Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Your thoughts on this blog on "Philosophy"?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

At the risk of being malevolent...

I just have to say, you know Objectivism is winning when it's opponents are reduced to this.

http://philosophy7.blogspot.com/

And *reduced* is the operative term.

The mental state of that blogger, having performed every sort of contradiction of stolen concepts, direction changes and flat out refusal to read what has been written must resemble the following:

;)

I love emoticons.

-R.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that may be the most dense person I have ever read...so insistent, and yet so devoid of understanding. He simply does not understand the first thing about philosophy.

In fact, it's so bad it makes me wonder if it is a deliberate parody by someone in agreement with Objectivism, in the same way that the Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair site (http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html) is a parody of Christians by some atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mental state of that blogger, having performed every sort of contradiction of stolen concepts, direction changes and flat out refusal to read what has been written must resemble the following:

:P

I disagree. According to him, the wall and his head don't exist. Therefore, it can only resemble a man lost in space and time, staring at nothing, drooling, pissing in his pants and just lying there somewhere with his body stretched all across some floor, never moving a muscle or indicating that he's alive, except for releasing occasional moans which are actually heard in the real world. But that kind of emoticon can't be made, so I agree that :dough: is the best approximation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am the "objectivist admin" responsible for his consternation, and he is posting here with the handle of Kant, I or something like that.

No, "I.Kant" I saw a post somewhere around here where he asked them the same question "Norri" asked us about finding free copies of "The New Intellectual"

I believe they are one in the same person, or at least Comrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are the same person. ComradeRed is Norri and Norri was asking for copies of the new intellecual's table of contents so that he could create this travesty:

http://www.capitalistparadise.uni.cc/

If I.Kant is asking the same questions, I would conclude that he is the same person or at least a close associate.

On a side note, does anyone else find it hilarious that Immanuel Kant's name, when his first name is initialized, bears a striking resemblance to "I cannot?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I.Kant is asking the same questions, I would conclude that he is the same person or at least a close associate.

I.Kant is ComradeRed. He even has a link to a thread on this site on his blog where he bashes Objectivists. On another message board he claimed reading AS was a "waste of [his] time" but then about a week later he posted a message on here looking for free text of it on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has made claims on capitalistparadise that

"He didn't actually know what Objectivism was but it didn't stop him from inventing an ideology called "ex contrari Objectivism". After plagiarising a few articles by a 60 year old Marxist, he now thinks he is an expert on the subject.

Even more odd was that, about a week after professing to be totally ignorant of Objectivism, he claimed to have read both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (in addition to all of Aristotle's books and the Wealth of Nations). "

Those words are from Invictus, who is the main admin at capitalistparadise.

The point is, ComradeRed is an open liar on many levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of any such link... I take the peikoff side of that argument, myself.

Edit: Wait, I think I see what you mean. I will have to edit those posts to show that I do not endorse the Kelly side. Thanks for catching that.

Edit edit: I think that got it. If I missed any, let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do we do that?

Well, the forum on the site I went to was "Philosophy," and I looked at a posting by "Inspector," the one who invited me to look at the forum. In that post Inspector referenced and quoted extensively from a web site (which I, perhaps mistakenly, assumed was his own because of the extensive references), and that site linked to both Kelley and Solo. That was enough for me not to bother to check any further on the veracity of the representation of philosophical ideas in their conformance with Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of any such link... I take the peikoff side of that argument, myself.

Edit: Wait, I think I see what you mean. I will have to edit those posts to show that I do not endorse the Kelly side. Thanks for catching that.

Edit edit: I think that got it. If I missed any, let me know.

I am not sure which postings you mean, but I just explained in a posting to Ursus what I was referring to.

I do not have the interest or the time to search out the forum in detail, so perhaps you can just tell me directly: Is the site owner, or any of the administrators, vocal supporters of Kelley or any of the bizarre "neo-objectivist" groups that keep forming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure which postings you mean, but I just explained in a posting  to Ursus what I was referring to.

I do not have the interest or the time to search out the forum in detail, so perhaps you can just tell me directly: Is the site owner, or any of the administrators, vocal supporters of Kelley or any of the bizarre "neo-objectivist" groups that keep forming?

I'll tell you right off no. If I thought for a second that was the case I would never look at it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the site owner, or any of the administrators, vocal supporters of Kelley or any of the bizarre "neo-objectivist" groups that keep forming?

Definitely not. Well, the owner can speak for himself, but I have never seen him do such. I certainly am not. I am an advocate of the idea, "judge... and prepare to be judged."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm right here, you know.

What do you mean by this comment?

I personally read all of those quotes, and none of them depart from Ayn Rand's Objectivism in any way that I can discern.

I do not have time to read the extensive commentary, but aside from the disreputable links I took a look at the "Online Articles" in the "Reading List" section. If that is who and what they consider to represent Objectivism then that is enough for me not to look any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the site owner, or any of the administrators, vocal supporters of Kelley or any of the bizarre "neo-objectivist" groups that keep forming?

In two separate posts, Ursus and Inspector replied, respectively,

I'll tell you right off no. If I thought for a second that was the case I would never look at it again.
Definitely not. Well, the owner can speak for himself, but I have never seen him do such. I certainly am not.

Okay. Sorry if I got the wrong impression. However, you might want to check more carefully on those references you use, since I know for a fact that, aside from Kelley, they contain articles by at least one really gross distorter of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know for a fact that, aside from Kelley, they contain articles by at least one really gross distorter of Objectivism.

Really? What? Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I seriously would not want to be giving out distorted material.

Edit: Actually I find it highly amusing that I would be mistaken for a Kelly-ite, as I am in fact quite the opposite. I'm about the least tolerant person I've ever seen. Of course, Ursus and I compete for the title quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? What? Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I seriously would not want to be giving out distorted material.

Well, for one, Greg Swann is known to me personally to be as confused about philosophy and Objectivism as one can get. My days of dealing with people like that, on the level of serious ideas, are long over. I simply would not waste another minute of my life reading anything he wrote. Not that it is impossible for him to make some coherent and true statements, but such occurs so rarely that it is not worth my effort attempting to sort out what may be correct, or not.

In short, I would be very cautious and critical of ideas presented on a site that referenced material from people or groups like the ones which we mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...