Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
WGD

ARI vs. TOC

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I said it was run by a TOC supporter/neo-Randian, published articles by other neo-Randians, and has had a bunch of neo-Randians as fellows.

Please also admit that you were wrong in saying that Eric Mack is Catholic so we can move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think.

My support of ARI has nothing to do with my judgment. That you would even bring this up supports my inclination (which is now a confirmed fact) that you are not someone to be reasoned with.

"TOC and the like" do not progress Objectivism any more than conservatives progress capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cwolf, please admit you were wrong in calling Social philosophy and policy neo-randian(what ever thats suppose to mean),

2)that "toc and the like (who and what?) has been making progress in academia,

3)you made up "neo-randians run a respected journal",

4)Gladsteins book and the novels of smith, holzer and york are not academic,

5)Mack didn't write over 70 papers on Objectivism,

6)kelley writing an paper in 1984 does not mean the journal is associated with him,

7)saying "Sure that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think" is an ad hominem(poisoning the well).

Admit to these so we can move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My support of ARI has nothing to do with my judgment. That you would even bring this up supports my inclination (which is now a confirmed fact) that you are not someone to be reasoned with.

Bowzer, "C-Wolf" is sounding more and more like none other than the infamous Chris Wolf, rabid anti-ARI psychopath. Wolf is anti- anything/anyone associated with ARI, and reason and truth are his least-valued tools. If indeed this is Chris Wolf, don't waste your breath on such slime. See Wolf's "FAQ" at http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/ for more than sufficient evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not "Chris Wolf." My first name is Charles and I like Jack London's book "The Sea Wolf." And WGD, your lack of integrity is appalling. I have offered you concrete proof that you flat out lied, and you refuse to admit it.

"please admit you were wrong in calling Social philosophy and policy neo-randian(what ever thats suppose to mean)"

I said that Fred Miller, who runs it, is associated with TOC and a neo-Randian by the definition I gave countless times. It has published articles by, and had fellows who were neo-Randians.

2)that "toc and the like (who and what?) has been making progress in academia,

I have offered ample evidence of the contrary

3)you made up "neo-randians run a respected journal",

See Fred Miller

4)Gladsteins book and the novels of smith, holzer and york are not academic,

Gladstein's book is academic, but you are correct, those novels are not acadmic, but they are evidence of making progress.

5)Mack didn't write over 70 papers on Objectivism,

I explicitly told you that I never said he wrote 70 papers ON Objectivism--I said they were written from his Randian perspective.

6)kelley writing an paper in 1984 does not mean the journal is associated with him,

You said that Social Philosophy and Policy did not associate with Kelley and I merely pointed out that they published his work.

7)saying "Sure that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think" is an ad hominem(poisoning the well).

That is not what I meant. I simply was stating that _since_ you are an ARI supporter, you would not consider TOC supporters publishing books as progress.

Admit to these so we can move on.

You have flat out lied, calling Eric Mack a Catholic. I have proven to you that that is false. You refuse to recognize this. You have no integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said that Fred Miller, who runs it, is associated with TOC and a neo-Randian by the definition I gave countless times...

I have offered ample evidence of the contrary

Fred Miller

Gladstein's...

...Randian perspective.

6)kelley writing an paper in 1984 does not mean the journal is associated with him,

You said that Social Philosophy and Policy did not associate with Kelley and I merely pointed out that they published his work.

That is not what I meant.  I simply was stating that _since_ you are an ARI supporter, you would not consider TOC supporters publishing books as progress.

He's not and its not neo-Randian(what ever that is).

None!

Good answer

No & academic????

What is that?? Did he channel her?

SPP is not associated with kelley now and published when, oh 1984.

Thats what you meant. And it wasn't me you said it to.

You have lied about so many things I don't think you know what integrity is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not "Chris Wolf."  My first name is Charles and I like Jack London's book "The Sea Wolf." 

I apologize for suggesting that you may be he, but that is why I said "if."

But, regardless, from the tone and content of your remarks, you two do seem to share some similar values. Have you looked at the URL I provided? I would be interested in hearing whether or not you are in essential agreement with what he has to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WGD: Even if you think I have been lying and have no integrity, don't you value yours enough to admit when you have fabricated something out of thin air (i.e. calling Eric Mack Catholic)?

Stephen: I am just a student and I honestly haven't studied Objectivism in enough depth to say whether or not I agree with it. I have studied certain aspects of the philosophy enough to know that I am in agreement with them and haven't come across any major philosophic statements by Rand that I disagree with, however I still call myself Randian rather than Objectivist. I think that "Objectivism" _is_ a closed system because Rand created it and named it. That is why I prefer the term "Randian" because just as one can be an Aristotelian without agreeing with everything Aristotle wrote, one can be Randian without agreeing with everything Rand wrote (whereas I believe that calling oneself an Objectivist implies that one is in full agreement with Rand on everything).

The tone of my remarks is borne of frustration--specifically pointing out patent facts and still having them denied (e.g. my statement that Eric Mack is not a Catholic. I think that it is pretty slanderous to say that he is, given that he is actually an atheist and, from his writings, would be diametrically opposed to Catholicism in every way). I didn't want this topic to devolve into a shouting match about tolerationism (although I am definitely willing to discuss the issue because it is obviously of crucial importance)--I simply wanted to correct a misrepresentation of the TOC seminar, a misrepresentation proferred by a person who was not even there and culled his evaluation from a few remarks by Lindsay Perigo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like most of what you said, the link to Mack's site is wrong. That's the Tulane philosophy depts site. When I went to his info at the Murphy Institute of political economy(under facultyand staff) all his personal stuff was gone. Since he's still at the school, I will track down the info. If I misinterpted his views, then I'm wrong.

But he still does NOT call himself a neo-randian (what ever that is) in the interview you linked. If you read the interview, he thinks the libertarians are falling back not going forward in the academia.

Thinking anyone really cares enough to make up anything about Mack makes you look like a fool.

PS. Miller and SPP are still not neo-randian or associated with kelley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU should care about fabricating stories about Mack because you should care about honesty and integrity. I never said that Mack or anyone called themselves a neo-Randian. It's a neologism I coined to describe thinkers who agree with Rand's fundamentals but are critical of other aspects of her work. That is why I consider people like Mack and Miller neo-Randians (even though they don't self apply the term)--they agree with Rand's essential framework while disagreeing with other elements.

Please post the link demonstrating that Mack is Catholic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The tone of my remarks is borne of frustration--specifically pointing out patent facts and still having them denied

Your frustration comes from your anger at being wrong about Fred Miller, SPP, kelley, etc. Your "patent facts" are just fantasies and you just can't face reality.

Now your implying Lindsay Perigo is lying about the panel he was on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said Perigo lied. I said "WGD: Even if you think I have been lying and have no integrity, don't you value yours enough to admit when you have fabricated something out of thin air (i.e. calling Eric Mack Catholic)?" My remark was directed specifically about you calling Mack a Catholic, a statement which is completely wrong, yet you refuse to admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I quoted the wrong passage, I meant to quote:

"The tone of my remarks is borne of frustration--specifically pointing out patent facts and still having them denied (e.g. my statement that Eric Mack is not a Catholic. I think that it is pretty slanderous to say that he is, given that he is actually an atheist and, from his writings, would be diametrically opposed to Catholicism in every way)."

My remark was about Mack in particular. I think that most Objectivists would agree that calling someone Catholic when they are not is pretty slanderous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I simply wanted to correct a misrepresentation of the TOC seminar, a misrepresentation proferred by a person who was not even there and culled his evaluation from a few remarks by Lindsay Perigo.

That's what you said. Lindsay Perigo comments about the the panel he was on are the basis for the beginning of the tread.

Please give some evidence about how Perigo lied about the panel. You were there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I said you formed your entire impression of the TOC conference from a few remarks by Perigo. I never said that Perigo lied. Your impression, that the ARI conference was somehow more academic or serious than TOC's, was misguided. In fact, that's what I said in my earlier post!:

"My point is that the original poster was trying to demonstrate the ARI is somehow more serious than TOC. Furthermore, if the original poster had been completely forthcoming, he would have mentioned that there were treatments of Rand's ethics contrasted with recent neo-Aristotelian ethical theories, a discussion and critique of Robert Nozick, bioethics, Rand and modern philosophy, and many more "serious" "academic" classes. So let's not attack a straw man here. My purpose is not to engage in a debate over the term "libertarian" or tolerationism--I was making a specific point about the level of dialogue at both TOC and ARI."

I agree with you that the TOC spends too much time talking about libertarianism. But you made it seem as if the conference was just a big debate over what to do about libertarians. _That_ is my point, not that Perigo lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the Summer conferences:

ARI had a panel discussion on the progress of Objectivism in academia. The most important news is Dr. Gotthelf will be publishing in a top philosophical journal, a paper on Ayn Rand's epistemology. I think that's a first!

toc had a panel discussion on whether ...wait for it..."Objectivists should abandon the term libertarian because it has been hijacked" by nuts (lewrockwell.com, etc.)

Wasn't toc set up so they could call themselves libertarian, form united fronts with libertarians, and be nonjudgmental togeather.

I got the above quote from L. Perigo, who was on the panel. He defended libertarians with "should we really eschew cooperation on a political level with libertarians who believe rights come from God, or from nowhere?"

This is the first post. The first quote is from Bininotto and the second quote is from Perigo, who was on the panel.

The second post of this tread has a link to Perigo's article. See if my discription is taken out of context-a panel about toc-objectivists dropping the term libertarian because of groups like lewrockwell.com, pro or con.

Please give some evidence that Perigo lied about the panel. You were there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, I did not say Perigo lied. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Your mischaracterization was not of Perigo, but of the intellectual milieu of the TOC conference. You imply that the one issue about libertarians was the focus or even a major part of the conference; that is false. That is my point. Not . . . wait for it . . . NOT that Perigo lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, I did not say Perigo lied.  How many times do I have to repeat myself?  Your mischaracterization was not of Perigo, but of the intellectual milieu of the TOC conference.  You imply that the one issue about libertarians was the focus or even a major part of the conference; that is false.  That is my point.  Not . . . wait for it . . . NOT that Perigo lied.

My post is right above. How can someone mischaracterized:"ARI had a panel... Toc had a panel..." for an entire conference.

Toc said the whole break with ARI was about ... wait for it ...libertarians. And now they want to get away from it.

You down play an article on Ayn Rand's epistemology in a top philosophy journal and act like its an everyday thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The implication of your post was clear. ARI is focusing on a very weighty and important topic (Gotthelf getting published) while TOC is focusing on a pointless and threadbare topic (libertarians). All I was saying is that you cannot take that one discussion as indicative of the entire conference. If that was not your implication, I apologize.

Furthermore, I said that the reason that TOC doesn't need a panel discussion on a TOC supporter publishing an article is because TOC supporters get their articles published all the time. I am not downplaying the importance of Gotthelf's article--in fact, I said I was happy to hear about it. Of course I haven't read it nor have you named the journal, so I am not sure how excited to be. Finally, the reason for the TOC break was not libertarians. A specific incident regarding Kelley speaking to libertarians (trying to promote Objectivism to them by the way) precipitated the break, but was not the philosophic cause. The philosophic causes were multifarious--tolerationism, Objectivism as a closed system, sanctions, etc. But you are right, TOC does sometimes work and support libertarian organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephen: I am just a student and I honestly haven't studied Objectivism in enough depth to say whether or not I agree with it.  I have studied certain aspects of the philosophy enough to know that I am in agreement with them and haven't come across any major philosophic statements by Rand that I disagree with, however I still call myself Randian rather than Objectivist.

Okay, fair enough. I encourage you to continue your studies with the philosophy.

The tone of my remarks is borne of frustration ...

Well, I went back to the beginning of the thread and looked at your posts and others. You initial posting seemed innocent enough in intent, but when challenged by Bowzer you immediately responded with "Sure, that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think."

Such a remark is insulting and demeaning to Bowzer, and you hardly had any time to work up any frustration since no real discussion had yet ensued. Your remark implies that Bowzer thinks as he does because he is an ARI supporter, rather than he being an ARI supporter because that is how he thinks. If that was not your intent there would have been no reason to introduce such a remark in the first place.

Now, I know Bowzer to be a very thoughful and independent-thinking person, and I am sure that, had you just asked him to justify his one-sentence comment he would be perfectly capable of doing so. But, instead of asking for reasons you insulted Bowzer, from which he (rightfully) concluded that you were not one for him to reason with. I submit that that remark of yours set the tone for all else that followed, and I suggest that you are primarily responsible for what turned out to be a shouting match.

I think it is fine for someone new to the philosophy to explore the differences that exist between groups such as the TOC and ARI. Many moral and intelligent people took quite a bit of time before they were convinced that the TOC was fatally flawed and did not really represent Objectivism. Knowledge is not automatic; time and effort is required. But, if you are going to attempt to defend the TOC and its several intellectual cohorts, in a forum composed of mainly ARI supporters, you would do better to drop the provocative attitude you expressed and just deal with the facts. I really think that you have yourself to blame for the tone of this thread, and the source of that tone was not simply "frustration."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen:

Earlier in response to WGD I posted the following to clarify:

"7) saying "Sure that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think" is an ad hominem(poisoning the well).

That is not what I meant. I simply was stating that _since_ you are an ARI supporter, you would not consider TOC supporters publishing books as progress."

I genuinely did not mean that remark as derisive and I apologize if it seemed so. But my major frustration was not with the overall tone (although that was frustrating and I am partially responsible for it because of my poor choice of words) but rather with WGD's refusal to admit that he was wrong about Eric Mack being Catholic. He doesn't seem to think it is a big deal, but calling a Randian (again, my term) a Catholic is a big misrepresentation. I was frustrated because he provided no evidence and I provided countervailing evidence, yet he refused to admit he misrepresented Mack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephen:

Earlier in response to WGD I posted the following to clarify:

"7) saying "Sure that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think" is an ad hominem(poisoning the well).

That is not what I meant. I simply was stating that _since_ you are an ARI supporter, you would not consider TOC supporters publishing books as progress."

Even so, you do not see that as insulting? Are ARI supporters supposed to march in lockstep? If someone thinks that Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses is a valuable book, does ARI expell him? If someone thinks that James G. Lennox has contributed to our understanding of Aristotle, does the ARI recall the secret decoder ring?

The point is, if you were interested in the ideas then you should ask Bowzer to justify his comment, not simply toss him into a group and write him off as an individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a fair point. I am not saying that all ARI supporters march in lockstep. I was merely saying that given that he supports ARI and is hostile to TOC, I infered that the reasons that led him to support ARI and reject TOC would also lead him to believe that the scholarship of TOC supporters does not qualify as progress.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...