivist principles. Then I'm going to ask him if I would be welcome in ARI considering that I'm doing the very thing that got David Kelly into trouble. We'll see what happens. He'll look really stupid if he starts denouncing me in front the members of GO, who are almost all close friends of mine.

James Kilbourne says that ARI "can't see anything wrong with AR". (post 53) According to Brook, that is not true. ARIans sometimes disagree with AR on applications of her philosophy. The only thing they don't disagree on is the basic principles themselves. He also admitted that it can sometimes be hard to figure out which aspects of her philosophy are "fundamental" and which are derivative, and that he's not sure what the answer to that is. He sounded very much like David Kelly when he was talking. I almost expected him to start using the word "tolerance".

Alot of people on this thread have been talking about Peikoff. For the record, I still think Peikoff is a nutcase. My view of him hasn't changed at all. He is one of the reasons I'm still wary of getting involved with ARI. However, he is no longer the head of the group, and I think people need to remember that.

Someone asked who a "Saddamite" is. As far as I can tell, it's anyone who supports Ayn Rand's "isolationist" views. Joseph Rowlands says that's not the case, that the term only refers to cultural relativists who think the war is an injustice against Iraqis. However, I could have sworn the term was used against me once by Lindsey Perigo, and I am certainly not a cultural relativist. My problem with Iraq is the same one I have with every welfare program. I just don't think it's right to force Americans to pay for the liberation of foreigners. However, it may be that Perigo did not actually use that term and I'm just getting confused. So perhaps Rowlands is correct.

John Trager asks about Brooks' statements concerning WMDs. (post 53) I believe Brook's position was that WMDs by themselves are not enough to justify a war. There has to at least be proof that the country is planning to attack us. In the case of Iran, he kept repeating over and over again that "we were attacked", implying that Iran is implicated because they are an Islamic Fundamentalist government that actively supports the al-queeda network. Iraq, of course, was against Islamic Fundamentalism and al-queeda. Which is why Brook found it impossible to justify on "isolationist" premises.

Thanks for the comments everyone. :)

-----------------------Tom Blackstone

http://tomsphilosophy.tripod.com

(Edited by Tom Blackstone on 3/23, 1:38am)


Post 65

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 1:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wayne: "This is an interesting opinion, Barbara, but it isn't proof that he is a Rationalist,"

Of curse it isn't proof. I wasn't attempting to prove it. But I believe that if you carefully go over a batch of Peikoff's writing or lectures, you will be able to see it for yourself. This is not to say that he's a total or consistent Rationalist; that would lead him very far indeed from Objectivism. But it keeps creeping in to his thinking, and causes distortions when he's attempting to present Ayn Rand's principles.

Barbara


Post 66

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 4:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom, I think once you mention your support of the Libertarian Party, it will be game over. (Properly so, in my opinion!)

Wayne, I'm also in Toronto and am going to try to go to the next Toronto Objectivists April Meetup. (However, I should mention I have no interest in the Freedom Party.)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom: "For the record, I still think Peikoff is a nutcase."

Be careful that this statement doesn't bite you in the ass during your approximation to ARI - not saying it will - just saying be careful...

I'm curious about one thing. Why are you so open at SOLO about your sympathies towards ARI, but find that it is not relevant to mention what you think about SOLO to ARI? If you know that they are so hostile to SOLO, that would be a base that I personally would want to cover to avoid future misunderstandings.

Also: "Iraq, of course, was against Islamic Fundamentalism and al-queeda."

I don't know why I keep seeing in my mind a news clip that was widely broadcast of Saddam Hussein and his cabinet laughing their asses off right after 9/11...

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/23, 7:27am)


Post 68

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael wrote: "I don't know why I keep seeing in my mind a news clip that was widely broadcast of Saddam Hussein and his cabinet laughing their asses off right after 9/11..."

Yes, Saddam Hussein and his cronies hate the United States, as do dozens of other petty dictators around the world.  If hatred of the United States was a criteria for invading a country, then we'd be invading dozens of other countries.

Having said that, I think Joseph Rowland's definition of a "Saddamite" is a good one.  In the past, and in the heat of a passionate argument, that definition sometimes did not appear to be consistently applied.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 8:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Byron,

I never said that hating the USA was a reason to invade a country. I just thought it was funny that someone said that Iraq was AGAINST the America-hating elements in its own culture, especially under the venerable Mr. Hussein...

btw - Ethan Dawe told me in another post that you had served. Well here's a salute from me.   //;-)

Michael


Post 70

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 8:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Thank you for the salute, but it is my honor and privilege.  I am also not the only one here who is serving or has served in the military.

By the way, I did not mean to imply that you said it is okay to  invade any country that hates us.  What I was saying was that was the reason Hussein and crew got a good laugh out of 9/11.  They were not alone there.  Millions of Muslims around the world, Shiite and Sunni, were cheering.  That does not change the fact that there are different factions of Islam that do not get along with each other, and that some factions are much more of a threat than others.


Post 71

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 6:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I turn away for a few days and look what happens. I won't try to review all the things here that are worthy of comment, but I do want to say a few things:
Robert, your story on ARI and their attitude at the time of the publishing of Barbara's book is fascinating. I wasn't around ARI, but there is nothing in your story which I find surprising.
So, to Tom Blackstone- you are right that "ARI can't see anything wrong with AR" is philosophically inaccurate and I stand corrected. Let me correct it:
"There are so many mistakes made by ARI in evaluating AR that its assessment of her should be approached with great skepticism." These mistakes are outlined in this thread and a few thousand other places, thank God, sufficient for any intelligent person who questions my corrected statement, so I don't feel compelled to do it again. Tom, I hope that that you forgive the poetic license I took to make a quick and obvious point.
I am usually looking for ways to say things quickly. Barbara can discuss things with people in exquisite detail time after time with an absolutely positive and energetic attitude. It is one of the reasons that there is a movement to canonize her. I, who have never waited in a line for more than two minutes, do find this attribute saintly, but I attribute it to the fact that I am 60 years old and Barbara is 39.

Post 72

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"there is a movement to canonize her." No, I think SOLO's rule is that she has to turn 40 first.

Post 73

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael K: "Why are you so open at SOLO about your sympathies towards ARI, but find that it is not relevant to mention what you think about SOLO to ARI?"

An excellent point, Michael.

Barbara

Post 74

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

James: " I am 60 years old and Barbara is 39."

Another excellent point.

Barbara


Post 75

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe, I hadn't seen your earlier post about "Saddamites." It is truly excellent.

However, I do wish your distinction between those who think our invasion of Iraq was unnecessary or un-strategic and those who believe that the U. S. is criminal, were more often accepted not only in theory but also in dealings with the former people.

Barbara

Post 76

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sigh.

Here we go again.

As the one who coined the term, let me say that as far as I'm concerned "Saddamite" applies to anyone who succours Saddam. Period. That includes those who say the liberation is merely "unstrategic" (*that* gives Saddam succour) as well as the vicious, overtly anti-American scum who post on Rockwell, Raimondo, Mises & the like. And I don't care if the feelings of the former are hurt. Their hurt feelings are nothing compared to the beheadings, car-bombings & so on perpetrated by those to whom they give succour. These quisling appeasers *ought* to have their feelings hurt, & they ought to have the decency to find it hard to look in the mirror.

Linz

Post 77

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sigh.

Barbara

Post 78

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wayne,

I also live in Toronto and I voted for the Freedom Party candidate in the last election. I didn't realize the Freedom Party had an Objectivist base. I just recall agreeing with a lot of its positions. Can you suggest where I should go to get more information?

Gordon


Post 79

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Barbara quotes:

"The life of Leonard Peikoff is a heroic one. From his early years as a precocious student tortured by the dichotomy of the "moral vs. the practical" to his awakening when he read /The Fountainhead/ and set off to California from Winnipeg, Canada, to meet its author; to the 30 years he spent under her guidance in mastering her philosophy of Objectivism and in learning how to think and write; to his special insights into her unique mind and values; to his breaking new ground in presenting and promoting Objectivism in his already-classic books; to his overseeing the publication of Rand's many posthumous works; and to his own value
system, artistic favorites and personal life, it's all here and all in
his own words."

 

It sounds like the life of a sycophant to me.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.