Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged: On Some Recent Controversies

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Clearly the Gang of Fourteen are being ridiculous. Attacking Diana for being enthusiastic about a topic and not showing the tone of reluctant disagreement in responding to Dr. Peikoff's off-the-hip remarks in a podcast is a failure at objectivity to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The website doesn't look like it was created to make a personal attack on you. It seems to be made to address splits and schisms in Objectivism by providing links to the disagreement and then to the more consistent position.

(I'm aware that this is an automatic cross-post.)

As to the rest of the wall of text here, I think I can address the essence behind it all with a simple statement. Recognition of the fact that we are human and therefore fallible is not a blank check to believe anything you want. Just because Objectivism doesn't contain a stance on a certain issue doesn't mean that there isn't a proper application of Objectivist principles (and their full context) to (the full context of) that issue.

To promote a rationally benevolent Objectivist culture does not mean eschewing moral judgment,

This contradicts the rest of your post I think. We're supposed to refrain from passing moral judgment on people who are wrong on serious issues, even after having considered our arguments, as a means to the end of fostering toleration and discussion of opposing views. (That's the essence I see behind the rest of your post.) And yet we're not supposed to eschew moral judgment?

Edited by Amaroq
Link to post
Share on other sites

The website doesn't look like it was created to make a personal attack on you.

It is quite plainly an incomplete site that somehow, the creators felt fine in releasing it with a very large portion devoted to Hsieh. They felt it necessary to put basically all the FAQ content devoted to Hsieh. There are minimal substantive arguments presented, on a site that quite clearly puts Hsieh on the level of the Brandens and David Kelley, and even Libertarianism. I cannot evaluate the site as anything more than dishonest by it pretending to say "hey, we're just asking people to check their premises!" On top of that, these people who made the site are quite frankly nobodies.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly the Gang of Fourteen are being ridiculous. Attacking Diana for being enthusiastic about a topic and not showing the tone of reluctant disagreement in responding to Dr. Peikoff's off-the-hip remarks in a podcast is a failure at objectivity to say the least.

Like vote Democratic in 2006 because of the immediate danger of a theocratic takeover? And bomb the “Ground Zero Mosque” as a matter of foreign policy? Or doctors who perform sex changes are, without qualification, morally equivalent to Nazi concentration camp monsters such as Mengele? Yeah, there’s been much that’s ridiculous, and thus worthy of ridicule (er, enthusiastic disagreement). For those who’ve been around long enough to understand the above juxtaposition, here’s an old Bob Marley number that comes to mind:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like vote Democratic in 2006 because of the immediate danger of a theocratic takeover? And bomb the “Ground Zero Mosque” as a matter of foreign policy? Or doctors who perform sex changes are, without qualification, morally equivalent to Nazi concentration camp monsters such as Mengele?

Yes, like those. Add the McCaskey affair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To fix/ammend my previous post, it is irrelevant that I know who those site creators are, but it primarily disappoints me that they opted for an attack rather than productive effort towards useful ends.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you bring it up then? Or are you just going to delete this post too ( I assume it was you did that so with the last, if not, forget this last question )?

I would expect you people to read the FAQ and Purpose section and think more carefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you bring it up then? Or are you just going to delete this post too ( I assume it was you did that so with the last, if not, forget this last question )?

I would expect you people to read the FAQ and Purpose section and think more carefully.

One of reasons I don't read Noodlefood much is that what she does there has little to do Objectivism at the philosophical level. For that same reason, she does not belong in a category with Libertarianism (bad politics) or David Kelley (wants to add a new virtue to Objectivist ethics). Apparently she is being compared to the Brandens for some reason.

Who the hell are these 14 anti-counter-revolutionaries who are doing such a stellar job of guarding Objectivism from subversion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to the Brandens? In that she is someone that the authors think is a risk of misrepresenting Objectivism and the like? Sure, in that sense she is. Reasonably too I might add. I would like you to find where it says she is *as* bad ( or worse ) as those other people though. I seem to have missed that, *somehow*.

As for who they are : Why dont you look into it instead of asking here? I am not their PR man, nor do I intend to do your fact-checking for you.

I'm betting that in a few weeks, some of them will quit the group.

Based on? At the moment all is going very well and everyone seems very happy.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to the Brandens? In that she is someone that the authors think is a risk of misrepresenting Objectivism and the like? Sure, in that sense she is. Reasonably too I might add.

Not reasonable. The issues singled out by the Gang of 14 are:

On the Ground Zero Mosque

On the Resignation of John McCaskey

On the Morality of Eating “Anencephalic” Infants

On Privacy Lies

On Transgender Persons

None of these are part of Objectivism, and the issue of privacy lies is the only one which Ayn Rand is on record opining upon. Diana seems to be leaning toward agreeing with Ayn Rand not contradicting her. Where is the controversy?

I would like you to find where it says she is *as* bad ( or worse ) as those other people though. I seem to have missed that, *somehow*.

The very fact that they are all on the same blacklist of troublemakers is an assertion that she is comparable to the other members of the set.

And why isn't there a John McCaskey page? Or a George Reisman page?

As for who they are : Why dont you look into it instead of asking here? I am not their PR man, nor do I intend to do your fact-checking for you.

Oh, so they are nobodies. Check.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you think I know the current status of relationship between these people and the project?
I don't know how you know. I don't share your brain nor your gnosis. Since your name is not listed, I assumed you were not part of the team. I think that's a fair assumption, given that I assume you'd be proud to put your name to an effort to save Objectivism.

If you are part of it, I'm glad; at least the world makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...