jrick

"Capitalism Forever" says that Chris Sciabarra is "positively contributing to turning the world into an Islamic theocracy." Well, in my view, you're a malefic rube. Assertions without argument get us nowhere--and they're dogmatic. (I only used one to show the counterproductiveness of this "method.") By all means, reprobate Chris. But give some evidence.

Stephen says: "When I want to convince or educate, I provide arguments. When I just want to express an evaluation, I provide judgment." Since I don't know you, Stephen, frankly, I don't care about your judgment. I'm interested, as you said in a previous post, in "tick[ing] to the facts." According to Don, I "cannot differentiate between Objectivism and someone (namely, Sciabarra) who co-opts Objectivist conclusions while ignoring its method." Well, actually, I can distinguish between a philosophy and a person; you meant to say that I "cannot differentiate between Objectivis[ts] and someone (namely, Sciabarra)." BTW, you also meant to say that "I wouldn't expect anything" *more,* not "anything less." Stephen says that "anti-Objectivist self-proclaimed 'Objectivists,'" like Chris Sciabarra, "do not want to be judged." This is a pure straw men. I dare you to challenge Chris on, say, why laissez-faire is the only moral and practical system, or why individual rights are the only means to subordinate to moral law. Mark, I agree: moralizing is far different from moral judgment. The former generally pertains to people, the latter to principles. I prefer to spend my time on the latter (although, yes, as you point out, my reference to walls is an instance of moralizing). Mark asks: "Why doesn't Mr. Rick, like the man he defends, "[seek] to build bridges" instead of attacking a whole host of potential allies?" LOL. Why do you think I'm doing this? Do I not see that my demand, Mark asks, "for a 'no-walls' approach is itself a demand for 'ideological purity'?" Again with the hyperbole. I didn't say "no" walls; I merely indicated there were too many. Similarly with the hypberole and straw men: I did not equate Objectivists to mass murderers, but merely noted a commonality.

Stephen: "ome are impervious to intellectual criticism"? From my reading, Rand was. But Chris isn't; see http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/rad/randrevus.html

A further reply to Stephen's remark that Chris, as an academic, uses "jargon and obfuscation." "The fool persuades me with his reasons; the wise man persuades me with my own." --Aristotle.

BlackSabbath: Your reply makes my point nicely. Stephen: Who said anything about "tolerating"? You're putting David Kelley's words into my mouth. Nonetheless, your huge, bold, and categoric assertions require argument, not assertion. Show me the evidence. Again, it goes against the very essence of Objectivism -- of reason -- to expect that people believe you because you say so, period. Don: I read the debate a few weeks ago; Diana's Web site -- www.dianahsieh.com -- is still down. While I appreciate your willingness to engage your opponents openly, I drew the opposite conclusion: any honest reader will come away with a negative evaluation of *you.* But, again, this is assertion, not argument. Regarding Chris's thesis in *Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical,* maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. But even if viciously wrong -- even if it gives unwitting readers a destructive depiction of Objectivism and Ayn Rand -- please, watch your hypberole. Chris's corpus is anything but serious (as Stephen says). In fact -- if you didn't know beforehand that he subscribes to Ayn Rand's philosophy -- I think you'd agree. And the reason, Stephen, that Chris left a previous debate thinking that you both still repected each other, is that he prefers to make friends, not enemies; he seeks to build bridges, not moralize over "sanctions" and "ideological purity." Objectivism will never win if, like Communist nations, it builds walls around itself to keep its practicitoners from entering the outside world.

BlackSabbath alleges vis-a-vis Sciabarra: "I once saw him comment favourably on an article arguing that Hegel's view of liberty was more Aristotelian than Rand's." 1. Do you really expect anybody to believe your allegation without any evidence whatever, e.g., a reference? Objectivism most emphatically holds that each individual must arrive at his own conclusions -- by the judgment of his own mind -- not by the assertions of others. Stephen Speicher says: "Please keep your psychologizing to yourself. You know nothing of the motives of those who have posted on this thread. Stick to the facts. If you can refute a single thing said about Sciabarra then do so with a logical argument in reference to facts, not by casting aspersions about poster's motives." Absolutely! Let's focus on principles, not personalities. "f you can refute a single thing said about Sciabarra['s]" work, please do.

According to Stephen Speicher: 1. Sciabarra "has become a magnet that attracts others with strange approaches, a sort of clearinghouse for those who would distort Objectivism." To paraphrase Rand, A boat that cannot stand rocking, had better be rocked fast and hard. So if Sciabarra is indeed "distorting" Objectivism, I think Objectivism can handle it. Indeed, it as a sign of progress of our penetration into the zeitgeist that Rand, like Marx -- with whom she expressed sympathy on this -- would say today about some of her followers, "But I am not an Objectivist." As Sciabarra says in http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/about/chronicle.htm, That ideas thrive in a free atmosphere of critical dialogue is “one of the essential principles of the Western canon since the days of Socrates” -- perhaps even the most sacred Western value. 2. "By now my default position in regard to any writings emanating from Sciabbara and his entourage is to simply not treat anything they say seriously." So because Sciabarra allgedly distorts Objectivism, absolutely everything he has to say is unserious? 3. "Sciabarra is a full-fledged modern academic, replete with all the jargon and obfuscation that comes with the privilege." Sciabarra is an academic, yes, but he is also, like Rand, a popularizer. Just as Rand wrote Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology *and* The Fountainhead, Sciabarra writes for two audiences. Finally, argive99 references the debate raging at Diana Hesiah's Noodlefood blog. The links aren't working at the moment, but before you dismiss those whom ARI scorns -- or who scorn ARI -- I suggest you read what they have to say. Specifically, before you condemn Arthur Silber on the basis of http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P1880_0_1_0, read his post, "The Self-Appointed Moralizers, and Would-be Executioners, of Objectivism": http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P1824_0_1_0. Above all, please check out Sciabarra's blog -- http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog.htm -- and judge for yourself whether Sciabarra is positively contributing to changing the world.