BEHOLD THE CRACKED.......LETTING IN MORE LIGHT !

Sharon,

That's crap. Read it or don't.

If you look to others to tell you whether or not something is worth reading, or take a poll to decide, you have decided not to think. Your loss. You can fill up the forum with your arbitrary assertions to your hearts desire, but don't be surprised if no one is listening.

Ethan

Post 101

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:41am

Ethan,

Inserting "crap" into this conversation does not strengthen your position.

In your opinion, is Leonard Piekoff the Objectivist hero I want to hold up to my students? The guy who has learned how to be an Objectivist in this world?

Sharon

Post 102

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:45am

Sharon,

I don't know Leonard Peikoff. I have never met him. I've listened to some of his video lectures on the ARI website and read his book OPAR. I found them useful in understanding Objectivism. Beyond that I have no evaluation of the man. That's all I'm saying.

You have stated some evalautaions of him in your last few posts. Do you know him?

Ethan

Post 103

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:57am

Ethan,

Thanks for composing yourself.

No, I do not know him; but I hear via the grapevine that perhaps he doesn't have the secrets to a happy life. That's irrelevant, unless he is the greatest hero Objectivism has produced.

Who is recognized as the most fully integrated, vitality filled Objectivist Hero, who has lived and thrived in this world? "Judge and be prepared to be judged," she said.

Sharon

Post 104

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 9:02am

Sharon,

I never was uncomposed. I don't know what you're saying/asking in any case. Like I said, read the book or don't. It's not important to me.

Post 105

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 9:08am

Sharon

Yes, cringing is a valid response to the thought of having others make public policy based on emotions alone

I would cringe if/when anyone makes decisions for me based on any component of emotionalism.

Would you cringe equally as much at the thought of public policy based on the emotionless decisions of malevolent intellectuals?

Yes, of course. I would cringe at anything that a malevolent person would do whether they are intellectuals or ignoramuses.

Yes, I espouse a philosophy that is inimical to your maintaining the untenable position that "man qua man" as an end, does not have to include one thought on children.

Your position is that "children qua children" is an end. The usage of "man", as mankind, i.e. the species, includes children

Yes, you may have to start paying attention to who children are. You may have to spend time with them, studying them, understanding their needs, and your relation to them. You will have to regard children as slightly more than the chattels of their parents.

You are doing me a disservice here. I have children and I resent you portraying me as someone who regards them as "slightly more than chattels".

The harm I see, Sam, is that you will have to give up your complacent retirement and get to work on this solution.

You have not made a point that there is a problem.

If I have spoken in a tone more caustic than the one you have been directing at me, take one for your side.

You can speak to me in any way that you choose. If you offend me enough I'll withdraw.

Sam

Post 106

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 9:23am

Sharon,

In post #92 you said:

I have depth of experience and thought. My intuitions do not fail me.

Not true. Your intuitions do fail you. In post #82 you said:

I'm trying to understand why empathy is a fearsome idea. I use fearsome, because humans tend to attack those they fear.

This intuition isn�t logical. Humans tend to attack those ideas that they hate, consider to be wrong, despise, etc., not just those they fear. So, it doesn�t follow that empathy is a fearsome idea just from the fact that some people here have attacked the idea.

In fact, I don�t think anyone has attacked the idea of empathy per se. In post #69, Joe explained what his position is on empathy. Did you detect fear in his post?

Your posts are becoming �word salads� and I have enough empathy to suggest to you that you might consider taking a break from posting for a while to gather your thoughts.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 107

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 9:39am

Ethan,

When I read expletives, such as your use of the word "crap" in a fierce discussion, my empathic abilities' aerial signals: frustration overwhelming logic, which results in a less objective and a more emotional response.

After I directed you to the fact that I recognized and invalidated your use of the aforementioned word "crap". I sensed some restraint in your next post. I wanted to show that I understood that you may be seething to some degree, but you are staying respectful, and not yielding as many do here, to the use of ad hominums. I wanted to acknowledge my recognition of this effort that you were making on my behalf. A supposition, perhaps, but with the limited information posting provides, the one I chose to reveal to you. I always laugh when I read the attempts that some make to abuse their opponents. They remind me of a guide to composition from logic which illustrated the use of ad hominums with an anecdote about a student preacher who was counselled to make a note on his sermon; "argument weak, shout like hell". It's unfortunate, I had no time to study that book more thoroughly. I could be using those skills to build better arguments here.

Asides aside. Are you being deliberately evasive about Leonard Piekoff; or is it none of my business to be so impertinent as to ask for your opinion? Before I get on my bike and cycle for an hour to the closest Chapters, and another hour back; I want a recommendation that the book's author validates a more integrated view of Objectivism. My social skills are often impertinent, but on this forum, I thought it reasonable to ask for your opinion. You do have some special standing here, Ethan.

Sharon

Post 108

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 9:53am

Glenn,

I'll take your recommendation under advisement. I thank you.

The reference to "fear" came from a sense that Objectivists are evading the issue of empathy, by focusing on semantics, by mocking any groping towards serious discourse; and worse, abusing anyone who tries to open the topic. Am I overreacting?

If this issue has been thrashed out to the nth degree, by the full strength of Objectivist thinking, Glenn, please direct me to it. I have been looking, searching for it since last June. Are you the teacher who has appeared?

Does Leonard Piekoff have the answer?

Sharon

Post 109

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 9:54am

Sharon,

Through the written word it is often hard to understand people emotional states. I was not seething, I assure you. Picture me saying, "That's crap" ina noraml tone of voice.

I'm not being deliberatly evasive about Peikoff. I explained the context of my comments clearly. My point is this: The book provides a fine explanation of Objectivism.

Now, I have no opinion worth sharing as to Mr. Peikoff's standing as a hero or embodiment of Objectivist living.

I'm making no evaluations of him here in that context as I haven't the information to. I've heard lots of things online about him from sources both dubious and not-so dubious. I have no first hand experience other than his book OPAR, his two online video lectures at the ARI website, and his comments in the film Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. I haven't read everything he has written nor heard everything he has said. What I have written and heard has seemed fine to me, so my evaluation of him and his work is positive.

That should be clear enough.

Ethan

Post 110

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 9:59am

Ethan:

You do have some special standing here, Ethan

.
I'm jealous

Sam

Post 111

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 9:59am

Yeah,

What special standing is that?

Ethan

Post 112

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 10:29am

Sam and Ethan,

I'm taking Glenn's suggestion, I guess Objectivists like to keep their food from touching. Melanges and salads lack appeal.
That's consistency for sure.

I'll see what Leonard Piekoff has online. Maybe he takes telephone calls.

Thanks for chatting.

Sharon

Ethan, aren't you a moderator or editor or some such designate?
(Edited by Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald on 4/28, 10:31am)

Post 113

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 10:40am

I'm the editor not the moderator. You must call me "your exalted highness" :-)

Post 114

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 10:46am

YEH

bowers and scrapers and other plebians, status seekers, fools, wise wo/men, motley assorted personages, posers and Objectivists, individuals all

I get the picture Ethan

Post 115

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:12pm

It would be good if ye ever did, Sharon.......

Post 116

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 2:36pm

Boy, Sharon can sure get a lot of ("O'ist"?) buttons pushed with her nonsensical arguments about nonsensical priorities.

Commenting as...
A-2child-raiser-1-a-DownSyndrome
J-D

P.S: I'm a 'male'-figure, hence not a female-'nurturer'; ergo, I'm probably biased on this whole thread...negatively. I'll say no more herein, but still, wonder why so many bothered allowing themselves to get baited into saying so much about something so little worth paying attention to after the 1st post.

P.P.S: 'Cracks' don't necessarily always let light in; they sometimes let it escape. Ie: these bring darkness and confusion 'in'. All depends where the 'light' is, hmmm?

P.P.P.S: Yet, the thread's responses are..."Fascinating"

(Edited by John Dailey on 4/28, 2:40pm)

Post 117

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 2:51pm

Even the gods go slumming sometimes.......

Post 118

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 8:14am