Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
whYNOT

Rules of OHomo Google Group

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

*** Mod's note: Split from a thread that mentioned theOHomos list. - sn ***

Andre,

You might want to check out the OHomos email group and ask them some of your questions. It is a mailing list for "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) Objectivists (and others)." Here is their website with info on joining. In my experience those Objectivists who view homosexuality as immoral are a very small minority. From what I've seen, if some Objectivist starts babbling anti-gay nonsense other Objectivists will come down on him pretty hard for his irrational beliefs.

I looked the site over.

What might be an otherwise useful/valuable forum for gays has GOT to lay down the law and refuse access to any who relate to the Brandens and David Kelly. What irony.

The intellectual gays I've known are independent-minded people, which makes a gay Objectivist triply so, by definition.

"You are not an Objectivist if..." "The false advocates of Objectivism".

Excuse me, man, but they can make up their own minds on if they're O'ist or not, and N.Branden and D.Kelly know as much about Objectivism as anyone presently alive.

Heavy-handed BS that contradicts a core tenet of Objectivism - think for yourself.

Edited by softwareNerd
Split notice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: #19

Tony,

I gather that the talented young man who manages that site-sector of Olist (the sector's name is offensive to some older folks like me) is very much one who thinks for himself, as seen here. The rule about excluding posting privileges to persons who “associate with” Dr. Kelley, Dr. Sciabarra, or the Brandens is a rule set by site owner Diana Hsieh. Dr. Hsieh had sharp personal and intellectual conflicts with those first two a few years ago. I did not follow the particulars. It was anyway their problem, and I had my own work to do, as ever.

As I understand from a recent talk by Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute, Nathaniel Branden is held in contempt, as an institutional doctrine, because of his horrible deception of his lover Ayn Rand. David Kelley is singled out for public repudiation by ARI officials because of his alleged failure to understand some basic principle(s) of Objectivism, as expressed in an essayed exchange between him and Leonard Peikoff concerning “open” and “closed” Objectivism. I was glad when Dr. Peikoff declared he was not going to continue further in the essay debate of the issue; he too had more important work to do. As I recall, those seemed to be good essays on both sides. However, I have not studied them carefully, and anyway, like everyone else, I was familiar with the important heuristic at work in the conflict: don’t pull rank.

Competitors will run down their competitors. I imagine some good has come of the rivalries. I recall a page in Marvin Minsky’s The Society of Mind, in which he spoke of how enormously powerful is the motivation Beat Professor X. I’m pretty sure humanity is greatly benefitted by that supplementary spur to thinkers and researchers at the frontiers of knowledge. Certainly the scholars associated with ARI have produced excellent work concerning the literature and philosophy of Ayn Rand. To be clear, that is mainly due to dedication of the individual scholars and to some extent due to financial support from generous rich people who support ARI in its support of Rand scholarship.

I was a young man when the break between Miss Rand and Dr. Branden occurred. I was a little pissed off at them at first because they had blown up the organization NBI. That proved really not so important. Further writings and lectures streamed forth. They were important. Personal partisans, now in their 70’s and 80’s, who knew Ayn Rand, continue to throw punches at each other and will continue those punches so long as they breathe. The conflicts (personally rooted) between well-known Objectivist thinkers were not my problems, and I had my own work to do, as ever.

I did grasp upon the split between Rand and Branden that she aimed to destroy him. What he had done was a serious moral failing (and one did not need to know a blessed thing about Objectivist morality to see that), but that was not all: I had learned about their affair of the heart shortly after the break and had some inkling of how extra full of hurt and rage Rand would have to be from such an experience. I was pleased to see Branden’s first book a couple years later. He had survived psychologically and continued a vigorous producer. Rand produced also, and for her days, I wished only she be “watched by every human love.” (At Peace)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: #19 Tony, I gather that the talented young man who manages that site-sector of Olist (the sector's name is offensive to some older folks like me) is very much one who thinks for himself, as seen here. The rule about excluding posting privileges to persons who “associate with” Dr. Kelley, Dr. Sciabarra, or the Brandens is a rule set by site owner Diana Hsieh. Dr. Hsieh had sharp personal and intellectual conflicts with those first two a few years ago. I did not follow the particulars. It was anyway their problem, and I had my own work to do, as ever. As I understand from a recent talk by Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute, Nathaniel Branden is held in contempt, as an institutional doctrine, because of his horrible deception of his lover Ayn Rand. David Kelley is singled out for public repudiation by ARI officials because of his alleged failure to understand some basic principle(s) of Objectivism, as expressed in an essayed exchange between him and Leonard Peikoff concerning “open” and “closed” Objectivism. I was glad when Dr. Peikoff declared he was not going to continue further in the essay debate of the issue; he too had more important work to do. As I recall, those seemed to be good essays on both sides. However, I have not studied them carefully, and anyway, like everyone else, I was familiar with the important heuristic at work in the conflict: don’t pull rank. Competitors will run down their competitors. I imagine some good has come of the rivalries. I recall a page in Marvin Minsky’s The Society of Mind, in which he spoke of how enormously powerful is the motivation Beat Professor X. I’m pretty sure humanity is greatly benefitted by that supplementary spur to thinkers and researchers at the frontiers of knowledge. Certainly the scholars associated with ARI have produced excellent work concerning the literature and philosophy of Ayn Rand. To be clear, that is mainly due to dedication of the individual scholars and to some extent due to financial support from generous rich people who support ARI in its support of Rand scholarship. I was a young man when the break between Miss Rand and Dr. Branden occurred. I was a little pissed off at them at first because they had blown up the organization NBI. That proved really not so important. Further writings and lectures streamed forth. They were important. Personal partisans, now in their 70’s and 80’s, who knew Ayn Rand, continue to throw punches at each other and will continue those punches so long as they breathe. The conflicts (personally rooted) between well-known Objectivist thinkers were not my problems, and I had my own work to do, as ever. I did grasp upon the split between Rand and Branden that she aimed to destroy him. What he had done was a serious moral failing (and one did not need to know a blessed thing about Objectivist morality to see that), but that was not all: I had learned about their affair of the heart shortly after the break and had some inkling of how extra full of hurt and rage Rand would have to be from such an experience. I was pleased to see Branden’s first book a couple years later. He had survived psychologically and continued a vigorous producer. Rand produced also, and for her days, I wished only she be “watched by every human love.” (At Peace)

Stephen, Heh, plenty to think about here. And those NBI days must have been a real roller-coaster ride!

Some of this has been on my mind already, but you offer a unique slant.

To be as condensed as I can - The thing is, I have no understanding of how it is possible for any Objectivist to lose objectivity about, or vilify, other Objectivists. Or, to suspend his independence of thought..

My take is that all our present intellectuals are, primarily, doing a magnificent job. Although I sometimes disagree with one or another.

Now, to Nathaniel Branden, who's work I'm quite familiar with, he filled what I perceived as a 'gap' between philosophy and psychology that nobody else would or could. Although this is over-simplifying, his books were invaluable for me, personally.

I've read a few of Kelly's essays which deserve to treated with deep consideration, too, I think. Whatever the past, these men are doubtlessly men of integrity. To sidetrack prolonged debate on them or their work, I want to stick to the point of how can such productive, self-proclaimed Objectivist academics (OK, NB calls himself, neo-), be called evil? immoral? or, Enemies of Objectivism, False Advocates, etc. I mean, if they are 'evil', where does Josef Stalin fit on the scale? For one of thousands. (To say nothing of a bunch of contemptibly immoral politicians existing in my country?)

This 'us' and 'them' grouping and disregard for fellow O'ists is not rational - in fact, it is tribalist, I think.

Also, for a person new to an Objectivist forum, to be met with such stringent conditions of entry, is unreasonable too. (Which was my criticism of the gay forum's rules.) Mostly, he has read one of Rand's books, and knows nothing of the internal politics. These forums represent to me islands of sanity (well, mostly) in a pretty insane world. Objectivists should greet newcomers with openness, and confidence - not with distrust. Others are also seeking reason, reality and good sense, more and more often today. Even those who leave will take something with them.

btw, not for the first time it occurs to me that I am closer, ideologically, to the average O'ist here - and to Drs Peikoff , Branden, Kelly, Hsieh, Brook - all academics and other 'end-users' (like myself) who I'm never going to meet - than I am to most of my own friends. (Bitter differences, or "rivalries" as you put it, aside.) I'm sure I am not the only one. .

Thanks for your considered and considerate reply.

Tony

[Edit: I only now read the link you provided of Trey Peden's article, and yes I was unfair; he does seem a thoughtful and independent guy. Which makes the rules of the forum he is managing all the more contradictory...]

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Which makes the rules of the forum he is managing all the more contradictory..."

It was explained earlier that these are rules of all the Olists, which are projects of somebody with personal reason to not want to have people around who may try to use the lists to spread claims about both the philosophy and herself that she regards as particularly serious falsehoods. It isn't the case that nobody can go look at their stuff even if they want to stay on the list, just that they not be using the lists for cheerleading for these people and their overall philosophical positions. This is not meant to say you shouldn't think for yourself of that there is nothing of any potential value in the works by these people - after all, some of Branden's stuff is still included in VOS for example - just that there are some things from them that if you want to advocate for it, you should take it elsewhere. The current manager of this particular Olist could always have made his own unaffiliated mailing list if he had a problem with this, but he can't compel the Olists owner to let him join in these mailing list projects she has under conditions she does not agree with. Trying to just ignore or throw out her rules while taking her cooperation which is given under particular conditions would be to violate her rights.

As to the more general issue of bad blood between different people who associate themselves with Objectivism, just because somebody may say, "This is what Objectivism is," or, "I'm an Objectivist," isn't enough to make it so all on its own. There are disputes about what the proper limitations are on such a label and if you think somebody is spreading around claims of what Objectivism is that are not correct, that can be pretty concerning in how it could thwart the long and difficult effort of trying to get the ideas of Objectivism to proliferate. And if anybody who claims to be an Objectivist is just still being an asshole, I don't see why that claim would make you so eager to around them more so than any other asshole. There are plenty of fish in the sea still, after all. One can still pick through the works and ideas of somebody you overall disapprove of though and get value from some places where they may have some good ideas. One can refuse to associate with Hitler (extreme, cliche example), but still agree with some really great mathematical work he did or something.

I hope this clarifies things. Nobody is advocating not thinking for yourself or never ever reading and/or considering anything such other people wrote and the manager of the particular Olist under discussion here would be in violation of the rights of somebody else if he didn't apply those rules while still remaining part of the Olists rather than a separate mailing list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bluecherry,

I would disbelieve anybody who claimed to have grasped - but further - had integrated, Objectivism inside of , say, one year.

I think the integration is a process, within which, at every step towards the goal, one should be aware and informed about all options and alternatives.

In other words, there is no one point early on, where the novice can state with conviction : I am an Objectivist.

It has to be completely incorporated into one's life, first.

Without full and open knowledge of 'options and alternatives', (and those I'm referring to aren't major, imo) one's volition is impaired, one's conclusion, compromised.

Objectivism is not a college examination that must be passed; also it is not an 'Organisation'.

(Although the various organisations - including forums - within it are doing fine work.)

It is a body of knowledge made physical by the actions of each individual who is integrating it in themselves.

To be told at this early stage that "You are not an Objectivist, if...", is at the least superfluous, and at the most, authoritarian, I think.

Objectivism possesses its own inherent authority. It will stand and survive, and flourish - I believe - on its own merits. Additionally, it is a philosophy of egoism.

Therefore, how can it need or justify authoritarians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be told at this early stage that "You are not an Objectivist, if...", is at the least superfluous, and at the most, authoritarian, I think.
People who run lists and forums have a specific purpose in doing so. Groups like OHomos and the other "Olists" are not for newbies who want to discuss basic questions about Objectivism. There are other places for that, and I think the segmentation is useful. Many people who think they understand Objectivism enough to label themselves Objectivists want to chat with others like themselves, but do not want to spend their time answering newbie questions, and more often do not want to get into arguments that they went through during their early years with Objectivism: e.g. Objectivism vs. Libertarianism, Kelly/Branden etc. Many such people will participate in forums that have that type of discussion, but then tire of it and want to move elsewhere, to a "quieter" place where they feel they're learning and gaining value from people who share most of their underlying philosophy. Time is limited, and this is just a natural progression. It is not true of everyone: some enjoy teaching newbies and get value from defending certain arguments that they've already defended many times; but, this is the minority. Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bluecherry,

I would disbelieve anybody who claimed to have grasped - but further - had integrated, Objectivism inside of , say, one year.

I think the integration is a process, within which, at every step towards the goal, one should be aware and informed about all options and alternatives.

In other words, there is no one point early on, where the novice can state with conviction : I am an Objectivist.

It has to be completely incorporated into one's life, first.

Without full and open knowledge of 'options and alternatives', (and those I'm referring to aren't major, imo) one's volition is impaired, one's conclusion, compromised.

Objectivism is not a college examination that must be passed; also it is not an 'Organisation'.

(Although the various organisations - including forums - within it are doing fine work.)

It is a body of knowledge made physical by the actions of each individual who is integrating it in themselves.

To be told at this early stage that "You are not an Objectivist, if...", is at the least superfluous, and at the most, authoritarian, I think.

Objectivism possesses its own inherent authority. It will stand and survive, and flourish - I believe - on its own merits. Additionally, it is a philosophy of egoism.

Therefore, how can it need or justify authoritarians?

This has almost nothing to do with what I said at all. I wasn't dictating how new people should think, I was simply explaining why the list has those rules and why even though some people may share many similar ideas they could still have substantial enough disagreements to not want to be bothered with each other. The label limitations disagreement is not meant to be an argument from intimidation ala "Accept this position or we'll ostracize you!" but instead a more general statement along the lines of a thing is what it is, nobody can be a bachelor if they're married. If you don't understand things well yet, yeah, you shouldn't accept things just because others accept them, even others you may like and/or admire. It is better to be somebody learning and exploring to the best of their ability even if they may have some mistakes than to swallow some position just because somebody may not like you if you don't. Just know that if you're currently leaning toward, say, a belief in determinism, you shouldn't be surprised if some people have things of their own that exclude advocacy for determinism because such would stunt progress toward their goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has almost nothing to do with what I said at all.

Simply, because you continue to miss my point.

(I started all this with my mini-rant,B) after all.)

My position is not the practical aspects of running a forum, nor the property rights, etc.

These are self-evident.

It is the moral principle that concerns me.

Which is : Does Objectivism need authoritarianism?

See, the home page of 'Ohomo' does not state -

Dr Kelly and Dr Branden, you will not be accepted as members, here. (Ha!)

Or,

Dr Kelly's and Dr Branden's ideas are not acceptable, here.

Or,

You have the complete right to think for yourself and honestly discuss DrK and DrB but we would prefer that you do not engage in long troll-like debates on the issue, and may be moderated.

No, it states as categorical imperative - "You are NOT an Objectivist if you...[follow? accept?] ...the false advocates of Objectivism - Kelly, Branden, Sciabarra."

Here, I think it is important to distinguish between authority, authoritarianism , and respect. My conviction is that one can and should have high respect for those who have superior knowledge, (Dr Hsieh, in this instance, I'm told), and should recognise their authority - but only within certain contexts. Granting anything more is authoritarianism.

To wrap up my side of this, a final note: I can only observe (and imagine) the particular pressures of society upon gays; but whether they are advanced O'ists or novices, do they 'need' additional prescriptions and regulations on a forum dedicated to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the moral principle that concerns me.

Which is : Does Objectivism need authoritarianism?

...it states as categorical imperative - "You are NOT an Objectivist if you...[follow? accept?] ...the false advocates of Objectivism - Kelly, Branden, Sciabarra."

It's not a 'categorical imperative' to be clear about what is and is not Objectivism by clearly stating a few philosophies that contradict Objectivism. Notice that they didn't say: "If you consider yourself an Objectivist but agree with these people, you should stop considering yourself an Objectivist because I said so." That would be authoritarianism. Rather, they simply, "You are not an Objectivist if..." It's simply a clear statement of definition. Consider this; would you have a problem if the names they listed were, for example, Jesus Christ, Mohammad, and Buddha? Fortunately, it's generally not necessary for them to list these people off as well, because pretty much everyone agrees that their philosophies contradict Objectivism. This is not the case with Kelley, for example, and that's precisely what makes it necessary to be clear about what "Objectivism" is in this context (I'm actually not sure why Sciabarra is on this list; I'm pretty sure he's never tried to claim that he is an Objectivist). Objectivism does not need authoritarianism, but it does need its proponents to be clear about definitions.

Now, the part of that statement that bothers me is the wording of "You do not qualify as an Objectivist if you ... associate with the false advocates of Objectivism..." I assume they mean ideologically associate with them, rather than socially associate with, but still it comes off as, "If you talk to or hang with the Brandens or Kelley, then you can't hang with us." I hardly think that, for example, going to TAS events disqualifies one from being considered an Objectivist.

Edited by Dante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, what he said. As I said in my previous post already, "The label limitations disagreement is not meant to be an argument from intimidation ala 'Accept this position or we'll ostracize you!' but instead a more general statement along the lines of a thing is what it is, nobody can be a bachelor if they're married." This isn't about threats or coercion, it's about clarity of definition. When it comes to really new people, they shouldn't really be calling themselves Objectivists anyway so far, Kellyities or not, because they just don't know nearly enough yet for it to be accurate that they agree with and follow the philosophy as a whole. It's not some shameful thing to be new and learning anyway, so I don't see anybody would think this is some intimidation tactic to be told one is not an Objectivist, or a bachelor, or whatever else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Mod's note: Split from a thread that mentioned theOHomos list. - sn ***

I looked the site over.

What might be an otherwise useful/valuable forum for gays has GOT to lay down the law and refuse access to any who relate to the Brandens and David Kelly. What irony.

The intellectual gays I've known are independent-minded people, which makes a gay Objectivist triply so, by definition.

"You are not an Objectivist if..." "The false advocates of Objectivism".

Excuse me, man, but they can make up their own minds on if they're O'ist or not, and N.Branden and D.Kelly know as much about Objectivism as anyone presently alive.

Heavy-handed BS that contradicts a core tenet of Objectivism - think for yourself.

The rules make it quite clear that it is a forum for homosexual Objectivists, not simply a resource for homosexuals. Anyone who does not have a significant grasp of the philosophy, or, isn't homosexual, can choose to be a lurker if they want to use the list as a resource. Such rules exist to preserve the quality of the list.

I also take exception with your definition of 'independent-minded' and the implication that the rules, as well as the participants, of the list are somehow anti-intellectual or less independent. If you have a problem with the phrases "You are not... if..." or "The false advocates of ... ." then I don't think what you mean by "intellectual" and "independent" mesh with the Objectivist definitions. Notice I took out references to Objectivism in those phrases, and I did it for a reason: anything can take its place (alive, writing, rights respecting) resulting in a basic intellectual, independent judgment. All that I can gather from your use of those concepts is some sort of bohemian, anti-authority 'open-mindedness'.

The rules are not a violation of core tenants; they are an example of them in practice. No one is being asked to follow blindly the conclusions of another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who run lists and forums have a specific purpose in doing so. Groups like OHomos and the other "Olists" are not for newbies who want to discuss basic questions about Objectivism. There are other places for that, and I think the segmentation is useful.

This is an important point. For example, I have thought about joining the OList for palio dieting, but I haven't gotten around to doing it. I am not a supporter of full palio dieting or some of the proponents' conclusions, but I do find a lot of their tips and recipes of great use. However, it would be wrong for me to join that list, it not being a general forum, and start talking or debating about palio, as it would disturb the quality they are trying to achieve. Hence, I will be joining as a lurker. I look at these rules as nothing but quality (and pest) control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also take exception with your definition of 'independent-minded' and the implication that the rules, as well as the participants, of the list are somehow anti-intellectual or less independent. If you have a problem with the phrases "You are not... if..." or "The false advocates of ... ." then I don't think what you mean by "intellectual" and "independent" mesh with the Objectivist definitions. Notice I took out references to Objectivism in those phrases, and I did it for a reason: anything can take its place (alive, writing, rights respecting) resulting in a basic intellectual, independent judgment. All that I can gather from your use of those concepts is some sort of bohemian, anti-authority 'open-mindedness'.

.

Well, this is disturbing. Can it be that one of us does not understand the concept of independence of mind?

If it's me, it goes almost without saying that I take full responsibility.

If we don't agree on that, then we won't agree on individualism, the ego, or volition - nor authoritarianism..

I cannot dispute that I was anti-authoritarian and unorthodox before I came across Ayn Rand. However unfocused it was then, Objectivism helped me give it focus and make it conscious.

Everything within her philosophy encourages reasoning for oneself - even to the extent of being wrong, and making mistakes.

These can and will be corrected.

Authoritarianism interferes with volition: also, it can lead to dogma.

I'd go so far as advising anyone - rather reject Objectivism altogether, than take anyone else's word for its validity and value. (Or who one should, or should not find value in.)

Rand might not have stated it exactly this way, but she always advocated 'self-authority' , I think.

The rest falls into place after that, I found.

("Bohemian" Now, that's amusing!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was being objected to was your implication that if anybody agreed with the statement in the rules about things that would disqualify one from being an Objectivist, then they must be taking it on authority, not having come to agree with it through their own thinking. Also, the implication that one is somehow forbidden from even ever looking into the works of Kelley, the Brandons, etc. by joining there and that one could never just leave if they decide the terms are no longer satisfactory to them/that they no longer fit the requirements based on some recent thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go so far as advising anyone - rather reject Objectivism altogether, than take anyone else's word for its validity and value. (Or who one should, or should not find value in.)

Who said anything about its validity or value in the passage we're discussing? All anyone did was clearly define what does and does not fall under 'Objectivism.' Your whole theme of anti-authoritarianism simply has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about its validity or value in the passage we're discussing? All anyone did was clearly define what does and does not fall under 'Objectivism.' Your whole theme of anti-authoritarianism simply has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Fair 'nuff. Time to drop it. This context may be the wrong one to pick on.

Thanks for your time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, would Aristotle excommunicate a Platonist or would he try to reason with him? Whatever mistake Kelley could make it was an error of knowledge, not a breach of morality. One may disagree with Kelley on one particular issue and with Peikoff on another and with Sciabarra on the third-does it make one a non -Objectivist? I think that the opposite is true- to say " Amen sela" after each and every statement made by Rand, Peikoff, Kelley or Branden would contradict the very essence of Objectivism. Objectivists should encourage robust and solid arguments. Nothing should be sacred, as long as one accept the basic principles of Objectivist philosophy. The truth can only come out due to course of the frank and open discussion. Cannot see how excommunication can help. Besides, in the Age of internet, excommunication is a futile exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, would Aristotle excommunicate a Platonist or would he try to reason with him? Whatever mistake Kelley could make it was an error of knowledge, not a breach of morality. One may disagree with Kelley on one particular issue and with Peikoff on another and with Sciabarra on the third-does it make one a non -Objectivist?

It depends on what the issue is, and what Ayn Rand's philosophical system of Objectivism has to say on the issue. You throw around the term 'excommunicate' like that's what we're talking about, but what we're actually talking about is correctly classifying people into philosophies and systems of belief. It would be improper to refer to a Platonist as an Aristotelian, because they're distinct schools of thought. You're not 'excommunicating' the Platonist, you're correctly classifying him. Otherwise, I guess I've been 'excommunicated' from every single belief system that I disagree with; that's a lot of excommunications, wouldn't you say? If any of those people you named holds a position that contradicts something in Objectivism, then the proper thing to do is to refrain from calling them an Objectivist.

Objectivists should encourage robust and solid arguments. Nothing should be sacred, as long as one accept the basic principles of Objectivist philosophy. The truth can only come out due to course of the frank and open discussion.

We're not talking about the truth, we're talking about Objectivism. Everything that you're saying is true when we're talking about pursuing the truth. However, if you pursue the truth and find yourself at a position which contradicts Objectivism, you don't change what Objectivism is... you just relabel yourself and continue living your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said, "as long as one accepts the basic principles of Objectivism"-meaning that people may disagree and stay within the framework of Objectivism. Not every single question is fully elaborated by Objectivist philosophy, there is a room for the honest argument about many issues. To disqualify some body on the ground of disagreement with this or that leading Objectivist is contrary to the very essence of Objectivism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said, "as long as one accepts the basic principles of Objectivism"-meaning that people may disagree and stay within the framework of Objectivism. Not every single question is fully elaborated by Objectivist philosophy, there is a room for the honest argument about many issues. To disqualify some body on the ground of disagreement with this or that leading Objectivist is contrary to the very essence of Objectivism.

Yes... many issues. Not all issues. That's why my previous post began with, "It depends on what the issue is, and what Ayn Rand's philosophical system of Objectivism has to say on the issue." It's not about disagreeing with 'this or that leading Objectivist,' but about the issue in contention.

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...