Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jonathan13

Regulars
  • Posts

    1143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from volco in Does Rand's Aesthetics Differ from Soviet "Art"?   
    In the January 13, 1962 issue of the Saturday Evening Post (on whose cover The Connoisseur appeared) Rockwell was quoted by the editors as having said, "If I were young now I might paint that way myself. Recently I attended some classes in modern art techniques. I learned a lot and loved it."

    J
  2. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from softwareNerd in Does Rand's Aesthetics Differ from Soviet "Art"?   
    I think that SoftwareNerd is correct that most other posters disagree with my views of Rand's aesthetics, and, since this is an Objectivist site full of Objectivists, I think that's alarming. I think it reveals how little most Objectivists know about Rand's actual views on aesthetics, how willing they are to misrepresent Objectivism, and how hard they cling to mistaken views when clearly shown to be wrong.

    Here's an example of softwareNerd disagreeing with my presentation of Rand's views. Read it and the next few posts that follow it, then read the The Romantic Manifesto and the various entries on art and aesthetics at the online Ayn Rand Lexicon, and decide for yourself which of us is accurately presenting Rand's views.

    J
  3. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from mdegges in The horror genre: it's aesthetic value   
    If people are looking for a fix of heroism, they might consider trying to be more sensitive to the psychological subtleties of artworks that they like but are worried about liking, such as those in the horror genre, and they might try to reflect a little deeper on their own psychological responses to it, preferably without the pressure, guilt and eagerness for self-condemnation that Objectivists often seem to bring to such self-reflections. A good place to start would be to work on recognizing the fact that the absense of a heroic character does not mean that the art lacks heroism, or that it is nihilism, anti-man, etc. Such art comes from the tradition of inspiring in the reader or viewer the will to resist and to adhere to his highest principles. In effect, it is design to make the reader or viewer the hero.

    J
  4. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from DonAthos in walling people into their own property   
    Let's take Puzzle Peddler's original scenario a bit further:

    A man named Karl owns a piece of property, and I have purchased all of the property around his. When he purchased his property, he neglected to contractually arrange for access to and from it. I don't want him on my property, and I don't want to sell him any of it.

    He calls up Judge Grames and Judge SoftwareNerd, who grant him access to my property against my will. And they even charge me and fine me for "imprisoning" him. They give him an easement which runs from his land across mine to my neighbor Bob's land (in this hypothetical, the world is Objectivist, and all property is therefore privately owned -- there are no public roads).

    Bob declares that he also doesn't want Karl on his property, so Judges Grames and SoftwareNerd charge him with "imprisonment" as well, fine him, and grant Karl an easement through his property to the nearest privately owned highway, which is owned by Tom.

    By this time, Tom has heard of Karl's unjust legal actions against me and Bob, and he announces that he also doesn't want Karl on his property. So Karl once again calls Judges Grames and SoftwareNerd, and they charge Tom with the "imprisonment" of Karl, fine him, grant Karl an easement through Tom's property, and instruct Tom that he does not have the right to refuse to allow Karl to drive on Tom's privately-owned highway.

    Is that the way that some of you imagine the Objectivist concept of private property works?

    J
  5. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Spiral Architect in Why Objectivism is culturally backward.   
    I don't think that it's an issue based in people being white and/or male. I know of many women and non-whites who place more importance on economic freedom in today's world than on the abortion issue. The reason they place more importance on it is because government intrusion into economics is having a real and serious effect on their lives, where abortion is not. Basically, most people will never need to have the option of having an abortion, and the legality of abortion isn't currently threatened. Even if Romney had won, abortion would have remained legal. So those who vote for economic freedom over abortion freedom are simply voting against the real loss of their economic freedoms rather than against the potential but highly unlikely loss of your abortion freedoms.



    I disagree. I think that your condemnation of others -- because they vote (or abstaining from voting) for the purpose of choosing to fight against the real government intrusions which affect them most, rather than choosing to fight against the merely potential and unlikely intrusions which affect you the most -- is what is morally corrupt. Your expectation that they surrender their interest in their freedoms in the name of yours is what is morally "monstrous."

    J
  6. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from DonAthos in walling people into their own property   
    By that reasoning, any solution to the problem justifies itself. For example, another solution to the problem would be for the government to confiscate a thin strip of property from the owner of the surrounding land and give it to the owner of the surrounded land. Yet another solution would be for one party to kill the other party and seize his land. Grames' "justification" would apply to both: "What justifies the concepts of confiscation or the killing of one of the parties involved is the problem it solves." And both solutions would be as lacking in Objectivist philosophical justification as the solution of the owner of the surrounding property being forced to grant an easement to the owner of the surrounded property.

    In effect, Grames has offered nothing but a pragmatic solution in which the ends justify the means, but he has not offered an Objectivist philosophical justification. Basically: One party needs another's property to access his own, and he has the power of the initiatory force of government behind him, therefore his need and willingness to initiate force takes precedence over the other owner's property rights.

    I think a more rational approach to the issue would be to ask what type of punishment or restitution for trespassing is justified according to Objectivism. If I cross your property without your permission, and you take me to court for doing so, what is a just punishment? Probably a fine? If so, then the cost of my accessing my surrounded property is the amount of the fine.

    J
  7. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from CapitalistSwine in Peikoff on date rape   
    That's an odd request. Isn't it pro-Objectivist to think in principles and to make philosophical connections? Peikoff's position is that sexual consent cannot be revoked once it has been merely implied -- that there is something about the nature of sexual activity that apparently makes it unstoppable once it is initiated. It is not "pure speculation," nor is it anything like suggesting that Peikoff believes that aliens are forcing people to have sex, for me to address the issue of how volition must tie into the belief system of someone who thinks that there is a point during any consensual activity in which it is "too late" to not consent or to no longer consent.

    J
  8. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Peikoff on date rape   
    Btw, I think that Rand would be appalled at Peikoff's statement, and that she'd go much farther than I have in questioning and challenging the implications and flawed premises that one must hold in order to make such a statement, and she'd be rightfully enraged at the suggestion that anyone should keep speculation to a minimum because Peikoff has earned some leeway or authority or respect or whatever. I think her view would be that Peikoff should know better, and is therefore deserving of less slack than others, and that he should be condemned for tarnishing the image of Objectivism by speaking as its representative.

    J
  9. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Peikoff on date rape   
    That's an odd request. Isn't it pro-Objectivist to think in principles and to make philosophical connections? Peikoff's position is that sexual consent cannot be revoked once it has been merely implied -- that there is something about the nature of sexual activity that apparently makes it unstoppable once it is initiated. It is not "pure speculation," nor is it anything like suggesting that Peikoff believes that aliens are forcing people to have sex, for me to address the issue of how volition must tie into the belief system of someone who thinks that there is a point during any consensual activity in which it is "too late" to not consent or to no longer consent.

    J
  10. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Craig24 in Ayn Rand on Forbidding Sexual Displays in Public Places   
    The problem is that once you allow people's "offensiveness" to be the standard by which others' rights to use their own property is limited, then you have no argument against those who claim to be "offended" by things which don't offend you. You thus open the door to the banning or limiting of all forms of public expression.





    How large of an area or population is a "local community"? And by what objective criteria? Why couldn't a state or nation declare itself a "community" and impose the majority's will about what is or is not "offensive"? It's perfectly acceptable to you for, say, 100 people to tell a person what he can or cannot display on his property, but you think it's unacceptable for the entire nation to vote on what he can or can't do with his property? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.




    So, then I take it that you would have no problem with "communities" limiting Rand's novels to being sold in "adults only" sections, and requiring that they include warnings on their covers about their sexual and/or violent content? And I take it that you would have no problem with "communities" establishing governing boards who decide, say, which architectural styles and colors private citizens will be allowed to use, and which they will not, since architectural styles and colors of buildings are often as controversial and "offensive" to the majorities in certain "communities" as public displays of nudity?




    I would think that your notion of "political freedom" would mean that people are "free" when legally restricted to discussing their views in private, and never in places that are "open to the public" lest someone be "offended" by views that they (or the majority of their "community") find "loathsome." Is that what "freedom" means to you?


    J
  11. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from ropoctl2 in Ideas for increasing participation in ObjectivismOnline   
    No, I mentioned that many people have had the same experiences here as I have.




    Do you seriously not understand that I am offering something constructive?




    That's exactly what I'm doing: I'm suggesting a way to improve the site.





    No, it's not a separate topic just because you weren't expecting it, or because you don't want to hear that improving moderators' behavior would be a good way to improve the site. The initial post on this thread asks for suggestions on how to attract more people. OO has rightfully earned a reputation of having moderators who impede discussions either with their personal biases or their inability to grasp the obvious relevance of a post (just as you appear to be having difficulty grasping the relevance of my points on this current thread -- it's almost as if you're trying to illustrate my point). Getting rid of the reputation of having intrusive and/or intellectually challenged moderators would attract more people, and that would result in better conversations, which in turn would attract more people.

    Heh. Why is that almost every post that I write which does not contain exactly what the moderators expected to hear is deemed by them to be "off topic" or a "separate topic"? Man, it is so annoying having to walk moderators through the simplest of points.

    J
  12. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Ideas for increasing participation in ObjectivismOnline   
    I've had many private discussions with people who have posted here, but were driven away by the heavy and arbitrary hand of the moderators. They sometimes ask me why I still put up with it.

    You'd think that it would be obvious to Objectivists that stifling free expression drives people away, especially people who are attracted to Objectivism because they have an independent streak.

    My suggestion would be to have the moderators lighten up, allow more freedom, differences of opinion and actual discussions rather than shutting them down or interfering with them because the moderators either feel personally insulted (because someone has dared to be as direct or blunt with them as they are with others) or because the moderators don't grasp the arguments being made by those of us who are critical of aspects of Objectivism.

    I don't know how many times I've had my posts meddled with, or have received warnings or threats from moderators because they've had incredible difficulty in grasping the very simple and obvious relevance of the content of my posts. And that's merely on the subject of aesthetics, which they see as relatively unimportant. I can't imagine the level at which they're probably impeding freedom of discussion when it comes to the other branches of philosophy which they think are much more important. Well, actually I can begin to imagine it since I've read, in private conversations, some of the absurd and highly emotionalist "reasoning" that they've used when banning or limiting others. They've driven away some very intelligent people.

    The more that moderators' actions suggest to members that independent thinking is not welcomed here, the fewer people you're going to attract, and the less intelligent the participation will be.

    J
  13. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    Thanks for the link. You posted some great comments on that thread, 2046.

    What I find interesting is how sweet and tolerant certain Objectivists are in response to Peikoff's advocacy of the initiation of force and the violation of individual rights. I've seen these same Objectivists going into frantic hysteria and publicly judging other Objectivists as "false friends of Objectivism," "enemies of Objectivism" and such over much less. They seem to relish making such judgments, so it's odd to see them desiring to be calm, cool and non-judgmental over this issue.

    Apparently someone is deserving of absolute rage and moral condemnation for proposing something like the idea that Objectivism is an "open system," but we should be oh so respectful, tolerant, polite and understanding when Peikoff and others make collectivistic judgments of millions of people based on the actions of a few, and advocate initiating force against them and violating their property rights? Let's all calm down and be tolerant and nice to Dr. Peikoff and not judge too harshly or quickly when he massively deviates from Objectivism, but on the other hand, let's scream bloody murder when someone else has some minor little disagreement with our views of Objectivism?

    It seems as if the attitude is that Peikoff (and Objectivists close to him who share his views) should be given lots and lots of slack for advocating views that would earn non-ARI-affiliated people accusations that they are monsters. It seems as if the attitude is that Peikoff is generally on "our side" and therefore we should walk on eggshells when he proposes violating people's rights.

    I have the opposite view: Peikoff and company should know better. As people who claim to represent Objectivism and to defend liberty and individual rights, their advocacy of rights violations should not be deserving of less outrage than someone who has committed the crime of, say, associating with the Brandens or buying into the idea that Objectivism is an open system.

    J
  14. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    Yeah, I guess that I don't understand. So, are you saying that even when these people disagree with Peikoff on an issue as significant as initiation of force and property rights, they somehow convince themselves that the disagreement isn't important, or that the opposite positions that they and Peikoff have taken are somehow only tentative and therefore not actually conflicting positions, or that they and Peikoff can come to opposite conclusions, but that it's okay as long as both they and Peikoff claim to be basing their positions on Objectivist reasoning?!?!

    Do you think they've actually convinced themselves that Peikoff might somehow be right even when they know that reason supports the opposite conclusion? After all, they do appear to be very eager to overlook the absurdity of his position, and instead to fawn over him and behave as if his rationalizations are deep and brilliant analysis that they need to ponder further. Are they really so mesmerized by their view of Peikoff as The Objectivist Authority Figure that they're this easily talked into doubting their own use of reason, and into treating absolute absurdity as if its deserving of serious consideration?

    Scary.

    J
  15. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    I think that when Obama and other democrats/socialists tell us that the poor and hungry are facing what Peikoff calls "metaphysical deprivation" in which their "metaphysical survival is at stake," and they offer evidence of such people dying, and therefore assert, like Peikoff, that "all property rights are out," and that the poor and hungry "have no obligation to respect property rights," we should borrow the Hsiehs' approach to dealing with the Peikoffs, apply it to Obama and the democrats/socialists, and obsequiously thank them for raising good points that we had not thought of before, and for giving us the kind of argument that we needed!

    We might also sweetly mention that we still lean toward our original opposition to their views, but that, jeepers, we now have a much better grasp of the merits of their position, and we just adore that they've taken a principled approach to the issue, raised excellent points and given us much important food for thought, and that we highly recommend that others read their comments and join them in advancing the discussion in a positive direction! Yippy!

    We should all just get along, be nice to each other, and take time to smell the pretty flowers! Group hug, everyone!

    J
  16. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    I gave it a special name so as to distinguish Peikoff's views from Objectivism. My purpose was to stress that the theory is Peikovian rather than Objectivist, and not to take issue with contextuality of property rights per se.

    J
  17. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    No, Objectivism is not at war with America, nor is Islam, Catholicism, Kantianism or any other philosophy or religion.




    Atlas Shrugged played a part in inspiring McVeigh. He cited AS in his writings. And, as I mentioned earlier, prominent Objectivists have claimed that Howard Roark's destruction of others' property was "morally legitimate" and "logical." That could be seen as proof of advocacy of initiation of force, or, at the very least, of the advocacy of massively disproportionate, unjust and extralegal retaliatory force (vigilantism). Anyone wishing to use Peikoff's methods against Objectivists, and use the force of government to deny their property rights, could cite such facts.

    Do you have any proof that any Islamic literature or building near ground zero in NYC has inspired, or will inspire, anyone to kill Americans or destroy their property, or that it will inspire anyone to initiate force in any way?




    I'm sure that if the issue were to become a public controversy, we could very easily find victims' family members who would claim that the displaying and selling of Rand's novels in OKC constitutes a propaganda victory for violent anti-government types like McVeigh. But I thought the issue was our metaphysical survival, and not a mere "propaganda victory." Are you saying that you think that Objectivism supports the idea of denying others' property rights if we feel that their use of their property constitutes a propaganda victory against us?




    It gave a morale boost to McVeigh, so I don't see why it wouldn't do the same for other potentially violent people. But I really don't see the relevance of the "morale boost" argument. It is not a crime to give a moral boost to anyone. The only relevant issue is whether anyone poses an imminent threat to what Peikoff calls our "metaphysical survival." Certain rap lyrics and even opera librettos could be seen as giving a "morale boost" to those who would perpetrate violence, but I don't want to distort Objectivism so as to deny property rights to rappers and opera companies.




    I'm defending Objectivism against people who are distorting it for the purpose of advocating violating others' property rights.




    I don't think that it was right for Dagny to kill the guard. She easily could have bound and gagged him. But my judgment of the scene is not a moral criticism of Rand, but an aesthetic criticism -- I think the scene comes across to me (and to many others) in a way that Rand hadn't intended.




    I think the train wreck scene is a little too cold for my tastes. It's often interpreted as a punishment fantasy, and is exactly the type of thing that would be used against Objectivists to deny their property rights using Peikoff's methods.




    I think there are some minor problems with the plot of Atlas Shrugged here and there, some of which involve people behaving in unrealistic ways in order to serve the plot. Frisco's not telling Dagny -- the love of his life -- everything about the friends he met at school is one such problem, as is his not doing everything possible to include her in the stopping of the world. Again, that's an aesthetic criticism, and not a moral one.




    I have no problem with Galt withdrawing from society and luring others into doing the same. Withdrawing is not initiating force. It makes sense.




    No, I don't think that the idea of people withdrawing from society is evil. I only think that the initiation of force is evil, and the disproportionate/unnecessary use of retaliatory force, and I'm disturbed by the psychology of anyone who would feel less than they'd feel about killing an animal when killing someone who is unknowingly a pawn in a larger conflict.




    Yes, and I agree with the Objectivist view of property rights, which is why I oppose Peikoff's views on the issue.

    J
  18. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    No, I'm not accusing anyone of being dogmatic, or of dogmatically following Peikoff. I thought that would have been clear from the fact that my criticisms have been aimed at certain people who disagree with Peikoff on the mosque issue. They are not displaying dogmatic conformity to him and his ideas, but obsequiousness in their dissent, and inconsistency and massive disproportionality in their judgments of Peikoff compared to others: they've very publicly denounced others as "enemies of Objectivism" and "false friends of Objectivism," etc., for having comparatively minor disagreements, yet here Peifoff is advocating violating the first 'Objectivist Commandment'-- Thou shall not initiate physical force -- as well as the second -- The right to life is the right to property -- and they're thanking him and praising him for his half-baked rationalizations.

    Also, I'm not accusing Peikoff of being dogmatic in regard to this issue. I think he's been dogmatic at times in the past. The McCaskey ordeal comes to mind ("I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is"), as well as his intimidation tactics years ago in advising people how to vote. But in the case of the mosque, I wouldn't say that Peikoff is being dogmatic so much as absurd. He's taken a very anti-Objectivist position.

    He obviously began with the conclusion that he doesn't want the ground-zero mosque to be built, and that he wants to use the force of government to prevent it, and then concocted absurd rationalizations to support that position, and he apparently didn't think it through very carefully or even test the basic logic of his position by putting it into the form of a syllogism:



    Certain people are threatening to initiate force against us and are endangering our 'metaphysical survival.' The danger is clear and present.

    We have the right to defend ourselves with force against those who are threatening our 'metaphysical survival.' We don't have to sit around and let them destroy us.

    Therefore our solution to this grave imminent danger should be to let the people who we claim are threatening our 'metaphysical survival' walk around free amongst us, but we won't let them build a mosque in a location that has symbolic significance to us.

    So, no, in this case I'm not calling Peikoff "dogmatic," but saying that he's deviating from Objectivism -- about as far as one can deviate -- and advocating a ridiculous position.

    J
  19. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from themadkat in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    No, Objectivism is not at war with America, nor is Islam, Catholicism, Kantianism or any other philosophy or religion.




    Atlas Shrugged played a part in inspiring McVeigh. He cited AS in his writings. And, as I mentioned earlier, prominent Objectivists have claimed that Howard Roark's destruction of others' property was "morally legitimate" and "logical." That could be seen as proof of advocacy of initiation of force, or, at the very least, of the advocacy of massively disproportionate, unjust and extralegal retaliatory force (vigilantism). Anyone wishing to use Peikoff's methods against Objectivists, and use the force of government to deny their property rights, could cite such facts.

    Do you have any proof that any Islamic literature or building near ground zero in NYC has inspired, or will inspire, anyone to kill Americans or destroy their property, or that it will inspire anyone to initiate force in any way?




    I'm sure that if the issue were to become a public controversy, we could very easily find victims' family members who would claim that the displaying and selling of Rand's novels in OKC constitutes a propaganda victory for violent anti-government types like McVeigh. But I thought the issue was our metaphysical survival, and not a mere "propaganda victory." Are you saying that you think that Objectivism supports the idea of denying others' property rights if we feel that their use of their property constitutes a propaganda victory against us?




    It gave a morale boost to McVeigh, so I don't see why it wouldn't do the same for other potentially violent people. But I really don't see the relevance of the "morale boost" argument. It is not a crime to give a moral boost to anyone. The only relevant issue is whether anyone poses an imminent threat to what Peikoff calls our "metaphysical survival." Certain rap lyrics and even opera librettos could be seen as giving a "morale boost" to those who would perpetrate violence, but I don't want to distort Objectivism so as to deny property rights to rappers and opera companies.




    I'm defending Objectivism against people who are distorting it for the purpose of advocating violating others' property rights.




    I don't think that it was right for Dagny to kill the guard. She easily could have bound and gagged him. But my judgment of the scene is not a moral criticism of Rand, but an aesthetic criticism -- I think the scene comes across to me (and to many others) in a way that Rand hadn't intended.




    I think the train wreck scene is a little too cold for my tastes. It's often interpreted as a punishment fantasy, and is exactly the type of thing that would be used against Objectivists to deny their property rights using Peikoff's methods.




    I think there are some minor problems with the plot of Atlas Shrugged here and there, some of which involve people behaving in unrealistic ways in order to serve the plot. Frisco's not telling Dagny -- the love of his life -- everything about the friends he met at school is one such problem, as is his not doing everything possible to include her in the stopping of the world. Again, that's an aesthetic criticism, and not a moral one.




    I have no problem with Galt withdrawing from society and luring others into doing the same. Withdrawing is not initiating force. It makes sense.




    No, I don't think that the idea of people withdrawing from society is evil. I only think that the initiation of force is evil, and the disproportionate/unnecessary use of retaliatory force, and I'm disturbed by the psychology of anyone who would feel less than they'd feel about killing an animal when killing someone who is unknowingly a pawn in a larger conflict.




    Yes, and I agree with the Objectivist view of property rights, which is why I oppose Peikoff's views on the issue.

    J
  20. Downvote
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Amaroq in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    No, I'm not accusing anyone of being dogmatic, or of dogmatically following Peikoff. I thought that would have been clear from the fact that my criticisms have been aimed at certain people who disagree with Peikoff on the mosque issue. They are not displaying dogmatic conformity to him and his ideas, but obsequiousness in their dissent, and inconsistency and massive disproportionality in their judgments of Peikoff compared to others: they've very publicly denounced others as "enemies of Objectivism" and "false friends of Objectivism," etc., for having comparatively minor disagreements, yet here Peifoff is advocating violating the first 'Objectivist Commandment'-- Thou shall not initiate physical force -- as well as the second -- The right to life is the right to property -- and they're thanking him and praising him for his half-baked rationalizations.

    Also, I'm not accusing Peikoff of being dogmatic in regard to this issue. I think he's been dogmatic at times in the past. The McCaskey ordeal comes to mind ("I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is"), as well as his intimidation tactics years ago in advising people how to vote. But in the case of the mosque, I wouldn't say that Peikoff is being dogmatic so much as absurd. He's taken a very anti-Objectivist position.

    He obviously began with the conclusion that he doesn't want the ground-zero mosque to be built, and that he wants to use the force of government to prevent it, and then concocted absurd rationalizations to support that position, and he apparently didn't think it through very carefully or even test the basic logic of his position by putting it into the form of a syllogism:



    Certain people are threatening to initiate force against us and are endangering our 'metaphysical survival.' The danger is clear and present.

    We have the right to defend ourselves with force against those who are threatening our 'metaphysical survival.' We don't have to sit around and let them destroy us.

    Therefore our solution to this grave imminent danger should be to let the people who we claim are threatening our 'metaphysical survival' walk around free amongst us, but we won't let them build a mosque in a location that has symbolic significance to us.

    So, no, in this case I'm not calling Peikoff "dogmatic," but saying that he's deviating from Objectivism -- about as far as one can deviate -- and advocating a ridiculous position.

    J
  21. Downvote
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from West in Why Dont any Major Objectivists Participate in Online Forums?   
    Ed Hudgins of TAS posts on OL, SOLO and Rebirth of Reason, as did Robert Bidinotto when he was working for TAS. Barbara Branden posts on OL, and she used to post on SOLO until she was no longer willing to tolerate the the owner's abusiveness toward members.




    I think that fear probably plays a part in it. I think that they want to limit and control the types of questions that they're asked, and minimize their exposure to informed, scholarly criticism.




    I think they fear that the students would no longer be "Students of Objectivism" if they saw their teachers being "taken to school" on a level playing field.

    J
  22. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    Right, I wasn't specifically referring to those who advocate bombing civilians, but it is the type of thing that would be given as an example of Objectivist bloodlust by anyone who would want to use Peikoff's methods to limit or deny Objectivists' property rights.

    What I was thinking of was Rand's presentation of Dagny's "calmly and impersonally" shooting of the guard, and with less concern than she would have had for shooting an animal, not because he was guilty of initiating physical force, but because Dagny believed that she had determined that he was guilty of wanting "to exist without the responsibility of consciousness."

    Frisco, Hank and Ragnar had bound and gagged three of the other guards (we are not told why a fourth was killed by one of them), so obviously the rescuers came prepared with rope and tape, or whatever, and with the intention of only using lethal force if absolutely necessary.

    Yet Dagny shot the guard when he was offering no resistance, and posing no threat to her. She had plenty of time to tie him up, but instead wasted it giving him a philosophy lesson and pretending to give him the choice to think for himself (he does make a choice: He chooses to properly do his job and contact his "chief" when faced with conflicting orders from two different superiors, but Dagny tells him that that choice is not an option, while demanding that he choose for himself!). She shot him because she was disgusted with what she took to be his attitude.

    In the time that Dagny spent taunting the guard with an impossible situation, hell, if she didn't have rope with her she could have woven some from the local flora.

    And I've seen Objectivists trying to defend Dagny's actions. They practically seethe with hatred for the guard. "Of course he deserved to die! He refused to think for himself while being ordered to think for himself and having a gun pointed at him and not being allowed to think for himself! That bastard!"

    So, anyone wishing to deny Objectivists their property rights could give the example of one of Objectivism's fictional heroes believing that it is right to put people into impossible situations and then kill them for not thinking for themselves, and to feel less about it than one would feel for killing an animal, rather than take less time and effort to tie up an innocent pawn who is caught up in a conflict about which he has no knowledge. Rand said that the goal of her fiction was to present her ideal man. Well, then, her ideal man (or woman) mercilessly kills people even when other options make more sense!

    Therefore all Objectivists are advocates of murder and mayhem, and therefore no property rights for you!

    J
  23. Like
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    About a year ago in this post on OL I applied Peikoff's theory of contextual property rights and guilt by association to Objectivists and the Oklahoma City bombing, which some of you might find worth reading:



    Imagine that Rand were alive today and had witnessed the Oklahoma City bombing. Would she have agreed that property rights are contextual and that the citizens and government of Oklahoma City have the right to prevent her novels from being sold in downtown Oklahoma City, as well as to prevent Objectivist-owned bookstores or conference centers from opening, and Objectivist clubs and organizations from being established in the area?

    After all, we are (or should be) "at war" with anti-government extremists like McVeigh (who read and had cited Atlas Shrugged in his writings), and, since Objectivism has many similarities to the beliefs that motivated McVeigh, it would be understandable and acceptable for the people of the city to be deeply insulted by the prospect of such views being promoted or displayed near ground zero, no?

    Since The Fountainhead could be seen as justifying, promoting and making a hero of Howard Roark (a character who, like McVeigh, irrationally and unjustly bombs others' property), and since Objectivism's officially-sanctioned "heirs" and leaders have claimed that Roark's actions were "logical" and "morally legitimate" (for example see Tore Boeckmann's views in Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead), Objectivism could be seen as being as closely associated with McVeigh as the proposed Cordoba House is with the terrorists of 9/11.

    Add to that the fact that in Atlas Shrugged Ragnar takes matters into his own hands and destroys government-held property, and Dagny psychologically torments a guard -- an innocent, low-level government employee -- with an Objectivist philosophy lesson before coldly shooting him like a dog, and that most Objectivists claim that these characters actions were also morally legitimate and praiseworthy.

    So Objectivism and Objectivists appear to advocate blowing up buildings for ideological reasons, destroying government-held property and killing innocent people who are indirectly connected to those with whom Objectivists have a gripe, just as McVeigh was willing to destroy property and kill innocent people who were indirectly connected to those who he believed had acted unjustly. And therefore Objectivists don't have "property rights" when it comes to using property to promote their irrational and violent beliefs.

    Do you think that Rand would have agreed with Peikoff's views if it had been pointed out to her that the principle that Peikoff is advocating could be very easily be used against her work and ideas?

    J
  24. Downvote
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from Amaroq in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    About a year ago in this post on OL I applied Peikoff's theory of contextual property rights and guilt by association to Objectivists and the Oklahoma City bombing, which some of you might find worth reading:



    Imagine that Rand were alive today and had witnessed the Oklahoma City bombing. Would she have agreed that property rights are contextual and that the citizens and government of Oklahoma City have the right to prevent her novels from being sold in downtown Oklahoma City, as well as to prevent Objectivist-owned bookstores or conference centers from opening, and Objectivist clubs and organizations from being established in the area?

    After all, we are (or should be) "at war" with anti-government extremists like McVeigh (who read and had cited Atlas Shrugged in his writings), and, since Objectivism has many similarities to the beliefs that motivated McVeigh, it would be understandable and acceptable for the people of the city to be deeply insulted by the prospect of such views being promoted or displayed near ground zero, no?

    Since The Fountainhead could be seen as justifying, promoting and making a hero of Howard Roark (a character who, like McVeigh, irrationally and unjustly bombs others' property), and since Objectivism's officially-sanctioned "heirs" and leaders have claimed that Roark's actions were "logical" and "morally legitimate" (for example see Tore Boeckmann's views in Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead), Objectivism could be seen as being as closely associated with McVeigh as the proposed Cordoba House is with the terrorists of 9/11.

    Add to that the fact that in Atlas Shrugged Ragnar takes matters into his own hands and destroys government-held property, and Dagny psychologically torments a guard -- an innocent, low-level government employee -- with an Objectivist philosophy lesson before coldly shooting him like a dog, and that most Objectivists claim that these characters actions were also morally legitimate and praiseworthy.

    So Objectivism and Objectivists appear to advocate blowing up buildings for ideological reasons, destroying government-held property and killing innocent people who are indirectly connected to those with whom Objectivists have a gripe, just as McVeigh was willing to destroy property and kill innocent people who were indirectly connected to those who he believed had acted unjustly. And therefore Objectivists don't have "property rights" when it comes to using property to promote their irrational and violent beliefs.

    Do you think that Rand would have agreed with Peikoff's views if it had been pointed out to her that the principle that Peikoff is advocating could be very easily be used against her work and ideas?

    J
  25. Downvote
    Jonathan13 got a reaction from 2046 in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    Right, I wasn't specifically referring to those who advocate bombing civilians, but it is the type of thing that would be given as an example of Objectivist bloodlust by anyone who would want to use Peikoff's methods to limit or deny Objectivists' property rights.

    What I was thinking of was Rand's presentation of Dagny's "calmly and impersonally" shooting of the guard, and with less concern than she would have had for shooting an animal, not because he was guilty of initiating physical force, but because Dagny believed that she had determined that he was guilty of wanting "to exist without the responsibility of consciousness."

    Frisco, Hank and Ragnar had bound and gagged three of the other guards (we are not told why a fourth was killed by one of them), so obviously the rescuers came prepared with rope and tape, or whatever, and with the intention of only using lethal force if absolutely necessary.

    Yet Dagny shot the guard when he was offering no resistance, and posing no threat to her. She had plenty of time to tie him up, but instead wasted it giving him a philosophy lesson and pretending to give him the choice to think for himself (he does make a choice: He chooses to properly do his job and contact his "chief" when faced with conflicting orders from two different superiors, but Dagny tells him that that choice is not an option, while demanding that he choose for himself!). She shot him because she was disgusted with what she took to be his attitude.

    In the time that Dagny spent taunting the guard with an impossible situation, hell, if she didn't have rope with her she could have woven some from the local flora.

    And I've seen Objectivists trying to defend Dagny's actions. They practically seethe with hatred for the guard. "Of course he deserved to die! He refused to think for himself while being ordered to think for himself and having a gun pointed at him and not being allowed to think for himself! That bastard!"

    So, anyone wishing to deny Objectivists their property rights could give the example of one of Objectivism's fictional heroes believing that it is right to put people into impossible situations and then kill them for not thinking for themselves, and to feel less about it than one would feel for killing an animal, rather than take less time and effort to tie up an innocent pawn who is caught up in a conflict about which he has no knowledge. Rand said that the goal of her fiction was to present her ideal man. Well, then, her ideal man (or woman) mercilessly kills people even when other options make more sense!

    Therefore all Objectivists are advocates of murder and mayhem, and therefore no property rights for you!

    J
×
×
  • Create New...