mvkormes

Yes and yes. Again, check out their website for more details: http://objectivist.uchicago.edu

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

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 love of America, his optimism, and his humor are entertaining and, to a degree, thought-provoking. I doubt he's done as much to get AR out there as ARI has, but he has certainly done quite a bit. Had it not been for conservatives like Rush and my father, I would not be an Objectivist today. Does anyone know any liberals who respect and recommend Ayn Rand? While I recognize the (substantial) flaws in my father's philosophy and in Rush Limbaugh's, I do not think they want to destroy the country or turn it into a theocracy. What they want is simple: the continuation of America and the destruction of liberalism (i.e. leftism). Where they, and the rest of the right, fall short is their failure to understand exactly what the continuation of America and the discrediting of the left depends on philosophically. In short, the danger of the right, as I see it at the present time, is not that it will turn America into a theocracy but rather that it will be unable to withstand the left's assault because it is philosophically disarmed. I think its embrace of religion is a sign of weakness and confusion, not of strength and certainty. If Dr. Peikoff is right, and the nihilist left is on the way out historically, it means that the intellectual battle will be between Objectivists and religionists. If it is true that the majority of the American public is basically honest, our victory is inevitable. I think religion is quite simple to defeat, provided one has a rational morality to offer people in its place. We do.

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.

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 platform. It simply means that he prefers the Republican platform and/or candidate over that of the opposition. I generally vote Republican because even though Republicans are usually religious, I am generally less afraid of religionists than of socialists. In *America,* as opposed to Iran, I believe that a theocracy would be very difficult to implement. Advancing socialism has proven to be rather easy--we're already well on the road to it with our welfare state. So, given this state of affairs, I generally vote Republican and thus I voted that way in this poll. What bothered me about AutoJC was his apparent inability to understand that being a Bush supporter does not require one to approve of Bush's whole program or of the religionists in general. To be a Bush supporter, one need merely prefer him to his opponent. As of now, that's my take on things. I must say that plenty of Objectivists disagree, and some do so *very* strongly. [Edit by mvkormes: What Objectivists disagree about, to be precise, is whether one should support Bush. I don't think they'd disagree that one need not approve of Bush's whole program to support him. There is *no* candidate and *no* party that an Objectivist can fully support (without making any qualifications, that is) today, so if an Objectivist chooses to vote at all, it is on the principle of "the lesser of two (or more) evils." And, for those newbies who think the Libertarian Party is nifty, don't get me started on what's wrong with the LP! Read Peter Schwartz's article "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty."] But what AutoJC apparently failed to grasp is that preferring Republicans or Bush as the lesser of two evils does not make one a religious conservative.

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? Because hippie Jesus has no moral guidance (apart from the glories of tolerance and leftist politics) to give people who are desperately searching for it. The gospel of "Jesus loves you no matter what you do" is as repugnant as, if not more repugnant than, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. For a liberal reviewer who seems to agree with me, I suggest the following review by James Berardinelli: http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/s/saved.html You may not believe it, but the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reviews movies and is usually pretty accurate in its characterizations of films, even if it evaluates them wrongly (which it usually does, given that it's a Catholic organization!). They seem to agree with me too. Here's what they had to say: http://www.usccb.org/movies/s/saved.htm For a review by an Objectivist that seems to agree more with Ash than with me, see: http://boxofficemojo.com/review/movies/?id=saved.htm Your mileage may vary. I do agree with one thing the director says in the interview linked above: we do need to think about these issues and discuss them. If others on the forum have seen this movie, I'd love to read what they think.

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 with are those leftists who believe that terrorism is the product of American "imperialism" and that the way to get the terrorists to stop is to lay down our arms, withdraw within our borders, and hold summit meetings discussing the sins we must have committed to make them hate us. I stand by my original statement.

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 opposition to (or, at best, without reference to) American self-interest. I agree that Bush is an altruist. But he is, like most conservatives, a thoroughly confused, inconsistent altruist. He is a pragmatic waffler and a religionist all in one. Occasionally, he shows a spine in defense of a legitimate value (tax cuts, war without UN approval)--that is what the left hates about him. If we were in peace time, I might (like Don) vote for Kerry on the same basis that many Objectivists voted for Clinton in '92 and '96--it would energize GOP opposition and gridlock the government. In peace time, that's a great voting strategy if you're a supporter of genuine liberty. When we're at war, and one candidate's position is tantamount to surrender, if the other even shows a hint of strength, I'm afraid I'll be forced to either vote for him or abstain. I don't think I can bring myself to cast a vote that will--if Kerry wins--be interpreted as an endorsement of surrender. Perhaps Kerry will give me reason to change my mind. But if he does, he risks alienating his insane anti-American leftie base (which thinks that Bush is Hitler) and pushing them into Nader's arms. So I don't expect him to promise anything other than "reestablishing America's good reputation with the rest of the world"--that means surrendering to the French and the UN.

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 attacking either: http://savethehumans.com/instantgrat/theli...sex/index.shtml And, in essence, though I would not have formulated it the way he does, I agree with the author's defense against some students of Objectivism who saw this as an attack on rational values: http://savethehumans.com/donkeysteak/civil...00nov/OSG.shtml Furthermore, I take "The Simpsons" very seriously...as a sitcom! I would argue that it is among the best sitcoms ever, particularly if you are putting its best episodes up against those of other shows' best episodes. (As a whole, the series does have quite a few weak episodes.) The "Ayn Rand School for Tots" episode (title: "A Streetcar Named Marge") is pretty darn good in my opinion. I don't see it as an attack on Objectivism at all--I think it's good free publicity for AR. Plus, it's very funny--the "Ayn Rand School for Tots" scenes are a hilarious parody of "The Great Escape." (N.B.: "The Great Escape" is one of my favorite movies and I don't see these scenes as an attack on it either.)

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 ignorant people towards the moral relativism pumped out by Hollywood, academia, and the press. While I have no sympathy for the evangelicals' philosophy or for their attempt to influence the realm of politics, I share their revulsion for the message of this movie. The message is: militant tolerationism...except towards the intolerant, who are intolerable and deserve to be mocked. I'm sure the TOC partisans love this movie. I do not mean to suggest that Ash is a TOC partisan. Let me suggest another movie that had a superficially similar theme: "Chocolat." I *love* "Chocolat." The difference between that film and "Saved!" is that "Saved!" sneers at moral judgment while "Chocolat" is an attack on *improper* moral judgment. It's a subtle, but huge, difference in my book. It shows that not "all of these kinds of movies," in Ash's words, are opposed to objective morality. And it makes "Chocolat" a wonderful film and "Saved!" mediocre at best, saved (pun intended!) from being termed awful only by a few funny digs at the religionists.

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...

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 Zell Miller, are socialist anti-Americans. Just look at Clinton, whose power-lust was so great that he preferred to govern as a moderate Republican (HB's description) rather than do what was in his heart of hearts (e.g. socialize medicine). I simply do not trust Kerry to follow in Clinton's footsteps: the lefties are hopping mad at anyone (e.g. Lieberman) who doesn't hate America with the passion they do and they are the ones to whom Kerry is beholden. (Additionally, while Clinton was President, we weren't at war with--or, at least, we hadn't declared war on--the Islamists. As Clinton said in his youth, he loathes the military. That hasn't changed, and our gutted defense budget is a significant part of the explanation for the explosion of the deficit in the past few years.) The only thing Democrats are good for these days is preventing a real medievalist like Bork from getting onto the Supreme Court. But I've considered the possibility of religionists taking over the court and have concluded that the *worst* possible scenario is that the SC will overturn Roe and...the issue will return to the states. Plenty of the "red" (i.e. Republican) states will no doubt *attempt* to ban the procedure. But this is the *worst* case scenario as I see it. There is a chance that Roe will *not* be overturned. But even if it is, there is a chance that *no states* will ban first-trimester abortions. But even if some do, it is a certainty that many won't. The *worst* thing the Republicans can potentially do is discredit capitalism. But the odds of that are minimal, I think. Both parties are (for now) merely arguing over the size and scope of the welfare state. Until that changes, I don't see the GOP discrediting freedom. And at such time as the party begins to actually argue for the abolition of the welfare state, it will be due to Objectivist influence. By then, we will be well on the way to the ultimate Objectivist victory, and voting for the GOP (or whichever party represents the pro-capitalist position at that time) will be a no-brainer. Again, I want it to be clear: I am far more anti-Kerry than I am pro-Bush. That said, I can imagine us doing far worse than Bush (e.g. Nixon, Bush 41). Why were these men worse? They were more pragmatists than religionists. And as I've tried to point out on HBL, religion *as practiced in America* is not the unabashed, unapologetic evil that is the religion of the Left: death-worship. (This is best symbolized by the Left's environmentalism.) Here's an interesting article on the subject of religion and politics from a conservative: http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_sho...l?article=37956 Again, *consistent* advocacy of religion requires force and would lead us back to the Dark Ages. But, to their shame and credit, many Americans seem to agree with Emerson that "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (It is to their credit since, were they to follow their explicit ethic of altruism to its logical conclusion, America would have been destroyed by now. It is to their shame since they are apparently unable to think very clearly once the principles involved become too abstract. In short, they won't accept consistent altruism or consistent egoism for the same reason. Fortunately, their sense of life is basically egoistic. But a sense of life is no substitute for philosophic conviction, as the past 200 years of decline attest.)

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 been telling me about the great "conservative thinker" Ayn Rand and the mystery of "Who is John Galt?" since I was rather young, I decided to read "The Fountainhead." Ironically, my conservative father and my socialist teachers pointed me to the person (AR, of course) who would help me to understand the deficiencies of my conservatism and cement my opposition to socialism! Of course, AR's *entire* philosophy has had a tremendous impact on my life--it's just quite amusing in retrospect that I was introduced to her the way I was. Oh, and as to Quaker socialism-pacificism: it's scary. They're hard-core lefties with (as far as I can tell) only a passing interest in communing with the supernatural. Before 9/11, I considered donating a few dollars to the school as a token of thanks for a pretty good education. But given their awful response to 9/11 and an apparently accelerating interest in promoting "social justice" and "peace," they will *never* get another dime from me.

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.” Then at last his pent-up resentment at this self-made serfdom erupts — and he becomes an angry subjectivist, denouncing the “excessive anger” of those who make moral judgments. The swing from intrinsicism to subjectivism, however, is not a significant change; these philosophies are merely two forms in which the notion of “non-objective value” rules a man’s brain. (/quote) (Fact and Value) I don't think that the tolerationists in *this* discussion were ever dogmatists, though I have no way of knowing for sure. I think they were and are subjectivists who found parts of Ayn Rand's philosophy appealing and others revolting. Such is their right--it's a free country. What really irks me is their apparently unlimited need to smear Objectivists for having the temerity to take ideas seriously. Why can't such "tolerant" people mind their own business and stop engaging in the moralizing that they claim others are guilty of?

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/archives/archive_2004_05...html#1083621205 for details. As to the substantive point, Don addressed all the various anti- and pseudo-Objectivist attacks in an appropriate and admirable manner. The only sense in which my evaluation of his performance there is negative is that, after awhile, I think he was wasting his time by engaging his opponents. Fortunately, just as I came to that conclusion, he quit the discussion. I find it mind-boggling that any honest person would reach exactly the opposite conclusion, namely that Don's great virtue was his willingness to engage with dishonest opponents and that his great vice was what he said when he did engage. Mr. Rick also says: 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." (end quote) Where to begin? Why is it so hard for some people to grasp the difference between passing moral judgment--a moral obligation for anyone who takes his ideas and values seriously--and "moralizing?" Why is it, I wonder, that Mr. Rick and so many others are apparently unable to distinguish between the Objectivist and the intrinsicist approaches to moral judgment? I think Stephen is right when he says: "They do not want to be judged." But in saying that, I suppose I'll be called a "moralizer." Oh well...I think I'm justified in passing judgment when I see Mr. Rick say: Objectivism will never win if, like Communist nations, it builds walls around itself to keep its practicitoners from entering the outside world. (end quote) Comparing the behavior of Objectivists to that of Communist dictators--that's not "moralizing"? Why doesn't Mr. Rick, like the man he defends, "[seek] to build bridges" instead of attacking a whole host of potential allies? Does he not see that his demand for a "no-walls" approach is itself a demand for "ideological purity"? I am tired of the militant tolerationists--the crusaders for peace, love, and understanding--who can't find it in their oh-so-big hearts to tolerate those of us who take ideas seriously and compare us to mass murderers for the "sin" of practicing what we preach. Since this is my first post in this forum, I will close with a polite suggestion to Mr. Rick, instead of a "moralistic" demand for "ideological purity" of the kind he so despises: check your premises.