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 7Forward one pageLast Page


Post 100

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 11:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"The religion of atheism?" As in the worship of the worship of nothing? Next you be calling atheists Satanic. Please. I am the most religion-sympathetic atheist on this site, (ask Bill) and that statement is simply laughable. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not a belief in anything - not even a belief that god does not exist. There are also plenty of atheistic religions. "Atheism" is not a belief. You might as well talk about the disease of health or the fallacy of validity for all the sense that that phrase makes.

Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 101

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 1:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Theists come by their confusions regarding atheism quite naturally to my way of thinking. They are in a muddle because they actually are atheists - most of the time, but without consistency.

Think about it. As regards 1,000's of gods, they are non-believers and, only a theist regarding one god.

For example, the Christians declare for God of the new testament, but are atheists when it comes to Thor, Krishna-Vasudeva, Ra, Satan (at least as the Supreme Deity), Brahmā, Tabaldak, Ixmucane, Hucau, etc. (the list REALLY is thousands of names long).

It is so much easier for consistent atheists - we simply recognize the relationship of reason to knowledge. We don't have to justify the intricacies of this faith over that. The theist-atheist not only tries to justify an epistemology of faith-based belief (an impossibility in itself), but to decry the "my faith is better than yours" clamor of all those other faith-based believers who have a different god.

Pity the poor souls that choose such an impossible intellectual burden - no wonder they invent an after-life, given the Hell they make of their mortal existence.

Post 102

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 3:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pity the poor souls that choose such an impossible intellectual burden - no wonder they invent an after-life, given the Hell they make of their mortal existence

Sanctioned for this alone - well put..


Post 103

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not a belief in anything - not even a belief that god does not exist.
Ted, I really liked your post #97, but here I must part company. I don't think you can define atheism as a "lack of belief in a god." An agnostic lacks a belief in a god, but that doesn't make him an atheist. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no god, rather than someone who doesn't believe that there is a god.

Does that make atheism a religion? No, of course not. A religion, as it is used here, is not just any philosophical belief. It is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural." (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary)

- Bill

Post 104

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 11:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, Ted,

Wikipedia has a fairly good article on Atheism. I pulled this graphic from there.

"A chart showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. An implicit atheist has not thought about belief in gods; such an individual would be described as implicitly without a belief in gods. An explicit atheist has made an assertion regarding belief in gods; such an individual may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or affirm that gods do not exist (strong atheism)."

I, like the rest of us, started life as a weak (implicit) atheist - or a 'natural atheist.' Then my parent took me to Sunday school and I believed there was a God (I was just a kid and trusted what the adults told me), so I was a theist. Maybe I should say, "weak theist" because I accepted the belief without exercising any critical reasoning. When I was 14 years old, I thought about the issue and I explicitly rejected the belief - I became an explicit Atheist - a Born-again Atheist :-)

I think that the difference between Implicit and Explicit is the most important. I'm not sure about the Explicit versus the Strong Atheism - I strongly reject any claim that is based upon faith as evidence, every claim for a god that I know of is based upon faith, and I have never seen evidence apart from those claims that was valid, does that make me a strong Atheist?
----------

p.s., The concepts 'natural atheist,' 'born-again atheist' and the observation that theists usually only believe in one god and are atheists on the rest of the gods is from book titled Natural Atheism by David Eller (a good book, but the author really hates Objectivism - a political thing, I think.)


Post 105

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 4:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes - I've always considered myself a 'born-again atheist'..;-)
["know the truth, and the truth shall set ye free..."]


Post 106

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 8:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Theists come by their confusions regarding atheism quite naturally to my way of thinking. They are in a muddle because they actually are atheists - most of the time, but without consistency.

Isn’t that funny! I claim that most atheists really are theists – most of the time but without consistency.

Think about it. As regards 1,000's of gods, they are non-believers and, only a theist regarding one god.

For example, the Christians declare for God of the new testament, but are atheists when it comes to Thor, Krishna-Vasudeva, Ra, Satan (at least as the Supreme Deity), Brahmā, Tabaldak, Ixmucane, Hucau, etc. (the list REALLY is thousands of names long).


And atheists declare for the god of Natural Selection, the god of Random Mutation, the god of Punctuated Equilibrium, the god of Biological Predestination, the god of Differential Reproduction, the god of Survival of the Fittest (the list REALLY is thousands of names long). These are simply material gods rather than non-material ones, but their explanatory value in biology is about the same, i.e., nothing.

Actually, their explanatory value is less than that of the various non-material gods different cultures believe in. Scientists in the 19th century and early 20th century expected biology to be reduced to physics – life completely explained by reference to atoms, motion, and void (just as Lucretius would have it in “De Rerum Natura”). Well, well, what a surprise when biology – especially given the findings of biochemistry and molecular biology – began to be explainable only by reference to ideas in computer science and engineering: the cell is a fantastically complex, organized, factory-like structure, that runs according to a program exactly like a computer program; i.e., information – not chemical X or Y – is the “secret ingredient” that makes cells function. And what do we know about computer programs? They are designed structures by an intelligence with goals and purposes.

Thus, it’s actually more in accord with the facts of reality to assert something like “Krishna created mankind” than to assert “lighting struck some clay, which formed a matrix, which forced some organic gunk to take a certain shape, then it somehow became self-replicating, then somehow DNA was formed, then somehow the DNA and the proto-cell met and the proto-cell invited the DNA to come inside and instruct it what to do, and somehow all the left-hand molecules decided they wanted nothing more to do with the cell (only the right-handed ones wanted the job), but the left-handed molecules still wanted everything to do with the nucleotides in DNA, for they surely are lefty – it’s just everything else in the cell that’s righty."

The reason the latter is not very scientific when it comes to biology is that the essence of living things is information, and not one material god listed above can generate information; nothing random can generate information, and nothing determined can generate information. Therefore, scenarios like the above are simply the materialist’s creation myth, no different in structure from the believer’s assertion that it all sprang from the creative mind of Lord Krishna. The main difference is that at least the essence of life – information – can be explained when traced back to an intelligent agent.

The agent of creation need not be a deity, by the way. One of your atheist heroes, Richard Dawkins, conceded that human life could have been designed by space aliens. He denies, however, that those aliens could have been created by a deity. They, in turn, were either created by other space aliens, or they evolved along Darwinian lines. Interesting that Dawkins is quite willing to accept “Intelligent Design” as long as it is rooted in materialism.

It is so much easier for consistent atheists - we simply recognize the relationship of reason to knowledge.

Is that so? And what, pray tell, is that relationship?

We don't have to justify the intricacies of this faith over that. The theist-atheist not only tries to justify an epistemology of faith-based belief (an impossibility in itself), but to decry the "my faith is better than yours" clamor of all those other faith-based believers who have a different god.

LOL! Well, “My faith is better than yours” is what the “Rebirth of Reason” board is all about. You’ve simply grown so accustomed to your particular prejudices that you cannot recognize them for what they are. Just as Francis Bacon wrote in his famous “Idols of the Mind” essay.

As for the uninformed statement about “faith-based belief,” the middle ages – the Age of Belief – were a high point for reason and logic, more so than the Renaissance, that so-called “Rebirth of Reason.” As stated earlier, the Renaissance was no such thing. The middle ages were a period of fervent systemization; typical products of the time being the cathedral, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, and the Divine Comedy of Dante.

Pity the poor souls that choose such an impossible intellectual burden - no wonder they invent an after-life, given the Hell they make of their mortal existence.

LMAO! The idea that believers are, en masse, unhappier than non-believers (especially Objectivists, who are always on the couch of Edith Packer or Allan Blumenthal, and are all recovering from their third divorce) is also a myth (I guess that’s why you have to keep repeating the lie to yourself that believers have made a “hell” of their mortal existence – you have to keep reinforcing the myth to yourself). Actually, studies have shown that believers are happier than atheists. See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581994/%27Believers-are-happier-than-atheists%27.html

For more proof, look at the horrible personal lives of leading Objectivists: Ayn Rand and Frank O’Connor; Nathanial Branden, Barbara Branden, Patrecia Branden, and Devers Branden; Leonard Peikoff and wives 1, 2, and 3).

Yes, full, rich lives, full of sweetness and light; sunshine and happiness.


Post 107

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Know the truth,
     it set you free
      but first it hurt"

Painted on a sign nailed to tree in the woods on an island in the Gulf of Thailand.

Post 108

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 11:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Claude,

"Yes, full, rich lives, full of sweetness and light; sunshine and happiness."

That's me (most of the time), really.

I only post at ROR for fun... and I've come to realize that I don't enjoy myself as much when I'm reading or replying to certain members. So, I don't.

I have a low toleration point in some areas - a kind forum-chemistry thing. People who come across to me as harsh, or humorless, or mean-spirited, or condescending, for example.

So, I might skim some of your posts, but I probably won't make any replies.



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 109

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 1:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[W]hat a surprise when biology – especially given the findings of biochemistry and molecular biology – began to be explainable only by reference to ideas in computer science and engineering: the cell is a fantastically complex, organized, factory-like structure, that runs according to a program exactly like a computer program; i.e., information – not chemical X or Y – is the “secret ingredient” that makes cells function. And what do we know about computer programs? They are designed structures by an intelligence with goals and purposes.
First of all, a "designed structure" makes sense only in contrast to a naturally occurring one from which it is intended to be distinguished. We know that some things like machines and computers are intelligently designed only because they differ in certain key respects from things in nature, like fauna and flora. It is therefore a non-sequitur to infer that things in nature that resemble designed objects are themselves a product of design. We do not, for example, infer that since airplanes, which have wings and fly, were designed by human engineers, birds, which have wings and fly, must also have been designed by human engineers. We recognize that birds are a product of nature in contrast to airplanes, which are a product of human design. Why then should we assume that because cellular structures exhibit a certain similarity to designed structures, they must therefore have been designed -- and by an incorporeal, supernatural being, of all things?!

Secondly, the only evidence we have for creative intelligence in the universe are human beings (i.e., rational organisms) who depend for their existence on pre-existing cellular structures. Since it makes no sense to infer that such intelligence created itself, it makes no sense to infer that these cellular structures are a product of intelligent design.
Thus, it’s actually more in accord with the facts of reality to assert something like “Krishna created mankind . . .”
Based on what? The idea that a pure, disembodied intelligence created cellular life makes even less sense than the idea that it was created by a biological intelligence. You refer to an intelligence with goals and purposes. But a disembodied intelligence could have no goals or purposes, because it would have nothing to gain or lose by its actions; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals, because there would be no biological basis for them. It could not experience pleasure or pain, joy or suffering, happiness or sadness, which are emotions that exist only because they have a survival function -- the preservation of the organism's life. Only a living entity can have goals or originate them. A disembodied mind -- if such were possible -- could not.

Furthermore, such a disembodied mind would be entirely passive; it would have no power to originate anything, let alone create an entire universe out of nothing. The whole idea is so preposterous, it is hard to believe that anyone -- especially someone as scholarly and intelligent as Claude Shannon -- could take it seriously.
Thus, it’s actually more in accord with the facts of reality to assert something like “Krishna created mankind” than to assert than to assert “lighting struck some clay, which formed a matrix, which forced some organic gunk to take a certain shape, then it somehow became self-replicating, then somehow DNA was formed, then somehow the DNA and the proto-cell met and the proto-cell invited the DNA to come inside and instruct it what to do, and somehow all the left-hand molecules decided they wanted nothing more to do with the cell (only the right-handed ones wanted the job), but the left-handed molecules still wanted everything to do with the nucleotides in DNA, for they surely are lefty – it’s just everything else in the cell that’s righty."
You are using purposive language to describe processes that are non-purposive in nature. Proto-cells don't "invite" the DNA to come inside or "instruct" it what to do. The terms "invite" and "instruct" are terms that refer to human intelligence and purpose. You are anthropomorphizing these processes. You seem to believe that in order for any natural event to occur, it has to reflect a purpose. But purposes pertain only to the higher organisms; they don't exist at the level you're describing.
The reason the latter is not very scientific when it comes to biology is that the essence of living things is information, and not one material god listed above can generate information; nothing random can generate information, and nothing determined can generate information.
Again, "information" is a term that pertains to intelligence. To use it in reference to non-intelligent processes is to employ it metaphorically. You can certainly use it in that sense if you want to, but you can't then switch from the metaphorical meaning to the strict meaning and argue that nothing random or determined can generation "information." You are trading on the fallacy of equivocation. Also, nothing in nature is random, if by "random" you mean acausal. Everything acts according to its nature, and cannot act otherwise. In that respect, there are no "random" events in the universe.
Therefore, scenarios like the above are simply the materialist’s creation myth, no different in structure from the believer’s assertion that it all sprang from the creative mind of Lord Krishna. The main difference is that at least the essence of life – information – can be explained when traced back to an intelligent agent.
Again, you are equivocating on the meaning of "information."
The agent of creation need not be a deity, by the way. One of your atheist heroes, Richard Dawkins, conceded that human life could have been designed by space aliens. He denies, however, that those aliens could have been created by a deity. They, in turn, were either created by other space aliens, or they evolved along Darwinian lines. Interesting that Dawkins is quite willing to accept “Intelligent Design” as long as it is rooted in materialism.
He's willing to accept intelligent design as long as the intelligence is rooted in biology, which is the only context in which it is known to exist. It makes at least some sense to think that human life might have been created by another form of biological intelligence; it makes no sense to think that it might have been created by an intelligence with no physical form whatsoever -- with no body, brain or sense organs.
As for the uninformed statement about “faith-based belief,” the middle ages – the Age of Belief – were a high point for reason and logic, more so than the Renaissance, that so-called “Rebirth of Reason.” As stated earlier, the Renaissance was no such thing. The middle ages were a period of fervent systemization; typical products of the time being the cathedral, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, and the Divine Comedy of Dante.
We have to distinguish between Augustine, who more accurately represented the unreason of the Middle Ages, and Aquinas, who introduced Aristotle into medieval culture and a return to reason, which Augustine had rejected. In this respect, Aquinas was the death-knell of the Middle-Ages and the bridge to the Renaissance, which featured a revival of classical learning and of rationality in art through the works of such masters as Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci.
The idea that believers are, en masse, unhappier than non-believers (especially Objectivists, who are always on the couch of Edith Packer or Allan Blumenthal, and are all recovering from their third divorce) is also a myth.
I wouldn't say that believers (as a group) are unhappier than atheists (as a group). In fact, as the study you cited suggests, they may be happier. One of the reasons that believers may be happier is that they have a definite code of values to guide them -- a definite philosophy of life. Not all atheists do. Atheism is simply a belief that God does not exist. It is not, by itself, a positive guide to life. The kind of religious belief can also make a difference. Believers who uphold the sack-cloth-and-ashes view of religion are not likely to be happier.

The fact that Objectivists may seek psychotherapy more often than non-Objectivists does not necessarily mean that they are less happy; they may simply be more attentive to their psychological needs, and in benefiting from the psychotherapy, lead better, more fulfilling lives. Nor does the fact that people have been divorced more than once mean that, on balance, they are less happy than someone who hasn't been divorced. A couple who stays together only because their religion forbids them to divorce is not necessarily happier than if they had separated and found a more compatible. partner.
For more proof, look at the horrible personal lives of leading Objectivists: Ayn Rand and Frank O’Connor; Nathanial Branden, Barbara Branden, Patrecia Branden, and Devers Branden; Leonard Peikoff and wives 1, 2, and 3).
Ayn Rand had a horrible personal life? On what basis do you make that assessment? Yes, there was a point in her life when she was betrayed by Nathaniel Branden and suffered accordingly, but that is not something she had any control over. Moreover, nobody here is defending Branden's dishonesty. Rand's personal disappointment with him was not the result of her philosophy. Also, I think it is highly presumptuous of you to claim that all of the people you cited had "horrible personal lives." How do you know that? Were you involved with them personally?

Finally, do you think that the attitude you've exhibited on this list along with your inflammatory posts make you a good ambassador for the values of religion? Your sole purpose here seems to be to vent your rage on Objectivists and Objectivism. How happy a person are you?

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/10, 7:59am)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/10, 8:08am)


Post 110

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 4:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, I follow Rand's definitions. An agnostic is someone who refuses to decide whether he believes, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe. Not to believe is not the same thing as to oppose, which is what atheism is often described as by theists. A-the-ism simply means without-god-ism. You can parse that as (without-god)-ism or as without (god-ism). I choose the latter, since god-ism is well defined, and since there are an infinite number of without-X's, (E.g. - is there a giant talking fishhead on the other side of the moon?) but no one goes around declaring an infinite number of things he doesn't believe in.

Post 111

Sunday, August 10, 2008 - 3:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, I follow Rand's definitions.

That's a surprise.

An agnostic is someone who refuses to decide whether he believes,

Wrong. That's just "spin" which Rand put on the actual definition. "Agnostic" means "doesn't know." It doesn't mean "refuses to decide."

an atheist is someone who doesn't believe.

Not to believe in the existence in God = To believe that God does not exist.

Same negative proposition in two different forms.

Not to believe is not the same thing as to oppose,

Straw man. I never said anything about "opposing" the existence of God, or opposing those who do believe in God -- though, let's face it Keer, much of this board is dedicated precisely to that.

which is what atheism is often described as by theists.

Because that is what atheists, in fact, usually do, regardless of the word's lexical definition -- perhaps it's the atheists who are not keeping the definition firmly in mind. Atheists, you see, especially of the "I-follow-Rand's-definitions-no-matter-what-facts-of-reality-contradict-them" variety, are very afraid of accusations by others that they are just agnostic. The latter position appears weak; not a frank admission of inability to decide, but (following Rand again) an unmanly "refusal" to decide -- an un-Galt-like "refusal to think!" So not only do many atheists -- perhaps most -- let everyone know they are atheist (even when such information was not requested) but they spend much time bashing religion and bashing religious people. After that, they spend even more time trying to convince the believer of the error of his ways and the doctrinal soundness of atheism.

So if you're wondering why many theists believe that atheists actively oppose belief in God, that's why. It has nothing to do with the definition of the word as it appears in the dictionary; it has to do with how atheists often act.

Post 112

Sunday, August 10, 2008 - 4:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, I might skim some of your posts, but I probably won't make any replies.

I'm not surprised, Steve. I've never met an Objectivist anywhere who was actually able, ready, and willing to reply to real attacks on Objectivism.

I never skim your posts. I read and reread them extremely carefully because I know that it is the Objectivist True Believers -- the gentle flock following their shepherd -- who will inadvertently reveal all of the flaws in the philosophy.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Post 113

Sunday, August 10, 2008 - 5:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When you guys get tired of listening to Claude's snide remarks, be sure to let me know. I would be more than happy not to pass them through the moderator's queue if you guys don't find them valuable.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 114

Sunday, August 10, 2008 - 6:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not to believe in the existence in God = To believe that God does not exist.


Wrong - not to believe is the absence of a belief, not another belief....... the other is believing in a negative
[of course, if you're one who holds the false notion that all is beliefs............]


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 115

Sunday, August 10, 2008 - 10:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The part I love the most is how the universe cannot possibly consist simply of some elementary particles and energy. It just can’t be that that is what existence is and it is capable of interacting and producing complex structures. No, it must be that an intelligent designer created every structure.

Ask them who created the designer and they reply that the designer is above that.

Did you get that?
Particles, energy, and their interactions as a given—no, no, not plausible.
A designer of everything in the universe, right down to earlobes—oh, yes, let’s start there.

It’s frankly embarrassing to my specie-sensibilities that any people go for this.



Post 116

Sunday, August 10, 2008 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wrong - not to believe is the absence of a belief, not another belief.

The statement "I do not believe that God exists" is a Universal-Singular Negative proposition.

Another form of the same proposition is "I believe that God does not exist." Whether the verb in the independent clause is affirmative or negative is irrelevant. If the independent clause is affirmative, the subordinate clause is negative; if the independent clause is negative, the subordinate clause is affirmative. Logically, they mean the same thing and are interchangeable.

the other is believing in a negative

Yep, that's right. Nothing wrong with affirming ("believing") a negative. We do it all the time:

"I believe that Rand WAS NOT the first advocate of reason in the history of philosophy."

"Barack Obama believes that regime change in Iraq WAS NOT necessary."

"I believe that John McCain IS NOT correct in his position on illegal immigration."

Good grief, Robert Malcom, even you have done this in your writing:

"Ashes to Flames"

"He [i.e., St. Thomas] also pointed out that the world was indeed real, not a simulation, not a terrible phantasm as many had mistakenly believed."


"He pointed out" [that's the affirmation in the independent clause]
"That" [subordinating conjunction connecting two clauses]
"the world was not a simulation [negative subordinate clause]
"the world was not a terrible phantasm..." [negative subordinate clause in apposition with the first negative subordinate clause]

Your sentence AFFIRMS ("believes" as you call it) two NEGATIVES.

"On Art"

One of the problems in dealing with aesthetics is that it is not usually taught as part of art courses.


One of the problems in dealing with aesthetics is [affirmation]
That [conjunction]
It IS NOT usually taught as part of art courses. [Negation]

Your sentence AFFIRMS a NEGATIVE.

There are many more examples in your own writing.

You've probably confused "proving a negative" with "affirming [or believing] a negative." There may be problems with the former, but there's nothing at all wrong with the latter.

Post 117

Monday, August 11, 2008 - 3:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ayn Rand had a horrible personal life?

Yes. She was miserable despite her corny insistence on living in a "benevolent universe" and her listening to trite, fluffy "tiddly-winks music" (her term, not mine).

On what basis do you make that assessment?

On the basis of statements made by those who knew her well: Nathanial Branden, Barbara Branden, Allen Blumenthal, Joan Blumenthal, Robert Hessen, Petr Beckmann, etc.

Yes, there was a point in her life when she was betrayed by Nathaniel Branden

LOL!

Rand was married to Frank O'Connor and then committed adultery by carrying on an affair with Nathanial Branden. The affair drove O'Connor to drink. For his part, Nathaniel Branden was carrying on an affair with Ayn Rand while he was married to Barbara. So much for honoring contracts and the virtue of integrity. Why don't you email Barbara Branden and ask her if she was happy that her husband was screwing Ayn Rand, or if her husband was happy considering he wanted neither Barbara nor Rand but had actually met someone else. On second thought, why don't you just read Barbara's book? Rand didn't feel "betrayed" by Nathaniel Branden until he ended the affair and admitted he had been carrying on with someone else. That was when she claimed he had "psycho-epistemological problems" and expunged the dedication to him on Atlas Shrugged. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!

As for Peikoff (now on marriage #3) he hasn't produced a single original work in his entire career and he became even less productive when he inherited Rand's estate and anointed himself Rand's "intellectual heir." He's probably hard up for cash because he keeps on publishing various things by Rand (early stories for example) that are very rough and clearly should be in an archive in some university, not on the shelves of Barnes & Noble. He further destroyed what was left of the Objectivist movement by openly declaring that he intended to hold purges ("Better a smaller movement but a purer one"). These are the actions of someone who sees himself as the leader of a small cult, and cult leaders are never happy people.

Peikoff's real legacy, and something that I hope gives him great happiness, is his 20 year old daughter, Kira.

and suffered accordingly, but that is not something she had any control over. Moreover, nobody here is defending Branden's dishonesty.

Are you defending Rand's dishonesty?

Rand's personal disappointment with him was not the result of her philosophy.

That they both proclaimed the virtue of integrity -- which includes honoring marriage contracts -- and cheated on their respective spouses means that they were both hypocrites. Clearly, they were both unwilling to live up to the high standards of the philosophy. This could be because they were highly flawed people, or because it's not possible in principle to live up to the standards of Objectivism. It either reflects badly on Rand and Branden or it reflects badly on Objectivism. Take your choice.

Also, I think it is highly presumptuous of you to claim that all of the people you cited had "horrible personal lives." How do you know that? Were you involved with them personally?

Some of them. I also knew other people who were involved with them personally. I've also read the books of those who were involved with them personally. Obviously, you've kept your eyes and ears closed all these years. See no evil, hear no evil.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 118

Monday, August 11, 2008 - 12:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Insults:

her corny insistence on living in a "benevolent universe" and her listening to trite, fluffy "tiddly-winks music"

non-sequiturs:

As for Peikoff (now on marriage #3)

and assertions without evidence:

[Of Rand's circle, I knew] Some of them. I also knew other people who were involved with them personally.

Who here is the miserable one? If Rand is so miserable, and Objectivism so wrong, why do you waste your time here?

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 119

Monday, August 11, 2008 - 4:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Ayn Rand had a horrible personal life?"
Yes. She was miserable despite her corny insistence on living in a "benevolent universe" and her listening to trite, fluffy "tiddly-winks music" (her term, not mine).
So, if Rand enjoys a certain form of light-hearted music, because it brings back fond memories, you can't respect that? You have to characterize it as trite and corny?

"On what basis do you make that assessment [that she had a horrible personal life]?"
On the basis of statements made by those who knew her well: Nathanial Branden, Barbara Branden, Allen Blumenthal, Joan Blumenthal, Robert Hessen, Petr Beckmann, etc.
Petr Beckmann knew her well? That's news to me. And I've never heard either of the Brandens, Blumenthals or Hessen say in print or in person that Rand's personal life was horrible. Yes, there were periods when she was unhappy, such as when she failed to receive the respect she deserved for her novel Atlas Shrugged, but that had nothing to do with her personal life. And the times in which her personal life went poorly, it was, by and large, due to the unjust actions others. Everyone has periods in his or her personal life that are not satisfactory. To focus on Rand's and then to characterize her personal life as "horrible" is a bit much, don't you think?
Rand was married to Frank O'Connor and then committed adultery by carrying on an affair with Nathanial Branden.
So what? Their respective spouses knew of and agreed to it. In that respect, they had what might be termed an open marriage.
The affair drove O'Connor to drink.
That may or may not be true; it depends on whom you talk to. In any case, he consented to the affair. If he didn't approve of it, he could have said so.
For his part, Nathaniel Branden was carrying on an affair with Ayn Rand while he was married to Barbara.
Again, Barbara consented to it, so how is this a breach of ethics or of the marriage contract?
So much for honoring contracts and the virtue of integrity.
There is no breaking of a contract, if both parties consent to modify it, which they did in this case, nor is there any breach of integrity.
Why don't you email Barbara Branden and ask her if she was happy that her husband was screwing Ayn Rand, or if her husband was happy considering he wanted neither Barbara nor Rand but had actually met someone else. On second thought, why don't you just read Barbara's book?
I've read it, and as I recall, the disaffection between them was mutual, and therefore not a source of felt betrayal.
Rand didn't feel "betrayed" by Nathaniel Branden until he ended the affair and admitted he had been carrying on with someone else.
Right. So?
That was when she claimed he had "psycho-epistemological problems" and expunged the dedication to him on Atlas Shrugged. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!
How did you expect her to respond? He had deceived her over an extended period of time.
As for Peikoff (now on marriage #3) he hasn't produced a single original work in his entire career and he became even less productive when he inherited Rand's estate and anointed himself Rand's "intellectual heir."
So his lecture series don't count? It has to be a book?
He's probably hard up for cash because he keeps on publishing various things by Rand (early stories for example) that are very rough and clearly should be in an archive in some university, not on the shelves of Barnes & Noble.
I thought they were pretty good, and if there's a market for them, which there is, then why shouldn't they be on the shelves of Barnes and Noble?
He further destroyed what was left of the Objectivist movement by openly declaring that he intended to hold purges ("Better a smaller movement but a purer one"). These are the actions of someone who sees himself as the leader of a small cult, and cult leaders are never happy people.
I don't agree with these kinds of excommunications, but that certainly doesn't mean that Peikoff sees himself as some kind of cult leader or that is therefore an unhappy person. This is just sheer speculation on your part -- the same kind of speculation that you engaged in when you claimed, in the absence of any evidence, that I had never taken a course in logic.

"Moreover, nobody here is defending Branden's dishonesty.
Are you defending Rand's dishonesty?
What dishonesty?

"Rand's personal disappointment with him was not the result of her philosophy."
That they both proclaimed the virtue of integrity -- which includes honoring marriage contracts -- and cheated on their respective spouses means that they were both hypocrites.
Not true. Since both spouses consented to the relationship, there was no breach of their marriage contract.

"Also, I think it is highly presumptuous of you to claim that all of the people you cited had 'horrible personal lives.' How do you know that? Were you involved with them personally?"
Some of them.
Really? Who?
I also knew other people who were involved with them personally. I've also read the books of those who were involved with them personally. Obviously, you've kept your eyes and ears closed all these years. See no evil, hear no evil.
You are so presumptuous and jump to so many unwarranted conclusions about me and about what I know, how do you expect me to trust your statements about what other people are supposed to have known? You apparently didn't even know that the affair between Rand and Branden was with the consent of their spouses!

- Bill

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


User ID Password or create a free account.