James Bond

Well is it a circular definition, then? She's defining reality, but is it an appropriate term/view of reality to say that free will is a choice?

Can anyone tell me the objectivist position on the ends justifying the means? I know this is another silly life boat scenario, but hear me out: Let's say you were alive in 1890. Hitler was one year old. Somehow, you knew that this baby was going to kill millions. Would it be moral to kill the baby? I know we can get technical, and ask questions about context/choice/feasibility, but please focus on the idea at hand...do the ends ever justify the means? If yes, does that mean that objectivism has an element of utilitarianism? If no, isn't that anti-human life?

Ayn Rand defines free will as the freedom to think or not. But isn't it a circular argument to say that freedom comes from freedom? Where does the freedom come from? Is it outside of cause and effect? Or is man really a prime mover, who can create causes and effects? Thanks for you help.

I don't think anyone has really answered the original question yet. Is Wynand more evil than Peter Keating? Because it seems that is what Roark implies.

so I guess the hierarchy goes thusly: mix of evil/good ex. Wynand evil: second handers ex. early Peter Keating, pure evil: power-lusters ex. Toohey

I recently read "The Fountainhead." One question has been bugging me that maybe someone here could help clear up. After Roark finishes talking about the evil of the second handers to Wynand, he thinks to himself that he didn't mention the even greater evil that is the power-abuser, ie Wynand. Could someone explain what is meant by this/why this is the case, according to objectivism? What are the degrees involved here, and how important are they? Thanks for your help.

Pretty entertaining. I especially liked the "cult of individualism" bit.

Objectivism's political philosophy could be described as "right-wing" but only because there exists a "left-wing." But both terms are vague/unnecessary, seeing as capitalism is an extension of egoism.

I wasn't going to watch the whole thing, but I enjoyed it so much I did. You might too. http://arc-tv.com/atlas-shrugged—america...f-independence/

I know exactly where you are coming from. When I was a deist, I thought atheists were being silly, because the first cause argument made a lot of sense to me. But here's what I concluded, that made me an atheist: Deists are essentially atheists, except they believe in a creator god/intelligent force. Well, the invisible and the nonexistent look a lot alike. A deist's god is basically the universe..and I realized, what is the point of calling the universe 'god'? Let's just call it the universe. The word "God" implies a being, and a deist/pantheist god implies a vague 'force' or 'presence'. Again, let's call the universe the universe. Let's have our knowledge be evidence based, and there is no evidence for a god.

I stand by all those (albeit sarcastic/bitter) comments

Perhaps you are free from any dogma, Mr. Miovas. But it's not stupid to fight dogma. The topic of dogma in objectivism has long been issue, and it's still pertinent today, although arguably it has been diminished of late. I've observed that you need to work on reading between the lines. I'm frankly surprised that you think reading Kant is not an important part to studying philosophy, but perhaps you don't have a lot of knowledge on the entire field of philosophy, and that's okay. In any case, the topic of this thread is fact and value. I think it is valuable to understand the history of philosophy, and Kant is a part of that history. I find value in understanding the whole field. Perhaps you find value in specializing in objectivism. We're different people. On asking Peikoff about the value of reading of reading opposing philosophies: Despite Peikoff being an expert, there can be little value in asking his opinion on whether to read opposing philosophies. A rational, independent mind should clearly be able to see that reading opposing philosophies is a integral part to understanding a debate. I called it permission because it demostrates potential dogma.

I'll explain this nice and clear for you. Kant is a major figure in philosophy. I want to study philosophy. If I studied philosophy, but had never studied Kant, I would have a gap in my knowledge. I'm not arbitrarily choosing to only read Kant, or to read anything and everything. If I said I wanted to read 'everything' before, it was in the tone of wanting to be well read in philosophy. If that answer satisfies you Odden, what's your reply to the question of permission? I don't think so. My main point from the start has been the dangers of dogmatic objectivism, and Peikoff/Schwartz certainly deserve a mention in that discussion.

Like I said, I plan on reading Kant, among lots of other 'crap.' It's not arbitrary. I specified that I would read Kant because is Rand's polar opposite, so he has a particular salience. My aim is to study mainly objectivism, and I also want to know who the enemy is. I am curious..don't you think it's a little silly for objectivists to ask Peikoff if they should read other philosophers?

Here's the rational process behind reading irratationalists. I want to make sure that I've thought independently about who's philosophy is right or wrong. I want knowledge from both sides of the spectrum. As you know, there's a lot of faulty knowledge out there. So yes, I will read some Kant, among other irrational thinkers. In order for me to judge Marx, Kant, or anyone else, I want to give each their own due process. This might mean that after one book, I'm disgusted and I toss the book away. But I don't think it's fair to condemn Kant/Marx without ever having read anything they wrote, or generally knowing their ideas. Overall, I will mainly continue to study the philosophies that I agree with (Rand, Aristotle, etc.).

For example, I want to become more rational. For this reason, I will keep on studying objectivist literature, since I find it to be the most true philosophy by far. I also plan on also reading some Kant, so I can get a first hand take on what I think of his ideas. As you say, I might conclude that there is little merit in Kant's work. Similarly, I would hope that a Kantian would read some Rand in order to form his own opinions on her. Even if his Kantian buddies tell him not to. My main point on this topic was expressed here:

Here's the thing though..I think the fact that someone had to ask Peikoff's permission to read other philosophies is very telling. To me it's pretty obvious that in order to be rational, of course you should read opposing philosophies. Can you picture Ragnar Danneskjold asking this/? No one should put anyone else's mind above their own, not even Peikoff's or Rand, even if you still agree with 99% of what they said. The 'permission' element speaks to the cultish/collectivist attitude which I don't like to see anywhere, but especially in the place where it should be last to exist--in objectivist groups. I jokingly said that some ARI people would recommend burning Orwells/Newton's books since they weren't ARI objectivists. Bad joke. I obviously don't think Rand actually wanted to burn books. Dag.

I just read Toohey's speech to Keating near the end of the book. Holy cow. I felt slightly ill at one point. Ugh. This book keeps getting better and better.

Wonderful. Yes, my points are all nonsense and therefore you should leave this board immediately because otherwise you'll be sanctioning my evil. Go ahead. Good argument here. Oh good, thanks Peikoff! I'm now allowed to read books again. Oh boy. Give me a break.

That's my point. I think that people, young or old, can have honest error. Peikoff puts an emphasis on the young. It's not one. But Peikoff admires Ayn Rand so much that I fear he falls into the category of "Ayn Rand can do no wrong, and never has." In what way(s) do think Kelley contradicts objectivism, beyond the fact/value split? I said 'might' because I'm debating whether he's really contra-objectivism in the first place. Good point. Yeah, I see what you're saying. So let's say some libertarians move in next door, who by your lights, are evil. By my lights, they're slightly evil. Would you, JJJJ, refuse to be friends with them, so as to not sanction their evasion? Or would you be friends with them since you would have some common ground? Maybe I should stop assuming people can read between the lines. Everything I've read from ARI about Kelley discusses how evil he is and why he should be excommunicated. How do you justify ARI not sancting Kelley's work, but sanctioning Brandens? Do you think Branden was good once and then turned evil? Greenspan is definitely not an objectivist. ARI should promote objectivism. That means they shouldn't play the game of supporting only the scholars who Peikoff likes this week. I am bitter. Again, I guess I need to stop assuming you can read between the lines. But I do plan on listening to all of his podcasts, I've listened to a few so far. Like I said, I have a loads of respect for Peikoff and for all the good he's done for objectivism. But I think he can better. I think Kelley can do better.

Hey JJJJ, that last post was my response to your reply to mine (James Bond) from page 7. I just wanted to clarify that I'm not the same person as Donovan(?)/anyone else.

Peikoff, in fact and value, mentions "groping teenagers" searching for truth. Peikoff once mentioned in a podcast that he liked a movie because the protagonist reminded him of Rand. !?. Maybe he's in love with her. I'm mostly joking, but there is a cultish element in some circles that's hypocritically collective. This is a point Kelly makes which I agree with. Objectivism, as it is, is not as well of a grounded philosophy as it could be and hopefully will be. There's work that needs to be done to make it a coherent, comprehensive philosophy. I'd totally agree that it's foundational principles/answers to the five basic branches of philosophy are perfect. When I say ARI, I'm more talking about the people we've already discussed. I think there are tons of great people there, so I don't want it to seem like I'm making a blanket statement about ARI. Where does he go against the major principles? Evidence please. I've already said that I agree that fact and valuable and inseparable..so Kelly might disagree with me on that. The case that Kelly makes that I particularly agree with is the case for degrees. Peikoff/his ilk seem to have almost no regard to degrees when it comes to evil, which is dangerous. I wonder if Peikoff even talks to people who aren't objectivist. He wouldn't want to sanction anyone, after all. This might be true, like I say I'm arguing from a pretty cursory knowledge on the debate. I do think that when Kelly talks to groups, he should make it clear upfront that he thinks they are evil/wrong. Perhaps he does, and we just don't hear about it because of who our reporters are. Like I said, I do think Kelly should definitely make it clear that he's not sanctioning them. About the respect issue...I value the philosophical work he's done. I value the philosophical work Branden did. Ayn Rand did as well, if you recall. But now ARI tries to pretend like she never did. Bah. ARI also doesn't list Kelly's work in their bookstore..which is a slap in the face of some solid work. If Peikoff/Schwartz had their way, they would never allow their disciples to read anything that wasn't written by someone from the ARI camp. Newton? He's a deist. Oh and he didn't smoke. He's evil. George Orwell? He's wasn't a radical for capitalism..he's evil. He thought Stalin was more evil than Kant. Burn his books. They never existed, actually (see Branden). Do you see what I'm getting at here? I'm being facetious, but there's truth in the bizarre judgments that Peikoff/his ilk makes. It almost seems like it would have better if no offical groups had been formed. Ayn Rand herself was hesitant about the first official group. ARI doesn't seem like a place that smiles at individualism. It seems like a place where if you don't agree with what Peikoff thinks, you're gone. You never even existed. I don't like that. Do you?

Peikoff/Schwartz/other objectivists seem to have trouble the degrees of evil concept, and I think it's an important thing to keep in mind. I disagree with the age distinction. I'm personally happy to talk to neighbors of all ages, if they ask about objectivism, whether they are 15 or 50. I said we should say he's evil (condemned). This relates back to the degrees of evil comment. A lot of people are way to quick to judge without evidence or degree, in my opinion. The "ARI objectivists" comment was figurative/sarcastic to demonstrate this. The deification of Ayn Rand makes some people try to integrate her dated opinions into her philosophy. I've seen this even on this board. She was tremendous, brilliant, unique, but nobody is perfect. Similar with her written philosophy, or Peikoff's, or Kelly's. Let's be smart about this. Let's have our minds be the final arbiter of truth. That's one of my issues with Ayn Rand groups in general. A group or center with philosophy that values individualism becomes automatically susceptible to conformity. Then why do you consider Peikoff's work part of objectivist doctrine, but not other objectivist philosophers? If you take Ayn Rand's works alone, that's fine. But that means you can't call Peikoff's addition part of objectivism, and I bet you aren't willing to do that. Ayn Rand gave him her sanction, yes, but this is your definition. I'm willing to call Peikoff's work objectivist, and I'm willing to call Kelly's works objectivist. The same way I'm willing to call Sartre and Neitschze's work existential. If you want to distinguish between different philosophers, then do that. I think I mispoke there..because I would call myself evil (at times) before I was an objectivist as well. To Skaiscala: I will definitely check those out. I still have a lot of learning and thinking to do. I don't idolize Peikoff or Kelly. I respect both of them. I certainly don't agree with Peikoff/Kelly's/Rand's views 100%. I almost do though, which gives me the right to call myself an objectivist. Here's one point I would like to make to all of you. A lot of people don't know objectivist philosophy. I want to evangelize, personally, because I think the philosophy is absolutely wonderful. I'm willing to talk to (tolerate) lots of people, young and old, and tell them about objectivism. That doesn't mean I sanction them or their beliefs, it means I see them as potential values. People may be able to pick of up different pieces (conservativism, atheism, etc.), but as a systematic philosophy, very view people know about objectivism. Even people who've read and appreciated Atlas Shrugged might not be aware that there is a philosophical movement.

I do judge ideas. I do think many of Kant's ideas were pure evil, but I don't think that Kant the man was as evil as Stalin. Proper judgement requires proportion. I do agree that ideas, facts, and values are all inseparable and to be taken very seriously, but I also believe in degrees. I admit that I'm still very new to objectivism, and this debate in general. But I really don't think Kant intentionally wrote his philosophy with an evil intention to destroy the world. He wasn't an Ellsworth, in other words. The same way that you were not pure evil before you discovered objectivism. You were tolerant with yourself.

It's not a sanction. I can talk with or debate an academic Marxist, and that doesn't mean that I think his views have validity. I probably wouldn't want to be near him..but if I had to talk with him, I would make it clear that I thought his views were false and dangerous. Same with libertarians, or democrats, or religious people, only to a lesser degree.