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 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 80

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 3:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom: “Since I don't see how we continue to discuss "moral perfection" without discussing the individuals which were the target of your original post, namely all the "prominent Objectivists" who were included in your sweeping indictment that "nobody's perfect," who would you suggest we discuss?”

You could start with those individuals whom you claim to be morally perfect persons. After all, this is a testable claim, so you must have some evidence on which you base the claim. No need to cite names.

Besides satisfying the demands of rationality, there are a couple of other very important reasons to do this. One, there are a bunch of people here who are presumably striving to live the perfect Objectivist life. Some real-life cases, Tom, cases, would be very helpful to them.

Two, the claim is an extraordinary one – virtually anyone you ask would deny that such an exulted state as moral perfection is possible, and yet Tom casually mentions having met such exalted individuals. If nothing else, this could provide a major selling point for Objectivism. So why hide this light under a bushel?

Brendan


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 81

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 5:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan,

Hear, hear!

Whaddya say Tom?

I'll bring the booze.

Michael


Post 82

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 5:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There was a Philadelphia Objectivist Association in the 80's (before the Kelley/Peikoff break but after Kelley and Schwartz/Binswanger were not talking) run by Roger Donway (now of TOC). Bidinotto would spin these same arguments that amounted to just attacks based on envy. In the end the anger would lead to things like "Schwartz's wife makes a lot of money and had a rent controlled apartment in NYC." Roger would just roll his eyes.

Post 83

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 5:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,

I've included the link to the Reisman documents here. They implicate Schwartz and Binswanger as well:
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/ari/index.html

Should we really take lessons in moral judgment from these guys?

Jim


Post 84

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 6:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Should we really take lessons in moral judgment from these guys?
Typical Christian argument...


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 85

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 6:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Christian?

Huh?

I don't get it.


Post 86

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 8:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The best proof that the unidentifiable "Bob" of post 82 is a liar, is the fact that he would suggest that I would "envy" the likes of Mr. Schwartz -- a claim that anyone who knows him, and me, would find hilarious.


Post 87

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 9:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan,

I don't recall making any claim about meeting any perfectly moral person, but if you can tell me where I did, I will gladly retract the statement.  The point is now moot.  I'm  doing a series of articles for my own blog. I'll put the link here when the first one is ready.

Tom

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 4/23, 10:00pm)


Post 88

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 10:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Huh?
It's a type of ad hominem I see from religious people a lot. The pattern is: "Since [we presume]you're a hypocrite, your argument is irrelevant." Fits in with casting the stones and stuff.


Post 89

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 10:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom: “I don't recall making any claim about meeting any perfectly moral person, but if you can tell me where I did, I will gladly retract the statement.”

The claim was made in para 17 of the article that heads this thread. To wit: “I suppose that the first question that needs to be answered is: in all of my 62 years,  43 in close proximity to Objectivists, including a few of the leading names, have I ever met a morally perfect person?  My answer is yes, I think I have, but I’ll refrain from listing them.”

To my mind, that reads as a claim to have met some morally perfect persons, although I stand corrected if my interpretation is mistaken. Your lack of recall of your own statement is a bit of a concern. I must say I’m also somewhat disappointed by the prospect of your imminent retraction. We live in morally fraught times, and any examples of moral perfection could only be a beacon of hope for questing souls.

Brendan


Post 90

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 10:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

Actually, I found the link you sent shortly after I wrote my last post the other night. I'm not sure it means what you (or Chris Wolf) seem to think it means -- and when I say, "I'm not sure," that's what I mean.

There is an issue that consideration of these documents (plus my own recollection of Ayn Rand and others) has raised, that I am just beginning to understand.

I was wrong about at least one thing: if Peikoff was wrong here, so were the other two.

Clearly, there was a "war" going on, but I'm far from clear that everything we need to consider is contained in these documents.  More accurately, I think it is in the documents, but is only hinted at, like a background assumption that was not shared by the two sides.

We'll see.

Tom


Post 91

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 10:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Actually, that doesn't prove anything, which doesn't say that Bob isn't a lier, only that saying that you "envy Peter Schwartz" doesn't prove it.  The proofs of either one of these propositions are quite independent of each other.

I even heard these same comments about Mrs. Schwartz at about this same time, though I've forgotten the context, and I have absolutely no proof, so I wouldn't even entertain the notion, that you had anything to do with them.

Tom


Post 92

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 10:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne,

I am not averse to addressing Peikoff's arguments directly (as I have done elsewhere on contextual certainty). I just find it ironic that the spokesman for "official" Objectivism would  be so ill-suited for the temperament of a judge. Or is Ayn Rand's And I mean it postscript an optional part of Objectivism?

Jim


Post 93

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 11:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,

That's fair. I thank you for the integrity of having examined the documents. I do think Peikoff could have cleared all of this up himself if he saw fit to make a public statement. In the absence of that, we are left to draw conclusions from the evidence available.

Jim


Post 94

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 11:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan,

You're quite correct, and I do hereby retract it for the purposes of this thread. Sorry to disappoint.

You see, Brendan, I'm not willing to argue this issue apart from the context of Robert's claims about the "moral imperfection" of specific individuals (which is the context that my article and that paragraph were written in).  Robert apparently wants to claim that "nobody's perfect" based on his experience (interpreted by him) and then not talk about the specific experiences that he bases his claim on.  I see no reason why I should discuss my claim and include my experiences (interpreted by me) in that kind of context. That places me and my interpretation on trial in a court where I cannot cross-examine. It ain't gonna happen. It's an implicit call for rationalism and I'm not going to participate.

As far as I'm concerned this thread died with the death of its context.

Tom


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 95

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 11:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne,

Gotcha dude. A thing between you and James...

I don't see James as religious at all, so I was wondering if you were using "Christian" as maybe the full name of Chris Wolf...

(just joking...)

Michael


Post 96

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 11:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

There is an assumption in your post that I question -- that Dr. Peikoff owes you or anyone a public statement about something he contends is a private matter. If any mistake was made here, it was the failure to say this and say it loudly. That kind of statement, of course, is not the one you want. You are outraged, in effect, at the fact that Dr. Peikoff didn't consult his "constituency" when he made the decision and that when his "constituency" questioned the decision he had the gall to say it was none of your business.

I happen to agree with your assessment of Dr. Reisman and his book, and am very disappointed that he is not associated with ARI.  And I am not clear about the reasons. And I am not willing to write his work out of my life merely on Dr. Peikoff's say-so. I have every reason to believe that it was a private matter and thus, beyond my judgment. And that's fine with me. And the evidence is, in my judgment, ambiguous on the subject of whether Dr. Peikoff is morally culpable here.

I'll think about it.

Tom 


Post 97

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 12:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nothing like people who try to read between the lines while being cross-eyed...

Michael, as far as I know, there's nothing between James and I. In fact I don't remember interacting with him before, I was merely responding to his statement.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 98

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 12:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cross-eyed?

LOL

I do believe you really are growing a sense of humor, Shayne. You gotta polish it a little though...

Here is a suggestion. Try laughing without trying to play put-down. (I want to make a wisecrack here, but I will refrain... - my suggestion is serious).

So nothing between you and James? You just sneer at strangers like that? At least say hello first...

But suit yourself...

I gotta get back to Tom and Dave. They interested me again all of a sudden...

Michael



Post 99

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 5:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wissler wrote:

"Unintentional immorality" is a contradiction in terms.

In a situation where one does not choose immorality and has made what he thinks is a moral decision, but the decision is based upon an error of knowledge, is unintentionally immoral or mistaken.  In computerese it is called GiGo.

edited for grammar

(Edited by Robert Davison on 4/24, 5:43am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.