Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

aynfan

Regulars
  • Content Count

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About aynfan

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/05/1942

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Tennessee
  • Occupation
    Producer, Director, Theatrical Consultant and Writer.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://robertwolf.blogspot.com/
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Kingsport, TN
  1. the two of you are a one man band.
  2. You put those words together not I. I was referring to orthodoxy of opinion and in drawing conclusions. If you won't hear me, hear Rand, she tells you "no amount of past thinking, of established virtues, of acquired knowledge will guarantee that a man will remain rational and virtuous next day, next year or in the next emergency; the act of focusing one's mind and of facing reality remains an act of volition, to be performed anew in every hour and issue of one's life." This what passes for wisdom in your rathole? Objectivism is not a food, so this is not only a mixed metaphor it is not even funny. Continue to miss the point, and talk about German babies, but know that I am an Objectivist and you are not.
  3. Is that the royal we, or do you speak for the collective?
  4. 1. Prove it 2. You know nothing about Kelley. 3. You wasted your own time by composing this vacuous post. 4. Your fear that Objectivism can not stand against agruments attacking orthodoxy polutes this space. 5. Stick your fingers in your ears, and repeat as loud as you can, "la, la, la, la" so you can't hear me.
  5. Fred I will take a page from your book and call you paranoid and delusional. I think Hernan hits the nail on the head when he suggests that you reacted badly because he was challenging your 'religion'. As to Kelley and the TOC, you have recited well the 'party' line. When you have been to that site and can provide chapter and verse your complaints, I will listen to you on the subject. Conquer your fear, you won't be turned to stone. I know. They are omniscient You, and many others, in the Objectivist collective need to find the freedom of action and thought that Objectivism was designed to encourage. Rand accomplished great things consolidating and codifying philosophy based on reason and an objective reality. Are her ideas totally original? No, by her own admission there are no new creations or inventions, everything new is just a rearrangement of preexisting concepts. Was she perfect? No. Did she ever compromise her principles? Yes. Does it matter? No. She was a hero, and an explempliary human, but human none the less. Rand is not a 'savior', she did not approve of blind worship. Objectivism is not a way of putting your life on autopilot. In the face of such matters as taste, temperament, talent, and level of intelligence the formula does not work. I could be wrong, but I believe the purpose of this forum is to be a place to discuss the concepts of Objectivism and how they relate to problems in everyday life, not a place of worship.
  6. This is a bit enigmatic. Would you care to explain what you mean by it?
  7. You don't get out much. People have questions about more peculiar issues than this one. This is a rather common question as a matter of fact, although usually framed in a different way, such as 'The world is scewed up, why try to fix it, why not just get what you can and screw everyone else?" It was with your friend. I did not know that going on and on about something was a crime here (if it is there are a lot of criminals hanging around the place), nor did I realize that you had been appointed keeper of the time clock. You are a master difficult to please. If the subject did not interest you, why did you chime in? Was it just another chance to impress the world and insult someone? Again pardon my confusion, I thought this forum was open to discussions of any kind. I have now been enlightened, no military topics. They displease Fred. As to my reason for discussing it. I won't go on at length this time. I think Objectivists like Ghate, and Brook sound brilliant when they make the point about Hiroshima and Nagaski, but shallow and ignorant when they lump in Dresden by rote. I do not mourn the dead Germans (there were more eastern European refugees killed than Germans anyway), I mourn for one of the most beautiful medieval cities in the world, for the lost of art and archetecture and for the brilliant achievements of great men who created these things, destroyed for no reason but to satisfy the perverted, sadistist inclinations of man who was as evil as Hitler. Perhaps you don't get it because you don't value art or architecture? You just can't help being smarmy. "one can therefore surmise" , this is in the same class of nonsense you pulled by calling Hernan neurotic and twisted. What is wrong with you?
  8. As I said before you came late to the discussion and did not read the entire thread. I did pronounce predation to be evil, in those words, if you do not believe me you can find it by reading the thread. Initially when dealing with strangers, I assume error rather than evil, in every case. In order to judge error fairly, my method is to hear an entire argument, understand to the full extent of the ancillary issues involved, and ask Socratic questions that if taken out of context could suggest sympathy or erroronious notions on my part, but are in fact not what I believe. It's sometimes called playing Devil's advocate, a time honored. legitimate debating technique. Such is the nature of the supposed damning quotes that your friend Spreicher has lifted out of context to condemn me with. Although Rand reminds us it is our moral duty to judge, she also calls it an 'enornous responsibility". She further says . . ."The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of 'saving everyone's soul"--nor that one must give unsoliticited moral appraisals to all those one meets. ..one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates. . . When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere 'I don't agree with you " is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction." My advice to Hernan was to go his way without rancor . . .the rest you can read if you care to find it. You make the correct assessment, in a vacuum. It is immoral to give something of value away free, in a vacuum. It is is not immoral to give something of value away free to your sister on her birthday, provided you value her. Context is imperative. To repeat, you say, "if it would have hastened the end of the war and saved allied lives," but I clearly point out in my essay that the firebombing of Dresden did neither of these things. Yet in the face of the evidence you remain, in a vacuum on this issue full of righteous anger and high dudgeon. You pretend that the answer can not be known, in my estimation an evasion, you say, "To what extent Dresden or any other military action was justified from a military perspective and in regard to that purpose can be endlessly argued - which is easy to do from our comfortable armchairs today." Really endlessly argued? The truth can not be known? What would you say to a poster here, who told you that the truth of an issue is relatative, shades of grey, it could be argued either way? I think now you understand the point in having you read my essay.
  9. Then you get no further comment from me. I consider your judgement a tantrum and inconsequential.
  10. The great irony in your absurd accusations is that both Fred and myself have bent over backwards in cutting slack to others, to the point of roundly being accused by some of being too "tolerant!" Shades of David Kelley! In your case, however, there is no room for slack. You claim to have been an Objectivist for 40 years, yet you seem to have ties to the Libertarians, anarchists, anti-abortionists, and everything Kelleyite and anti-ARI and anti-Peikoff. Whatever it is that you are, you are not an Objectivist, and after 40 years of such pretense there is no hope for a change. So take your belligerance to the Kelley camp where you will be appreciated for just what you really are. Before I respond to all of this, suspend your condemnation of me and read the essay I published under Member Essays regarding Dresden.
  11. Well, at least you are aware enough to know it is a tenet. I suggest, in the future, you adhere to it. As to Kelley, you have only the ARI side of it, but that is probably enough for you. In your case there is abundant evidence of your abusive dismissals of others. Those that defend your actions, share your guilt. Again, instead of trying to win a war of wits with me for which you are ill suited, your time would be better spent telling me where my assessment of your behavior is unfair or in error.
  12. Instead of taking potshots and me you would do better to answer the charges I leveled against you. You and others like you who level these obnoxious assessments of others, do nothing but sow resentment of Objectivists.
  13. And 40 years of your view of Objectivism has led you to support Libertarian candidate Gary Nolan for President and link to the Kelley's Objectivist Center instead of ARI. Get real. Whatever kind of Objectivist you think you are, it has little to do with the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. I do not support Gary Nolan, I don't what were you got such an idea. Although he is a better candidate is some respects than George Bush who most here intend to vote for. As to Kelley he makes a great argument for not assuming that those who are in error are evil. You don't know me or what I believe, the assumptions you and others make about the posters on this site are obnoxious, unfounded, and born of hysteria.
  14. Oh yes, I didn't address this did I? You have groupies, how nice for you. Is there affection for you mirrored in the eyes? I did grasp the Roman General "connundum" coming to the same conclusion you did, which you would know if you weren't too lazy to read the entire thread. It wasn't a very difficult problem.
  15. I should hope so. But that point was already made when you arrived at the post. I do not doubt your intellectual potential/capability, I accuse you of abusive behavior. When I said you can't prove it, I was referring to: You can not prove the man to be neurotic or twisted, only in error; just as your view of yourself only in a comparison to others is in error.
×
×
  • Create New...