Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

James Bond

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by James Bond

  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.
  14. Agreed. Libertarianism is not a whole philosophy, it is a political philosophy, one that is involved with multiple different philosophies. If you accept that premise than it wouldn't be possible for libertarianism to "fully accept" Oism's ethics. Objectivism is one of those philosophies. I understand that Brook/others don't think Paul is close to being an objectivist. Neither is Glenn Beck, but Brook chose to go on his show multiple times. You have to make use of what you can, and right now Paul is a better option than Romney. And I know he's said he thinks Paul would tarnish the reputation of his type of views, but I don't think he's right about that. We don't have the luxury of waiting (decades) for the culture to be ready to elect an objectivist, let alone to a position where he/she can have an effect. Unless someone better chooses to run, Paul is the one I would support. Here's the segment where Brook talks about Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPmmuVO93h4 that would be true if you were right that my reasons for truancy are subjective. But they're not.
  15. Interesting. I guess you would be in the camp that says "philosophical essentials actualized are what is needed to be an Oist"
  16. so it's been a while since I've posted on these forums, you may recall my heretical and purposefully evocative thread titled "I'm thinking about leaving objectivism" I'm curious (although not particularly concerned) whether some of you would consider me an objectivist or not, here are my credentials: -I think epistemologically, empiricism/reason is clearly superior/proper, I'm am a firm atheist without a trace of mysticism/agnosticism/whimsy -I want free market capitalism/individual rights enforced by a small government. -I think full egoism is deeply moral, and its converse is conversely/abjectly depraved -I find romantically realistic art to be the most life affirming -Metaphysically, I think the universe is fixed/absolute/solid/objectively to be mastered -I say these things "on one foot", but I have comprehensively studied/read all of Rand's/Peikoff's/Branden's non/fiction, as well as other media by objectivists (podcasts, op-eds, public appearances, speeches, etc etc.) I bring that up so you know I'm not someone who read The Fountainhead and loosely said "hey yeah that sounds good", it's more of "hey wow that is my philosophy realized, and my identity understood in a heretofore unexperienced rational context. This is coming from someone who's also read a lot of works of other philosophers and has a broad understanding of what the stakes are. things you would probably dislike about me: I think there is/was a dogmatic streak in Rand/Peikoff/ARI, and I think that's very hypocritical. This is probably my biggest contention. I liken it this way..let's say you are driving down a highway, and you see signs that say that your exit is in 50 miles (read: objectivism). You can then check your own map and have it confirmed. You see a lot of these signs. At the last sign, despite what your map says and what all they other signs said, it says that there is no exit. You are confused, and therefore have to disregard that particular sign while still appreciating those signs which continue to point the way and help you orient yourself. You should know I'm not choosing whim over dogma, I'm saying if you really don't bullshit yourself, you will agree that there is institutional dogmatism in the objectivist movement. This is why I think Rand was right to be hesitant over the formation of an objectivist organization like the ARI. It's too dangerous, and even though we may think we are mature/independent enough to be able to have a organization of objectivists, it has not occurred. I agree with Stefan Molyneux that it doesn't make sense to call your philosophy "objectivism" in the same way that you don't call evolution "Darwinism". It's evolution, and "objectivism" is philosophy. In the same vein It annoys me how Rand (allegedly) wanted other people to conform to some of her preferences, and personal opinions. Even though I think a large amount of the heat that's been directed at Rand's personal life is completely bunk, and stems from people desperately evading/looking for a chink in her armor, and not finding much to work with. Even so, it does appear that too many objectivists did/do kowtow to what they think she would have preferred. And keep in mind this is coming from a person who agrees with Rand about the morality (and subsequent necessity) of judgment. Here's a third thing. I'm a lot less hostile than a lot of objectivists to what is largely called libertarianism. I respect/support Ron Paul for various reasons, and have no qualms about calling myself a libertarian. (Hell, Yaron Brook has even called Oist politics libertarian "in a non-Rothbardian" sense). I don't agree with some of Yaron Brook's criticism of Ron Paul. You can attack Ron Paul for a lot, and be right, but he's still far closer to the position of individual rights than a mainstream republican than whoever Brook would support in 2012. I'm a lot less hostile towards anarcho-capitalism than a lot of my fellow capitalists, even though I'm not and have never been an anarchist, and ultimately think it's contradictory. I appreciate the works of ancapists as a valid part of the theoretical work for capitalism. my laptop is running out of battery, but these are some of the main reasons I'm no longer calling myself a student of objectivism, despite the life altering influence it has and will continue to have on me as I continue to study and live it. I understand the fact that objectivism is truly unique. There are no philosophies like it. It really is an achievement of the ages. So maybe you'd think me an objectivist seeing as in many ways (about 90-95%) still find it to be my philosophy. I think I basically am, but sans a few items of flotsam. I'd be interested to hear your replies if you care to share them.
  17. Would you rather the wars as they are now, inimically endless, or no wars at all, as leftists would have? This is one area where I tend to disagree with many objectivists. I think the wars as they are being run now actually make the country less safe, as well as bankrupt the country, and the loss of our soldiers. It looks like we'll be in these wars for another 8 years, and unfortunately Neocons and hopefully (not objectivists) seem to be okay with that. The whole situation is just terrible.
  18. Michael Moore carries his hypocrisy around with him visibly.
  19. 1. 43+57=100 2. 100 is illuminati 3. 4. ....profit
  20. whether or not a person should turn in criminals or just keep to themselves
  • Create New...