RoR: Forum

There ought to be a "None of the above" option here. How else can one vote for SOLO?! :-)

Post 1

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 3:52am

Indeed, I was confused by this poll because to me either side doesn't matter when I can exchange my thoughts here.

I voted: "I find the ideas and/or behavior of both to be unsatisfactory."

Regards,

Eric J. Tower

Post 2

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 5:19am

I voted: "I find the ideas and/or behavior of both to be unsatisfactory." - Eric

As did I, by which I meant "none of the above" :-)

Post 3

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 10:10am

It's true that both are unsatisfactory -

David Kelley is inadequately passionate as a campaigner and TOC continually fails to address relevant issues, but I consider Leonard Peikoff the less moral man - his failure to carry out Ayn Rand's wishes not to name the Objectivist society after her, his failure to deliver her papers to the Library of Congress as she requested, his excommunication (and use of the term excommunication) of dissidents, his second-handery, and astoundingly unobjective behaviour make him a very poor spokesman for Objectivism.

Post 4

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 2:30pm

I'm a newcomer to the Objectivist movement (at 27 years old!) and I've been battling leftists and fundamentalist Christians for almost 10 years. Finally, I discover a coherent philosophy that could handily defeat both groups yet it is extremely divided along partisan lines. No good can come from the schism. Defeating our real enemies is too important to be fighting each other.

As such, I fully expect American-style liberalism to win in the long run as long as the intellectually and morally bankrupt conservative movement is the leading voice of opposition.

Post 5

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 3:10pm

Eddie wrote:

I'm a newcomer to the Objectivist movement (at 27 years old!) and I've been battling leftists and fundamentalist Christians for almost 10 years. Finally, I discover a coherent philosophy that could handily defeat both groups yet it is extremely divided along partisan lines. No good can come from the schism. Defeating our real enemies is too important to be fighting each other.

As such, I fully expect American-style liberalism to win in the long run as long as the intellectually and morally bankrupt conservative movement is the leading voice of opposition.

Please, don't despair so easily! When socialism made its way into the U.S. in the 19th Century it split into scientific (or Marxist) socialism, Christian socialism, and later more technocratic versions. Despite the significant time these factions spent (wasted) battling one another, they still managed to implement many of their ideas. Let's hope the far more rational and far less schismatic philosophy of Objectivism can achieve the same.

By the way, I think "schism? what schism?" might be the best vote for SOLO (or against both TOC and ARI), since it conveys the sense that one has spent so much time here that the very idea of Objectivist infighting has sort of melted away. The "both are unsatisfactory" and "both are equally valuable options" seem distastefully equivocal to me.

(Edited by Andrew Bissell on 5/03, 3:12pm)

Post 6

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 4:41pm

I am going to risk being a pariah by disclosing I am one of those who voted "David Kelley, mostly, though Peikoff has his merits". I think it is a stretch to say David Kelley's behavior is objectionable because he is not that passionate when it comes to activism. I do not believe in unchosen obligations, especially the idea that it is my duty as an Objectivist to spread the good word of Objectivism to the unbelieving infidels. I think of it more as a guide to how I should live my life. Of course, more power to those who do try, even if it's not my cup of tea. I also do not want to diminish any of Kelley's achievements. He was the first to come up with a credible answer to ARI (which cannot be ignored in spite of TOC's flaws). He is one of the few Objectivists who has published any original work into the mainstream (i.e. something I can actually buy in a bookstore). Some of his publications have tried to answer the questions Ayn Rand left unanswered, rather than rehashing old stuff.

I do not say this just because I shelled out a couple hundred bucks to join TOC, by the way (at the risk of being even more of a pariah, I'll admit I did). I honestly do not seen the essential difference between TOC and SOLO. Their strategies and tactics may be different (in theory, the former focuses on academics while the latter focuses on activism) but I just do not see them differing on any essential philosophical principle. In other words, I do not see them as being mutually exclusive (unlike ARI and TOC, which definitely are). I like to think of SOLO as an organization that fills in the areas that ARI and TOC leaves untouched.

On a somewhat related note, anyone have any word on when Diana Hsieh is coming out with her critique of TOC?

Post 7

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 6:41pm

This one or another critique?

http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Hsieh/A_Public_Statement_on_The_Objectivist_Center.shtml

Regards,

~E.

Post 8

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 6:56pm

Eric,

I was talking about the "much longer, more thorough examination of the issues touched upon" that she wrote she was going to "circulate in a few weeks" (mind you that statement came out February 20). I am interested in reading a TOC insider's perspective on what she describes as the "significant practical and philosophical problems to their basic approach to Objectivism". She has an internet blog that says the same thing, which also says she's a busy bee so I can understand the delay (I rather she took her time writing a masterpiece than rushing to produce drivel).

Post 9

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 8:30am

Byron,

I personally do not have a dog in this fight, since I am an autonomist and join "nobody's" movement, and regard Objectivism as a philosophy, period. So my views are essentially the same as yours. My purpose of my life is to live and enjoy it, not to tell others how to live and enjoy theirs. If everybody would do that, there would be no problems.

As for, "... anyone have any word on when Diana Hsieh is coming out with her critique of TOC ...," I am also interested in the promised critique, but probably do not expect as much as you do. I like Diana, and even attempted to promote her, even on Solo, and was promptly snubbed, heh heh, by her and others who share her overweening academic airs.

Regi

Post 10

Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 12:06am

Diana Hsieh says that her long commentary on Truth and Toleration is still in the works. She'll be resuming work on it in June.

The best place to read up on Hsieh's whereabouts is on her blog, NoodleFood.

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2004_04_18_weekly.html#108284526941794906

I agree that David Kelley is bound by no inherent duty to be an activist for Objectivism. But since he's said on many occasions that one of TOC's goals is to be an agent of cultural change, it's necessary to ask who those agents are within TOC, and how effective they are.

But perhaps they have been doing enough to be effective. From my experience with Objectivist writers and speakers, TOC and its affiliated members make the most positive impression on people like myself, who have had little prior exposure to the philosophy and desired a warm but intellectually bracing introduction. No offense intended towards anyone at SOLO, but it takes some getting used to the waters around here before diving in.

Post 11

Friday, May 7, 2004 - 10:13am

I said Kelly definitely. I completely reject the purge mentality. And for that reason alone Kelly gets unqualified support. Sure I have my differences but we rational O�ists are always qualifying our support to prove our individuality. That we have differences should be assumed as a matter of course. No, I�ve decided to expunge my general quibbling and suppress my admittedly bad habit of hand-wringing. It�s Kelly on this one � definitely. Final answer!

Gee, if I get any more spirited, I�ll be inducted into the SOLO brigade of flamboyant intellectual warriors. Not that there�s anything wrong with that. :)

Rick

Post 12

Friday, May 7, 2004 - 4:15pm

Rick - "SOLO brigade of flamboyant intellectual warriors"? I love it! Consider yourself inducted!

Though the hand-wringing *will* have to go.

Oh, & if you rteally intend to be so ardent an advocate for Kelley, you'd better start spelling his name right! :-)

Linz

Post 13

Friday, May 7, 2004 - 7:54pm

Very interesting responses and statistical distribution. I willingly admit that I had posted this little survey and personally voted that I favor "Kelley, mostly, though Peikoff has his merits." Indeed Peikoff's early scholarship deserves much praise, and I admire the insights, integrations, and new additions to the Objectivist filosofy (as much as Peikoff himself would hate to admit this) present in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and The Ominous Parallels. I have also been quite impressed by Peikoff's and the ARI's response to the September 11th atrocity and their principled and uncompromising support of the War on Terror as it should be waged. Nevertheless, I consider Fact and Value and the excommunications that followed it to be a gross perversion of the Objectivist virtues of Rationality and Independence, as Kelley eloquently explains in Truth and Toleration. I have also just added a gallery of eight quotes by Kelley, which displays some of the most passionate and salient statements from that book which I wholly embrace. I wish to see Objectivism burgeon and expand as an open system, and will not miss my own chance to assist in that expansion and selfishly profit from it.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 14

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 11:15am