redfarmer

Well, why do you love porn? What rational reason do you have to say you love it? First of all, his name is Peikoff. Second, I would challenge you to provide the quote you are referring to, as the way you are quoting it is out of context with other comments he has made on the subject, most notably in his lecture, Love, Sex, and Romance. It depends on what you're using the porn for. I'm not a psychologist but I'm sure that there are many instances in which it could be said a man or woman is using porn as an excuse to evade the issue of their self-esteem. However, if you would like the full story of how Leonard Peikoff feels about self-esteem, I would recommend the lecture I provided the link for above.

I've had a problem with this view ever since I was introduced to Ayn Rand's writings. For one thing, cult is an anti-concept. It's so loosely defined that you could call virutally anything you don't like a cult. When I was a Christian, a book I read on the subject said that one of the qualifications for a cult is they have a central book of dogma other than the Bible. Someone must have realized that Christianity could be labeled as a cult if they didn't add the qualifier, "other than the Bible." Second, the entire cult argument is a straw man to keep you from debating the real issues: Ayn Rand's philosophy. All of the ad hominem attacks on Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff are sickening and basically amount to, "They [Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley] have a right to associate with whoever they want but Rand and Peikoff don't." I called someone out on this who was insisting that the Nathaniel Branden incident proved that Rand was a cult by asking her why Branden had a right to associate with whoever he wanted but Ayn Rand didn't. I never got a response. Third, the entire cult arguement is perposterous to begin with. Anyone who blindly followed every word Ayn Rand said is a second hander anyway and could not properly be called an Objectivist. Assuming Ayn Rand was the mean, spiteful person people claim she was (I don't know for sure as I haven't been able to research her life too much yet--I've been too busy studying her philosophy), it has nothing to do with her philosophy. Once again, people are attacking the person rather than the philosophy. I have more respect for the few objections I've seen to her actual philosophy on the Internet than the dozens of ad hominem attacks against her and her colleagues I have seen. At least the people who had objections to her philosophy were honestly attempting to think, even if they came to the wrong conclusion. The same people who call NBI and ARI a cult often cite TOC as God's gift to Objectivism. These people show their true colors in this matter as they completely ignore the perversions that David Kelley has made to Ayn Rand's philosophy. Truly sickening. These are the types of people I've been dealing with who have been telling me I'm talking down to them. I guess when I go into that much detail about them, I don't feel bad about their accusations at all.

You can already do this. There is a button at the bottom of each post which says, "Report." By pressing this button, you can report a post you feel has violated the forum rules and your report is sent to the moderators.

I really have nothing new to add other than to add to the general sadness being felt over the loss of Stephen. Over the past ten months I've been associated with OO, I learned quickly that Stephen's and Betsy's posts were always good. I always looked forward to reading their replies when they responded to one of my posts. To think that Stephen may be gone is still incomprehensible for me. I know, though, that justice will be served.

This is incorrect usage as the word "one" indicates singluar usage. However, the words "soldiers'" and "lives" indicate plural usage. You could correct this simply by saying "without sacrificing our soldiers' lives." This usage is technically correct. However, it does not sound natural and thus does not sound as good as simply saying, "without sacrificing our soldiers' lives." When writing, a rule of thumb is to make the sentence sound as natural as possible. When it sounds natural, it also sounds clear. If you're interested in a good grammar and writing book, I would highly recommend Writing and Thinking by Norman Foerster and J.M. Steadman, Jr. This book really goes beyond what most modern textbooks offer by actually explaining the logic behind the rules of grammar. It's actually the English translation of my last name.

It would depend on whether you intend the thought to be singular or plural. If you intend the thought to be singular, it would read "soldier's life." If you intend the thought to be plural, it would read, "soldiers' lives." Notice how, in the plural tense, the apostrophe is placed after the "s" which makes the word plural. Also, your sentence would read better if it were phrased like this: "The soldiers' lives should not be sacrificed for the sake of any Iraqis' lives." Using the phrase "I don't think" often leads to clarity issues as it is taken as a given that you think that thought since you wrote it. One of the best things I was ever taught by an English teacher was not to use the phrases, "I think" or "I don't think" in writing.

Before we try and "fix" anything, shouldn't we allow the psychologists and the biologists to determine whether it actually is a mental illness or not? This is not even a proper question for philosophy.

Probably, for one thing, kids aren't taught how to think in school. I will speak from the point of view of a person who has believed every conspiracy theory. In my teens, I gave credence to everything I heard. I didn't have a rational psycho-epistemology to tell me when something was crazy and I shouldn't believe it. Since I was never taught the difference between the true and the arbitrary, I was pulled along by every theory under the sun. It's probably the same reason I was attracted to Christianity initially. When I deconverted from Christianity, I found I had the opposite view: I believed nothing could be known for certain. The problem with most atheists is they do not have a rational philosophy of their own. As such, I drifted along until I discovered Atlas Shrugged.

Since you just read that section of OPAR, I will not discuss the nature of force, as I'm sure it's still fresh in your mind. When dealing with force, you need to assess the force and the reprecussions for complying with the force and then decide on an individual basis what action to take. For example, if a man broke into your house, pointed a gun at you, and asked you, "Where's your wife? I'm going to kill her!" you probably wouldn't tell him where your wife was (if you valued her life that is). On the other hand, you're exposed to force everyday. Everytime the government takes income taxes out of your check, you are being forced to give taxes to the government. However, most people comply with income tax laws because the penalty is worse than if you complied with the law (in most cases). So, to summarize, you must ask yourself three things about force when analyzing it: 1. What is the nature of the force? 2. What will happen if I comply with the force? 3. What will happen if I don't comply with the force? To answer your question about joining an immoral government institution, you would really have to be able to present a strong case for me to believe it would be moral in any situation. The obvious example is Alan Greenspan (there's another thread on him, of course). Ayn Rand said many times that it was moral to hold a government job as long as it was one which could be properly preformed by a private company in a free society (for example, the post office). However, it is immoral to hold a government job which could not be properly preformed under any situation (for example, the FCC, FTA, FDA, etc). So, to summarize this point, it is pragmatic at best to believe that any good can come out of joining evil.

This is the second thread that I've followed where I've seen you make unfounded generalizations against the Objectivists on this forum. On the first thread, the tsunami thread, I had to practically drag it out of you why you were making such gerneralizations. As it is, your posts sound as if they're emotional outbursts with no basis in reason. Please, make sure you can support your emotional reactions with reason if you're gonig to express them. So far, you've made no intellectual addition to the thread.

You have to figure, though, the vast majority of "members" have only been here once and never came back or don't come on here anymore. I'd say 53 is probably an accurate representation of the regulars on the board.

That particular quote is from a question period following Lecture 11 of Leonard Peikoff's series, "The Philosophy of Objectivism" in 1976 and is reprinted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. If you're interested in reading more of what Ayn Rand thought about humor, though, she also discusses humor to some extent in The Romantic Manifesto and The Art of Fiction. Keep in mind, however, that Ayn Rand's thoughts on humor are a very controversial subject right now as has been demonstrated by another post on the board in recent days.

I never understood completely what Ayn Rand meant about bad jungle music until last night, when I was at a coffee shop having an open mic and a group of people came in with various forms of drums and a flute. They started making the worst hypnotic African tribal music. I had to leave the coffee shop when that started. The worst part, the majority of the people there thought these people were really good. I saw the musical version of minimalist art and it was ugly.

First, I want to thank everybody for their excellent responses to my post. I guess I should have stated first and foremmost the context of what I was referring to. I recently posted on a local forum asking if there were any fans of Ayn Rand's books in my area. I was shocked when people started attacking her outright with illogical fallacies and blatent misrepresentation. Most of the usual straw man arguements were used: ARI is a cult for dissociating with Kelley, the Brandens, Ayn Rand controlled and manipulated people, etc. One person even gave me a link to the most ridiculous ex-Obectivist's web site I had ever seen. I was not able to take this person seriously after they used a quote of George Carlin's to support the notion that you shouldn't trust a philosophy which has a name. So, feeling I didn't want anyone who wasn't familiar with Ayn Rand to believe the nonsense these people were spewing, I responded to the accusations. Then, in the next thread, the person accused me of talking down to them, which I vehemently denied, especially in light of the fact that I held my tounge when they told me all Objectivists have an adolescent mentalitiy. Now for individual responses: Thank you for the clarifications, Burgess. I did not respond to you last night because I wanted time for the full depth of what you said to sink in. You have given me a lot to think about in my dealings with non- (or anti- ) Objectivists. You were right on the money, too. Thank you for the suggestions. However, I do feel like my arguements (if that's what you want to call them since I was mostly just asking for proof to their claims) were solid and that they had a preconceived notion that Ayn Rand and ARI are cults. Thank you for your suggestions as well. I will be more careful to not give my evaluation before I examine their ideas. That is a habit I need to watch out for. Thank you for telling me the cold honest truth, Free Capitalist. Yes, the possiblity that the accusations are true has been in the back of my mind. I come from a fundamentalist Christian background and will admit that I may have some bad habits stemming from my time with them. With them, it's defend the faith and convert the non-believer, two things I need to learn not to do so much now.

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I agree with you on that. Too many times during this thread have people brought ought straw men to avoid the real issue: governemnt spending of our tax dollars. This is why I said I'm amazed this thread has continued for five pages so far. Government taxation is such a clear cut issue there should be no need for discussion.

OK, I guess my confusion in your posts stems from your use of the word "deserve." What do you mean when you say that they are debating whether these people deserve the money?

First, please define the statements which would lead you to such a conclusion. Second, what do those statements have to do with the issue at hand, whether governments should give aid to the tsunami victims? I have a great appreciation for life. However, I have a greater appreciation for my own life. Being that I will be struggling within the next few months to pay my way through college, I feel my money should be better spent on other things, namely me. As I have previously said and will reiterate, individuals and corporations have every right in the world to donate relief money for the tsunami victims. I wouldn't dream of standing in their way. It's their money. It's their money to do with as they please. However, the government took the money they are sending to the tsunami victims by force through the income tax. Therefore, the government's action is immoral. That is the issue at hand. I'm surprised it's gone on this long. I do welcome you to the forum, though. If you have anything to add or you see where I have been unclear in my wording in any way, please do let me know.

I've been noticing a phenomena when I "debate" (if that's what you want to call it, since they mostly only accuse Ayn Rand and the ARI of being a cult) non-Objectivists. I will frequently get a response from them that I am "talking down" to them. This has confused me, as the statements I present are always rational and adhere to logic and reason. My question is: has anyone else noticed this phenomena when debating non-Objectivists? What are the motives behind this statement? Personally, I'm inclined to believe it's only a straw man they're using to evade the issue at hand when they feel emotionally wounded. Also, before someone says it, I know it's not all non-Objectivists which do this. I've frequently encountered non-Objectivists who were almost rational in their thought process and did not invoke the "talking down" line.

This is not the proper thread to discuss the war in Iraq as this is a complex and controversial subject which has been discussed to death in other threads. I started a thread in May of last year on the subject here. Keep in mind when reading my comments that I was brand new to Objectivism and had not integrated the philosophy nearly as much as I have now. To summarize my beliefs on the subject now, though: we don't have concrete evidence that Bush was aware that the information on WMDs and al-Qaeda he had was incorrect. To try and analyze his motives for the war would be psychologizing. As I'm not his psychologist, I will not attempt to analyze his motives. Because the United States has a bad track record with countries it has tried to "help." If you would like examples, take a look at Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, pre-war Iraq, and Iran, only to name a few. The mistake in all of these cases was that the United States attempted to change the country without changing their underlying philosophy. Then why are you trying to rationalize it? The only thing which will change these countries is a change in their fundamental philosophy.

If that's what he's referring to, he needs to say it. As it is, he's only said he is for the "relief effort." All of this ignores the fact that the United States (and every other country for that matter) is not responsible for any other countries' welfare. Only an altruistic attitude would make one believe otherwise. Only when there is a clear stake for the United States should we intervene. Anything else is the same mentality as the Vietnam War. And, I state this emphatically, helping the third world countries is not a "way out." First of all, democracy should NOT be a desired state. To quote Leonard Peikoff: The only way for countries to find a way forward is to embrace Capitalism, the force which has shaped our country and many other countries around the world great. For examples, look at Japan and Hong Kong, two Asian countries which were considered "third world" before World War II. After World War II, both embraced Capitalism and now are among two of the most developed areas of Asia. Yet, other countries have not shown such progress. Why because they do not embrace Capitalism. Do you really believe that the countries receiving debt cancellation will suddenly not be third world any more simply because of this? They are not going to change their ways just because they are offered debt cancellation, nor is this the most likely reason it is being offered to them in the first place. The reason debt relief is being offered to them is out of a sense of altruism. Please, if you wish to donate to these people, do it and get it over with. Please don't come on here, though, and try to rationalize away the way my tax dollars are being spent. I have already been forced to "donate" to these people. I do not feel an obligation to give them anymore money. (edited for spelling and clarity)

jedymaster, OK, that makes sense when you explain it. I wasn't accusing you of being hostile. It was just frustrating when you posted a simple, "I don't agree" without a qualifier. Now that you explain it that way, I agree totally but I don't think your previous post completely communicated all of those ideas. I can see, though, where I wasn't completely clear, too. I concede to your explanation.

Your post doesn't make any sense. You're trying to say you support the relief effort while at the same time trying to distance yourself from what the relief effort is. While many corporations and individuals are donating to the relief effort (I would venture to say most of them are doing so on false premises), the vast majority of the relief effort is being provided by tax dollars. Without the United States's and other countries' support, the relief effort wouldn't even get off the ground.

This sounds almost like you're using the old Balkanization arguement (if you're not familiar with what I'm talking about, I suggest you read the essay "Global Balkanization" from The Voice of Reason). What if you substituted the word Objectivist for another group of people? "If only one male were saved, it garners my full support." It sounds rediculous in this context. How does it sound any more plausible when talking about an Objectivist? You're setting up a straw man. If you know of an Objectivist (or anyone else you value for that matter) who was caught in the tsunami disaster and YOU want to help that person, that is your perogative. You have the right to spend your money on whatever you want. However, the United States does not have the right to spend money that was not given to it by the people willingly to begin with. It's hard to take this statement seriously at all. By your reasoning, if Osama bin Laden or Sadaam Hussein were caught in the tsunami and were benefited by the relief effort, it would be moral because of their "potentential" as a member of the human race. Please put away your altruism and look at the real issue: the fact that the United States is using money it stole from its own citizens without their consent for this relief effort. I certainly wasn't asked if the money which is taken out of my paycheck every week could be sent to a third world country to help someone I've never heard of. I would have said no, I need that money to go to college!

If that's not what you're trying to say, then why don't you explain it? There's obviously at least two people who didn't understand it...

What is "trance" music? Can you provide a defenition and some examples? Of course, the real question is more, "What is my aesthetic evaluation of trance music?" rather than "What is Ayn Rand's?"