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 2


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As I said in "Where's Sarah House" -

 the thing is, Ayn never intended a movement... what she wrote was as individualistic a philosophy as could be seen, one which pertained to each individual on each his/her own... associating for enlightenment, to gain further insights - yes... but a 'cause to save the world' - no...  changing the world was considered a long-term idea and wish, but it depended and does on the enlightening of each person, primarily thru self understanding of one's worth to one's self... it never was considered as for everyone - any more than, as Branden said, romantic love is... it is for adults - and in truth, there are few of them in the full sense of totally self-responsible persons, the independent person, not the dependent child... 


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 9:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke -- Thanks for calling our attention to your earlier post about moralizing. You rightly raise the question, "What, exactly, is the point of making moral judgments?" and tie your answer to the ultimate value of one's own life. Obsessive moralizing Objectivists who feel they need to verbalize their evaluations at every opportunity -- usually in the most emotive and uninstructive language -- seem more concerned with what others think of them  than with getting on with their own lives. We certainly didn't see Roark spending his time denouncing all the villains or imperfect humans around him; he was too busy designing buildings. His response to Toohey's question "What do you think of me?" was one of the great Objectivist lines: "But I don't think of you."
(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 12/04, 8:16am)


Post 42

Sunday, December 4, 2005 - 1:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ryan sez:

I often wonder why Objectivists who believe in a philosophy for living, spend so much time on discussion boards debating which major Objectivist figure is most evil.

Ryan, there are precious few Objectivists in action. Too many are Objectivists in name only. Rand's notes and Valliant's work in PARC opened my eyes to the many imposters out there. Reminds me of the old movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers where you don't know who to trust.

There are exceptions out there though, Ryan. I've met at least 5. ;-)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Sunday, December 4, 2005 - 1:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert sez:

the thing is, Ayn never intended a movement... what she wrote was as individualistic a philosophy as could be seen, one which pertained to each individual on each his/her own... associating for enlightenment, to gain further insights - yes... but a 'cause to save the world' - no... 

Thanks Robert, I needed that! So many from Ayn Rand's circle make Objectivism look like a Monty Python movie - stumblin', mumblin' and acting like fools generally. The grand benefit of Ayn Rand's philosophy is to make your own life better. From that, others might be expected to take inspiration from your success.

That's about all there is to it.


Post 44

Sunday, December 4, 2005 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed Hudgins writes:
 
This is why religious conflict between members of sects so close to each other are often the most violent -- Protestant versus Catholic Christians, Sunni versus Shi'ite Muslims. Those who fail to make rational judgments in distinguishing between honest disagreements and dishonest ones -- or appreciate the mixed motives of many, tend to act like the ARI types at their worst or religious fanatics.
There's another reason why brother-against-brother "civil wars" of this type are so common, fervent, and bloody: This is where the action is. This is the only fight that counts.
 
The worst theft in just about any business is internal: employee pilferage, not shoplifting, embezzlement, not armed robbery. The worst enemies at war are usually the fifth columnists, saboteurs, and traitors -- the enemies within. To this day, Americans overwhelmingly hate not William Howe (who?) but Benedict Arnold (a far less important officer). Pretty much everyone understands that ultra-famous WWII Pogo cartoon: "We have met the enemy. And he is us."
 
Once Objectivism -- or at least liberal ideology -- cleans itself up and sorts itself out, the battle is mostly won. The world will almost fall at our feet. But not till we're truly worthy. Not till the ideology is really clean, and something close to being exactly right and completely true.
 
But the philosophical attainment of this Western liberal ideal won't be the achievement of a group without backbone or decent fighting spirit -- a group which lacks the intellectual power, skill, will, courage, confidence, and moral certainty to attack its clear enemy. And this status of liberal ideological perfection won't be the achievement of a group of bizarre, malicious, robotic, intellectual fascists which stands at great odds with the whole notion of  reason, philosophy, speculation, inquiry, objectivity, neutrality, curiosity, dialectic, discussion, and debate.
 
In the end, it isn't Osama bin Laudin and Hu Jintao which threaten liberal society. It isn't even Islamist terrorism or communist aggression. The real enemy of a rational liberal world order -- the fundamental and underlying enemy -- is Kant and Marx -- and Peikoff.  


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.