Michael you write:
Example - Moral perfection meaning a perfect commitment to reason and morality, and not a perfect execution of reason and morality.
First of all Rowland can defend himself, and I have no quarrel with you. Second you may think the above is what you agree on, but it is not. If you were in agreement, Rowland would have admit that Peikoff has made moral errors. He does not and will not.
George Walsh, George Reisman, Edith Packer, Jerry Kirkpatrick, Linda Reardan, and David Kelley, how many heads have to roll before the fence sitters see the light. Peikoff is a good man gone sour, the Robespierre of Objectivism.
When pressed about his tactics, Robespierre is quoted as saying, "The government of liberty is the despotism of liberty against tyranny . . . Terror is naught but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue. It is less a particular principle than a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to the most pressing needs of the fatherland."
That he died on the same guillotine as his victims, his jaw hanging off from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, might be the elusive proof of God.
"...and never heads enough..."
Domestic carnage, now filled the whole year
With feast-days, old men from the chimney-nook,
The maiden from the busom of her love,
The mother from the cradle of her babe,
The warrior from the field - all perished, all -
Friends, enemies, of all parties, ages, ranks,
Head after head, and never heads enough
For those that bade them fall.
William Wordsworth
|
