ARI vs. TOC

[y_feldblum]

"My ass" seems to be French for "<sarcasm>absolutely</sarcasm>". (This assessment is based on multiple trustworthy sources, of course, though somehow I neglected the dictionary.)

[msb]

Wisdomisbliss: Your posts are rambling. They have little structure and go on for well over a thousand words. Ultimately all they do is just assert: "X is good scholarship", "Y is an honest scholar", "I believe such-and-such", etc. Try to make your posts concise and at least try to support your claims. If you're tired, just post later.

[Betsy]

Let me just give a URL. I apologize for saying that it was Schwartz, when it was Ridpath who wrote this. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/rad/...eviews/tia.html

[...]

But where were the facts? You speak of facts backing these criticisms up, but I don't see that at all, in the biggest review giving through ARI.

Er ... Ridpath didn't write that either. Did you even bother to read the web page you just linked to?

It's a summation of Ridpath's article, on Sciabarra's web site, written by someone else -- probably Sciabarra. It reads:

"THE ACADEMIC DECONSTRUCTION OF AYN RAND"

Ridpath sees Russian Radical as a "truly grotesque example" of how contemporary academics, using current academic methods, have attempted to impress their peers with analyses of Ayn Rand. He sees "postmodern" and "deconstructionist" themes "on open display" in Sciabarra's book, "a book that is preposterous in its thesis, destructive in its purpose, and tortuously numbing in its content." Ridpath views Sciabarra as "a neo-Hegelian" trying to force Rand into that mold in his exposition. He argues that Sciabarra's thesis is "undeserving of serious attention," that it "offers us nothing of significance" about Rand, and that it is symptomatic of contemporary academia and "the worthless products flowing from it." In an endnote to the article, Ridpath states that promoters of the book make a false claim in stating that it benefited from cooperation with Leonard Peikoff. Peikoff's correspondence with the author, claims Ridpath, "consisted of a short, polite, dismissive letter."

==

Actually, that's an accurate summation of Ridpath's conclusions, but it omits all of the facts Ridpath cited in his article. If you want to criticize Ridpath, then read Ridpath and not someone else's version of Ridpath.

(By the way, The Intellectual Activist is, and always has been, a profit-making business separate from the non-profit ARI.)

[stephen_speicher]

Speaking of, Stephen, your first post dealt with a point that could definitely be taken by somebody reading him (and I started clarifying it, but I think a further reading and thought would do the same) ... I was in one of the highest acclaimed continental programs ...

Do they give refunds?

Please compare your posts to some of those by other educated people here. Where some present their ideas in a clear and precise manner, your ideas are typically obscure and vague. Some discuss ideas that are connected and interrelated, while your ideas seem to wander and roam about, hardly ever coming together into an integrated whole. Compare the logical and purposeful writings of others with the virtual stream of consciousness of your overextended and often bloated paragraphs.

I submit your own posts as prima facie evidence of your inability to distinguish true scholarship from the tripe which emanates from Sciabarra and his cohorts. Your own formulations are so muddled that even Sciabarra would probably want to distance himself from any given paragraph that you have written here. You are ill-equipped to pronounce judgment on any of your intellectual superiors here, yet you have slimed and smeared these very same people from the moment you arrived.

If Sciabarra wants the likes of you, he can have you. Gladly.

[wisdomisbliss]

I don't have the time to reply this morning, so I'll just say a few things and come back, most likely to rewire my argument and attempt clarity. I thank you MATTBATEMAN for your suggestions. I'll look into the whole thing later, hopefully with a better way of going about it or organizing it. Believe it or not, your criticism was the best breath of fresh air I have had here, for reasons I think obvious.

In reference to stephen's post, it is great that there is some sort of respect for Sciabarra (as he said he wouldn't want anything to do with me, suggesting some sort of respect for him), which is more than his replies have offered him. I'd like to qualify it for others in order to say that I do ~not~ have connections to him in all of this writing, and am solely responsible for anything that comes out. He may not support my rambling, lack of logical flow, or whatever, but it is ~irrelevant~. I keep saying that I am here for myself, protecting my own beliefs, and I have been far too generous to those who have insulted me in a direct, ad hominem, psychologizing way over and over again, mainly because it is their forum. I only hope that I can remain here without being banished, so that the one position left in this subject contrary to the ARI'ian in this issue (although not for Kelley either, if I'm correct), could be heard, and better next time. I already apologized for going a little off yesterday morning, and I am clearly not doing the same sort of irrational attacking as others are against me (and against Vicki, the only other who had a dissenting argument). Even if I am wrong or have bad flow, I'm here to argue, not trade fighting words. It is much easier to do when I'm far away on a computer, is it not? Also realize that it is very difficult to argue when I cannot help but take these in a bad way. I am still a young philosophy student, trying my best to find the truth, and not even 3 years into Objectivism and philosophy. My attacks are based on evidence I gathered, nothing outside of that, and I still stand by most of them. A lot of my long paragraphs are mainly me trying to explain myself (as I'm doing now), with knowledge that coming from a different direction requires a lot of that. Since I'm not used to this type of emotional discourse, and am a little hot-headed myself, it is hard for me to keep arguing with those that have both odd psychological reactions and charges against me. We are both arguing, and both can be fact- or logically-based and honest. Even me calling Stephen's second post on Sciabarra non-sense, and then stating why, was in referral to ideas, not the person. I'm not dichotomizing the two, but there must be a huge distinction, because there is an illogical leap into integrity, motives, etc. Since this is probably rambling too, and I need to leave for work immediately, I'll just assure those that I can respect that I'll try to sum up my position, and will actulaly look at what I'm writing next time I post. As for the insults, I will only identify them, and no longer respond to them. It can only hurt me and my argument to respond to them. This is the last I'll say on this issue as well, but my position needed to be clarified, in light of these several posts since last night that I will not forget.

-Dominic

[wisdomisbliss]

Actually, let me qualify that last suggestion...Stephen was the only true direct insult I think. Since it was the last one, I somehow conflated it with the rest. Damn it's 10am

[AshRyan]

...I already apologized for going a little off yesterday morning, and I am clearly not doing the same sort of irrational attacking as others are against me (and against Vicki, the only other who had a dissenting argument).

Vicki had an argument?

Seriously, you've been far more respectful and honest than she was, so you're not in danger of being banned at this point. But I do agree with the criticism others have given that you need to make your posts shorter, make your points more concisely, and offer clear-cut evidence for them. While I do think that some of the criticisms have been phrased a little harshly, I can't really disagree with them.

[wisdomisbliss]

Well, as I was rushing through my post, with hopes of getting it out so I can get to the lawns, it was raining...lol. So, I have some time before work. Let me attempt to take a trip through these posts, so as to prepare to give the clarity that is asked for, and escape my rambling, or get the rest over with. I found that after a post (I think my fifth), there was not enough substance from anybody else nor me, but I suggest looking for yourselves.

Woops...I just realized that I must not have realized that there were more than one page when I wrote, because there are a lot of missed posts. I should have noticed when my posts were on pages 6,7, and 8 (I believe). I see that I wasn't alone in some of my issues, and that is great.

Before moving on, let me quote Stephen (in an earlier post):

Please keep your psychologizing to yourself. You know nothing of the motives of those who have posted on this thread. Stick to the facts. If you can refute a single thing said about Sciabarra then do so with a logical argument in reference to facts, not by casting aspersions about poster's motives.

lol

Here is a quote from Betsy (in an earlier post):

It's been a long time -- almost 15 years -- since both Kelley's and Peikoff's statements were written. Since then, both TOC and ARI have continued to act in accordance with their stated ideas and the consequences are apparent. There is plenty of evidence you can use to judge the effects and merits of the "closed" vs the "open" approach.

Alright I'll move onto my main posts and those that follow.

Post 1: I don't think my first post was very rambly at all, and I did make some clear arguments. I did throw out an "odd" idea, in taking objectivism as a paradigm, but i see some clear-cut argumentation. Now were any of these arguments looked at? They weren't responded to.

Betsy's reply: misunderstood what I meant by moral obligation, which is understandable, and I qualified it twice afterwards, and was attacked the second time for it. She also psychologized, clearly:

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Look at her husband's quote I copied above; look good and hard.

Post 2: My response clearly clarified both of those, did it not?

Khaight's reply to post 2: didn't understand the distinction I just made, considering my phrase to imply appeal to authority instead of autonomy again. Honest mistake, or maybe he didn't see my post. that's fine.

Post 3: I replied and clarified my position again, hopefully better.

Post 4: I decided to jump into the evil topic, and gave a lot of ideas that I thought may be helpful. I don't care to discuss this, but even if I rambled it was for some good use in thinking about several issues out loud.

Betsy's 1st reply to Post 3: a good post. She gave examples of how not to buy a book (hmmmmm?), and then did make an argument against moral sanction for or against them, and I agree to that. But it is not the same use done with consistent ARI'ians, and that was what I wanted to argue, and this would imply that she was not being consistent with what she professes to believe, in ARI's stance. I'll abstract my logic from post 5 below, and will do that there.

Betsy's 2nd reply to post 3: she denies any hierarchy. She calls it a Kelleyite/Libertarian myth, and basically says there are no annointments to some 'hierarchy'. My understanding of it is a small circle under Peikoff, so perhaps hierarchy doesn't fit, but annoitations don't have to be explicit to exist. She then refers to a breaking of "reality" making for those 'banishments' (as I called them), but that is so broad there's no way to know what is implied. She then says there are no "ARI members", and belonging is for TOC.

Posts 5 &6: I do ramble a bit, so let me get the point across differently, step-by-step. (1) I may have not made this too explicit, but after Betsy's last reply, we assume that we can call a group of people that we all identify as ARI'ians, and these take the exact position identified in the subjectline. If Betsy wants to argue that, I refer to her quote way above. (2) ARI'ians in practice have a very strict idea of moral sanction, and not only do they preach it, but they sure as hell do practice it. (3) If you are an ARI'ian, you accept the premise of moral sanction. (4) To be an ARI'ian, you are obligated to act on that premise, or else you are guilty of being inconsistent. This is not an inessential issue, as it is the main issue that separates ARI from everything else connected to Objectivism. The open/closed debate is also part of it, but I am under the impression that the former is more important (if not, no biggy--still essential).

All else is me getting confused and having to defend inessentials, and not much substance is left. The argument above is where rational discourse pretty much died, and analytic stuff took over. I also lost my temper and rambled a lot more, as is the nature of posts done with a track of mind. All of the rest of the nitpicking I may continue in another post, but after this one I'm seeing that all of my main arguments have not been touched on, just little bits and pieces of nitpicking used to denounce me as a whole. I backed up what I could, used relevant words like 'seems' to imply the direction my brain was beating, and I don't feel my judgement was too far ahead of the facts. Whoever reads this may very well disagree, but it is what I believe has happened.

This is another long post, but it is the nature of this type of post.

-DOminic

[msb]

wisdomisbliss: Your first post asserted that Sciabarra is misunderstood. To support this, you linked to an article by Sciabarra. You also claim that you wrote a paper on this recently, recommended a book by Sciabarra and implied that most of us wouldn't be "morally free to read it." Then you have a paragraph that starts off with the question of whether Objectivism is open, and gradually move somehow to reasserting your praise of Sciabarra. You use the term "frozen" once or twice, implying God only knows what. You have a couple sentences at the beginning of your last paragraph that run about 150 words, neither of which I can decipher without terrible effort. In other words, your first post, aside from the link, is a slew of incoherant arguments and ugly innuendos.

The article you linked to as support is absurd. It identified five aspects of the dialectical method. But how each of these aspects add up to something called "dialectics", what "dialectics" means taken as a single concept, the purpose of identifying or explicating this notion, etc., are all absent. As a quick example:

HOLISM: As I state in the Introduction, dialectics (p. 17) "is a method that preserves the analytical integrity of the whole." Dialectics views each of the factors within the whole as "distinctions within an organic unity. . . . inseparable aspect(s) of a wider totality." In the context of Ayn Rand, holism means that she never loses sight of the whole in any aspect of her project.

The analytical integrity? Is this different from "synthetic" integrity? If all this means is "that she never loses sight of the whole", then why all the strange terminology? And the gigantic objection, to paraphrase Stephen, is: how is dialectics different from normal thinking?

In other words: what is going on here? Even if all this made sense or were true, what is to be gained from it? It seems on its face like it adds nothing new and simply rewords and reorders Ayn Rand's philosophy to the point where it is, at best, useless and unreadable.

I don't see that you've put forth any sort of argument or said anything meaningful at all. Sometimes you will, as I said, make assertions to the effect of what you believe, your mental state (anger, sleepiness), who you think is honest, or link to what someone else wrote. But these all come across as baldly subjective assertions. Also, your posts are full of baseless and cowardly implications, i.e. that we are cult members who are bound to a hierarchy and morally forbidden from reading unapproved texts. Don't be surprised that you aren't being well-received. I'm new to philosophy too, but I don't go around saying what things "seem" like to me, and then drawing thousands of words of conclusions. There is a level of clarity required for writing to facilitate rational thought. Your posts are far below that level.

(Incidentally, I think this entire discussion is absurd. Nothing new was added after initial comments by Betsy and others to the effect of: the most important thing is to read as much Ayn Rand as you can, and then, if you're so inclined, look at what ARI is doing versus what TOC is doing.)

EDIT: The point of this is to try to show that what you do in your last post, namely try to go over what you've already said, is the wrong approach. Just start over. And when you start over, take time to edit your posts, make sure they are structurally and grammatically correct, that your concepts are precise, etc. Don't be in a rush to go anywhere. It can take more than one sitting, a great deal of thought, and a tremendous amount of editing. Just because this is a forum on the internet doesn't make it so informal that you can just type straight through and click send. When you write you crystalize your thought. It should be as sharp and clear as you can possibly make it. (I have, for example, edited this post about 5 times, since I posted it, for grammar and word choice.)

Edited May 22, 2004 by mattbateman

[stephen_speicher]

In reference to stephen's post, it is great that there is some sort of respect for Sciabarra (as he said he wouldn't want anything to do with me, suggesting some sort of respect for him)

I have absolutely no respect for Sciabarra.

I do not respect the fox for recognizing the weasel.

Even if I am wrong or have bad flow, I'm here to argue, not trade fighting words.... I have been far too generous to those who have insulted me in a direct, ad hominem, psychologizing way ...  it is hard for me to keep arguing with those that have both odd psychological reactions ...

Let me get this straight. You are here solely for rational argument, and others here are guilty of insulting you, clearly a result of "odd psychological reactions" on their part. Well then, I guess I just had an "odd psychological reaction" when you stated:

"the obvious dishonest attacks on Sciabarra not only in IA, but through some oddly anonymous sources and from almost anybody who clearly calls themself an ARI'ian."

As an "ARI'ian" (I guess I know the secret handshake), and as an admirer of IA, and as one who attacked Sciabarra here on this forum, it must have indeed been rather odd on my part to have a "psychological reaction" to the mere suggestion of dishonesty on my part, and "obvious" dishonesty at that.

Evidently I owe you an apology, Dominic. If was foolish of me to have had such an "odd psychological reaction" to your suggestion of dishonesty on my part. I should have recognized it for the rational argument that it was.

[msb]

Wisdomisbliss: I looked at your website (through your profile) and found this:

My style of writing is not very careful grammatically nor overly-intellectual or academic.  Knowing me personally would indicate that it just is not my personality, and I believe that it is simply more in tune with my emotional disposition and attachment to what I write, as well as my knowledge that with the quantity of information that I want to put out, great quality would just be too much of a hassle.  It’ll definitely improve with time, but in many cases what flows out will be essentially what is put out, and I’m much more concerned with the main ideas involved than analyzing several layers of meaning of simple concepts I use or checking for exact proper grammar.  Of course I am still shallow in the field of philosophy, so take my lack of scholarly precision as a developmental issue as well.

This is completely, deeply wrong. You cannot just "put out" whatever "flows out" of your "emotional disposition." This is obviously the source of (or at least closely related to) all of your vague and often incredibly obnoxious assertions.

[wisdomisbliss]

I am cancelling membership, so don't bother discussing any more issues with me. I don't want any part of this any longer. decide whatever reason you want for this; but be sure it'll make for some great sweeping generalizations. By cancelling membership, I will not allow myself to continue to go by impulse and sanction this. I have not enjoyed this, and I have concluded why I could never enjoy this.

[msb]

I don't know why I bothered...

[stephen_speicher]

I don't know why I bothered...

Because you care, and rightfully so. I for one was very glad that you took the time to peruse his site and discover those incredibly revealing words he wrote. They show that he is not just muddleheaded, but consciously and willingly so.

If you found it literally painful -- as I did -- to follow the torturous logic of his almost random stream of thoughts, then imagine what it must be like to be him! Note that, on the one hand, you cannot hold a person responsible for those who claim support, but it really does make perfect sense for him to support Sciabarra. As I said way back at the beginning of this thread, Sciabarra has become a sort of magnet, a clearing house for those who would distort Objectivism.

[Betsy]

I am cancelling membership, so don't bother discussing any more issues with me.  I don't want any part of this any longer.

This is a perfect example of the self-selection mechanism that drives some people away from ARI and towards people like David Kelley and Chris Sciabarra.

It is also a good demonstration of BETSY'S LAW #1

IN THE LONG RUN YOU GET THE KIND OF FRIENDS -- AND THE KIND OF ENEMIES -- YOU DESERVE.

[AwakeAndFree]

I wish the long run was here already!

Anyway - at least she had the courtesy to kick herself out.

Some people have to be shown the door.

[wisdomisbliss]

Actually, can you show me the door? I couldn't find how to delete my membership and sent a message to a moderator to do that immediately after posting, but my name is still registered 3 days later. Please delete my membership, and do us all a favor.

[AutoJC]

ARI vs. TOC, Truth or Toleration

Both offer opinions.

I am a frequent visitor of ARI, but since then, I found capitalism.org to be far more rewarding.

I'm very inclined to gravitate to articles that discuss things in a rational, logical manner, that stauchly defend individual rights, free trade, capitalism, and the morality of war, among other subjects.

As a stauch capitalist, I am dismayed somewhat at the callous attitude displayed by some of the commentators regarding Republicans being superior to Democrats. I can only refer to Rand's own commentary regarding this, and how she warned us not to join any group or party. Her negative criticisms of the left and right were equally forceful and principaled.

I need to see more of this thinking on all of the so-called Objectivist sites.

[stephen_speicher]

Both offer opinions.

You mean "opinion" as opposed to knowledge? I cannot comment of the TOC, but the ARI writings are definitely rooted in knowledge -- specifically the knowledge of Ayn Rand's Objectivism -- not opinion.

I'm very inclined to gravitate to articles that discuss things in a rational, logical manner, that stauchly defend individual rights, free trade, capitalism, and the morality of war, among other subjects.

Politics is an interesting subject, but just one small part of the Objectivist philosophy. ARI promotes the entire philosophy of Objectivism, not just political applications.

As a stauch capitalist, I am dismayed somewhat at the callous attitude displayed by some of the commentators regarding Republicans being superior to Democrats.  I can only refer to Rand's own commentary regarding this, and how she warned us not to join any group or party.

You mean like this:

"Since only registered Republicans are entitled to vote in the Republican primaries, I suggest to all those who are interested in political action and specifically all those who advocate capitalism, that they should not fail to register in time.

"If you are a registered voter, you must re-register if you have moved since the last election. If you are registered as an 'Independent,' but intend to vote for the Republican candidate, I suggest that you change your registration to 'Republican.' The last opportunity to do so, before the Presidential primaries, is this month; in New York, it is on October 10, 11 and 12, 1963.

"A party registration does not commit you to vote for any of the party's candidates in the election. You are free to change your mind or to 'cross party lines,' according to your own judgment at the time."

-- Ayn Rand, "A Suggestion," The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 10, October 1963.

Ayn Rand wrote many things, in many different contexts. You cannot use what she wrote as a club to batter those with whom you disagree.

Her negative criticisms of the left and right were equally forceful and principaled.

You seem to often focus on "negative criticisms," as in another thread where that became an issue in itself. Perhaps you should more often focus on the positive aspects of what Ayn Rand wrote. Objectivism is primarily a philosophy for living, not a weapon to attack others.

I need to see more of this  thinking on all of the so-called Objectivist sites.

I hope not. And, the ARI site is an Objectivist site, not a "so-called" Objectivist site. Perhaps you are not quite as familiar with the Objectivist philosophy as you make yourself appear to be.

[Patrick]

Betsy, you said that Kelley's Evidence of The Senses was full of too much philosophical jargon. What do you think of his book Unrugged Individualism? What about A Life of One's Own?

[AutoJC]

You mean "opinion" as opposed to knowledge? I cannot comment of the TOC, but the ARI writings are definitely rooted in knowledge -- specifically the knowledge of Ayn Rand's Objectivism -- not opinion.

Politics is an interesting subject, but just one small part of the Objectivist philosophy. ARI promotes the entire philosophy of Objectivism, not just political applications.

I hope not. And, the ARI site is an Objectivist site, not a "so-called" Objectivist site. Perhaps you are not quite as familiar with the Objectivist philosophy as you make yourself appear to be.

Like many opinions you read, their opinions have factual support.

To call their opinions "fact" is an aberration in itself.

I have no argument regarding ARI's goal to promote Objectivism.

Based upon my strong foundation knowledge of Objectivism, I do, however, sometimes question and challenge their application of Objectivism. And I direct such question/challenge regarding individuals such as Robert Tracinski, who I don't always agree with.

You mean like this:

"Since only registered Republicans are entitled to vote in the Republican primaries, I suggest to all those who are interested in political action and specifically all those who advocate capitalism, that they should not fail to register in time.

"If you are a registered voter, you must re-register if you have moved since the last election. If you are registered as an 'Independent,' but intend to vote for the Republican candidate, I suggest that you change your registration to 'Republican.' The last opportunity to do so, before the Presidential primaries, is this month; in New York, it is on October 10, 11 and 12, 1963.

"A party registration does not commit you to vote for any of the party's candidates in the election. You are free to change your mind or to 'cross party lines,' according to your own judgment at the time."

-- Ayn Rand, "A Suggestion," The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 10, October 1963.

It's exactly what I did- like many others, to skirt an unfair, unconstitutional law which prohibits independents from voting in primaries. This was the scenario when Rand registered, as it was when I registered.

It, in no way, contradicts this from Rand:

""Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies."

Ayn Rand wrote many things, in many different contexts. You cannot use what she wrote as a club to batter those with whom you disagree.

Why not? You people here do.

You seem to often focus on "negative criticisms," as in another thread where that became an issue in itself. Perhaps you should more often focus on the positive aspects of what Ayn Rand wrote. Objectivism is primarily a philosophy for living, not a weapon to attack others.

I am reminded of the many speakers who go around trying to boost the morale of groups- they call themselves "inspirational speakers." They accuse critics of being "negative." Those who oppose dogma and tradition and are suppressed by the dominance of their leaders and protest are conveniently pigeon-holed into the "negative" category. It is said that such people are BAD KARMA.

So the inspirational speakers go forth in the world and spread their inspiration and their "feel-good" platitudes such as to mask the realities and challenges that we face in the world today.

What a fine way to counter one's critics! To say to your critics, "You cop a negative attitude!"

I can only scoff at such inspirational speakers. Imagine that, masking reality to "feel good?"

What the heck, it beats getting high on drugs.

[stephen_speicher]

Like many opinions you read, their opinions have factual support.

To call their opinions "fact" is an aberration in itself.

Your response is evasive. A distinction was made between ARI and TOC, as being the distinction between "Truth and Toleration." You obliterated that distinction by declaring "Both offer opinions." I pointed out that the ARI writings are rooted in knowledge, not opinion, and now in your response you effectively obliterate the distinction I drew between knowledge and opinion. Do you know the distinction between knowledge and opinion? Do you intend to defend your assertion about the ARI or will you again be evasive and talk about straw men?

I am reminded of the many speakers who go around trying to boost the morale of groups ... ... I can only scoff at such inspirational speakers. Imagine that, masking reality to "feel good? What the heck, it beats getting high on drugs."

You are again evading an issue which applies to you by creating an irrelevant straw man. Any chance that you will actually deal with what has been presented?

[khaight]

Betsy, you said that Kelley's Evidence of The Senses was full of too much philosophical jargon. What do you think of his book Unrugged Individualism? What about A Life of One's Own?

It's been a while since I read them, but I do remember thinking that A Life of One's Own read very much like a libertarian tract against the welfare state. There was little if anything in it that struck me as distinctively Objectivist; it could have been written by any of a number of libertarians and come out essentially the same.

There's nothing inherently wrong with writing a political monograph that doesn't make distinctively Objectivist arguments, but it seems to me that it would be better/more effective for Objectivists to make such arguments and leave the more generic stuff to others. Comparative advantage and all that.

[Betsy]

Betsy, you said that Kelley's Evidence of The Senses was full of too much philosophical jargon. What do you think of his book Unrugged Individualism? What about A Life of One's Own?

[Repost. My original post got lost.]

I sometimes kiddingly refer to Unrugged Individualism as the book that pulls the rug out from under individualism.

But seriously ...

Those two books are bland and boring and not particularly Objectivist. I suspect they were written to try to put something vaguely "objectivish" over on non-Objectivists and to appeal to Kelley's core supporters: people who want to be associated with Objectivism but have a strong need to "belong" and be accepted by others.

[Patrick]

It's been a while since I read them, but I do remember thinking that A Life of One's Own read very much like a libertarian tract against the welfare state.  There was little if anything in it that struck me as distinctively Objectivist; it could have been written by any of a number of libertarians and come out essentially the same.

There's nothing inherently wrong with writing a political monograph that doesn't make distinctively Objectivist arguments, but it seems to me that it would be better/more effective for Objectivists to make such arguments and leave the more generic stuff to others.  Comparative advantage and all that.

Your right that A Life of One's Own reads mostly like a libertarian book. Kelley does however directly quote Rand in one section of the book and talks about how the welfare state is rooted in altruism. I can look up the page numbers if you'd like.