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

Diana Hsieh on ARI vs. TOC

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On March 26th at www.dianahsieh.com/blog, Diana Hsieh compared Op-Eds

from ARI and toc on the subjects of Valentine day, Christmas, The Passion,

and "Under God" in the Pledge.

"Garmong's analysis is clear, engaging, and true--i.e. all that the TOC Op-Ed is

not."

"All in all, the sharp contrasts between the quality, clarity, insight, and the

objectivity of the articles produced by ARI and those of TOC ought to be

deeply troubling to any serious advocate of Objectivism who also suports

TOC. Since the moral is the practical, a bit of premise-checking seems to be

in order."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I emailed Diana congratulating her on her leaving the TOC and asked her why she had not become a full supporter of ARI. Her problem lies in the idea that A can be A and B(edit: her error is that A can be not A). She thinks that more can be added to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism.(Edit: Note, she did not say this, this is merely my interpretation of what she said) I emailed her back telling her that Objectivism is Ayn Rand’s philosophy and only that and that nothing could be added to what Ayn Rand put in her philosophy unless Ayn did it herself, which of course is now impossible. I said that any other theories or ideas that come about, that lie directly in sync with Objectivism would also be just that, ideas that lie in sync with Objectivism and that Objectivist agree with and could never be a part of Objectivism itself.

Its amazing how people can study Ayn Rand’s works for many years, in her case 10+, and still think that they can put words in someone else’s mouth.

I haven’t receive an email in response to this, but I’ll let you know what happens if a response comes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are wolves in a sheep's clothing (albeit a rather transparent one, for anyone who understands Objectivism).

Am I right in thinking that the TOC or at least Nathaniel Branden were opposed to the ARI's campaign against volunteerism when Bill Clinton was president?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really have to read her commentary on TOC vs. ARI.

In my opinion, ARI seems to be the livelier of the two sites.

Topping both those sites, in my opinion, is www.capitalism.org.

If you like Robert Garmong you'll find his articles and commentaries here as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really have to read her commentary on TOC vs. ARI.

In my opinion, ARI seems to be the livelier of the two sites.

Topping both those sites, in my opinion, is www.capitalism.org.

If you like Robert Garmong you'll find his articles and commentaries here as well.

The Capitalism.org site is loosely linked with the ARI as is the Capitalism Magazine site.

I've got a tape from Second Renaissance books which is by Robert Garmong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Capitalism.org site is loosely linked with the ARI as is the Capitalism Magazine site.

I've got a tape from Second Renaissance books which is by Robert Garmong.

Hello

Someone really needs to explain the waring fractions to me. First I find out there's ARI, then I find out there's TOC, then out of nowhere I find out there's SOLO. Before I read the letters that "explained" the schisms, I thought they were all in tuned with each other. I've met people from all three organizations though. And the funny thing, they all some what differ in personality.

The ARI's are usually very serious and out of nowhere goes John Galt at me where they give me a philosophy lesson. :angry:

The TOC's are usually not very serious. If ARI was the fundementalist Christians, the TOC's would be your liberal Christians. Though I'm most in tune with ARI when it comes to personality, I enjoy discussions with the TOC's more then ARI because it's a discussion and not a philosophy lesson. :P

I've only met people from SOLO on the internet for they seem only to be internet based.

They all have beef with each other, but they all seem personal if you ask me with my current knowledge of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's SOLO?

As for the TOC, I agree with what was written on the Blog.

I read a few of their articles a few years ago and they just all appear to have this watered down quality about them. None of their articles were as good as those written by the ARI writers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's SOLO?

As for the TOC, I agree with what was written on the Blog.

I read a few of their articles a few years ago and they just all appear to have this watered down quality about them. None of their articles were as good as those written by the  ARI writers.

Sense of Life Objectivists

http://www.solohq.com/

ARI articles are good but I still think TOC have a wider viarity then ARI. Maybe I really need to search through ARI more.

BTW, SOLO is an organization loosely tied to http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/

and

http://www.freeradical.co.nz/

All very informative. I suggest you look into them.

Now from the top of my head, SOLO broke from TOC like TOC broke away from ARI. Apparently SOLO says that TOC is just to damn tolerant. If ARI was dad and TOC was mom, SOLO would be daddy's little girl.

I like SOLO's approach a lot more when it comes to articles. After reading the article, you can just click and enter a discussion with the readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sense of life objectivists.

They think ARI is wrong about O'ism being a closed system...and they think

David Kelley is wrong about it being an open system.

They support preemption in the terror war... and America

is starting wars all over the place.

They have no problems with homosexuals in O'ism... and think homosexuals are

trying to take over O'ism.

They think TOC is too intellectual.

"It [TOC] was aimed at expanding the theory of Objectivism and wasn't primarily an agent of cultural change. It still uses dry, logical style of a think tank. Although this style is effective at communicating logical arguments and explanations, it does little to inspire or impress."

They seem to like "activism." Read mindless action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sense of life objectivists.

They think ARI is wrong about O'ism being a closed system...and they think

David Kelley is wrong about it being an open system.

They support preemption in the terror war... and America

is starting wars all over the place.

They have no problems with homosexuals in O'ism... and think homosexuals are

trying to take over O'ism.

They think TOC is too intellectual. 

"It [TOC] was aimed at expanding the theory of Objectivism and wasn't primarily an agent of cultural change. It still uses dry, logical style of a think tank. Although this style is effective at communicating logical arguments and explanations, it does little to inspire or impress."

They seem to like "activism." Read mindless action.

Hello WGD

I don't know if they've ever gone far as to say they didn't like TOC because they believed TOC was wrong in believing Objectivism wasn't a closed system.

As for the homosexual one, they have the famous Chris Sciabarra, I don't know how such a stance is possible.

I'll look more into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But nevertheless, even if they adhere to such contradictions, I enjoy many of their articles and discussions which leaves room for the authors and readers to converse. It also leaves room to bring up disagreements. But what I like the most about SOLO is that sometimes the authors will disagree with each other and discuss openly for all eyes to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

solo founder Lindsay Perigo says David Kelley is wrong about O'ism being a

closed system. Joe Rowland runs solo and thinks David is right.

Perigo and Sciabarra are Homosexuals but then there is Reginald Firehammer, who wrote and sells a book called "Hijacking of a Philosophy." Its about a cabal of homosexual seeking to take over O'ism.[non fiction]

Sciabarra disagrees with the book, but encourages people to read it.

Perigo supports preemption in the terror war but Sciabarra thinks preemption is the opposite of what Ayn Rand supported.

But Reginald Firehammer agrees with Sciabarra that Perigo's view of preemption

is total non-O'ist.

Then there is...G. Stolyarov the II.

He's worth the price of admission all by himself.

He has his own spelling of words. Example: philosophy is filosofy and

photographic is fotografic. He must also get paid per word, but not to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
solo founder Lindsay Perigo says David Kelley is wrong about O'ism being a

closed system. Joe Rowland runs solo and thinks David is right.

Perigo and Sciabarra are Homosexuals but then there is Reginald Firehammer, who wrote and sells a book called "Hijacking of a Philosophy." Its about a cabal of homosexual seeking to take over O'ism.[non fiction]

Sciabarra disagrees with the book, but encourages people to read it.

Perigo supports preemption in the terror war but Sciabarra thinks preemption is the opposite of what Ayn Rand supported.

But Reginald Firehammer agrees with Sciabarra that Perigo's view of preemption

is total non-O'ist.

Then there is...G. Stolyarov the II.

He's worth the price of admission all by himself.

He has his own spelling of words. Example: philosophy is filosofy and

photographic is fotografic. He must also get paid per word, but not to make sense.

lol. Seems Chris is the only sane one. But really, I ignore the crazys. If there's anything of value, I'll acknowledge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<Snip>

As for the homosexual one, they have the famous Chris Sciabarra, I don't know how such a stance is possible.

I'll look more into it.

Oh my god!

Chris Sciabarra. That's the biggest reason I stopped reading anything from the TOC. He is awful and talks the most byzantine drivel.

He once reviewed favourably an article (which wasn't linked and I never got to read) that said Georg Hegel's view of liberty was more Aristotelian than Ayn Rand!

And as for 'Feminist interpretations of Ayn Rand', give me a bucket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire discussion is based on the absurd notion that the merit of each institution's depends on how nicely written (and various) its articles are.

The important issue is not the quality of the articles but the quality of the ideas.

Incidentally, we have a number of discussions explaining why the ideas supported by the Ayn Rand Institute are superior to those of TOC and SOLO...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my god!

Chris Sciabarra. That's the biggest reason I stopped reading anything from the TOC. He is awful and talks the most byzantine drivel.

He once reviewed favourably an article (which wasn't linked and I never got to read) that said Georg Hegel's view of liberty was more Aristotelian than Ayn Rand!

And as for 'Feminist interpretations of Ayn Rand', give me a bucket.

The TOC has Sciabarra's writings?

Anyway, I find a lot of his writings to be quite enlightening. There's somethings I disagree with certain authors, but I stop stop reading them. For example, I found out that some authors of Capmag.com has articles posted on Worldnetdaily.com, a conservative YET highly fundementalist Christian website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The TOC has Sciabarra's writings?

Anyway, I find a lot of his writings to be quite enlightening. There's somethings I disagree with certain authors, but I stop stop reading them. For example, I found out that some authors of Capmag.com has articles posted on Worldnetdaily.com, a conservative YET highly fundementalist Christian website.

Well not quite, but there used to be a magazine on-line called the Daily Objectivist which Sciabarra wrote for along with 'Objectivists' of the TOC.

They were awful so I stopped reading them.

Capmag does have caveats at the bottom of each article and I have noticed that some of it's columnists aren't objectivists.

Some of their writers are better than others. Capmag presumably allows them because of the political views expressed in particular articles as long as they do not explicitly recommend Christianity.

ANd I agree with Richard Halley about the ARI Vs TOC. The ARI articels are far more confident in nature and not watered down by tolerationism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for telling me. My heart sank when I saw the same authors on WorldNet daily.

I believe it's fine to examine other ideas when their sound. For example, Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard provide writings on Capitalism that are simply stupendous. Yet they bend when it comes to their Kantian metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. After reading a lot of their stuff, it was heart breaking to find that Mises appealed to Kant. OR also remember that Rand kept N. Branden's writing in her books such as "Virtues of Selfishness" even when they were having problems beforehand.

As for the Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand Chris was merely in editor. I don't think he contributed anything more then sorting the collection of writings. It was a Feminist's perspective, do you expect anything less? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that anyone claiming to be an Objectivist would take any part in feminist writing--especially with regard to Objectivism--is utterly disgusting. Furthermore, the title "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand" implies that Rand is open to interpretation...

She is not... she presented a complete philosophic system which may not be "interpreted" into being compatible with whatever other ideas one wants to hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see any reason not to hear what those on the other side of the fence has to say or another person's opinion. Yes, even if they may hold on to some irrational ideas.

Tolerance? Maybe. Acceptance? I don't think so.

I just don't believe preaching to the choir is the best way to go about things. I believe we need discussion, debates, arguments, and examination. And I can somewhat understand how you feel Richard, but using the same logic, I don't know how Capmag could be justified using writings from intellectuals of the Religious Right. It's as if they were endorsing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand is that it includes chapters which totally misrepresent Objectivism. I've talked to Chris about this, and he knows full well that this is the case... he thinks it's justified as a means of getting Objectivism discussed in academia.

One of the responsibilities of an editor is to be a fact-checker. If the volume included essays by people who disagreed with Rand, fine -- but rather, a number of the essays are really nothing more than attacks on straw men. I, too, would like to see Rand taken seriously in academia... but not that way.

(Incidentally, this is also a problem for Rasmussen & Den Uyl's "Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand", though that one isn't quite as bad. And from what I recall of Rasmussen and Den Uyl's own papers, I suspect that they simply don't understand Objectivism well enough to be able to notice the mistakes made by some of the other contributers. Unfortunately, I know this isn't true of Sciabarra.)

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.

×