Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  


Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

Okay. But rather than ask him for his reasons you focused instead on his belonging to ARI. You say you are new to Objectivism, so I doubt that you have already tired of hearing all of the arguments, so why not ask him for his reasons instead of just writing him off by associating him with ARI? However you slice it, I still say you set the tone for the rest of the "discussion," so perhaps you might want to keep that in mind for next time.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about a debate about nothing. It does not matter how many so-called "neo-Objectivists" or "TOC Objectivists" are in academia, because they do not understand Objectivism. Let me be clear: the point isn't that they reject parts of it - it's that they do not understand it in the first place.

Objectivism is not reason mixed with egoism mixed with capitalism. It is an integrated system of ideas with a unique method of thinking. Very few people grasp the system and that method fully, and not one of them can be found in TOC circles. That's no surprise of course - if they understood it, they wouldn't be in TOC circles (which, incidentally, is why Diana Hsieh no longer is).

But the moral is the practical, so it is intstructive to note that it is ARI which is achieving success within academia. It is ARI that has specifically Objectivist programs at universities such as Duke and Pitt (the 5th best philosophy department in the United States), to name just a single fact.

Some advice to fellow travelers: the best way to see the flaws in the TOC approach (or anything like it) is simply to study Objectivism.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is ridiculous. While I think that some of C-Wolf's views are wrong-headed (e.g., about "neo-Randians"), I think the evidence here indicates--or at least does not yet prove otherwise--that he is basically an honest individual and is willing to admit it when he makes a mistake.

The same cannot be said of WGD.

WGD, I've had to warn you in the past about making ad hominem attacks. (I think it's because you are far too quick to judge others' character and honesty from a few perfectly innocent statements just because you disagree with them.) I am warning you again. Please do not let it happen a third time.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.