wisdomisbliss

Actually, can you show me the door? I couldn't find how to delete my membership and sent a message to a moderator to do that immediately after posting, but my name is still registered 3 days later. Please delete my membership, and do us all a favor.

I am cancelling membership, so don't bother discussing any more issues with me. I don't want any part of this any longer. decide whatever reason you want for this; but be sure it'll make for some great sweeping generalizations. By cancelling membership, I will not allow myself to continue to go by impulse and sanction this. I have not enjoyed this, and I have concluded why I could never enjoy this.

Well, as I was rushing through my post, with hopes of getting it out so I can get to the lawns, it was raining...lol. So, I have some time before work. Let me attempt to take a trip through these posts, so as to prepare to give the clarity that is asked for, and escape my rambling, or get the rest over with. I found that after a post (I think my fifth), there was not enough substance from anybody else nor me, but I suggest looking for yourselves. Woops...I just realized that I must not have realized that there were more than one page when I wrote, because there are a lot of missed posts. I should have noticed when my posts were on pages 6,7, and 8 (I believe). I see that I wasn't alone in some of my issues, and that is great. Before moving on, let me quote Stephen (in an earlier post): lol Here is a quote from Betsy (in an earlier post): Alright I'll move onto my main posts and those that follow. Post 1: I don't think my first post was very rambly at all, and I did make some clear arguments. I did throw out an "odd" idea, in taking objectivism as a paradigm, but i see some clear-cut argumentation. Now were any of these arguments looked at? They weren't responded to. Betsy's reply: misunderstood what I meant by moral obligation, which is understandable, and I qualified it twice afterwards, and was attacked the second time for it. She also psychologized, clearly: Look at her husband's quote I copied above; look good and hard. Post 2: My response clearly clarified both of those, did it not? Khaight's reply to post 2: didn't understand the distinction I just made, considering my phrase to imply appeal to authority instead of autonomy again. Honest mistake, or maybe he didn't see my post. that's fine. Post 3: I replied and clarified my position again, hopefully better. Post 4: I decided to jump into the evil topic, and gave a lot of ideas that I thought may be helpful. I don't care to discuss this, but even if I rambled it was for some good use in thinking about several issues out loud. Betsy's 1st reply to Post 3: a good post. She gave examples of how not to buy a book (hmmmmm?), and then did make an argument against moral sanction for or against them, and I agree to that. But it is not the same use done with consistent ARI'ians, and that was what I wanted to argue, and this would imply that she was not being consistent with what she professes to believe, in ARI's stance. I'll abstract my logic from post 5 below, and will do that there. Betsy's 2nd reply to post 3: she denies any hierarchy. She calls it a Kelleyite/Libertarian myth, and basically says there are no annointments to some 'hierarchy'. My understanding of it is a small circle under Peikoff, so perhaps hierarchy doesn't fit, but annoitations don't have to be explicit to exist. She then refers to a breaking of "reality" making for those 'banishments' (as I called them), but that is so broad there's no way to know what is implied. She then says there are no "ARI members", and belonging is for TOC. Posts 5 &6: I do ramble a bit, so let me get the point across differently, step-by-step. (1) I may have not made this too explicit, but after Betsy's last reply, we assume that we can call a group of people that we all identify as ARI'ians, and these take the exact position identified in the subjectline. If Betsy wants to argue that, I refer to her quote way above. (2) ARI'ians in practice have a very strict idea of moral sanction, and not only do they preach it, but they sure as hell do practice it. (3) If you are an ARI'ian, you accept the premise of moral sanction. (4) To be an ARI'ian, you are obligated to act on that premise, or else you are guilty of being inconsistent. This is not an inessential issue, as it is the main issue that separates ARI from everything else connected to Objectivism. The open/closed debate is also part of it, but I am under the impression that the former is more important (if not, no biggy--still essential). All else is me getting confused and having to defend inessentials, and not much substance is left. The argument above is where rational discourse pretty much died, and analytic stuff took over. I also lost my temper and rambled a lot more, as is the nature of posts done with a track of mind. All of the rest of the nitpicking I may continue in another post, but after this one I'm seeing that all of my main arguments have not been touched on, just little bits and pieces of nitpicking used to denounce me as a whole. I backed up what I could, used relevant words like 'seems' to imply the direction my brain was beating, and I don't feel my judgement was too far ahead of the facts. Whoever reads this may very well disagree, but it is what I believe has happened. This is another long post, but it is the nature of this type of post. -DOminic

Actually, let me qualify that last suggestion...Stephen was the only true direct insult I think. Since it was the last one, I somehow conflated it with the rest. Damn it's 10am

I don't have the time to reply this morning, so I'll just say a few things and come back, most likely to rewire my argument and attempt clarity. I thank you MATTBATEMAN for your suggestions. I'll look into the whole thing later, hopefully with a better way of going about it or organizing it. Believe it or not, your criticism was the best breath of fresh air I have had here, for reasons I think obvious. In reference to stephen's post, it is great that there is some sort of respect for Sciabarra (as he said he wouldn't want anything to do with me, suggesting some sort of respect for him), which is more than his replies have offered him. I'd like to qualify it for others in order to say that I do ~not~ have connections to him in all of this writing, and am solely responsible for anything that comes out. He may not support my rambling, lack of logical flow, or whatever, but it is ~irrelevant~. I keep saying that I am here for myself, protecting my own beliefs, and I have been far too generous to those who have insulted me in a direct, ad hominem, psychologizing way over and over again, mainly because it is their forum. I only hope that I can remain here without being banished, so that the one position left in this subject contrary to the ARI'ian in this issue (although not for Kelley either, if I'm correct), could be heard, and better next time. I already apologized for going a little off yesterday morning, and I am clearly not doing the same sort of irrational attacking as others are against me (and against Vicki, the only other who had a dissenting argument). Even if I am wrong or have bad flow, I'm here to argue, not trade fighting words. It is much easier to do when I'm far away on a computer, is it not? Also realize that it is very difficult to argue when I cannot help but take these in a bad way. I am still a young philosophy student, trying my best to find the truth, and not even 3 years into Objectivism and philosophy. My attacks are based on evidence I gathered, nothing outside of that, and I still stand by most of them. A lot of my long paragraphs are mainly me trying to explain myself (as I'm doing now), with knowledge that coming from a different direction requires a lot of that. Since I'm not used to this type of emotional discourse, and am a little hot-headed myself, it is hard for me to keep arguing with those that have both odd psychological reactions and charges against me. We are both arguing, and both can be fact- or logically-based and honest. Even me calling Stephen's second post on Sciabarra non-sense, and then stating why, was in referral to ideas, not the person. I'm not dichotomizing the two, but there must be a huge distinction, because there is an illogical leap into integrity, motives, etc. Since this is probably rambling too, and I need to leave for work immediately, I'll just assure those that I can respect that I'll try to sum up my position, and will actulaly look at what I'm writing next time I post. As for the insults, I will only identify them, and no longer respond to them. It can only hurt me and my argument to respond to them. This is the last I'll say on this issue as well, but my position needed to be clarified, in light of these several posts since last night that I will not forget. -Dominic

I don't understand anything mvkornes said indirectly to me, so I don't know how to respond. I agree with that passage by Peikoff. As for you Betsy, I'm sorry I got all hotheaded this morning, and an apology would be in order if I felt as though you wanted to keep arguing and not twist my words around and put false labels on me. Since you have hung in this long, although I'm losing ability to understand connections between arguments, I can only assume that, minus a few things I'll probably talk about in a bit. I.E. I'm sorry for losing it in the end there. Honestly though, since you said "flattery will get you nowhere" I realized I was dealing with a tainted conversation. How could I come to those motives? I've been attacked for that same thing several times, and all I do is offer praise as much as I feel as though it is in order. You truly offended me directly, and my comments offending you indirectly, as a result of a misunderstanding of what I said, is not the same. And you make comments as though I have ulterior motives. I am in this alone. I have no connections with anybody else, although I do have great respect for Sciabarra, and consider him a friend, even though I haven't ever met him. The attacks that have been given against him are honestly what has set me off, because it is also an attack on my position, and I've seen a lot of this of late. And if anybody wants to deny that he has been given the most unfair treatment by those reviews, by these posts, and otherwise, I don't know what else I need. And what of those other banishments, and so on? I don't care anymore. I'll link the bad review below. Speaking of, Stephen, your first post dealt with a point that could definitely be taken by somebody reading him (and I started clarifying it, but I think a further reading and thought would do the same), but your second pours out the same nonsense as all of the rest. If you are asking what the main difference is between an Objectivist's understanding, and his academic understanding, that's fine. But if you are saying it is meaningless, you totally lost me. Do you know what postmodernism is? BTW, he has dealt with Aristotle in his last text of the trilogy, Total Freedom, in the first chapter, and I believe Aristotle will play a larger role in his next work, so maybe you will be answered. Whether or not you were satisfied with his response dealing with Aristotle, you have not justified these sweeping generalizations and denial of any significance of his work. As for Bernstein, I don't see how he didn't know what he was responding to. If it is true though, I apologize. If he wasn't pressured by any 'hierarchical' members to do this, I apologize for that accusation, too. I said 'seems' because there is no other way I can go about this, right? And to say that evidence don't point in certain directions would be far from my impressions. And in JARS, Rand a fascist and so forth, where did that come from? I have read some brilliant articles by Den Uyl, Rasmussen, Mack, Enright, and many others. True scholarship takes place in that magazine, and I don't understand how it could be judged the way it is. Rand isn't torn apart in all of these articles; many are out to show her brilliance and tie her into others. There are many honest scholars in there dealing with honest issues, and that accusation doesn't make any sense to me. I have read a really bad argument, and there could be another one or two in the ones I have, but I've already said in another post that all in all there should be plenty of praise, and I am more than happy for its existence. Okay, I can't leave this. Don't put me in a group of "tolerationists." My head is filled with blood at the thought of all of your disconnected response, mvkornes. And Betsy, you agreeing with it says something to me too. I have made myself clear, but let me keep giving the benefit of the doubt: (a) I haven't even read Kelley's book; ( I do believe that there should be evaluation of ideas, although not in the odd way that I see it done; © I love Rand's philosophy, and only have the balls to go through with this argument and suggest my own ideas (I did this in the beginning, before i constantly defended myself), and say that I will ~not~ tolerate the moralizing that will keep Objectivism in a box, nor would I agree with the opening of the philosophy to make it lose all of its integrity and to deny the moral value of ideas. I do not only believe in some parts, nor merely the 'foundations,' but the integrity of the system as a whole, minus only inessentials that I feel can be fixed. I don't want to keep defending with all of this energy my position, because honestly I'm just not good at working around pseudo-arguments and nit-picking, and my psycho-epistemology is still a little tainted and liable to make for errors and attacks when I get hot-headed, although what have I been doign but taking you all as honest and willing to argue (okay, again i did lose it a little in my last post). But I don't understand the insulting remarks that show the moralizing and psychologizing I'm completely against. Why am I a tolerationist? Because I think judgement of intellectual honesty or evasion requires enough leeway to cover the ~real~ factors? Why am I out to flatter for ulterior motives? Why am I out to argue for ulterior motives? I am in this alone, and I am no subjectivist, nor somebody who lives off of others feelings, or whatever the hell is implied. Let me just look at this quote to finish off: Let me just give a URL. I apologize for saying that it was Schwartz, when it was Ridpath who wrote this. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/rad/...eviews/tia.html Unfortunately, stephen's second post wasn't saying much different, so I suppose I just have to say that I don't understand. To put him at the level of those horrid postmodernists that I had to sit with in my Undergrad education (I was in one of the highest acclaimed continental programs) shows more ignorance of the motives and what postmodernists do than I can put in words. But where were the facts? You speak of facts backing these criticisms up, but I don't see that at all, in the biggest review giving through ARI. I don't recall my accusations of dishonesty, but they may have been out of line in that post. Please disregard them if so. I'm really tired, and I need to call this quits.

Forgive my quoting here if it doesn't work properly, but let me reply one-by-one as quick as I can... I guess what I have been coming to with all of this is a switch in moral standing. Since I too believe ideas have evaluative power, though with intellectual honesty solely as my standard--and perhaps a different account of it, by accepting the intellectual dishonesty in the attacks and disallowment of valid works and ~so on~ as okay, you are morally sanctioning dishonesty, whether you do these things or not, whether you read the philosophers or not. You have not once said that what is done by those high in the hierarchy (or whatever you want to call it, or however you want to say it) is wrong, so I suppose you either take the same position or no position, and therefore you are either sanctioning it or standing by it. If I am wrong about it being dishonest, then this whole statement is begging the question, but I've already discussed it in several ways in all of these posts. As a quick sidenote regarding valid texts, I did say Branden's earlier works, and I assure you that in what I have read in Kelley's text, which I believe was looked over by Peikoff and others and accepted, was a first chapter that touched on an extremely crucial topic in not only the history of philosophy (which he showed a great understanding of there), but for Objectivism. I only call these the 'valid' texts because they had at least the same status as several others yet lost it only when the person was banished. I leave the judgement of future texts (outside of the circles or whatever you consider them) aside here as a completely different issue. Sigh...Betsy, the reason I say things like that is because you keep referring to what goes on in the inside, and I keep referring to what the public sees and can gather from that, and have I not talked about particulars (something you have seemed to look over in a later comment), with judgements I've made using the evidence I had in front of me, and not through the likely hearsay that you seem to unfortunately be used to replying to? You haven't denied the truth to any of the facts I use, including the seeming persuasion of Bernstein that he better not have anyting to do with JARS, the obvious dishonest attacks on Sciabarra not only in IA, but through some oddly anonymous sources and from almost anybody who clearly calls themself an ARI'ian (look at sites like the Noodlefood one you participated in recently--look at this site, etc.), and attacks on others that show that reading has not taken place. Stephen and you may very well read the texts, and there are several others who would read them and would call themselves ARI'ian, but the argument has become that I don't know if I find it consistent with what being an ARI'ian is, using the issue of this subjectline as the main determinant. Am I making any sense to you? I always expect to be put in these positions, and refuse to name people who I've known and don't want to make public, nor do I want to make anybody public that isn't already, so I'd be stuck there. But why can't you just look at any objectivist site and look for this discussion. I don't recall if Noodlefood comments had people saying it, but a great place to look is in an essay on that website (again I feel like I shouldn't be making a person public, although I do not know her at all) talking about a class she took in the Objectivism Study Group, and all of the responses she had there fit perfectly into this. Personally, I had looked up to a person and knew them well in my earlier attachment to Objectivism (I'm not even 3 years in yet though), and he showed that same moralizing issue that wouldn't let him read or talk to anybody who he disagreed with. You know, I do seem to know many others who do not take that position though, yet they may fully support the arguments in Fact/Value and so on, and it bothers me that they are called dogmatists for coming to agree with everything rand says, yet I feel as though the buying of some books would not be consistent with an acceptance of the Fact/Value essay. You can say that I may have been guilty of exaggeration there, because I can honestly only think of a very few people that I myself know, and have been relying a lot on indirect statements by others( but saying they could all be wrong is not in order). Still, my argument that it is not consistent with Peikoff's stance and the stance that Schwartz, Binswanger, and the person who wrote "On Ayn Rand" (another critic of Sciabarra's text that implied not having read him) and others have that are highly up there in whatever you call it, if it isn't hierarchy. Betsy, I'm not pointing at you in these posts, and have implied that what ~you~ do is almost irrelevant, so please don't think I'm calling you dishonest for making statements about books that you haven't read, or anything like that. I have not come to that at all, and I treat you as an honest, rational source in these replies. lol..speaking of!!! My point in saying htis over and over again is to clarify a point so that you don't make the accusation that may have been right in other cases. I felt as though after the statements I said before that, you would say ~again~ that I'm appealing to an authority that doesn't exist, and so on. But all along I've been claiming that we can assume that everybody is trying to be honest, and have come to the conclusion that the ARI'ian position is either correct or not, and an authority is not what gives moral obligation, but the autonomous position they have after coming to the conclusion. I'm not calling people a bunch of puppets, I'm letting everybody be autonomous, and making the arguments from there. I may have been out of order for bringing that up ~again~, but I was under the impression that it was saving time. I shouldn't have said that authority may be involved beforehand, and I apologize for throwing that in, but still it is clear to me that I was suggesting this same issue again (in assuming this is an independent decision, not an appeal to authority) for the right purposes. Recall the first discussion we had. Good question. I think the brutal abuse only comes when it is judged as having to because of popularity, and at other times it is ignored with either the hopes of going away or the assumption that nobody takes it seriously. When Sciabarra's book came out in '95, the response had to be made ASAP, because perhaps it was well-known what kind of response it would have. I don't know the reasoning, and don't know anything from personal experience (I was 14), nor have I read anything about it other than many issues Sciabarra had with getting information and of course those horrible responses to it. I can only guess as to why both methods are out there, but that is not my fault. You are wrong, it can be both, and both can have the same underlying motive. What you say in the end is not brutal abuse, of course. You know that all I'm talking about is the deliberate broad generalizations that include ad hominems and everything other than rational discourse, and those can be found in posts everywhere (before attacking that look at this subject before I came on), and of course in reviews and articles by writers who are published through ARI (in their articles and I.A., which I can only assume is affiliated). So you know what?! I come to the conclusion that it in many cases it can be both: the person is not read in either case and only attacked when judged necessary. perhaps you are right about people not having the time, but that is when there is ~nothing~ to say about the person, and I'd like to see that. What if somebody who knew the history of philosophy more than me were to ask all of the attackers of Kant and others simple questions that showed an understanding of their philosophies outside of what was said by Objectivists? What results do you think that would bring out? Again, I understand the no-time issue, but I do not understand the use of them to such a strong degree regardless of that, and it does apply to them as much as somebody like Sciabarra. Oh no, I'm really late, but I seem to be attacking a lot more than I planned on. I may have to end this all now, and move on, so I wish the best and hope that ~something~ I said has come across as having some meaning... -Dominic

Okay, I think I'll do one last set of replies and then move on, because I don't feel like the conversation between me and Betsy is going any further, and nor are my interests. I haven't felt attacked or anything of the sort, but I feel as though I've hit a dead end, and we are at the point of nit-picking. I'll think about responding some on next post before getting ready for work.. As for Stephen's post, if you don't wish to argue something you spent a lot of time arguing, I understand, so I'll just make a suggestion, and not spend the time either...If you haven't taken a look at chapter 4 of "Total Freedom," it may show you the difference between how obvious it seems in most discussion of context-keeping already (and therefore nothing new), and how much of an identification it really is. We ~are~ all focused on context-keeping, but this does not make us not prone to falling into dualisms (perhaps in a theory of mind), losing track of essentials versus inessentials (moralizing), seeing something as just the sum of its parts (the collective is the sum of individuals), and even accepting dichotomies, and putting one over the other (rationalizing and intellectualizing is something I've caught on in a lot of conversations and experiences with Objectivists---hell I'm guilty of it myself sometimes). He identifies the 5 methodological orientations, and it clearly goes to a philosophical level not explicitly approached in Objectivism, and its value (as I find obvious in myself) is the identification of the method in layers of complexity, and the ability to therefore hold to it in all rational discourse consciously and subconsciously. He does give a better account of it in that book I discussed, and it is much more specific than the other claims connected to context-keeping in Objectivism. I'm happy you have time with it, and have come to your own conclusions on it. -Dominic

::Yawning:: If you are going to tell me that there is nobody that can be called an "ARI'ian" I don't understand your point. Most people clearly tell us whether or not they are "ARI'ian" or "Kelleyian" or whatever. I don't think I fit into either of them (you may disagree), but clearly many people do. You obviously know exactly what I mean by what I say in your defenses, Betsy. Just look all throughout this site, and I can tell you who the main ones who can be called "ARI'ian" are, and who aren't. Sure, there are in-betweens and differences between those that just repeat her and those that actually come to the same conclusions, and those of you who are big supporters of ARI, yet read books by others. It doesn't erase that distinction that can clearly be made between most people, based mainly on the issues of this subject. Don't start getting analytic about 'belonging', because I have spent a lot of time trying to make points clear, and shouldn't have to strictly define every general word I mean in a forum that generally understands me. I've also made it clear that I am unfamiliar with a lot that goes on inside the ARI-world, and therefore I really don't care about the internal-hierarchy-thing, other than the fact that people like Bernstein and others who are further up are seemingly ~persuaded~ by ARI to drop connections to groups and people, so that is my understanding of the hierarchy. I forgot what else you responded to me, but this should do. I assume that there are more replies to look at... Best wishes, Dominic

Betsy, I agree that you are not sanctioning a religion by going to a friend's wedding, and that you are not sanctioning a philosophy by reading it. But regardless of what you say here, it seems like everywhere I turn it is ARI'ians who refuse to acknowledge a philosopher ~at all~ because of something personal or something considered immoral in what they say, and that must include even renting them from a library. I mean the obvious cases (god i don't want to bring these in like everybody else, but it always comes up) of Branden's earlier books and Kelley's "Evidence of the Senses" not being acknowledged, to me probably disregarding their validity (although I honestly haven't fully read either, but have partly read them), parallels refusing to attend a friend's wedding because of the religious connections, in that regardless of your value for your friend you are sanctioning her religious behavior. This is the line of thinking I see, this disregard of essentials and complete detachment of everything connected to one 'bad' part (although not exactly everything, because you'd have to live in a bubble) and I don't see how it isn't the general case. Again, even though authority may play some sort of a role, I'm not suggesting that, but am suggesting the line of thinking in the individuals around ARI. I know you don't feel that from the inside they are that way at all, but from the outside I see the disassociation (regardless of validity) of everything connected to several ex-members of ARI, the brutal abuse of people like Sciabarra that have no foundations, etc.. And are you telling me that he is read? Have you seen the review several years ago in the Intellectual Activist by somebody considered an authority in ARI? What about the lines of posts here that caused my response? What about, and this is even worse, the way the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, which he is a main editor of, has been treated by Bernstein (who must have had to say that for ARI---am I wrong here?), and yet that is an excellent scholarly journal that will do wonders for the future of Objectivism in academic circles, it is to my belief. I've never seen such a horrible attack on somebody that was so unfounded, and think that if anybody read his trilogy and understood it well enough, they'd have at least a ~better~ way of portraying him, and if anybody read some of the enlightening articles in JARS (yes some may not be too good, but essentially they are highly acclaimable, for material coming from outside scholars). This is all that same line of thinking that is commonly called moralizing, and I do believe it is. And it is clearly giving the impression that ~no~ reading of these people is considered morally acceptable. How a disagreement becomes a moral sanction, and how an idea's relations to the people and other ideas tied inessentially to them, is all the same issue, and I would think that in supporting ARI's position, you are not morally permitted to go to your friend's wedding, for the same reason that it has been morally wrong to accept ideas from some others as valid because of their ties elsewhere. Perhaps there is a place where the distinction becomes essential and inessential (there must be actually), but in practice it is much further organicistic than I would accept, nevermind the dropping of the potential for honesty and dishonesty in the ideas attacked and outside of the ideas in the person attacked. I fear that after several long posts and a long morning beforehand my brain isn't quite up to par, so unless I can get stimulated enough, I may have to stop responding soon, and may not get interested enough to come back to it for awhile. This issue has actually been eating away at me a lot lately, and it's better to argue about it than to let it chase me away from as much of Objectivism as it has lately, and I appreciate the responses I have received. Do I feel the effects of catharsis? No...still a twisting tummy. -Dominic

Thank you for the enlightening post, Vicki, and I think I need some further understandings, although the loose definition does seem fitting, and would like to communicate through personal email correspondence, so expect an email! -Dominic

Bowser (and others), one thing that I think a person has to be careful about in the use of statements like these are the differences between inessentials and essentials, as well as the fact that although it is the case that all ideas have life/death significance, because of the intricate relationship, that does not mean that it is possible to evaluate them in such a way. Again, I believe ideas matter, but I think that idea itself is made to mean something else, or at least something is wrong with the methodology in applying that principle. Connecting Kant and the Holocaust is a great example. I have read some Kant and found what I believe to be an honest attempt at solving the mess Hume left behind with his own best means. I see the first great philosopher with the first great devotion to personal autonomy (there were a small group who did start the notion of autonomy--instead of mere authority--in ethics before him, but nowhere near to his significance). I also see his ideas and Dualistic orientation wrong. I also see seemingly a priori efforts to give a new argument for Christianity, and an ethical philosophy that ~seemed~ to purposely misunderstand any sort of Eudaemonism, but in both those cases I still cannot judge his honesty. Religious arguments were in nearly all of the philosophers before him, and nobody understood ethical egoism. You can pull out Aristotelianism, but realize that the scholastics twisted his philosophy enough to make him seem inextricably tied to the Middle Ages (well I guess this point may be somewhat arguable, but realize that it was far from only Aquinas who was influenced by Aristotle). I take Kant as a true philosopher, not as the most evil man there was, and this does not take away from my understanding of how ideas work, and I do admit that his philosophy was wrong and has horrible implications, and he did fail in his goals. But what happened in practice long since Kant, in anything other than academics clearly taken from him, sounds odd to me when ~morally~ pinpointed somehow completely on Kant's ideas, and really is questionable to me. Maybe I'm wrong to some extent, but I still see no reason to believe in most of these links of philosophers generations removed to troubles of nations being anywhere near more important than the actors themselves, when the leaders and those who allowed them were the ones that took the ideas and have to be regarded as the main culprits, and the philosophers more closely tied are more to blame. Again, I'm not denying the connection between philosophy and history, and Rand's excellent analysis of the connections between society and philosophy (I don't think), but I am denying the responsibility laid on philosophers that I judge to be more honest than they are claimed to be, no matter how wrong they were. This is moving into a topic far from ARI vs TOC, although its origin is in a relevant issue (of how to judge ideas), so I apologize for it. I just want to sum up and say that I do understand the fact that ideas always matter, but I don't understand the method used to tie evil into the picture with this principle, which seems to completely disregard the difference between essentials and inessentials, give further connections more precedence over closer ones, and again disregard the factor of honesty/dishonesty in the development of false ideas. -Dominic

Khaight, I'm not discussing whether or not you will be banished, but I am talking about moral obligation coming from your acceptance of Peikoff's position. It is very uplifting to hear that you don't have a problem with others there, although I'm not sure it would be the case if you were higher in the hierarchy. I don't have adequate evidence to go by other than some articles I've read, so I'm not going to make these claims about what the authorities will do from the outside. But realize that I am talking about your moral autonomy as an ARI-member, somebody who I assume is not supposed to read those books (I think most of your list is on my shelf as well)---not because Peikoff said so, but because in being an "ARI'ian" it is assumed you've come to that conclusion yourself. I don't know how much sense I'm making, but what I am trying to emphasize is that ARI'ians are not necessarily sinking into argument from authority in this, and what I loosely called "moral freedom" is something coming from each individual, according to their judgment from the facts given to them. I am not questioning your honesty here, in disagreeing with the moral position and obligation. -Dominic

Betsy, I am not claiming any authority other than your own moral judgement, as moral obligation is of course autonomous for all of us, I would assume. In terms of moral obligation, I am under the impression that some of you will consider yourselves morally sanctioning evil by buying his book and reading it. Am I wrong there? I'm under the impression that most "ARI'ians" do that, basing themselves on that very Fact/Value essay. I am an outsider, obviously, so I can't make too many accusations other than what I see in other followers, sites, posts, REVIEWS!!!, essays, etc., but they all give me that impression. If it is the case, there are a lot of fruits you are missing out on, in my way of seeing it. Also, I didn't anticipate any help with flattery, but did enjoy your monthly newsletter, which was filled with virtues, in the two years I subscribed... Vicki, hang in there! I don't agree with the use of evil either, although I do think that it is merely a difference in the moral judgement of ideas and ideologies (not that there shouldn't be any, but that several factors are left out in what comes out to be moralizing, in my opinion), and many people throw out the word without understanding who they are attacking. Especially the use of philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Plato, etc., which most people don't read, and of course 'banished' others like Kelley, Sciabarra, Branden, and I don't know who else. It makes for good rhetoric, you'd have to admit! But don't let it chase you away from the philosophy, if it is, because to me it is just an inessential issue in the philosophy taken to extremes in its common use by all in the Objectivism-world. It does make it seem cultish, but I am unsure what exactly is cultish, so I'll hold judgment there. -Dominic

The main issue there, Dark Stranger, is the need to distinguish between ethical egoism and psychological egoism. Psychological egoism states that everything we do is in what we think (or are impulsed to think?) is our self-interest, not out of choice but out of necessity (it is our natural inescapable impulse), and if psychological egoism were to be correct there could be no such thing as altruism. Ethical egoism requires the ~choice~ to act in one's self-interest, and one could conceivably sacrifice one's interests (i.e. sacrifice a higher value for a lower one), and therefore commit to altruism. Psychological egoism can never be proved, and there is no reason to believe it is axiomatic (we are not assuming it to refute it, but must assume it to attempt to prove it). I don't know what kind of job that is of refuting it, but I could also make it simple and say that there is no reason to believe in it, and it is clearly unfalsifiable. I think it is safe to say that we can act altruistically. -Dominic