Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kgvl

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    Karen Jensen
  • School or University
    University of Florida
  1. OK ... I parsed out 12 questions from your post: some of them I addressed in my last post, but I will repeat those remarks aligned with the questions ... some with a bit more explanation. Here are the first 5 and the last 2 questions from your post, with answers --- leaving me questions 6-10 to answer in a future post [tomorrow]. Q1: I take it by that very long post, your answer to my question is that you still DO believe AR was being 'pragmatic' - or as you now call it - 'practical' (though you use the new term to mean exactly the same thing you meant by the old one). In other words,
  2. On Pragmatism: A ‘pure’ Objectivist would do as Galt did --- leave this society and build a new one. I believe most of us agree that the majority of Objectivists are not going to do that. So, by staying, we already are practicing a certain amount of ‘pragmatism’. Further references to pragmatism by Rand indicate she still viewed it in the negative, deriving directly from Kantian principles. So, in being practical … or pragmatic … in order to exist in our current society and still live rationally, we can 1) choose to withdraw and interact with ‘outsiders’ only to the extent necessary to s
  3. RadCap – When using force against another sanctioning force, I am NOT sanctioning evil --- I am defending against unjust force --- justly. If, by using force myself in defense against someone else using force, a third party is injured … I would not be responsible if I were not reckless in the use of my defensive force. If, however, I am reckless, or if I transit from defensive force to aggressive force, thereby acting as a law enforcement agent … and assuming I have no such authorization to act as such … then if I injure some innocent party, or perhaps even injure the aggressor beyond th
  4. RadCap ... I got home tonight and found the Voice of Reason on my doorstep ... I read Schwartz's essay on the Perversion of Liberty. I was glad to see he was far less 'emotionally agitated' while writing it than the one on Moral Sanctions --- it adds tremendously to his credibility. I'm not ready to fully comment on it at this point ... I just want to recommend that when someone starts talking about this 'libertarian' subject in the future, quickly point them to this essay by Schwartz --- it is a very good article, and I'm impressed by his analysis. It couples exactly with the view of li
  5. The confusing part of Rand’s position centers on two issues: one rather straightforward, the other apparently more complex. Definitions from www.Dictionary.com Pragmatism: 1. Dictionary.com -- Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical. 2. Philosophy. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences. 3. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations
  6. RadCap... thanks for your reply. Believe me, i don't support any expansion of gov't. I was curious about what appeared on the surface to be 'pragmatism' on the part of Rand ... I do understand how she was using a system already in place in an effort to work against it. ... as I read more and more about the libertarianians out there .. I am beginning to think that my 'problem' lies in the fact that I haven't really met many 'libertarians' outside of my own community [which is rural about 30 miles from GVL] ... and those are generally very hardworking intelligent individuals seeking freedo
  7. OK ... sorry to have suckered ya'll into that one ... I didn't attribute the lines I used to their author. The above lines are, word-for-word, from Ayn Rand. Reference Chapter 16, Fairness Doctrine for Education, from Philosophy: Who Needs It ? Rand argues in this essay in favor of extending the Fairness Doctrine of broadcasting to education. Does this mean she wasn't an Objectivist that day ?? ... was it an anomaly ?? Peikoff was certainly aware of the essay --- he is the one who determined the content of Philosophy: Who Needs It ?? as it was published after her death. She acknowledges
  8. RadCap ... kgvl: k for Karen; gvl for Gainesville [Florida] GCS ... sorry if I offend you. I must reason through arguments myself, and not accept the word of you or anyone else just based on your say-so. If the purpose of this forum is not to discuss freely, but to indoctrinate, then perhaps I am in the worng place. Wouldn't you rather 'guide' me to the correct rational conclusions [assuming you know them yourself] and have me as an ally ? Face it ... what you're doing in here is not writing philosophy ... not creating anything new --- you're trying to communicate something that has a
  9. Thanks for a good discussion on this issue. It is difficult to get Objectivists to move from the theoretical realm into real-world politics: “Those who can, do !! --- those who can’t, teach !!” It’s scary to actually expose oneself to risk, esp. the risk of failure. Regarding libertarian philosophy … I always go to the basics to understand something, so my research has taken me back to the 1950’s when the libertarian movement essentially began in this country. More relevant is how it developed in the 60’s and 70’s … esp. noticing the fractures that occurred among the various ‘libertarians
  10. I disagree with GCS's views ... and the 'disaffected nuts' statement is inappropriate. My dilemma: should I vote in the November Presidential elections this fall or not ?? … if I do vote, for whom should I vote ?? A pure Objectivist would leave this culture and go live in Galt’s Gulch. How many pure Objectivists are out there ? I suppose if they have already left, we don’t know of them. John Galt didn’t stick around and play the practical pragmatist. He would not give his moral sanction to anyone or any group that stood in opposition to Objectivism, in any way shape or form. That lea
  • Create New...