Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright

OismForever's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. The very first entry for "Sanction" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon is: "To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it" I believe that is what ARI is doing when it licenses Ayn Rand to appear in a calendar with Che Guevera on the cover. I too would like for Binswanger or Peikoff to weigh in on it. But, I doubt that will happen. As I said earlier...putting her in that calender is literally grouping her with a man that would probably have her killed if he had the chance and is the opposite of her in every way except for his belief in an almighty. If Hitler had been on the cover would it have been approved? It is my conviction based on the totality of what I have read of hers, that she would never have allowed it. Of course I could be wrong. But, its a very educated guess. But, I can see the points of those who would say that her message is not being compromised by her appearance. But, isnt she being somewhat insulted? He is the featured person on the cover. She is just "February". O
  2. That is true. But do you think that in some way grouping them together or allowing her to be in a calender with Chi on the cover is giving sanction to him being honored? O
  3. This was my first letter to them. Hello, Can I ask why ARI would allow Ayn Rand to be featured on a calendar that also features communists? Thanks, **** ***** For the last time. I want to discuss the issue of whether or not it was apprpriate for them to grant permission for her name and picture to be on that calendar. You are free to debate my decorum or approach to complaining. But, you can do so without my further participation. It is a peripheral issue that has nothing really to do with whether or not their decision is right or wrong. I could have phrased things better to him, I admit. And he also could have been less pompous. I am passionate about issues like this. OF
  4. I am not a regular on this board. So I am not familiar with your posts or your reputation. But, you are not making a very good impression on me thus far. You are doing your best to try and fit a square peg into a round hole and define to me what I was saying and thinking as if you know better than I do. Whatever. This threat has completely lost its topic and there is no point in continuing this arguement with you. O
  5. We have to break this down to the very issue of what you found to be "incredibly arrogant" in my letter. And, as best I can tell you took issue with me saying "I can personally guarantee you that not one person alive that knew her would say she would have given permission to have been included on that calendar." I am only referring to what she would have done while she was alive. Because at that point the issue or arguement about her opinion post-death had not come into play. I never argued whether or not it would have been different post mortem. But, I think the issue is splitting hairs. What difference would it make if she was alive or dead? Her ideas were what she was protecting and those will never die. O
  6. I never approached the debate about how Ayn Rand would have felt about her picture being used after her death. But, I honestly cannot see any reason why she would have felt any differently. Your arguement has evolved during this discussion to try to find a point of attack you can be right on. If that is what you want to do then fine. I never intended for this thread to be a debate about who was more rude in their emails me or ARI. I just wanted to explore whether or not others believed it appropriate for her to be in the calender. You have made your arguement as to why you think it is and I have no problem with that. O
  7. You cannot on one hand agree that Ayn Rand would not have allowed herself to be in the calender and then also say that me stating that to ARI was "incredibly arrogant". What you attacked me for was saying I guarantee she would not have allowed it. I stand by that statement and think most informed people would agree with me. But, you make some good points. And I can almost live with that rationale. But, having Guvera, a communist revolutionary on the cover does not sit right with me. Maybe I am too touchy about it. But, I just have a very profound love for her work and her ideas. And, seeing her grouped with someone who probably would have had her killed if he had the power, makes me want to puke. There are other people in the calender who I know Miss Rand would also object to. But, Guvera is in a special league. O
  8. Here is a response she gave once to being asked to allow an excerpt of her work to be printed in the Chicago Sun. "I cannot let my name appear as that of a contributor to the Chicago Sun, because this would amount to an endorsement of its policy and an acceptance of its inexcusable insult to my book. I do not cooperate or collaborate with Collectivism." The last sentence is the key. The bottom line to me is, does anyone really believe Ayn Rand would have given permission to be included in a calender that has Che Guvera on the cover? I do not believe it is "incredibly arrogant" to say she would never allow it. O
  9. Good point. And that is true. But, I do think it is implied, or else the calender makes no sense. Think of the kind of person who would want to have it? Either an Atheist who wants to be reminded that great people were also atheists. Or a theist that wants to be reminded that there were bad people that were atheists. O
  10. I make such a statement because I have spent the last 20 years reading ever published word she has ever written. And, I would be willing to wager that Binswanger, Peikoff any of them would agree that she would not have allowed her picture to be used in that context. It may sound presumptious to you. But, if you are as familiar with her work as I am, you wouldnt have much doubt. Would it be presumptious to say "I can personally guarantee you that Ayn Rand would never have appeared at a communist meeting"? If not, then what is the difference between the two statements? One may seem presumptious to you and the second one obvious. But, to me they are both obvious.
  11. No its a response that says "I do not neccesarily agree with you that I was presumptious" I do not think I was being rude. And of course her letters are not a "complete inventory of her mind" but Ayn Rand was consistent and not prone to contradictions. Instead of debating who was rude or arrogant in the email. What am I really interested in discussing here is the validity of the arguement. Is it appropriate for permission to have been given for Ayn Rand to be on a calender that has Che Guevera on the cover. O
  12. Perhaps. But, I am certain from her repeated and consistent denials to people asking for permission to use her name or material in "Letters to Ayn Rand" that I am on terra firma with regard to her position on such matters. BD
  13. I saw the following auction on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/2008-Atheist-Calendar-...1QQcmdZViewItem It is a calender with Che on the cover, that features prominent atheists and Ayn Rand has her own month. I thought the concept was offensive and emailed the seller, who informed me that she was on the calender with permission from ARI. So, I emailed ARI. Here are my emails and their responses: Dear Mr. ****, Thank you for your email regarding the inclusion of Ayn Rand’s image in the Atheist Calendar, which features a known communist. Richard Ralston, who handles image rights and persmissions at ARI, explains: “for the same reason we would ‘allow’ Ayn Rand to be included in an encyclopedia with communists. If the calendar also ‘features’ a Frenchman, that would not imply that all atheists are French.” Sincerely, ******** Archivist AYN RAND ARCHIVES MY REPLY ****, I assume you are an Objectivist. I know for a fact you are familiar with Ayn Rand’s beliefs and practices. Therefore, let me ask you, do you honestly believe for one second Ms. Rand would have allowed herself to be on that calendar? I can point out several examples in her letters where she refused things much more benign. And yes, they were both atheists. But, by allowing her to be on that calendar it seems to imply they were somehow similar. You and I both know that is not true. Their premises that caused them to be atheists couldn’t be any different. It disappoints me when ARI, the custodian of her legacy starts to stray that far away from Miss Rand’s fundamental convictions. I can personally guarantee you that not one person alive that knew her would say she would have given permission to have been included on that calendar. ********* HIS REPLY Upon what basis would anyone rationally induce that everyone included or pictured in a list of anything is equal or great, unless it is a list or "a calendar of equal and great people"? The Estate of Ayn Rand enthusiastically approved placing Ayn Rand on a U.S. postage stamp in 1999. That did not endorse the idea that all persons on postage stamps were either equal or great. It did not even apply that their should be a government post office. As I recall, you were not available at the time to tell us whether Ayn Rand would have approved the stamp. We have supported entries on Ayn Rand in various general and specialized encyclopedias and books (on women, philosophers, etc.). That does not imply that we thought everything in them was correct or the personalities discussed were equal. I have read all of Ayn Rand's letters in The Letters of Ayn Rand, before they were published, plus many more. I am not unsure about what Ayn Rand thought about the use of her name or image in her lifetime. Ayn Rand did not approve use of her name in organizations or groups (such as "Ayn Rand Institute") during her lifetime, but indicated a completely different attitude about such matters after her death--and communicated that to Dr. Peikoff (note spelling). Based on your reading of her letters, do you know what her opinion would have been about permitting an "Ayn Rand Institute" in her lifetime? Would you therefore like ARI to close down? I know the staff at ARI very well and have worked with them and Dr. Peikoff on this and similar issues for many years. Curiously, I have never heard of you. But you are entitled to your opinion. However, I cannot give more time to debating it. And my final unanswered email: ******, I am dissapointed by your sarcastic tone and lack of willingness to contemplate that you may have made a mistake here. This was a Calender. Each month featuring a different Atheist. The purpose of the calender was to show that great people were atheists. They were all grouped together in that way. A stamp is nothing like that. She was alone on the stamp. No sane person would link her to other people on stamps. Imagine if someone had a calender of "Great Germans" and one of them listed was Adolph Hitler. Do you think the family of Ann Frank would allow her to be on it if asked? To share a stage with him? To Ayn Rand it wouldnt have been much different. Because there was nothing on this earth she hated more than communism. Communism had the same effect on her family and life as Hitlers did on the Frank family. Your analogies about encylcopedias (which don't need your permission) and other publications is just not the same context as this. You are trying to belittle me and minimize my opinion because you "never heard of me". Why don't you judge me on the merits of what I am saying? I am only complaining because I value Ayn Rand's message and work and do not want to see her face next to a scumbag's. ****** Am I wrong about this? I am curious what some of your points of view are on this.. O
  14. The first edition was done in red and in green cloth. They are from the same first printing run though, only differing in the color of binding. Then came the larger one in Red, Green and Blue with the "errors" it is a second edition. Any bookseller who knows their trade has the ability to find out this information. This particular seller goes out of his way to insist that this book is a first edition, first printing. If he did any research at all, he would know that it is false. You are right though, there are a ton of auctions on ebay that also falsely make this claim. I wish there was a way to stop them. I am sure many people have paid way too much for a $10 copy of The Fountainhead. --Oism
  • Create New...