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 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 6:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> I do respect her philosophical acumen and her passionate commitment to ideas, if not her sense of proportion in dealing with differences of opinion among well-meaning Objectivists.

I agree with Billy D on this. I've watched her get steadily more detached over several years from reality and more "Randroid" in terms of moving further away from granting honest error to people she disagrees with or opinions **she herself once held** which she now claims can't be honest.

But when she is not talking about analyzing individual Oists (Peikoff vs. Kelley, etc.) or op eds or books by her allegedly too tolerant or too wishy-washy opponents like Truth and Toleration (or posts by yours truly) ... all of which she often grotesquely misreads in anger, disgust, oversimplification, and context-dropping - even after her errors have been pointed out to her ... she has lots of good posts on her blog on a range of subjects. She is well read, is making a point of studying Oism carefully, which she never did before, and diligent in terms of steady posting and careful exposition.

A pity.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 8:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Newberry said:
Hong can tell me if I am wrong ...

I am flattered. The only thing I can tell you is: you were talking to the wrong person about anything scientific.


Post 42

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What's in it for me to give a damn about the circa 1960's personal lives of these people?

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 8:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi John, you said that Barbara "received praise from me on some of her writings are not at all relevant to the bigger issue of pronouncing moral judgement."

Perhaps you can clarify something for me. A while back, Barbara wrote Mother, Ayn, Nathaniel and I ... and Death with Dignity. You were the first to respond: "Thank you for this Barbara". I wonder what exactly did you mean by this? What was your moral judgement about the three main characters in that story?  Don't you now fully endorse the view that "Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were and are dishonest, unjust, and generally vile people."

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/26, 9:07pm)


Post 44

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 4:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello Hong,

"A while back, Barbara wrote Mother, Ayn, Nathaniel and I ... and Death with Dignity. You were the first to respond: "Thank you for this Barbara". I wonder what exactly did you mean by this?"

It isnt complicated or disingenuous Hong. I meant "thank you".

It was a story that touched home to me personally, having an ailing father. It spoke of great love and compassion she had for her mother. Nathaniel and Ayn Rand could easily have been left out of the story. She, Barbara, was the protaganist and did not need the approval of anyone.


"Don't you now fully endorse the view that "Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were and are dishonest, unjust, and generally vile people." No I do not, Hong.

I fully and without reserve, endorse the view that with respect to Objectivism they have been a sidenote, which is generous of me, because what I mean is they are really irrelevant. In regards to Ayn Rand they have been unjust and dishonest. Are they vile people? I don't know.

BTW my opinion of their treatment of Ayn Rand was not influeneced by PARC, but by a careful re-reading of PAR, and Judgement Day :)

Again, it is bad form to denigrate ones meal ticket. They benefitted more from their association with Ayn Rand than she did from them. In the end, her net benefit was nil.

regards

John



Post 45

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 6:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good post John.

Ethan


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 7:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil, being "out" with me is besides the point. You can debate me or not. I prefer to see it as a conversation rather than a debate.

This:

> Again Phil, Diana did not say in that quote, what you argue in your point #2...you critique what [her article] *doesn't* say


*still* holds true. Diana did not claim that they (the Brandens) control the organization, or, in your words "represent its views on all or even a majority of subjects."

Diana claimed that they are "actively involved in an organization claiming to represent and promote Objectivism." This is true. Speaking regularly at a conference does not mean "control", but it does imply (by regularity) a very close association. This is what Diana objected to, and quite rightly.

Phil there is something odd about your prodigious postings criticising others behavior and words, but your unwillingness to engage in discussion critiquing *your* behaviour and words. You pick apart Dianas article, yet become "irritated" (btw theres a good cream out for that), when the same is done for your posting. Perhaps that is why you posted it here rather than on the comment section of her blog?

Your post is indeed, delightfully, an essay on how not to pronounce moral judgement, but with Phil Coates and *not* Diana Hsieh, as the prime example.

Your advice for people to IMMEDIATELY STOP DEBATING SUCH A PERSON, is a tad hysterical.

regards

John


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 7:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,
"They benefitted more from their association with Ayn Rand than she did from them. In the end, her net benefit was nil."

How have you measured that her (Rand's) net benefit was nil? Do you mean that Ayn Rand wasted a significant part of 17 years (? don't remember exactly) of her life for nothing?


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 7:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

I think your post leaves much to be desired. Honesty, for one thing:

With regards to whether you consider NB and BB vile, you say:

"No I do not, Hong" followed by:

"they have been a sidenote, which is generous of me"

"they are really irrelevant.", "it is bad form to denigrate ones meal ticket", and

"They benefitted more from their association with Ayn Rand than she did from them. In the end, her net benefit was nil."

I suppose you don't consider that a contradiction.

I'll tell you what I think is vile, assigning "victim" status to Ayn Rand who is dead and voiceless. And using the "victimology" to attack living people who are still actively working and creating. When I visit these "attack" threads I feel like I'm watching reruns of "Night of the Living Dead".

Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 7:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jenna W writes:
"For those who wonder why I don't call myself Objectivist, this is a perfect example of the 'why' behind my choice. :)" [post #5]

She elaborates further:
"I don't know if I will ever call myself Oist. I think of Oism as one in a set of really good ideas competing for my attention. I see it as a marketplace, or a pool of research papers. If it's a great product (great research), it will stand. If parts of it doesn't stand, I can fix it so it works with reality, as always and foremost the two standards I hold are: reality and myself. If that's Oist, then I am. If not, I don't worry, it doesn't change the standards." [post #18]

Good for you, Jenna! Your contributions here as an outsider-looking-in are appreciated by me and many others I'm sure.

There are philosophical reasons why I do not consider myself an Objectivist and should not be considered an Objectivist. Naturally, that means that many people who think of themselves as Objectivist, or who call themselves Objectivist, are not. After all, anyone whose philosophy is less similar to Rand's than mine is similar to Rand's is not an Objectivist, given that I am not.

It has been my experience for many years that thinking readers with an interest in Rand's philosophic ideas also have an interest in my scholarship in her philosophy and in my further developments of its layers I think correct. I am delighted you participate here.

Stephen

Post 50

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 7:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, thats why I said "net", and "in the end". Barbara published PAR and is known largely by way of her association with Rand. Without AR, would anyone know Barbaras name? Nathaniel, profitted from his association with Rand, but was more independent and productive in his post-break work. Now on to Ayn Rand. Did she need the Brandens? That is debatable. I suspect the publication of her major works would have taken place without them don't you think?

regards

John

Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 7:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

John: I fully and without reserve, endorse the view that with respect to Objectivism they have been a sidenote, which is generous of me, because what I mean is they are really irrelevant.

 

Interesting observation, John, but be careful how you fling around the term: irrelevant.  

 

Because if this is in fact the case, then what is the degree of “irrelevancy” that you would assign: Andrew Bernstein, Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley, Tara Smith, Peter Schwartz, Robert Bidinotto, Ed Hudgins, Tibor Machan, Chris Sciabarra, Roger Donway, the thousands of students that attended NBI, the hundreds that have attended ARI and TOC seminars, the people that donate money and/or time to TOC/ARI, or the silent majority of casual fans and students of her philosophy?

 

Of course, I suppose that there are 'degrees' of irrelevancy, and that you would categorize these people in proportion to their degree of irrelevancy, is that your claim? Also, if this is your claim, who gets to draw up the irrelevancy graph?

 

Oddly enough, there isn’t a person on that list I just gave you, including many fellow-travelers, non-scholars and non-activists, who have not been “relevant” to my own intellectual development – whether directly or indirectly. True, some more than others, and some to varying degrees of positive and negative influences; but totally irrelevant - none of them have been. And as far as I am concerned, you can add to that list, under the heading, - 'more relevant than most', the names: Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden.

 

But then you might say, “Okay maybe they all are relevant to some degree or another, but some only in the negative, IE, in the harm they have done Objectivism.” You might say that, but then if you did, I would have to ask, what would classify any of these people as having been more harmful than beneficial to Objectivism, and what standard should we use to make this claim? By this you would have to mean that more people have been “turned off” to Objectivism, than “turned on” by what the Branden’s have accomplished in their lives. If that is the nature of your claim, all I can say is: prove it. But let me warn you, it’s going to be quite a task on your part, because the evidence to the contrary is rather extensive, reaches across decades, and hundreds of people that may argue otherwise.

 

But then perhaps what you mean is, that the brand of Objectivism they have taught or endorsed has had a net negative effect; is that your claim? Brother, if that’s what your saying, then according to some, more than half the people on my above list are worse than just irrelevant, instead they would have to be included, along with the Brandens, as destructive to Objectivism.

 

However, in fairness to you, I think you did give me a clue as to the standard that you are applying, when you said, “They benefited more from their association with Ayn Rand than she did from them.” That’s irrefutably true, John; no reasonable person can argue that point. In fact, I bet that few people have been of greater benefit to Ayn Rand, - than she was to them.  Perhaps her mother was, what do you think?

 

But then you said, “In the end, her net benefit was nil.” Nil, John, as in, she benefited nothing at all from them? - Nothing?!  Wow John, I must say, you’re a tough man to please. Hell man, I’ll bet Ayn Rand even benefited from the bag boy at a Super Market, much less from her two closest associates that headed up the early expansion of the Objectivist movement.

 

Let me tell you what’s irrelevant, John: the time, effort and passion expended on this worn, old, divisive, subjectively interpreted - horseshit of a topic. Now that’s irrelevant.

 

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/27, 12:22pm)


Post 52

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 7:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

Dishonest? In what way?

They are a sidenote to Objectivism. I believe this is generous on my part. Objectivism would be, if NB, and BB, and NBI had never existed. In the same way that, if SOLO and RoR, and TOC and ARI ceased to exist TODAY, people would still pick up Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and read with mounting excitement and recognition, and passion, the words Ayn Rand put to paper.

They the Brandens have denigrated their meal ticket. Repeatedly. Read "Benefits and Hazards", read PAR, read Judgement Day. Ayn Rand was their meal ticket. They lied to her for years!

I find this statement of yours interesting:

"I'll tell you what I think is vile, assigning "victim" status to Ayn Rand who is dead and voiceless."

Do you, in the same way, find it vile, for them (NB, BB) to have misrepresented, while profitting from her, Ayn Rand, after she was "dead and voiceless"? Was that vile, Mike?

You go on to say: "And using the "victimology" to attack living people who are still actively working and creating."
Tell you what kiddo, I'll wait, as they did with respect to Ayn Rand, till they die before daring to say another disparaging thing about the Brandens. Or maybe not.

BTW Mike, Ayn Rand when she was alive gave voice to her disgust at the way she was used.


John


Post 53

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 8:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George hello,

"Because if this is in fact the case, then what is the degree of “irrelevancy” that you would assign: Andrew Bernstein, Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley, Tara Smith, Peter Schwartz, Robert Bidinotto, Ed Hudgins, Tibor Machan, Chris Sciabarra, Roger Donway, the thousands of students that attended NBI, the hundreds that have attended ARI and TOC seminars, the people that donate money and/or time to TOC/ARI, or the silent majority of casual fans and students of her philosophy?"

George, as long as I can read, and think for myself, without the teachers and the worship, and the "filters", then yes, I do think the only thing that is of any relevance to me and my life as far as *Objectivism* is concerned, is the SOURCE. Perhaps I am using relevance broadly when I mean to use it personally.

As long as there is a copy of AS, or VOS, or The Fountainhead around, the rest can disappear today and I would still be educated, enthralled, impassioned, FREED. That is my point.


"Let me tell you what’s irrelevant, John: the time, effort and passion expended on this worn, old, divisive, subjectively interpreted - horseshit of a topic. Now that’s irrelevant."

This is true, George. This is true.


John

Post 54

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 8:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

"Dishonest? In what way?"

vile Pronunciation (vl)
adj. vil·er, vil·est
1. Loathsome; disgusting: vile language.
2. Unpleasant or objectionable: vile weather. See Synonyms at offensive.
3.
a. Contemptibly low in worth or account; second-rate.
b. Of mean or low condition.
4. Miserably poor and degrading; wretched: a vile existence.
5. Morally depraved; ignoble or wicked: a vile conspiracy.

You say you do not consider them vile, then you describe their actions in a way that can only be interpreted as vile.

I have a question: How are you profiting from this disparaging of the Brandens? Of what use is it? Is it simply to maintain a relationship with those base their "objectivism" around the premise that Ayn Rand was a morally perfect person? The "black hole" of morality around which any misfortunate satellite is either sucked in, never to be seen again or thrown off to the farthest reaches of the galaxy.

I believe "objectivism" is so far as it means adherence to reality, exists even if Ayn Rand never existed.

Post 55

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 8:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I believe "objectivism" is so far as it means adherence to reality, exists even if Ayn Rand never existed."

Ok Mike. I understand your position clearly now.

"You say you do not consider them vile, then you describe their actions in a way that can only be interpreted as vile."

I do not think they are vile people Mike. I am in no position to pronounce that kind of overarching moral judgement. Some of their actions with regards to AR were vile. That is old news. There is no contradiction or dishonesty in what I say.

People do bad things at certain points in their lives. I know I have. Havent you ever? Lied, cheated? For those things I morally judge myself, and form moral judgements about others who do similarly "vile" things.

This thread started with a wonderful exposition by Phil Coates. I regret that it has gone off track.

John



(Edited by John Newnham
on 3/27, 8:49am)


Post 56

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 8:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike wrote: "You say you do not consider them vile, then you describe their actions in a way that can only be interpreted as vile."

Asking this of John...should be asking this of NB and BB.


"I have a question: How are you profiting from this disparaging of the Brandens? Of what use is it?"

Again, ask NB and BB, replace Branden with Rand.


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 57

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,
"People do bad things at certain points in their lives. I know I have. Havent you ever? Lied, cheated? For those things I morally judge myself, and form moral judgements about others who do similarly "vile" things."

How precise. The only thing is that the way you project yourself onto Mike indeed tells a lot about yourself, but not Mike.

That's basically how I viewed those moral judgements pronounced left and right - it largely reflected the pronouncer's character than whomever they tried to judge. 

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/27, 9:29am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 58

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 9:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

Exactly, projection.

I am only curious about one thing: Why does polemics create traffic? What a strange manner in which to provoke visibility.

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 9:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I once tried to project mself onto Mike but he turned me down...

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.