Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

James Bond

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


James Bond last won the day on August 24 2010

James Bond had the most liked content!

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright

James Bond's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. alright well I'm leaving this forum for good after this post so I wish you all the best, and I hope in time you'll start to think more independently. Take care.
  2. http://www.houstonobjectivism.com/letter_justice_lp.htm http://www.johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html (Peikoff's letter scroll down) That's an institutional example. Try to understand what Peikoff is really saying in that letter. It looks a lot like intimidation to me. I'd love to hear other explanations. On a side note, I've had an issue with a kind of Rand-filter in my thought process. Obviously I can only speak for myself, but I've caught myself thinking "what would Rand think?" or "I wonder if Rand would like this?" I don't think that's wrong its done in order to gain perspective, but when it alters your perspective (as it has mine), that is second handed and corrupt. I don't think this should be controversial to say, either. I'm not quite sure if it is.
  3. One thing I've been thinking today is that maybe Rand is like a CEO of philosophy, were even though you might not agree with some of the company's policies (dogmatism, etc.) you still get more than enough value to still work for the company.
  4. I didn't say you were a dogmatist or immoral, and I'm not confused about what dogmatism is. My point with this thread is to see how you define an objectivist, and so far I haven't got very much feedback on that.
  5. Ok, I agree. Calling people out morally for not dealing with their bullshit is unwarranted. I'm going to go to bed now but I hope I get lots of great replies for when I wake up.
  6. and I wish that Peikoff/Rand had had your standards when judging some people..and the fact that people avoid admitting that makes it more clear to me There's a degree that you're missing though. If you punch someone, it doesn't make you a murderer. Similarly, if a bit of your intellectual honesty is impugned, it doesn't mean that you have an attacker of all of your honesty and character.
  7. I had someone (understandably) from ARI tell me that a ARI summer conferences were geared toward closed system advocates, because it was put together by the ARI and not TAS. Now I'm actually kind of a closed system guy (how do you add to empiricism? etc) but "closed" and "open" sometimes means "do you you agree with almost all the philsophical and many of the personal opinions of Brook, Peikoff, and Rand?" I haven't talked to a lot of objectivists, so I wouldn't know. I would say they are harmful, worse than worthless.
  8. Okay, let me clarify here then that I mean both that statement and the issue of people bullshitting themselves. Correct. If you think something is right logically, and you think someone is avoiding that logic, then there is an element of self-deception (or evasion) involved. Keep in mind the degree, too. I'm not yelling "you are all evaders if you disagree" but I am highlighting the fact that if you don't see this logical truth, you are are "bullshitting" yourself. I don't think I've attacked anyone's character, if you got that impression I'd double check it. I've said that there are people who are wrong, dogmatic, and are lying to themselves, but that's been part of my argument from the start, and it isn't a character "gotcha" to get around a debate. I can see how if you are on the receiving end of that accusation it could feel like your character is being attacked, but I don't think that's the case. Questioned, I could see.
  9. I should add, too, that I disagree with all 3-4 of these dumbass wars, and they have bankrupted us just as much as the mafia-control-welfare state has. I agree that the enemy is Islamofascism, and I agree that it needs to be brutally crushed before it eventually attempts to crush us. But as it is,these "strategic military actions" (not wars) have done more harm than good, emboldened the enemy, and added to the national debt. It's time to bring the all the troops home years ago, and to get serious or accept that these 'wars' will go on forever, waste more money, lose more soldiers, and only help the enemy's cause.
  10. Yeah. You are lying to yourself if you don't think there's a history of dogmatism in the objectivist movement, from the 50's to today. While there is dogmatism in many movements, it is particularly egregious in the objectivist movement where you would think it would be the last place you would find it, in a place were independent thinking is valued above all. You have to question everything, even the person who told you to question, even me. That's what independent thinking is. It has to be you and the conclusions that you alone form based on what you observe without the backup of Ayn Rand, or other objectivists, even if it makes you an outcast. It's a high price but sign me up.
  11. Yes, and yes. But I wouldn't say dishonest. It's not dogmatic to say "exactly" when someone demonstrates that you are only choosing to express one point, and that you firmly believe in your point. With the dogmatism I brought up, it was/is "this is my point, and if you don't agree than you have to leave ARI while I get to retain the authority to dictate who leaves when questioning my points." It's a strange thing. Each person has to decide on their own whether Peikoff has a better grasp on reality than say someone he booted (back when he was president), but his nobody questions Peikoff's authority because no one questions Rand's authority. That's an extreme to illustrate my point, and its coming from someone who has a lot of respect for both of those individuals.
  12. haha, should I take that as a 'no'? I wasn't going to make this thread because I'm not concerned, but then I decided to because it would be interesting to see why some here would agree/disagree with my reasoning, and potentially give me some more data to work with.
  13. um, I never said you were, and what I said there wasn't dogmatic. I said that there can't be two logical answers to one logical question. Hmm. That's not what I consider dogmatic about people in the objectivist movement. I addressed that in my OP. I agree that anarchism and capitalism can't co-exist, but in the intellectual history of capitalists/anti-statists, some are anarchists, and I reckon with that fact, and I even though I don't agree with their conclusion, I agree with their premise (individual rights) and some of the work they do to fight for things like property. For sure, I don't mean to knock ARI. But I do have my concerns about some things I hear, even if it ends up that those claims are not sound.
  • Create New...