Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/10/10 in all areas

  1. Although dated November 5, 2010, Dr. Peikoff just published a public statement on his website, including regarding the issue of damning McCaskey to hell. http://www.peikoff.c...i-board-member/
    1 point
  2. This is how the constitution has generally been interpreted. An argument that conservative Christians make is that the principle of "separation of Church and state" should be narrowed to "non establishment". One would need to a a constitutional scholar to argue for that "separation of church and state" was the real intent; but, regardless of what was meant, that broader notion is the right one. If we hold separation of church and state to be the right principle, the the law should not point out a specific religion the way this ballot measure does. Properly written, instead of naming Sharia, it ought to have broadly ruled out the use of religious law. One might still decide to support and vote for an imperfect law. Personally -- balancing the likelihood of a threat from Sharia against allowing a law that names a specific religion this way -- I would not have voted for this one.
    1 point
  3. I don't post terribly much and I ought to know better than to post in a topic like this, but if I get flamed for this, so be it. This sort of feuding going on is exactly the sort of reason why Objectivism hasn't been and by all indications won't be widely accepted in academia any time soon. I am seeing entirely too many posts that seem to endorse what Harriman is saying simply because it is Harriman and he is endorsed by Peikoff. All that should be important is the merits of the work itself, regardless of who wrote it or who likes it. If you like The Logical Leap because you think it is a legitimately great book, fantastic. Maybe it is a great book. I haven't read it. What really bothers me is the idea that something coming out of an Objectivist scholar is somehow above or outside criticism. This is exactly the opposite of how academia works. When you put a work out there, you need to expect it to be attacked and contested from every angle (sometimes even unfairly!). You're prepared for it, you're strong enough to take it, and you certainly don't get insulted by it. The essence of academia is thick skin and many folks in ARI circles, most especially Mr. Peikoff, don't seem to have it. I don't have any reason to attribute this trait to Mr. Harriman, not from the evidence I've seen anyhow. Maybe he does have the greatest advance in inductive reasoning ever. I hope he does. If that's the case, his work will stand on its own merits against ALL comers, much as a work like Atlas Shrugged does. I would like to see more serious discussion of Objectivism in academia, and in fact I try to introduce that into my own discourse with students and colleagues as appropriate. My hat is off to scholars like Tara Smith who are wrangling with the academic system and all it entails. In order to do good work, though, you've got to get rid of any shred of argument from authority or experience, and it seems to me Peikoff has taken something personally here, though I have no idea why he should. The best thing to do in this whole debate is take all the names away. Nullius in verba. Forget who said what and focus only on WHAT is said, then check that against reality. In the end, reality is the final arbiter of everything. It is also fruitful to consider what Sophia said above - Objectivism is ONLY the work of Rand herself. No one else, not Peikoff or anybody, is writing more Objectivism. But that's OK. The point is to get at reality here, not to try to piggyback off of the monumental achievements of Rand.
    1 point
  4. If the shoe fits. As a do-gooder who is actually being very foolish, here is a shoe that fits better. From Wikipedia: Useful idiot In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication is that though the person in question naïvely thinks themselves an ally of the Soviets or other ideologies, they are actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used. The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature. "Useful idiot" is often used as a pejorative term for those who are seen to unwittingly support a malign cause through their 'naive' attempts to be a force for good. For example, the term has been used by some commentators to describe people the commentators believe are effectively supporting Islamic terrorism, often by favouring an approach based on appeasement. For example, Anthony Browne wrote in the United Kingdom newspaper, The Times:[4] "Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union — useful idiots. ” A 2010 BBC radio documentary lists among useful idiots of Stalin several prominent British writers including H. G. Wells and Doris Lessing, the Irish writer George Bernard Shaw, and the American journalist Walter Duranty and the singer Paul Robeson.[5]
    0 points
  5. Another update: Following Shea Levy's lead, Rory Hodgson (a former regular on this forum) has also resigned from the OAC program, and encourages other OAC students who are worried about the anti-academic environment of ARI to follow suit, in hopes that they will change their policies. The crux of his concern:
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...