Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AMirvish

Regulars
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AMirvish

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. Generally absent from this discussion has been the issue of children. Historically, whatever the religious coloration given it, marriage was very much concerned with establishing the relationship between two people because of the need to address the legal status of property and children, both of which could be highly interrelated (with respect to inheritances, divorce etc) . Property can be addressed in other ways, through purely contractual issues. The issue of children, however, is important because in disputes involving minors, the parents cannot necessarily be considered impartial and t
  2. My point should not be taken to mean that there are no instances in which your claim is true i.e. value destruction can be obvious in some cases, as your example illustrates. The whole point of Kelley's position is that they are not always so. Agreed. True. The following are the two relevant paragraphs from "Fact and Value" taken from the ARI's website. Bolded items are by me. Whether Peikoff has dark hair would be a fact of reality that has no value significance to any aspect of my (or anyone else's) life, within the context he's referring to in
  3. A sequential process in no less integrated for it being sequential. One can determine truth and then value without considering them to be separate. As a matter of epistemology, the process must take place in sequence. Once one is at the ethical stage, the truth of an item and its relationship to human life having been determined, they would have equal precedence, but only to the extent that the truth of a particular fact was actually of relevance to one's life. Kelley's point was that not all facts have value significance when measured against the requirements of human life, and especially
  4. The value of an idea, if ideas are to guide man's action, depends first on whether it is true or false i.e. corresponds to reality or not. The value judgement that follows depends on this. How can one determine the value of an idea without knowing or establishing first whether it is true? I agree with this statement. Again, I agree. What I disagree with is that the moral evaluation of an idea (as good or bad for us) can precede the determination of its truth or falsehood. Only by establishing the relationship of an idea to the facts of reality is it possible to integrate
  5. That highly productive people can nevertheless consciously hold irrational ideas that they use and apply in significant parts of their life. John Templeton, who died recently, was the founder of the extremely successful Templeton investment fund was an extremely religious man. He was a Rhodes scholar and a generally accomplished individual. But, he made a conscious choice regarding the nature and source of morality, and spent lots of his own money to advance religious thinking (through a foundation that he helped establish). I agree with this in a general sense. As we've been discu
  6. My comments used Kant as an example of how one could infer a different motivation for his writings than the one commonly held in Objectivism. It was not intended as a defense of Kant or his ideas. It is unrelated to anything that Kelley has written on Kant, of which I don't think there is too much. Kelley does not agree with Kant's system. My comments, more generally, reflect my understanding of Kelley's position, based on my reading of TT and Peikoff's FV. I have attempted to represent them as honestly as possible, but if you'd prefer me to paste in lengthy excerpts from TT to suppor
  7. No, I said that some of the positions that Peikoff and Schwartz hold are irrational, by which I mean their views do not logically integrate all of the evidence and related factors within their full context on those particular issues and that they therefore misapply or misuse Objectivist principles in that context. It is your equation of irrationality and immorality that forces you to the conclusion that you say I ought to reach. I am not persuaded that this is correct. I think the basic principles and the relationship of rationality and morality is more complicated than what you've outlined
  8. This is true. The position that I take, and that I think Kelley takes, to repeat it again, is that you cannot judge a man exclusively or comprehensively according to his ideas alone, in all contexts and in all situations. All relevant facts must be considered including the full context (i.e. the reasons why) within which the other person formed those views, to the extent that one can identify them. Kant, however irrational his ideas (and I acknowledge their irrationality) did not tell anyone to go and kill. So, I'd agree with you that there is a difference in kind, not degree, bet
  9. I would express the thought as, "Forming the judgement to the degree possible." After that, one has stopped further judgement of the person/issue in question i.e. one has suspended the process. You are not using the product of stopping, you're using the product formed to that point. It is still a judgement. It may or may not be complete or accurate. If one were designing a car, one would at some point stop (i.e. suspend) the design and begin production of the car based on the work done to that point, if the essential elements were correct. Or, one might suspend the design and discard it.
  10. Spreading/advocating ideas is action. I do not dispute that point. I did not say that Peikoff or Schwartz were immoral nor did I say that Kant was moral. I said that I found their use of a particular analogy to be wrong. I also consider the analogies in question to be unreasonable and thus believe that when people not party to the debates of Objectivism hear an Objectivist make such analogies, they will tune out on that basis. It is by equating They are if you want to persuade them of what you are saying. To the extent that anyone interprets Kelley as calling for "suspending
  11. The ideas that a person holds can provide some evidence for the workings of his mind. That point is not in dispute. Kelley noted specifically in his essay that within the contemporary academic world, there are many people who advocate ideas whose irrationality is so blatant that one has no reason to doubt their intentions. However, he also noted that the manner in which those people present their ideas is often as much of a factor in forming such a judgement as an evaluation of the ideas as being advanced. However, again, he noted that one cannot draw a definitive conclusion merely or only
  12. Thanks for the help!

  13. A person can be held responsible for the fact that he holds certain ideas and for spreading them or proselytizing. This is not the same as saying that he can be judged to be immoral simply (or even primarily) on the basis of the content of those ideas or conclusions without considering in full his reasons for holding them. Moreover, the ideas themselves have no power except to the extent that people act on them and for the reasons that they do choose to act on them. My understanding of Kelley's position is that one cannot simply ascribe a set of outcomes to the fact of someone holding a set
  14. This is a bit of a tangent, but I was curious about the conclusions one would draw from the examples of sexual behavior offered in Rand's fiction. All of the heroines were virgins until they met men whom they loved. For that matter, Galt appears to have been a virgin until he met Dagny. D'Anconia was a virgin until Dagny and appears to have been celibate after breaking with her. None were promiscuous nor did any of them experiment on the basis of "it's pleasurable and you need to learn, so what if he/she isn't perfect?" Granted, the focus of the novels was not the sex lives of the charact
  15. The entry wasn't perfect, but I thought it generally accurate. It identified the main points of the philosophy correctly, with relatively minor editorial comments, and while noting that Branden had been Rand's closest associate for many years also identified his criticisms as criticisms, not as statements from someone claiming to be a spokesman for Objectivism. Certainly, far worse has been written about Rand by the conservative movement.
×
×
  • Create New...