| | You have to characterize it as trite and corny?
I characterized her assertions that we live in a benevolent universe as corny; I characterized the “tiddly-winks” music she loved to listen to as trite and fluffy. Tiddly-winks, the game, is trite and fluffy; so is tiddly-winks music.
Petr Beckmann knew her well?
Professor Beckmann was close enough to Rand and the Inner Circle to know what he was talking about. In addition, he was a very perceptive guy.
And the times in which her personal life went poorly, it was, by and large, due to the unjust actions others.
Spoken like a True Believer. Yes, it’s always the fault of others if one’s cult-leader doesn’t measure up.
So what? Their respective spouses knew of and agreed to it. In that respect, they had what might be termed an open marriage.
LOL! I can tell you're very experienced with women, Dwyer. I see that you are now 68 years young, so let me ask you a question: Have you ever kissed a girl before?
And while you’re thinking over your answer, consider this scenario:
“Dear, I know we took marriage vows and all that, but I have the hots for another woman – one that would be a good career move for me to, uh, service. Besides, she’s also married and really digs me. Don’t worry: I may admire the hell out of her but I don’t love her.”
(Shocked; eyes beginning to well up with tears). I don’t know what to say. If you MUST have this woman, then you must; I’m thinking of your happiness, my dear. I’m terribly hurt but thank you for telling me.”
(Husband gently kisses wife on forehead). That’s my little trooper. (He surreptitiously looks at his watch.)
(Hanging his head low, from carrying the unbearable moral weight on his shoulders, Husband walks out the door. Outside, however, he lifts his head, starts to whistle, and begins to skip.) “Heigh ho! Isn’t this great! I have nothing to feel guilty about! I was honest with snookums…and she GAVE HER CONSENT! That’s great! I’m in an OPEN MARRIAGE! I can fuck anyone I want,,,er, uh, as long as I ask permission from the Little Lady and get her consent! It’s OK! The “contract” has been honored!
(Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Good Wife – the other half of that newly-defined “Open Marriage” – sits on the sofa and cries her eyes out. She suddenly remembers something. She gets up, lumbers over to the fridge, and takes out a gallon-sized container of Haagen-Dazs ice-cream from the freezer. She consumes the whole thing. Afterward, she takes 5 mg of Valium and feels much better for the next 9 hours.)
Yep. That’s all you have to do, Dwyer. Just “get consent” from your legal spouse to fuck someone else and it’s all OK. And you know what's even cooler? If a couple is not married but merely living together, there's no contract - you don't even need to get consent! Just go ahead and do it!
Women all over world (including this board) thank you, Dwyer, for clarifying the matter of infidelity to them.
Lest you believe that I’m simply being sarcastic (moi?) why don’t you take a little poll at RoR? Ask the women on this board if “getting consent” is or is not the same thing as simple adultery and is not the same as simple infidelity and is just as destructive to marriage and intimate relationships.
Go ahead. Maybe they'll support you on this.
Regarding Peikoff:
So his lecture series don't count? It has to be a book?
Whether lectures or books, his work is second rate and derivative. If George Reisman was able to break way from the influence of his mentor Ludwig von Mises and reinvigorate the ideas of the British Classical School, as well as contribute his own ideas to the field of economics (some of which Mises did not agree with), then we should have seen the same thing from Peikoff in the field of philosophy.
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?
I’m not surprised you thought that. As Barbara Branden pointed out, Peikoff also had the chutzpah to edit these works so that the reader – I mean the scholarly, careful, attentive reader – can never really tell if he’s reading pure Rand, or Rand redacted/edited by Peikoff. I agree that these works should all be archived in a university library; not sold. He’s selling them because he needs the money.
I don't agree with these kinds of excommunications,
Oh, so what kind of excommunications do you agree with?
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
Just basic commonsense psychology. Cult leaders are never happy because they’re all power lusters. Read Atlas Shrugged if you don’t know why power lusters are necessarily unhappy.
-- 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.
Your posts were all the evidence I needed. You were not only wrong about propositional logic but dishonest, too; viz, your trying to weasel-word your way out of your mistakes by inventing idiosyncratic meanings for “literal” and “colloquial” as if they were difficult terms that needed very careful parsing and explanation. Your friend Ed Thompson caught you at it (though he wasn’t a very attentive reader; for some reason, he thought I was the one trying to parse those two terms. After pointing out his error, I noticed he disappeared.)
|
|
