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 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 2:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Has anyone seen the "Henry Ford Award" honor he bestows on people who help his website operate more efficiently?  Apparently SOLOist Matthew Graybosch was a past recipient.  I wonder if you get a plaque with that??




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 5:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Come on Matt. Out with it.

We know you got one of those things with your
Ford award.
Don't be shy. Be a guy. 
Let's see Matt in the hat...

//;-)

Michael




Post 22

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 6:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Plaque? Top hat? I didn't even get a tee-shirt, guys. All I did was host a few small files for him and provide links, because I wouldn't wish having to host files on Geocities on my worst enemies.



Post 23

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 2:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew also won the Johannes Gutenberg Award . 
 
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/Gutenberg_Award.html
 
Way to go Matt!




Post 24

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 3:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Apparently, Richard Parker (an Objectivist physician and founder of objectivemedicine.org) was awarded the Johannes Gutenberg Award, only to later have it stripped due to a falling out with Mr. Stolyarov.  Here Stoly's account of it, anyway.  I wonder if you have to give your tophat back in that situation...



Post 25

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 5:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Overall, I like Stolyarov.

But if he clashes this much with Objectivists, I hate to think what it must've been like whenever he has tried to interact with normal people.




Post 26

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 5:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel,

For the record, I too think much (if not most) of what Stolyarov has to say is valuable.  He is certainly an independent thinker.  I take serious issue with his neo-puritanism, however.  And I also think he has an overblown sense of the significance of his Rational Argumentator website. 




Post 27

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 9:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's called - "delusions of grandeur"...



Post 28

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 7:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Johannes Gutenberg Award. Hmmmmm...

Duncan Bayne? What the hell are you doing there?

ahem... did someone say...

er...

uhm...

neo-puritanism?

Stoly is a neo, I mean... New Puritan?

I remember reading something about that subject somewhere on Solo.

//;-)

Michael




Post 29

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK,

Based on an recent email post by Stoly in a Chicago area Objectivist forum, I see that Stoly considers himself a "puritanical individualist".  I am not sure if this is exactly in line with the Mr. Postema's New Puritan article, as Stoly would definitely agree that individuals should be free to engage in any behaviors that don't violate the rights of others, and that private property should reign supreme.  For example, Stoly would be very opposed to banning smoking in private places, regulating junkfood etc.  Here is his position in his own words:

Greetings again.

I will be quite occupied in the next several weeks, so I expect my opportunities to respond to posts to be rather sporadic during that time. However, I would like to presently continue this interesting discussion with Richard Latimer.

Of the definitions of "puritan" that Richard provided, my favorite one is, "disdaining openness in carnal and social matters". Indeed, I hold this viewpoint. I consider carnal matters (i.e., intercourse and its related practices) to be just about the most private matters of them all. If they are indeed indicative of the highest form of love possible, then this realm must necessarily be exclusive of the presence of anybody else but the parties so romantically involved. To introduce a lesser ("lesser" with regard to the relationship itself) third party to the details of the relationship is to devalue the relationship's significance.

I believe that there are two mutually separate sferes of individual existence; the public and the private, and I have created a rather systematic, non-ambiguous delineation between the two. Those who are interested can read my now somewhat infamous treatise, "The Public-Private Ethical Distinction:" http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/publicprivate.html.

Richard wrote: "My problem with the choice of this word 'puritan' is with its adverse
connotations, - - e. g., 'self-righteous', 'preachy', 'dogmatic',
most often 'faith-based', 'elitist', 'pompously "aristocratic" ', and
'inappropriately excessive' (within specific contexts). Also, such
connotations seem so very incongruent with (political) individualism
[as contrasted with collectivism], which advocates freedom of action
for oneself, AS WELL AS FOR ALL OTHERS (with reasonable bounds,
understood)."

I disagree with the statement concerning the incongruency of political individualism with puritanism. My earlier post in response to Mr. Kaiden made the distinction between the desirable sfere of legality and that of morality. One can politically tolerate a wide array of distasteful behaviors while personally disapproving of them and acting, on a voluntary, private-property level, to remedy those ills. We all do this to an extent when seeking to promote any viewpoint whatsoever. The puritanical individualist simply does this with greater conscious recognition, intensity, and rigor.

Furthermore, the freedom to criticize others' behaviors, and even to bar said behaviors from one's own property and association, is as integral to political individualism as is the freedom to display behaviors that others might find objectionable. When private property is supreme, there is truly no great ambiguity about this. Those who approve of certain behaviors can allow them on their property, while those who disapprove of them can bar them from theirs. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has an excellent discussion of this in Democracy: The God that Failed. He contends that, were private property to become fully supreme, many "socially left-wing" behaviors would simply die out with no coercion necessary. Some individuals will create voluntary communities excluding such behaviors, and others will be faced with the choice of either changing their ways, or not interacting with residents of said communities. In the meantime, the attitudes of greater propriety, frugality, and restraint from
recklessness will win on the free market of ideas, because they are indicative of a longer time-preference, and will therefore result in greater returns for those who practice them.

What you write, Richard, about the need to accurately identify others' attitudes, premises, and behaviors, even and especially if they diverge from one's own, is true. Context helps to understand why a given behavior is displayed, and to give a better idea of how one should approach it. However, the need for accurate identification and knowledge of context should not preclude the equally great necessity of passing judgment. As Ayn Rand would have said, "Judge and prepare to be judged." Furthermore, there are some behaviors that cannot be approved of, even if one fully understands why they were performed. Murder not in self-defense is one of them, for example. One could learn all one wishes about the killer's past, his motives, his mind, his emotions, and this might help with the understanding of the particular case. Yet it cannot excuse the murder. Now, I am not comparing the use of profanity to murder; it is not nearly as egregious. Yet, I am of the opinion that any profane
expression, in any context, could be frased more effectively in different terms. One can seek to understand the context, and then use it to pass judgment on what the better alternative would be.

I am
G. Stolyarov II





Post 30

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Johnathan, that was the most hilarious thing I've seen in a long damn time, and I just bought the special edition dvd of Trey Parker's Orgazmo.

I wish I could sanction that thing at least a dozen more times.

---Landon




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 2:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
DVDA?



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 3:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What makes a man is it the woman in his arms... Just cause she has big titties.

Is it the way, he fights everyday... no it's probably the titties.

Now you're a man!

God I love that movie, and Ethan I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothing, but I'd kind of like to make love to you tonight.

---Landon




Post 33

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What are they doing?

Shaving their balls. Everyone around here does it!

Oh cool, DVDA!




Post 34

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whe whole converstaion with the actress before the dvda scene was a riot!

Ethan




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
STUNT COCK!



Post 36

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh and, back on the topic at hand.

I take issue with Genaddy's "prudish" nature. If he wants to be "prudish," that's fine, but to insist that that is the only rational way to be, is a bit much for my tastes. He is a capable writer, and certainly takes time to reply to issues in depth. His unfortunate concern with the trappings of merit is a bit sad. I had disagreed with him stridently on SOLO over his anti-abortion stance, to the point of calling him evil. I later appologised for that. He isn't evil. He is misguided on several issues I feel though. He certainly is very polite in his dealings with others, at least avoiding telling people to fuck off :-)

Ethan




Post 37

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
STUNT COCK!

That was the term I was trying to remember! Its been a few years. Damn funny!!!!!!! Shit Andrew, between Dune and Orgasmo, I think we would make a good team for setting up movie nights at SOLOC (at least for the twisted!)

Ethan




Post 38

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

You donít take any directorial issue with the stunt cock being black?

Ok, fuck it.




Post 39

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ha!  Gennady's little email there came in a thread in which I posted a link to the many uses of the word FUCK!  I posted that in response to one of his little puritanical rants against a recent philosophy book entitled On Bullshit, by Harry Frankfurt (which actually sounds like a damn fine book).  Well, G didn't like my post too much, and sent an email making sure that we all knew that he refused to sanction it.  It was truly worthwhile entertainment.

I gave a presentation to that same Chicago Objectivist group, NIF, the following weekend, on the ethics and aesthetics of artistic nudity in photography (another thing of which our young Puritan disapproves).  He didn't show up.  Pity.

Thanks for posting about the hat, Ross, it's truly priceless.  I want one now.




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.