Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

James Bond

Regulars
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    186

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by James Bond

  4. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted · Edited by James Bond

    If you provide examples of dogmatism, we can discuss them.

    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.

  6. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    No, closed/open systems in philosophy never mean "do you agree with person X, Y, or Z." It has nothing to do with agreement. But so, I don't get it, asking "do you agree with person X, Y, or Z" is a bad question or something? What exactly is the problem? Is this evidence of dogma? It seems you are very confused on what any of these things mean. What exactly is your point anyway, aside from hey look at my opinions on "the objectivist movement" and everyone is a dogmatist but me, even though I've never met these people and admittedly don't talk to them, and if you don't agree with me you're immoral (but that's not dogmatic)?

    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.

  7. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    By "character attack" I mean accusing someone of a moral failing. There are, of course, different degrees to which one can do this - I'm certainly not accusing you of calling all your opponents bad people - but an accusation of dishonesty is an accusation of a character defect, and in this particular instance I think it's an unwarranted accusation.

    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.

  8. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted · Edited by James Bond

    My point is that "My opponents disagree with me because they're avoiding logic" is quite a strong claim, and without quite a bit of knowledge about their characters and the ideas they hold, you don't have the evidence to prove it.

    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

    Unless you don't see honesty as a part of one's character, accusing someone of dishonesty is a character attack.

    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.

  9. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    My personal interactions with people at ARI have been entirely devoid of any kind of dogmatism or intellectual bullying. When I contacted ARI about requesting their help in starting an Objectivist club at my university, I was incredibly surprised by how little he asked me about my knowledge of and experience with Objectivism. All that I was asked was whether or not I had read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. From some of the rumors I had heard circulating about ARI, I half expected him to ask me whether I thought Objectivism was a closed system or not; there was absolutely none of that.

    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?"

    Also, most of the Objectivists I've talked to are right there with you on the worthlessness of the U.S.'s current wars, myself included.

    I haven't talked to a lot of objectivists, so I wouldn't know. I would say they are harmful, worse than worthless.

  10. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    Then don't say that you're just claiming "there can't be two logical answers to one logical question."

    Okay, let me clarify here then that I mean both that statement and the issue of people bullshitting themselves.

    You're impugning the honesty of people who are familiar with the Objectivist movement and don't agree with your conclusions.

    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.

    For somebody who is opposed to dogmatism, you're a little quick to attack the characters of your opponents.

    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.

  11. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    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.

  12. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    Your claim is stronger than the statement that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You said that anyone who disagrees with you is "bullshitting himself," i.e. lying to himself.

    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.

  13. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted · Edited by James Bond

    In other words, anybody who disagrees with you is not merely wrong, but dishonest.

    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.

  15. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    Now who is the dogmatist?

    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.

    This is the number one reason I wouldn't consider you an Objectivist: because you don't consider yourself one.

    Hmm.

    If that is what you consider to be "dogmatic", then you are right not to call yourself an Objectivist.

    That's not what I consider dogmatic about people in the objectivist movement. I addressed that in my OP.

    Another reason I wouldn't consider you an Objectivist is that anarchism has nothing to do with capitalism and accepting anarchism as proper would lead to a society's destruction more quickly than almost any other false ideology.

    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.

    ARI is an organization of Objectivists and a pretty good one at that.

    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.

  17. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted · Edited by James Bond

    If there is some dogmatism in the "movement", there isn't in the philosophy, per se. Your judgment should be based on the latter.

    Agreed.

    Perhaps you are unaware of the true differences between Libertarianism and Obj.ism; e.g. Lib. does not fully accept Obj.ism's morality. To Brook and others, it does not matter how much closer Paul is to Obj.ism than other candidates when one is talking philosophically (vs. purely politically). Again, nothing here to question Obj.ism about.

    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

    So to the extent that you let such subjective factors deter you from Objectivism, then you are correct to not call yourself an Obj.ist and you need not ask the original question.

    But if you can get past them and accept Obj.ist principles fully, then you should feel comfortable with the title.

    that would be true if you were right that my reasons for truancy are subjective. But they're not.

  18. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    If I take what you say in this post at face value and go solely by that, then you agree completely with all the essentials of Objectivism. If you actually attempt to use these ideas in your life, it would imply that you agree with and practice the essentials of Objectivism. If that does not make you an Objectivist, I don't know what would.

    Interesting. I guess you would be in the camp that says "philosophical essentials actualized are what is needed to be an Oist"

  19. wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted · Edited by James Bond

    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.

  20. would you rather: the wars as they are now or no wars?

    in Political Philosophy

    Posted

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...