Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mvkormes

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  1. Yes and yes. Again, check out their website for more details: http://objectivist.uchicago.edu
  2. Indeed. In addition to the events held by the Chicago Objectivist Society--approximately 2-3 per year--the University of Chicago Objectivist Club, which I founded in 1998, meets frequently during the school year. See their website at: http://objectivist.uchicago.edu
  3. As I wrote in a post on another thread, my conservative father turned me on to Ayn Rand. Of course, he hadn't read her in a while and seemed to think she was a conservative too. Many conservatives like Ayn Rand, even though they don't really understand her at the deepest levels. This is how one can explain Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher's contention that his two favorite books are The Bible and Atlas Shrugged. It also explains... Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was one of the people who got me interested in ideas, albeit primarily political (and, to a lesser extent, ethical) ideas. His
  4. I believe it was Harry Binswanger on HBL who called Bush an M1.5, not Leonard Peikoff. Dr. Peikoff believes, I'm pretty sure, that Bush is an M2. I am inclined to agree with Dr. Binswanger, assuming that he still believes Bush to be an M1.5.
  5. This is a great example of the fallacy of undistributed middle. See: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/undismid.html for a description of the fallacy. Let me use an argument of the same form but with different content to show why this is ridiculous. Major Premise: Objectivists support capitalism. Minor Premise: A conservative supports capitalism. Conclusion: A conservative is an Objectivist. That an Objectivist chooses to vote Republican in a given election (or in general) does not make him a conservative, nor does it even mean that he agrees with the whole of the Republican platfo
  6. Ash says: I don't mind that it didn't offer the Objectivist ethics as an alternative (though that would be nice!) And yes, the explicit blather about tolerance came at the end of the movie. But I do not believe that the ending was "not well-integrated into the whole." Read this interview with the director: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/17721...html?source=rss The man is both a leftist/liberal and a Christian, i.e. a fan of the hippies' Jesus. I think this movie will actually *assist* the disturbing (and real) rise of religious fundamentalism in this country. Why? B
  7. In response to my claim that "these people are anti-American socialists," Spearmint says: I was not referring to all opponents of the war--only to the leftists. I was responding to MisterSwig's charge that: I was pointing out that *those* people have no concern for America's best interests and/or are actively hostile to them. Spearmint also says: I'm not arguing that it is improper to think that the Iraq war is a strategic and/or moral blunder--I myself am very sympathetic to the idea that we should have taken out the Iranian regime first. But what I have a big problem
  8. MisterSwig says: Remember that these people are anti-American socialists. They *want* us to lose the war. They are not disturbed by the deaths because the deaths are needless and self-sacrificial. They are disturbed by the deaths because they are *not self-sacrificial enough.* To them, what we're doing in Iraq is unbridled, unrestrained, arrogant self-assertion--and they *hate* that. They want Americans cringing in fear, defeated, terrified, and eager to be "protected" by big government. To the extent that they will grudgingly fund a military, the left will only use it in opposit
  9. mvkormes


    Nimble says: I disagree (in a sense) on both counts. "Laughing at ourselves" is a very dubious way to put it. It's okay to laugh at one's foibles or at silly things one may have done--it is a way of trivializing them, of sapping their power, of denying them metaphysical significance. But it is very wrong to laugh at one's virtues. The constant injunction against "taking ourselves too seriously" is often camouflage for an attack on virtues and on values as such. That said, the following is a humorous list that combines two genuine values, namely Objectivism and sex, without att
  10. I enjoyed the film to some extent. There were definitely some pretty funny moments. And yes, religious nuts are worthy of mocking. However... This message is what I really can't stand. In the battle between the evangelicals' Jesus and the hippies' Jesus, "Saved!" is firmly on the hippies' side. Its message is that Jesus was a magnificent teacher who wanted us to be tolerant of everyone...except people who insist on passing moral judgment! The rise of evangelical religion in this country is due in large measure to the righteous indignation felt by (mostly) philosophically ignora
  11. Actually, this has annoyed me too. It comes up even if one uses the "View New Posts" option. I think I know why: these threads are polls. So any time anyone adds his/her vote to the poll, it registers as a new "action." I don't know if anything can be done about it without completely reprogramming the software that runs the site, but perhaps GreedyCapitalist will let us know...
  12. I agree, Stephen. In fact, this sounds quite similar to a point I made on HBL fairly recently... I sympathize, to some extent, with those who want to abstain from voting. But I think those arguing for voting for Kerry (in order to get Bush out) are just wrong about the Democrats. The Democrat party has absolutely *zero* positive value anymore. One could make a case that Truman loved his country. Maybe one could make a case for Kennedy too. But ever since '72 and McGovern, the "old left" is dead. All that's left in that party, with the possible exceptions of Joseph Lieberman and Ze
  13. I was born and raised in Philadelphia and attended a Quaker school called the William Penn Charter School. It is the oldest Quaker school in the world. See more here: http://www.penncharter.com/Content/aboutpc/aboutpc.asp Back when I was 17, I looked through the school's summer reading requirements. That year, they gave us a rather lengthy list of books and had us choose three. In addition to "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "A Prayer for Owen Meany," the two other books I read for school that summer, a book called "The Fountainhead" was also on the list. Since my father had be
  14. That is precisely what tolerationists refuse to do. "Judgmentalism" seems unpleasant and dogmatic to them, while "tolerance" seems pleasant and sensible. Dr. Peikoff was right when he said: (quote) Such people literally have no concept of “objectivity” in regard to values. Their accusations, therefore, are expressions of their own actual philosophy and inner state. The typical (though not invariable) pattern in this kind of case is that the accuser started out in Objectivism as a dogmatist, cursing or praising people blindly, in obedience, as he thought, to his new-found “authorities.” T
  15. Mr. Rick (jrick) says: 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.* (end quote) I can get into her site just fine--try again now. I will say that sometimes strange things happen in the world of the www. For some odd reason, the Volokh Conspiracy, a blog I read regularly, was inaccessible to SBC/Yahoo! users for a few weeks recently. See: http://volokh.com/ar
  • Create New...