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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


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

Sunday, October 31, 2010 - 8:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/craig-biddles-lectures-canceled-by-ari.html

It's like "walking on egg shells."


Post 1

Sunday, October 31, 2010 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do I hear the soundtrack to Inherit The Wind somewhere???

Post 2

Sunday, October 31, 2010 - 11:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How sad. We are 2 days away from an election that is more tightly focused on Capitalism versus Statism then any we have had in perhaps a hundred years. We are so close the utter destruction of economy that you can almost see the train wreck from where we stand. But look at all the people that are expending their energies to stop an Objectivist from speaking at Universities! And we laugh at the Christians that argued over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Post 3

Sunday, October 31, 2010 - 11:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is ridiculous.


Post 4

Sunday, October 31, 2010 - 1:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just received this message from Amy Nasir from Great Lakes Objectivists:

Great news everyone!

Craig Biddle, Editor of The Objective Standard and author of Loving Life, will be interviewed by Frank Beckmann tomorrow, Monday, 11/1, around 11:10am ET -- regarding his work and Atlas Shrugged. Tune into WJR 760am, or listen live at http://www.wjr.net/sectional.asp?id=38702
(www.wrj.com)

I recommend subscribing to The Objective Standard at: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/

As a reminder, his talk at U of M on Tuesday has been cancelled, so I'm especially glad we could help him promote his excellent work on the radio. Yet another reason to send a note of thanks to Frank Beckmann, on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Frank-Beckmann-Show/168216168828?ref=ts&v=wall

Beckmann's show is local, but you can listen live at wjr.com. I doubt anything involving the McCaskey flap will be discussed, however. Because he enjoys Ayn Rand, Beckmann probably planned on attending Biddle's U of M appearance, which has been abruptly canceled by ARI.



Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Monday, November 1, 2010 - 8:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What a tool Diana Hsieh is. I've known that since her appalling split from TOC, of course.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - 5:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Jordan.
Diana left TOC?  I hadn't even noticed. : )  That was when she jumped ship to the Titanic.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 2:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peikoff vs. McCaskey
http://www.peikoff.com/peikoff-vs-an-ari-board-member/


Post 8

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 3:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good grief.

Post 9

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 5:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peikoff is out in left field here. I just went and re-read McCaskey's post on Amazon and there is nothing sneering about it. Peikoff's post is without merit.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 5:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dr. McCaskey was speaking at one college after another as an official spokesperson for Objectivism. Now, he isn't. So our values are not being as assertively promoted now as they were before. I'm an Objectivist and I haven't seen anything McCaskey has written that would upset me. Does anybody know of anything he has said that would be obnoxious to an Objectivist?

Why Dr. Peikoff would expend this kind of time and energy attacking Dr. McCaskey instead of someone like Paul Klugman or George Soros or Obama or... Well, I don't think we are short of people who are advocates of socialism, progressivism, altruism, etc.
-----------

It didn't sit well with me to read Peikoff calling McCaskey an "...obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual."

Then he says, "...it is not my goal to broadcast moral assessments without reason..."

Well, he just did broadcast moral assessments and I expect he believes he has reasons, but why would he not tell us what they are. Objectivists, as a group, are the least likely to take someone on faith.
-------------

Dr. Peikoff wrote, "...It is only when I perceived harm in practice that I have taken action. And I have set the requirements for such action high. In the 25 years of ARIís existence, I have vetoed only two individuals prior to McCaskey."

Does anyone know what the harm is in this case?

Post 11

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 6:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Or who were the two others?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reisman and Packer.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 10:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peikoff writes, "I have, for years, long before Harrimanís book, condemned McCaskey morally: I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual."

If Peikoff has long regarded McCaskey as immoral, then why did he sanction him as a representative of Objectivism? Since he was apparently comfortable with McCaskey's role as a Board member, Peikoff's dismissal of him for such a mild criticism of Harriman's book is clearly uncalled for.

Something else to bear in mind here: Peikoff is not Ayn Rand, nor is he channeling Ayn Rand. He is giving his opinion on what he views as consistent with Objectivism -- and that includes Harriman's book. Rand didn't write it, so what is he upholding the purity of? He says, "To sneer in a public setting at an epochal Objectivist book qualifies, in my judgment, as harm." As others have pointed out, McCaskey's criticism does not in any way rise to the level of a sneer.

But there is an even more important lapse of judgment here: Peikoff's description of Harriman's The Logical Leap as an "epochal Objectivist book" is itself a logical leap, for Harriman's book is epochal only in Peikoff's (and perhaps other Objectivists') judgment, not in Ayn Rand's. Rand didn't write and didn't read it, so we don't know what she would have thought of it. Lest we forget, Objectivism is Rand's philosophy not Peikoff's.

Peikoff writes as if he alone is entrusted with protecting Objectivism's purity from detractors. Why? Other Objectivists are certainly entitled to their views on what is and is not consistent with Rand's philosophy. How do we know that Rand wouldn't have agreed with McCaskey's evaluation of Harriman's book rather than Peikoff's. We don't.

Come on Leonard, lighten up a bit here. There is certainly room for disagreement within the Objectivist movement among well meaning and well educated Objectivists. McCaskey is not a troll or a Trojan horse plotting to do harm to the sanctity of Rand's philosophy.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/11, 12:01am)

P.S. I've edited this by removing my comment about McCaskey's giving talks on Objectivism. He may have, but I don't know for a fact that he spoke on Objectivism as have other ARI spokespersons. In any case, it's irrelevant, because he was considered a board member in good standing.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/11, 7:44am)


Post 14

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 11:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What strikes me about Peikoff's message is how mean it is. He comes across as a miserable person.

Post 15

Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 3:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan -

Peikoff is out in left field here. I just went and re-read McCaskey's post on Amazon and there is nothing sneering about it. Peikoff's post is without merit.


Peikoff isn't talking about the Amazon review. He's referring to private meetings involving individuals, professional to this technical field of study, where McCaskey made his concerns known about the book Peikoff sanctioned as part of official Objectivist thought.  McCaskey was being honest in his chosen field, is the way I see it.

If McCaskey is right, it wouldn't be very long before others in the field, but outside of Objectivism, seised the opportunity to trounce Harriman's book, while stabbing at the heart of Objectivism . That should be Peikoff's concern, but clearly isn't.


Post 16

Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 4:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa wrote:
Peikoff isn't talking about the Amazon review. He's referring to private meetings involving individuals, professional to this technical field of study, where McCaskey made his concerns known about the book Peikoff sanctioned as part of official Objectivist thought.
Peikoff wrote:
To sneer in a public setting at an epochal Objectivist book qualifies, in my judgment, as harm. (my bold)


Post 17

Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 8:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Another point worth noting is that ARI supporters and intellectuals have often made a distinction between Rand's personal views and her philosophy. For example, they have said that they disagree with Rand's opposition to a female president, claiming that it was not part of her philosophy. I think it was a part of her philosophy, because she clearly stated that "No woman can rationally want to be president." The key word here is "rationally." But let's assume for the sake of argument that it wasn't part of her philosophy. In that case, her philosophy must be understood to cover only the basic principles of Objectivism.

Question: Is Harriman's book a part of Rand's philosophy? Or is it simply an extension of it, according to the views of Harriman and Peikoff? Clearly, Rand didn't write on the philosophy of induction. If she had, Harriman's book would not, in Peikoff's words, be "an epochal book." It would already have been covered by Rand and would be part of the Objectivist corpus. So, is McCaskey's critique of it at odds with the basic principles of Objectivism? Clearly not, in which case, it cannot, contrary to Peikoff, be regarded as "harming" Objectivism.


Post 18

Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 8:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,
I think Peikoff sees it as modus tollens.
Thanks,
Glenn


Post 19

Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 8:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn,

?

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.