Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
hernan

Predation: Virtue Or Vice?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

Ok, we get to the bottom line. It's a chance for a Kellyite to find a flaw in two leading spokesmen for ARI.

I'll just note by way of terminating the discussion that Brook and Ghate are fully aware of the controversy surrounding the bombing of Dresden - just as they are the comparable, if not even greater, controversy surrounding the A-bombing of Japan.

The only shallowness and ignorance being demonstrated here is yours, particularly your inability to deal in the essentials of either the debate on predation or the issues surrounding Dresden. It is inherent in arguing any issue with Kelleyites.

Fred Weiss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, we get to the bottom line. It's a chance for a Kellyite to find a flaw in two leading spokesmen for ARI.

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'll just note by way of terminating the discussion that Brook and Ghate are fully aware of the controversy surrounding the bombing of Dresden - just as they are the comparable, if not even greater, controversy surrounding the A-bombing of Japan.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could be wrong

Strike the "could." You are wrong top to bottom, left to right, and inside out. You have a perverted view of Objectivism, which naturally draws you to the Kelley group that you so much admire. Go back home. Stop wasting our time and polluting our space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strike the "could." You are wrong top to bottom, left to right, and inside out. You have a perverted view of Objectivism, which naturally draws you to the Kelley group that you so much admire. Go back home. Stop wasting our time and polluting our space.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your fear that Objectivism can not stand against agruments attacking orthodoxy polutes this space.

No. For more than four decades Objectivism has withstood the onslaught of those who, like yourself, distort the philosophy and the facts of reality. And during that time I have heard it all; every whining, screeching, braying, whimper that all of you lowlifes constantly spew. The fact of the matter is that I have virtually infinite patience with those who honestly seek to understand and clarify the facts about the philosophy of Objectivism. To tell the truth, at this point, I crave a worthy opponent, one who could actually challenge the philosophy on a high-enough level. I love an intellectual challenge. But what you offer is just the same warmed-over hash slung by the multitude who have preceded you. We Objectivists deserve a place free from the disgusting pathetic whining of its detractors, and your type is the worst. Those who irrationally attack the philosophy and its adherents from the outside, at least display their intent and their motives openly and honestly. But creatures like yourself attempt to hurt the philosophy from within, under the pretense of appropriating it from the "orthodox" Objectivists. You are the most dishonest sort of all. And that is why I tell you to take your anti-abortion, Libertarian, anarchist, Kelleyite crap to your soul brothers who revel in hearing it. What the hell would even motivate you to come and lecture the "orthodox" who have not an iota of respect for you? In your mind it would be like going to a devoutly religious forum and telling them that the true path to god is in his disavowal. You think we are orthodox and religious Objectivists; fine, now go away and let us go to our hell. We do not need you, we do not want you, and we do not respect you. So go find a home where your kind can fester and tell each other all your little stories about those "orthodox" Objectivists. Like I said, stop polluting our space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Orthodox Objectivism" of course is an anti-concept designed to undercut the legitimacy of the valid concept of: Objectivism.

Afterall what could "orthodox Objectivism" be except: the philosophy of Ayn Rand. What they want and what they have always wanted is therefore: Objectivism that is not the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Now, if they were honest (which they are not) what they would say is "I agree with Objectivism about this or that and I disagree with it about such and such." They wouldn't say, "This is what Objectivism should be", as if they could speak for Ayn Rand.

But of course their purpose is to usurp and hijack Objectivism, to use its name while at the same time denigrating it. You once put it eloquently - and I have stolen this line more times than I can count - "they want their Objectivism, while eating it, too."

So, in this instance, it was right to fight the Germans and not to needlessly sacrifice American lives ...but damn it we shoulda figured out some way to do it by tip-toeing around all of Germany's art and architecture! It's like, A-bombing Japan was ok but gee we shoulda figured out some way to do it without killing any babies. What, you don't care about babies? Philistine!

Fred Weiss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Orthodox Objectivism" of course is an anti-concept designed to undercut the legitimacy of the valid concept of: Objectivism.

Afterall what could "orthodox Objectivism" be except: the philosophy of Ayn Rand. What they want and what they have always wanted is therefore: Objectivism that is not the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Now, if they were honest (which they are not) what they would say is "I agree with Objectivism about this or that and I disagree with it about such and such." They wouldn't say, "This is what Objectivism should be", as if they could speak for Ayn Rand.

But of course their purpose is to usurp and hijack Objectivism, to use its name while at the same time denigrating it. You once put it eloquently - and I have stolen this line more times than I can count - "they want their Objectivism, while eating it, too."

So, in this instance, it was right to fight the Germans and not to needlessly sacrifice American lives ...but damn it we shoulda figured out some way to do it by tip-toeing around all of Germany's art and architecture! It's like, A-bombing Japan was ok but gee we shoulda figured out some way to do it without killing any babies. What, you don't care about babies? Philistine!

Fred Weiss

And that is the crux of it. Over all the years I have met, at most, a handful of people who could maintain that honest approach over a period of time, but there have been (and are) thousands who re-write the philosophy to suit their own purpose. They claim that Objectivism is really consistent with this or that, where this or that are their own peculiar views, whether they be anarchism, Libertarianism, anti-abortion, or whatever. As has been stated repeatedly by many, the truth is that the "tolerationists" do not really want to "tolerate" others, but rather it is they who want to be tolerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Orthodox Objectivism" of course is an anti-concept designed to undercut the legitimacy of the valid concept of: Objectivism.
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."
"they want their Objectivism, while eating it, too."
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that is the crux of it. Over all the years I have met, at most, a handful of people who could maintain that honest approach over a period of time, but there have been (and are) thousands who re-write the philosophy to suit their own purpose. They claim that Objectivism is really consistent with this or that, where this or that are their own peculiar views, whether they be anarchism, Libertarianism, anti-abortion, or whatever. As has been stated repeatedly by many, the truth is that the "tolerationists" do not really want to "tolerate" others, but rather it is they who want to be tolerated.

the two of you are a one man band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the royal we, or do you speak for the collective?

Take it any way you want. The fact of the matter is that YOU came here and told us what is wrong with Ayn Rand, Peikoff, the ARI, and this group of "orthodox" Objectivists, and you extolled the virtues of Kelley and the TOC. Get lost! :yarr:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen,

aynfan has been given another warning (for continuing this behavior in brazen defiance of my first warning) and his posting privileges have been disabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Ha! This is both funny and ironic. She said that about Branden, one whom, like yourself, has amassed his own little arsenal of "personal beliefs" that are antithetical to Objectivism. At least I can say that you are consistent in this one area of picking a bunch of anti-Objectivist "Objectivists" to support and associate yourself with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was referring to orthodoxy of opinion and in drawing conclusions. 

Ayn Rand's view was that we should hold ideas that correspond to reality and only draw conclusions from reality. She also held that there is ONE reality independent of any one person's consciousness.

Do you disagree?

If you agree, why are you surprised that "orthodox" Objectivists agree on basic principles and defend them so strongly against opposition?

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." 

That's one of those principles "orthodox" Objectivists all agree on and defend strongly against opposition. What is the point of citing that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

This is something I read alot from Kellyites and especially at SoloHQ (Perigio's site although he himself does not view her this way). The notion is that Rand did not originate anything new but just essentially compiled and reorganized many existing concepts in philosophy. My emotional response is huh? But unfortunately I do not know philosophy well enough to thouroughly refute this claim. All I can say is that if she did nothing more than develop her theory of concepts she would still go down in history as one of the greatest intellects let alone everything else she did.

I was at one point somewhat intrigued by Kelly and Sciabarra. But the more I read on this forum and the more I see, the more I support ARI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...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.

By her own admission? What????

Ayn Rand totally rejected that idea. She more than anyone in history worshipped the innovator and original thinker. These are precisely the "men of the mind" upon whose shoulders civilization rests.

For those who are genuinely interested in this subject, yes, knowledge is cumulative and builds hierarchically and must proceed in steps (an Einstein could not have preceded Newton). But the great thinkers and innovators in history periodically, whether in small or large ways, take us in new directions which no one had previously thought of. And it doesn't matter, even if it were true which is doubtful, that in every instance someone else would have thought of it. Someone has to do it. And someone does it first. And whether it is that person or some other, they are first-handed innovative men - and they represent a very small number of us to which we all owe a debt of gratitude.

That this guy claims to have studied Objectivism for 40 years and even more outrageously claims to be an Objectivist is simply stunning. It is a combination of blatant stupidity and dishonesty.

Fred Weiss

P.S.: I'd also like to know what mere "rearrangement of preexisting concepts" does Atlas Shrugged represent or Newton's Laws or Einstein's Theory of Relativity? This is just such total nonsense, it is hardly worth dignifying with a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The notion is that Rand did not originate anything new but just essentially compiled and reorganized many existing concepts in philosophy.  My emotional response is huh? But unfortunately I do not know philosophy well enough to thouroughly refute this claim.

It's wrong, her theory of concepts was fairly unique, as was her approach to aesthetics (I think). I also don't know of any other philosopher who took contextualism in epistemology to the extent she did, although this may well just be my lack of knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H]er theory of concepts was fairly unique,

That was her second great original contribution to human knowledge.

Her first was The Objectivist Ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss Rand's theory of concepts is thoroughly unique. Further, since the rest of philosophy is dependent on a theory of concepts, one could argue that her entire philosophy is thoroughly unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. sN]

Respecting others' right is moral because it is selfish, not because anybody is under a gategorical imperative to do so.

This is one thing I have trouble agreeing with. If I want to rob a bank, knowing that I can get away with it completely free, it's still immoral. Yeah, I might have to live in secrecy. But suppose the US congress makes a federal law saying "it's okay for David Kahn to rob a bank." So I rob the bank and I don't have to live in secrecy or fear of retribution. It's still immoral.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is one thing I have trouble agreeing with.  If I want to rob a bank, knowing that I can get away with it completely free, it's still immoral.  Yeah, I might have to live in secrecy.  But suppose the US congress makes a federal law saying "it's okay for David Kahn to rob a bank."  So I rob the bank and I don't have to live in secrecy or fear of retribution.  It's still immoral.

It's still immoral because of property rights. And is in your self-interest to uphold property rights at all times, even if some ad hoc loophole was created just for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is in you interest to uphold other's rights and support a government that does the same so that your rights have a better chance of being upheld also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...