Atlas51184

That stuff you quoted is important, but can you derive the Objectivist theory of concepts from axioms? I think not. How about ethics?

Objectivism is not derived from axioms. If that is your understanding of Objectivism, you don't really understand Objectivism. May I suggest Peikoff's course Understanding Objectivism as the antidote to rationalism? It helped me a bunch. I like the word "minarchist." I would much rather refer to myself as a minarchist than as a libertarian. The problem is that I don't hear it used much and there is already a better way to describe Objectivist politics - capitalism.

Question: How come every anarchist that has posted here writes so much at once? Why don't they just post one thing at a time?

So how was it? I assume the answer is "awesome."

Here are some brief answers. If you want to discuss further, take them one at a time, all at once is to much. Also, you said you're not going to be a jerk, thank you. But if you start behaving like a different anarchist who posted here, get the hell out. 1. The issue is one of causality. According to Objectivism, the "billiard ball" view of cause and effect is inadequate. The cause of an event is not an action, but the nature of the entity acted on. Something happens to me, so according to my nature (my free will) I decide what to do. A human's nature is different then a subatomic particle's nature. In addition, "conception of the universe" would be a sketchy way of putting things for an Objectivist, if by conception you mean "beginning." 2. I don't know much about computer technology, so I won't say much, but if you are curious, Harry Binswanger has a lecture you can buy that discusses his view of the mind. In it, he describes himself as a dualist, but not in the Cartesian sense. 3. Yes Objectivism does, but you have to be more specific with this "overwhelming wealth of knowledge." I assume that this supposed knowledge contradicts a blank slate view, can you summarize it? 4. You are confusing omniscience with certainty. 'Certainty' is only coherent when speaking in a context. Objectivism says that when you are certain, you are certain in a specific context, the context being all the knowledge you have at the time. Where are these numbers coming from? How did you determine that there is a 10% probability that you are not certain? 5. I don't understand why everyone makes a big deal of this. Many people advocate laissez-faire and are not Objectivists, and they call themselves libertarians. I don't define my ideology by political beliefs, so when asked about politics, I say I am a capitalist or something like that. Libertarian is a clever word, but too many bad things are associated with it to call myself a libertarian. I used to do that, but then I would have to explain to people what I did and did not mean. It is easier and clearer to say "I am for unrestricted capitalism and individual rights protected by a strong government," than to say, "I am a libertarian"…"no not like Harry Brown"…"no not an anarchist"…"etc." Plus, a lot of people who like calling themselves 'libertarians' hate Rand and Objectivism, so I don't want to lump myself with them, either. 6. I don't remember that line, tell me the page number so I can reread that part. Objectivism favors intellectual property rights, read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand talks about patents there. 7. No, because coexisting governments don't control the same geographic area, that is part of the reason why they are peaceful. There is nothing wrong with a security company, but the problem is when a company sets the laws. Objectivism says there must be one institution that enforces a single set of objective laws. What do two government corporations do if they don't agree on the law or the facts in a specific case? What happens if my govt. thinks I am in the right and your govt. thinks you are? Where do they go to settle their dispute? That is why a security guard doesn't put people in jail, he just hands them over to the government. There has to be a final arbiter, and it is called government. Even two completely rational people could have a disagreement, and so could two companies. 8. An objective govt. would allow private protection. You could buy a gun, hire a security guard or the Sloman Shield, etc. What they can't do is retaliate and punish, they can just protect. 9. An Objectivist who supported the Iraq war would not justify it by means of liberating oppressed people, he would say it was an act of self-defense. Taxes are bad, and Objectivism advocates a no-tax government. However, since we will be taxed anyhow, we want the stolen money to at least be used for good. 10. Unimportant and uninteresting. Either way, they both suck.

Sounds like fun! I, too, am leaving for vacation. I am going to VT for a bigfoot hunt.

Again, DonGalt, what are you talking about? Saying that the government has a legal monopoloy on the use of force does not imply that it is funded by taxes, nor does it imply that they can force you to do anything and still be ok. All it implies is that the government is the only thing alowed to use retalitory force. That implies nothing about funding or how it would work in any specific detail. Next time you post something, why don't you actually read what the other people said. RationalEgoistSG is wrong, DonGalt, you are ridiculous, not just your ideas.

Isn't Somalia the country ruled by warlords that has a massive famine problem?

From what I've read, Branden admitted (in the 1960s) that he did something wrong and then Rand told him to get out and he did. According to Branden's own book, it was he who created the cult of personality, which is why after NBI dissolved she didn't want any "objectivist" institutions. DonGalt says: What are you talking about? Basically, everyone has said, "I don't know much about it," no one denounced him. In addition, that story you told about Rothbard is not true. I read that a) he admitted to making it up, as he admitted that his paper The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult was fictional, and his departure had something to do with Barbara Branden accusing him of plagiarism. Rand was friends with Isabel Paterson for a long time. Paterson was religious and Rand referred to her as a mystic. So why would Rand be friends with a mystic, yet kick out Rothbard for being married to a religious woman? Who here has said that Rand was perfect in every way? Who anywhere has said that? Rand became angered when people said they worship her, and Peikoff has said on many occasions that Rand was imperfect. Show me where anyone has parroted what Peikoff said. Lastly, why would I want to bother seeing what people from TOC have to say about Objectivism when I think that they are horribly wrong in their understanding of it? Either grow up or get out, you are nothing but annoying.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. First DonGalt makes some ignorant comments about Randroids (please provide me with some evidence of any "Rand worship" because I would love to know what you are talking about) and then begins to talk about how Peikoff is some kind of mystic(?). I really want to know if Don has ever read anything Peikoff has written. Even if Peikoff were entirely wrong, he still has made actual arguments to defend his position and his case is certainly not "I'm the heir, obey me." He then goes on to talk about a series of events that didn't happen as if that would make ARI and Peikoff look bad. If you wanted to have a reasoned argument about the issue that would be one thing, but what did you hope to accomplish by showing up and making false accusations? And who is demanding that people give up their friendships if you become an Objectivist? I am an Objectivist and all of my friends are not, on top of that I don't even know anyone who is anything close to an Objectivist. When I applied to the OAC no one asked me to break off relationships with non-Objectivists. Where did you get all of this information? All of the things you are saying happen don't and never did. It is because of pissed-off rationalists who lie and make baseless assertions about Rand and Objectivism that people think Objectivism is a cult. Either start arguing like a civilized human being or get out, no one cares about your nonsense.

Sure you did. Now go away.

In response to the origional question: I think a bunch of people went to the ARI Objectivist Summer Conference in CA. It has a website: http://www.objectivistconferences.com/

I got a letter from ARI asking me to donate money to the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship. Anthem raises money to fund fellowships for the study of Objectivism at universities across the country. The letter goes on to say that the University of Pittsburgh (one of the top five philosophy departments in the country, better than Harvard, Yale, MIT, Columbia, Duke and Cornell, says the letter) would like to establish a fellowship to study Objectivism and wants to appoint Dr. Allan Gotthelf for the job (Gotthelf studied with personally with Ayn Rand and, if you have read Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, he is one of the unnamed professors in the appendix). Gotthelf is also well known for his writting on Aristotle. The ltter says that Anthem needs $145,000 a year (the Fellowship will be for three years and then renewable afterwards). They have already raised half the amount. Give some money help spread the word to donate, this is a big deal. The letter says that if you want to help out email John McCaskey at [email protected] (he is Pres. of Anthem) This seems like one of the biggest deals in recent Objectivist history to me. I think I heard Harry Binswanger say something to the effect 'once there is an Objectivist teaching at an Ivy League school then we know Objectivism will win,' I can't remember exactly. Although Pittsburgh isn't an Ivy League school, it is ranked higher than most of them in philosophy. Plus now when someone says that intellectuals don't take Objectivism seriously you can simply point out that one of the best O'ists teaches at Pitt. Go Objectivism!

I think that you guys may be giving TOC and David Kelley more concern than they deserve. From what I have read, when the split first happened there was a big deal made about it, "A place for homeless Objectivists" they called TOC. That was a little over ten years ago and they have lost all of the momentum of the origional break. Now they have fractured and there is another organization http://www.solohq.com that is against both ARI and TOC. They seem to be focusing around Chris Matthew Sciabarra and his stuff. As for TOC, they are having funding problems, read about that at here and here. According to the man from TOC, they are having problems because of the "economic situation." This is BS becuase ARI and all the ARI supporting organizations are receiving more money than ever. If you want to know what people who are of the TOC mindset, read some old posts from here. Most of those people behave like children (name calling, lying, etc.).

I'll be a first year student also. Why did it take them so long to inform us? Oh well.