Leaderboard

This trial was televised. I watched every second of it. I have a better claim than the jury. One, the jury had to remember testimony, they weren't given transcripts, whereas I could watch the testimony repeatedly on YouTube and also pause it to facilitate copious note taking. And two, statistically I'm probably more intelligent than most of those jurors, though I don't put much weight in statistics, so mostly my objective advantage comes from point one.

Related materials, recently acquired: The Unity of the Concept of Matter in Aristotle by Ryan Miller (2018) Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives on Formal Causation edited by Jansen and Sandstad (2021)

Here is an interview with one of the alternate jurors.

I disagree with this: Objectivism is closed and nobody can add to it. Keeping it closed protects it from people who would misrepresent it. It means that if somebody wants to know about Objectivism there is only one place for them to go: Ayn Rand, because she wrote it. This doesn't mean reality is fake or should be ignored or anything like that: I can, and must, still add to my knowledge, and this may include adding to my own philosophical ideas, if appropriate. After all, Objectivism says to base your ideas on reality -- not merely on Objectivism itself, and not on Ayn Rand. If I find it necessary to add to Objectivism, the addition is not part of Objectivism; it's mine. My take is opposite there, too: anyone can say that someone is or is not an Objectivist. But nobody can compel anybody else to agree with such a pronouncement (which might be correct or might not). Perhaps surprisingly, I find that I don't often care whether or not somebody is an Objectivist. I do care if they are a liar, thief, murderer, etc., and it can also matter to me if they are mistaken, if the mistake affects me, regardless of whether the mistake is an honest one. As far as using one's own judgment and judging other people, there is a proper way and an improper way. (This is also true of reason in general.) It's proper to use your judgment to protect your life and all the things that go with it (your friends, your property, etc., and this includes protecting your ideas from misrepresentation), but I don't think it's proper to use judgment as a club to beat others with, or to use it as some sort of public display. I believe in self-defense, and I believe that criminals should have to give back what they have taken (to the extent possible), but I don't believe in "punishment" per se. If somebody makes a mistake, reality will "punish" them enough. Reality can be very unforgiving. Aside from self-defense (if appropriate), I don't have to do anything.

I firmly believe this is because Rand was frequently irrational about personal relationships, and her closest professional associates emulated this. The consequences were significant, not just a matter of personal dispute. Nathaniel Branden made significant contributions but he was essentially thrown to the curb and all his contributions ignored and denied. I'm sure there are many more examples.