ARI vs. TOC

[vickirusell]

You appear to be more interested in arguing every little point and mischaracterizing things I've said as well as taking them out of context. I've said what I have to say. I've no desire to get into further arguments over the matter. The name-calling has begun rather quickly and I simply don't engage in that. You can agree or disagree with me. Those who are interested in listening to what I've said, truly considering it, can do so, and those who are not don't have to, yes?

Truth is, I'm already bored.

[Betsy]

But regardless of what you say here, it seems like everywhere I turn it is ARI'ians who refuse to acknowledge a philosopher ~at all~ because of something personal or something considered immoral in what they say, and that must include even renting them from a library.

If they are "everywhere," then it should be easy to point them out. How about naming about a dozen names.

I mean the obvious cases (god i don't want to bring these in like everybody else, but it always comes up) of Branden's earlier books and Kelley's "Evidence of the Senses" not being acknowledged, to me probably disregarding their validity (although I honestly haven't fully read either, but have partly read them)

I actually have read them much more than that.

My opinion of Kelley's Evidence of the Senses is the same as it was when I got it fresh off the press. After trying to plow through two chapters of muddled "philosopherese," I told Harry Binswanger I was quitting and wouldn't finish reading it "until the English translation comes out."

As for Branden, his last good book was The Psychology of Self-Esteem. Everything since then has either been a non-book (The Disowned Self), an embarrassing attempt at self-justification (Judgement Day), or attempt to cash in on the latest New Age trend.

This is the line of thinking I see, this disregard of essentials and complete detachment of everything connected to one 'bad' part (although not exactly everything, because you'd have to live in a bubble) and I don't see how it isn't the general case. 

Maybe the reason Kelley and Branden aren't getting much attention is that life is short and people would rather read something else.

Again, even though authority may play some sort of a role, I'm not suggesting that, but am suggesting the line of thinking in the individuals around ARI.

If you're "not suggesting it," why did you bring it up? You don't find the people who choose to ignore Kelley and Branden saying things like "(Authority figure) wouldn't like it if you read that book." It just doesn't happen. The whole notion is a figment of an ARI opponent's imagination.

I know you don't feel that from the inside they are that way at all, but from the outside I see the disassociation (regardless of validity) of everything connected to several ex-members of ARI, the brutal abuse of people like Sciabarra that have no foundations, etc.. 

Make up you mind. Are we "disassociating" from them -- i.e., ignoring them -- or are we "brutally abusing" them? It can't be both.

For the most part, people here tend to ignore them until one of their partisans raises the issue. Then, we say why they are wrong or not of value. If that's "brutal abuse," so be it.

[stephen_speicher]

In terms of 'his' Dialectical method, I cannot see how anybody could know both Rand and understand what Sciabarra means, yet deny that Rand is a great dialectical thinker.

Here is a portion of a debate I had with Sciabarra some five years ago. I challenged the nature of his attribution of the dialectic to Aristotle, as well as to Ayn Rand. I present this as information for those who have any serious interest in understanding the issue, not to further debate the issue with anyone. I have spent more time and effort than these sort of issues deserve, and will not be drawn in again.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I am glad,however, that Chris mentions his own rebuttal to the Hegelian academic David MacGregor, since I think there are some issues apparent in that rebuttal which perhaps can help to further this discussion, and I raise these points below.

First, however, just one comment relating to academic scholarship and any controversy in regard to Aristotle. Chris recognizes that I adopt what he calls the "conventional view", that Aristotle neither thought the dialectic to be fundamental, or even relevant to the purpose of establishing significance, and he is glad I cite academic references. I am puzzled, however, by Chris' choice of references for differing views. For instance, Chris cites Terence Irwin, the Cornell University scholar in Greek philosophy. Though I disagree with part of Irwin's perspective, Irwin completely supports the view of Aristotle which I advanced in my previous post, which same facts Chris disagees with and somehow interprets differently.

Irwin advances the view that Aristotle held two somewhat different views regarding the dialectical; the pure dialectic, and the strong dialectic. The 'pure' dialectic, to Irwin, is the dialectic presented by Aristotle in the writings I mentioned, i.e., the _Prior Analytics_, _Posterior Analytics_, and the _Topics_. Here Irwin is in agreement with the assessment of Aristotle which I made, and with which Chris disagrees. It is Irwin's view of 'strong' dialectic, that Aristotle advanced in the _Metaphysics_ a position which established the dialectical as a means of establishing first principles. I disagree with Irwin's assessment of this 'strong' dialectical, but we both agree regarding Aristotle's view in the _Analytics_ and the _Topics_.

Hence, I am puzzled that Chris made a point of letting us know that his source for his view of Aristotle on dialectics was not just the _Rhetoric_, or a secondary source such as Rasmussen, but that it was based on the works I mentioned, the _Analytics_ and the _Topics_, yet the academic reference he cites agrees with my view of Aristotle, not Chris', in these works. I am similarly puzzled by Chris' reference of Robin Smith, since Smith disagrees with both G.E.L. Owen and Terence Irwin, insofar as Aristotle believing in dialectic establishing first principles. Perhaps we will see how Chris sorts this all out in the chapter devoted to Aristotle in his new book, but I must admit, I am perplexed. Anyway, on to the MacGregor rebuttal.

Chris wrote a long response to a critic of his book, David MacGregor, a Hegelian apologist and author of the recent book _Hegel and Marx : After the Fall of Communism_. There are many points of interest in this exchange, but what I find most intriguing is that here we have a Hegelian praising Chris for having established the connection of a Hegelian and Marxist dialectical in Ayn Rand, but chiding Chris for attempting to extract that dialectical method as a form which is an alternative to that of Hegel and Marx!

Interestingly, MacGregor is further critical of Chris for using the "amorphous definition of method he took from Ollman" to partially justify Ayn Rand as a "dialectical thinker." Now, Ollman is Bertell Ollman, a political theorist from New York University who specializes in Marxism and the dialectical method. Ollman was Chris' mentor and thesis advisor at N.Y.U.

In his rebuttal to MacGregor, Chris defends Ollman's view of dialectics, recognizing that Ollman contends that Marxism is "the most consistently dialectical system", yet Chris thinks that dialectics can be wrested from Marxism and provide us with "an opportunity to disconnect those principles from Marxism, and to practice them in the articulation of a non-Marxist radicalism." Chris mentions a number of the more important aspects of dialectical thinking. I repeat some below, with a brief comment, or rhetorical question, on each.

Chris: "On the basis of core ontological and epistemological insights into real-world relations, a dialectician examines the objects of study in their intricate systemic and dynamic complexity."

How does this differ from ordinary knowledge? Is this different, for instance, from Dr. Peikoff's statement:

Peikoff: "In regard to any concept, idea, proposal, theory, or item of knowledge, never forget or ignore the context on which it depends and which conditions its validity and use."

Which of these above statements is more general, more explicit, more precise?

Chris: "Such inquiry is followed by self-clarification, in which the theorist intellectually reconstructs the whole before proceeding to exposition, in which the presentation of findings must take into account the context and interests of the audience one addresses."

The first part of this sentence seems to say, in different words, that all new knowledge must be integrated. But what of the second part of the sentence. Is the dialectical method--the principles which Chris is attempting to defend Ollman's view to MacGregor--concerned with the "context and interests of the audience"? What happened to the dialectical as a method of thinking? Is _this_ what Chris thinks of as the Aristotlean heritage of the dialectic? Chris says that "Aristotle recognized dialectic and rhetoric as counterparts of each other", yet he admits that "Aristotle argued that it was insufficient for establishing scientific truth." So then, is a _principle_ of dialectic method, which Chris focuses on in Ollman's defense, this concern for rhetoric?

Chris: "Ultimately, this dialectical enterprise requires praxis--conscious action in the world that brings about change, even as it deepens our understanding of that world."

What does this mean? We have to exercise the dialectical, changing the way we understand things. Is this somehow different from the ordinary process of thinking?

Please keep the context clearly in mind here--these are the "aspects of dialectical thinking" which Chris offers to MacGregor to counter MacGregor's criticism that Ollman, and hence Chris, tivializes the concept of the dialectical method.

All right, enough of this. It is clear that the difference in thought, the difference in approach, the difference in understanding between Chris and I is substantial, and in my view, fundamental. I do not think there are any more ideas I can voice to better characterize how I hold the "dialectical method" itself as a trivial and inconsequential aspect of philosophical concern, at least the method which I have gleaned from Chris. So, perhaps this is a good time to stop expounding, and start concretizing.

I invite Chris to do something rather specific. Instead of all this talk about the synchronical and diachronical organic dialectical which transcends false alternatives, let's have a specific, concrete example. I would like to see, without reference to the $10 words of higher dialectical abstractions, a specific example of Ayn Rand's use of the dialectical method in the thinking which she has done.

To make this specific, in his book Chris states that Ayn Rand's "transcendence of opposites is manifest in every branch of philosophy", and the "false alternatives" of intrinsicism and subjectivism are such an example. Okay, I agree, intrinsicism and subjectivism are false alternatives, but now I want to see, specifically and concretely, how the "dialectical method" was employed by Ayn Rand in her transcendence. I would like to see Chris present only the _application_ of his views on the dialectical--not the broad statements of principles--and show us how Miss Rand used dialectical thinking to arrive at her concept of the objective. In the process of doing so, I would hope that Chris could distinguish this development from the ordinary means of thinking and analysis which have been detailed and explained already by Ayn Rand.

I welcome such a presentation, and I would encourage Chris, should he wish to respond, to be brief in doing so. The focus here should be on specifics, concretes, aspects of thinking which link to the development of the concept of the objective. A simple sketch of such is all that is really required, not a treatise.

[Note: Sciabarra was unable to provide what I asked for, but gave me more rhetoric again.]

-----------------------------------------------------------

[Betsy]

If you are going to tell me that there is nobody that can be called an "ARI'ian" I don't understand your point.  Most people clearly tell us whether or not they are "ARI'ian" or "Kelleyian" or whatever. 

That wasn't my point at all. There are obvious ARI supporters here, including me. My beef is with the outrageously false claims made about what we do and why we do it.

I've also made it clear that I am unfamiliar with a lot that goes on inside the ARI-world, and therefore I really don't care about the internal-hierarchy-thing, other than the fact that people like Bernstein and others who are further up are seemingly ~persuaded~ by ARI to drop connections to groups and people, so that is my understanding of the hierarchy.

You are "unfamiliar with a lot that goes on inside the ARI-world" yet you condemn things which "seemingly" happened?

It that any way to do moral judgement?

[stephen_speicher]

Further discussion between you and me is ended other than to say that I have read ALL of the articles. I will not respond further to your insults .

You have managed to insult almost every poster on this thread, as well as insulting Objectivists in general and Ayn Rand in particular, and you have the gall to claim that DPW has insulted you?

I'm afraid your confusion extends way beyond your obvious ignorance of Objectivism.

[wisdomisbliss]

Okay, I think I'll do one last set of replies and then move on, because I don't feel like the conversation between me and Betsy is going any further, and nor are my interests. I haven't felt attacked or anything of the sort, but I feel as though I've hit a dead end, and we are at the point of nit-picking. I'll think about responding some on next post before getting ready for work..

As for Stephen's post, if you don't wish to argue something you spent a lot of time arguing, I understand, so I'll just make a suggestion, and not spend the time either...If you haven't taken a look at chapter 4 of "Total Freedom," it may show you the difference between how obvious it seems in most discussion of context-keeping already (and therefore nothing new), and how much of an identification it really is. We ~are~ all focused on context-keeping, but this does not make us not prone to falling into dualisms (perhaps in a theory of mind), losing track of essentials versus inessentials (moralizing), seeing something as just the sum of its parts (the collective is the sum of individuals), and even accepting dichotomies, and putting one over the other (rationalizing and intellectualizing is something I've caught on in a lot of conversations and experiences with Objectivists---hell I'm guilty of it myself sometimes). He identifies the 5 methodological orientations, and it clearly goes to a philosophical level not explicitly approached in Objectivism, and its value (as I find obvious in myself) is the identification of the method in layers of complexity, and the ability to therefore hold to it in all rational discourse consciously and subconsciously. He does give a better account of it in that book I discussed, and it is much more specific than the other claims connected to context-keeping in Objectivism.

I'm happy you have time with it, and have come to your own conclusions on it.

-Dominic

[wisdomisbliss]

Forgive my quoting here if it doesn't work properly, but let me reply one-by-one as quick as I can...

There are obvious ARI supporters here, including me. My beef is with the outrageously false claims made about what we do and why we do it.

I guess what I have been coming to with all of this is a switch in moral standing. Since I too believe ideas have evaluative power, though with intellectual honesty solely as my standard--and perhaps a different account of it, by accepting the intellectual dishonesty in the attacks and disallowment of valid works and ~so on~ as okay, you are morally sanctioning dishonesty, whether you do these things or not, whether you read the philosophers or not. You have not once said that what is done by those high in the hierarchy (or whatever you want to call it, or however you want to say it) is wrong, so I suppose you either take the same position or no position, and therefore you are either sanctioning it or standing by it. If I am wrong about it being dishonest, then this whole statement is begging the question, but I've already discussed it in several ways in all of these posts.

As a quick sidenote regarding valid texts, I did say Branden's earlier works, and I assure you that in what I have read in Kelley's text, which I believe was looked over by Peikoff and others and accepted, was a first chapter that touched on an extremely crucial topic in not only the history of philosophy (which he showed a great understanding of there), but for Objectivism. I only call these the 'valid' texts because they had at least the same status as several others yet lost it only when the person was banished. I leave the judgement of future texts (outside of the circles or whatever you consider them) aside here as a completely different issue.

You are "unfamiliar with a lot that goes on inside the ARI-world" yet you condemn things which "seemingly" happened?

It that any way to do moral judgement?

Sigh...Betsy, the reason I say things like that is because you keep referring to what goes on in the inside, and I keep referring to what the public sees and can gather from that, and have I not talked about particulars (something you have seemed to look over in a later comment), with judgements I've made using the evidence I had in front of me, and not through the likely hearsay that you seem to unfortunately be used to replying to? You haven't denied the truth to any of the facts I use, including the seeming persuasion of Bernstein that he better not have anyting to do with JARS, 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 (look at sites like the Noodlefood one you participated in recently--look at this site, etc.), and attacks on others that show that reading has not taken place. Stephen and you may very well read the texts, and there are several others who would read them and would call themselves ARI'ian, but the argument has become that I don't know if I find it consistent with what being an ARI'ian is, using the issue of this subjectline as the main determinant. Am I making any sense to you?

If they are "everywhere," then it should be easy to point them out. How about naming about a dozen names.

I always expect to be put in these positions, and refuse to name people who I've known and don't want to make public, nor do I want to make anybody public that isn't already, so I'd be stuck there. But why can't you just look at any objectivist site and look for this discussion. I don't recall if Noodlefood comments had people saying it, but a great place to look is in an essay on that website (again I feel like I shouldn't be making a person public, although I do not know her at all) talking about a class she took in the Objectivism Study Group, and all of the responses she had there fit perfectly into this. Personally, I had looked up to a person and knew them well in my earlier attachment to Objectivism (I'm not even 3 years in yet though), and he showed that same moralizing issue that wouldn't let him read or talk to anybody who he disagreed with. You know, I do seem to know many others who do not take that position though, yet they may fully support the arguments in Fact/Value and so on, and it bothers me that they are called dogmatists for coming to agree with everything rand says, yet I feel as though the buying of some books would not be consistent with an acceptance of the Fact/Value essay. You can say that I may have been guilty of exaggeration there, because I can honestly only think of a very few people that I myself know, and have been relying a lot on indirect statements by others( but saying they could all be wrong is not in order). Still, my argument that it is not consistent with Peikoff's stance and the stance that Schwartz, Binswanger, and the person who wrote "On Ayn Rand" (another critic of Sciabarra's text that implied not having read him) and others have that are highly up there in whatever you call it, if it isn't hierarchy.

I actually have read them much more than that.

Betsy, I'm not pointing at you in these posts, and have implied that what ~you~ do is almost irrelevant, so please don't think I'm calling you dishonest for making statements about books that you haven't read, or anything like that. I have not come to that at all, and I treat you as an honest, rational source in these replies.

Maybe the reason Kelley and Branden aren't getting much attention is that life is short and people would rather read something else.

lol..speaking of!!!

If you're "not suggesting it," why did you bring it up? You don't find the people who choose to ignore Kelley and Branden saying things like "(Authority figure) wouldn't like it if you read that book." It just doesn't happen. The whole notion is a figment of an ARI opponent's imagination.

My point in saying htis over and over again is to clarify a point so that you don't make the accusation that may have been right in other cases. I felt as though after the statements I said before that, you would say ~again~ that I'm appealing to an authority that doesn't exist, and so on. But all along I've been claiming that we can assume that everybody is trying to be honest, and have come to the conclusion that the ARI'ian position is either correct or not, and an authority is not what gives moral obligation, but the autonomous position they have after coming to the conclusion. I'm not calling people a bunch of puppets, I'm letting everybody be autonomous, and making the arguments from there. I may have been out of order for bringing that up ~again~, but I was under the impression that it was saving time. I shouldn't have said that authority may be involved beforehand, and I apologize for throwing that in, but still it is clear to me that I was suggesting this same issue again (in assuming this is an independent decision, not an appeal to authority) for the right purposes. Recall the first discussion we had.

Make up you mind. Are we "disassociating" from them -- i.e., ignoring them -- or are we "brutally abusing" them? It can't be both.

For the most part, people here tend to ignore them until one of their partisans raises the issue. Then, we say why they are wrong or not of value. If that's "brutal abuse," so be it.

Good question. I think the brutal abuse only comes when it is judged as having to because of popularity, and at other times it is ignored with either the hopes of going away or the assumption that nobody takes it seriously. When Sciabarra's book came out in '95, the response had to be made ASAP, because perhaps it was well-known what kind of response it would have. I don't know the reasoning, and don't know anything from personal experience (I was 14), nor have I read anything about it other than many issues Sciabarra had with getting information and of course those horrible responses to it. I can only guess as to why both methods are out there, but that is not my fault. You are wrong, it can be both, and both can have the same underlying motive. What you say in the end is not brutal abuse, of course. You know that all I'm talking about is the deliberate broad generalizations that include ad hominems and everything other than rational discourse, and those can be found in posts everywhere (before attacking that look at this subject before I came on), and of course in reviews and articles by writers who are published through ARI (in their articles and I.A., which I can only assume is affiliated). So you know what?! I come to the conclusion that it in many cases it can be both: the person is not read in either case and only attacked when judged necessary. perhaps you are right about people not having the time, but that is when there is ~nothing~ to say about the person, and I'd like to see that. What if somebody who knew the history of philosophy more than me were to ask all of the attackers of Kant and others simple questions that showed an understanding of their philosophies outside of what was said by Objectivists? What results do you think that would bring out? Again, I understand the no-time issue, but I do not understand the use of them to such a strong degree regardless of that, and it does apply to them as much as somebody like Sciabarra. Oh no, I'm really late, but I seem to be attacking a lot more than I planned on. I may have to end this all now, and move on, so I wish the best and hope that ~something~ I said has come across as having some meaning...

-Dominic

[DPW]

Vickirusell said on may 18th: "Sorry for my ignorance but I am somewhat new to Objectivism."(top of p.5)

A day later she's talking about the "Ayn Rand lied about Nathaniel Branden,"  Ayn Rand is God, Atlas Shrugged is the bible, Objectivism is a cult. She's also an authority on cults.

Not only a fool but a fraud.

She's new to Objectivism, and just happened to get her hands on "To Whom It May Concern" as she indicated to me? Uh huh.

[vickirusell]

You have managed to insult almost every poster on this thread, as well as insulting Objectivists in general and Ayn Rand in particular, and you have the gall to claim that DPW has insulted you?

I'm afraid your confusion extends way beyond your obvious ignorance of Objectivism.

You can only be insulted by my posts if you attribute my general statements regarding Objectivists to yourself. Of course, there are Objectivists who are not cult-like in their attitudes. Perhaps I ought to have made that clear so am doing so now.

Edited May 20, 2004 by AshRyan

[vickirusell]

She's new to Objectivism, and just happened to get her hands on "To Whom It May Concern" as she indicated to me?  Uh huh.

You are correct.

[vickirusell]

Okay, I think I'll do one last set of replies and then move on, because I don't feel like the conversation between me and Betsy is going any further, and nor are my interests.  I haven't felt attacked or anything of the sort, but I feel as though I've hit a dead end, and we are at the point of nit-picking.  I'll think about responding some on next post before getting ready for work..

As for Stephen's post, if you don't wish to argue something you spent a lot of time arguing, I understand, so I'll just make a suggestion, and not spend the time either...If you haven't taken a look at chapter 4 of "Total Freedom," it may show you the difference between how obvious it seems in most discussion of context-keeping already (and therefore nothing new), and how much of an identification it really is.  We ~are~ all focused on context-keeping, but this does not make us not prone to falling into dualisms  (perhaps in a theory of mind), losing track of essentials versus inessentials (moralizing), seeing something as just the sum of its parts (the collective is the sum of individuals), and even accepting dichotomies, and putting one over the other (rationalizing and intellectualizing is something I've caught on in a lot of conversations and experiences with Objectivists---hell I'm guilty of it myself sometimes).  He identifies the 5 methodological orientations, and it clearly goes to a philosophical level not explicitly approached in Objectivism, and its value (as I find obvious in myself) is the identification of the method in layers of complexity, and the ability to therefore hold to it in all rational discourse consciously and subconsciously.  He does give a better account of it in that book I discussed, and it is much more specific than the other claims connected to context-keeping in Objectivism.   

I'm happy you have time with it, and have come to your own conclusions on it.

-Dominic

Why not continue the discussion regarding dogmatism and Objectivism, Dominic? Who dictates the content of conversation here? Is this a moderated forum or is anyone free to express his/her views? I don't believe you have to continue responding to those who do not discourse with you in a respectful manner but that does not mean you have to stop discussing the issue with those willing to do so.

[WGD]

I've said what I have to say. I've no desire to get into further arguments over the matter.

Truth is, I'm already bored.

I guess you won't be keeping your word?

Edited May 20, 2004 by AshRyan

[vickirusell]

I guess you won't be keeping your word?

Oh yes, I will. I said I would not argue. I will, however, discuss.

Regards,

Vicki

Edited May 20, 2004 by AshRyan

[stephen_speicher]

There were two essential lessons I learned when I debated Sciabarra years ago. The first was just how vacuous his arguments were, and the second that treating him seriously legitimizes the unearned.

For those who might have read and actually grapsed the portion of the debate which I posted yesterday, the evidence is clear: when you strip away the veneer of pseudo-intellectual babble Sciabarra is left without any intellectual support for the ludicrous conclusions which he draws. When I forcefully challenged the basis of his view of the Aristotelian dialectic, he appealed to some true scholars in the field. But, as I demonstrated, those Aristotelian scholars are, in fact, at odds with Sciabarra's view, so such an appeal is patently absurd. When I asked for specific concretization of Sciabarra's floating abstractions it led to more rhetoric and him ending the debate.

As I mentioned at the beginning of all this, the purpose of the pseudo-intellectual postmodern gibberish is to obfuscate, not to elucidate. It is only by virtue of a fuzzy, a hazy and blurred sense of awareness that Sciabarra and his entourage can reach the absurd conclusions which they do. They seek debate not as a means of grasping issues, but as a means of being sanctioned by those who should not even give them the time of day.

[AshRyan]

...The name-calling has begun rather quickly and I simply don't engage in that...

The name-calling was initiated and has been mostly performed by you, so to say that you don't engage in it is absurd.

Fact is, though you claimed to have an interest in the philosophy, your entire activity on this board so far has been in this thread, throwing around words like "cult" loosely enough to apply them to whomever you please.

In other words, you are either a troll, or behaving in such a way as to be indistinguishable from one.

Goodbye.

[stephen_speicher]

Please learn how to quote correctly. The above attribution makes it appear that I said those words, when in fact they were said by you. This is not an isolated incidence of such poor attribution, as I see the same in another of your posts. People's words are a part of their reputation, and should not be treated so carelessly.

[AshRyan]

Stephen,

I will edit the offending posts and correct the quote attributions. But you do not need to worry about whether she will correct her poor quoting habits in the future, as she will not be posting here again.

[stephen_speicher]

I will edit the offending posts and correct the quote attributions.  But you do not need to worry about whether she will correct her poor quoting habits in the future, as she will not be posting here again.

Considering her approach and attitude, I am glad to hear that. I truly enjoy disagreements about ideas, since often both parties can benefit from the arguments. But there is a fundamental difference between rational arguments and emotional abuse, a lesson that "vickirusell" might do well to learn.

[Betsy]

I guess what I have been coming to with all of this is a switch in moral standing. Since I too believe ideas have evaluative power, though with intellectual honesty solely as my standard--and perhaps a different account of it, by accepting the intellectual dishonesty in the attacks and disallowment of valid works and ~so on~ as okay, you are morally sanctioning dishonesty, whether you do these things or not, whether you read the philosophers or not.

Here and elsewhere in your long and difficult to follow post, you are doing exactly what I said you were -- making outrageously false claims about ARI supporters. Here you are accusing those who criticize Kelley and Sciabarra of dishonesty and those who agree with them of sanctioning dishonesty.

You have not once said that what is done by those high in the hierarchy (or whatever you want to call it, or however you want to say it) is wrong, so I suppose you either take the same position or no position, and therefore you are either sanctioning it or standing by it.  If I am wrong about it being dishonest, then this whole statement is begging the question, but I've already discussed it in several ways in all of these posts.

Your are wrong about our criticism being dishonest and you are begging the question. Those who have criticized others have given their reasons and they are either factually right or wrong. If they are wrong, you haven't shown where. If they are right -- and I believe they are -- your accusations of dishonesty are totally out of line.

You haven't denied the truth to any of the facts I use, including the seeming persuasion of Bernstein that he better not have anyting to do with JARS,

You haven't given any facts to deny. How things "seem" to you, absent any real facts, doesn't count. The actual facts surrounding Andy Bernstein and JARS is an excellent case in point.

What really happened is that Sciabarra sent Andy a Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (JARS) review, critical of a book Andy wrote, and asked him if he wanted to reply. Andy, assuming JARS was a pro-Objectivist journal, wrote a one paragraph reply. Sciabarra put that reply in JARS and then advertised -- all over the internet -- that Andy was a CONTRIBUTOR to JARS and those who wanted to read the work of an official, ARI, important Objectivist, should subscribe to JARS. Sciabarra made a big deal about Andy's Objectivist credentials with a "contributor's" bio in JARS that was more than twice as long as Andy's one paragraph response.

When I saw Sciabarra hyping Andy to promote JARS, I got upset and contacted Andy. I asked him if he knew about what JARS was and sent him a link to the Table of Contents of the issue his reply was in.

Andy read it and was horrified. In that Table of Contents, other contributors wrote of Ayn Rand as "facist," "overconformist," and other wrong, obtuse, and pretentious essays allegedly about Objectivism.

That -- and that alone -- led Andy to issue a public statement denoucing JARS and taking personal responsibility for not checking the publication out in advance. ARI and the mythical "hierarchy" had nothing to do with it. It was between Andy and Sciabarra alone. The only other person involved was me pointing Andy, without comment, to the JARS Table of Contents.

The bottom line is that you have been making charges of "dishonesty" against ARI supporters, based on how things "seem" to you which never happened.

I think a good hard look at reality and at the way you judge people is in order.

[mvkormes]

I think a good hard look at reality and at the way you judge people is in order.

That is precisely what tolerationists refuse to do. "Judgmentalism" seems unpleasant and dogmatic to them, while "tolerance" seems pleasant and sensible. Dr. Peikoff was right when he said:

(quote)

Such people literally have no concept of “objectivity” in regard to values. Their accusations, therefore, are expressions of their own actual philosophy and inner state. The typical (though not invariable) pattern in this kind of case is that the accuser started out in Objectivism as a dogmatist, cursing or praising people blindly, in obedience, as he thought, to his new-found “authorities.” Then at last his pent-up resentment at this self-made serfdom erupts — and he becomes an angry subjectivist, denouncing the “excessive anger” of those who make moral judgments. The swing from intrinsicism to subjectivism, however, is not a significant change; these philosophies are merely two forms in which the notion of “non-objective value” rules a man’s brain.

(/quote)

(Fact and Value)

I don't think that the tolerationists in *this* discussion were ever dogmatists, though I have no way of knowing for sure. I think they were and are subjectivists who found parts of Ayn Rand's philosophy appealing and others revolting. Such is their right--it's a free country. What really irks me is their apparently unlimited need to smear Objectivists for having the temerity to take ideas seriously. Why can't such "tolerant" people mind their own business and stop engaging in the moralizing that they claim others are guilty of?

[Betsy]

That is precisely what tolerationists refuse to do.  "Judgmentalism" seems unpleasant and dogmatic to them, while "tolerance" seems pleasant and sensible. 

I wish that were the case, but observing how judgmental, unpleasant, and INtolerant some advocates of "tolerance" have been -- on this thread alone -- I remain skeptical of their motives.

[wisdomisbliss]

I don't understand anything mvkornes said indirectly to me, so I don't know how to respond. I agree with that passage by Peikoff. As for you Betsy, I'm sorry I got all hotheaded this morning, and an apology would be in order if I felt as though you wanted to keep arguing and not twist my words around and put false labels on me. Since you have hung in this long, although I'm losing ability to understand connections between arguments, I can only assume that, minus a few things I'll probably talk about in a bit. I.E. I'm sorry for losing it in the end there. Honestly though, since you said "flattery will get you nowhere" I realized I was dealing with a tainted conversation. How could I come to those motives? I've been attacked for that same thing several times, and all I do is offer praise as much as I feel as though it is in order. You truly offended me directly, and my comments offending you indirectly, as a result of a misunderstanding of what I said, is not the same. And you make comments as though I have ulterior motives. I am in this alone. I have no connections with anybody else, although I do have great respect for Sciabarra, and consider him a friend, even though I haven't ever met him. The attacks that have been given against him are honestly what has set me off, because it is also an attack on my position, and I've seen a lot of this of late. And if anybody wants to deny that he has been given the most unfair treatment by those reviews, by these posts, and otherwise, I don't know what else I need. And what of those other banishments, and so on? I don't care anymore. I'll link the bad review below.

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), but your second pours out the same nonsense as all of the rest. If you are asking what the main difference is between an Objectivist's understanding, and his academic understanding, that's fine. But if you are saying it is meaningless, you totally lost me. Do you know what postmodernism is? BTW, he has dealt with Aristotle in his last text of the trilogy, Total Freedom, in the first chapter, and I believe Aristotle will play a larger role in his next work, so maybe you will be answered. Whether or not you were satisfied with his response dealing with Aristotle, you have not justified these sweeping generalizations and denial of any significance of his work.

As for Bernstein, I don't see how he didn't know what he was responding to. If it is true though, I apologize. If he wasn't pressured by any 'hierarchical' members to do this, I apologize for that accusation, too. I said 'seems' because there is no other way I can go about this, right? And to say that evidence don't point in certain directions would be far from my impressions. And in JARS, Rand a fascist and so forth, where did that come from? I have read some brilliant articles by Den Uyl, Rasmussen, Mack, Enright, and many others. True scholarship takes place in that magazine, and I don't understand how it could be judged the way it is. Rand isn't torn apart in all of these articles; many are out to show her brilliance and tie her into others. There are many honest scholars in there dealing with honest issues, and that accusation doesn't make any sense to me. I have read a really bad argument, and there could be another one or two in the ones I have, but I've already said in another post that all in all there should be plenty of praise, and I am more than happy for its existence.

Okay, I can't leave this. Don't put me in a group of "tolerationists." My head is filled with blood at the thought of all of your disconnected response, mvkornes. And Betsy, you agreeing with it says something to me too. I have made myself clear, but let me keep giving the benefit of the doubt: (a) I haven't even read Kelley's book; ( I do believe that there should be evaluation of ideas, although not in the odd way that I see it done; © I love Rand's philosophy, and only have the balls to go through with this argument and suggest my own ideas (I did this in the beginning, before i constantly defended myself), and say that I will ~not~ tolerate the moralizing that will keep Objectivism in a box, nor would I agree with the opening of the philosophy to make it lose all of its integrity and to deny the moral value of ideas. I do not only believe in some parts, nor merely the 'foundations,' but the integrity of the system as a whole, minus only inessentials that I feel can be fixed. I don't want to keep defending with all of this energy my position, because honestly I'm just not good at working around pseudo-arguments and nit-picking, and my psycho-epistemology is still a little tainted and liable to make for errors and attacks when I get hot-headed, although what have I been doign but taking you all as honest and willing to argue (okay, again i did lose it a little in my last post). But I don't understand the insulting remarks that show the moralizing and psychologizing I'm completely against. Why am I a tolerationist? Because I think judgement of intellectual honesty or evasion requires enough leeway to cover the ~real~ factors? Why am I out to flatter for ulterior motives? Why am I out to argue for ulterior motives? I am in this alone, and I am no subjectivist, nor somebody who lives off of others feelings, or whatever the hell is implied.

Let me just look at this quote to finish off:

Those who have criticized others have given their reasons and they are either factually right or wrong. If they are wrong, you haven't shown where. If they are right -- and I believe they are -- your accusations of dishonesty are totally out of line.

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

Unfortunately, stephen's second post wasn't saying much different, so I suppose I just have to say that I don't understand. To put him at the level of those horrid postmodernists that I had to sit with in my Undergrad education (I was in one of the highest acclaimed continental programs) shows more ignorance of the motives and what postmodernists do than I can put in words. 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. I don't recall my accusations of dishonesty, but they may have been out of line in that post. Please disregard them if so. I'm really tired, and I need to call this quits.

[Bowzer]

I have made myself clear, but let me keep giving the benefit of the doubt:

You've done anything but that. Let there be no doubt...

[Betsy]

As for Bernstein, I don't see how he didn't know what he was responding to.

Did you start with that assumption that he did and go with it without checking the facts? Did you ever ask Bernstein? In Bernstein's response to Sciabarra, he SAID he didn't know the nature of JARS when he wrote his response. Why didn't you believe it?

If it is true though, I apologize.  If he wasn't pressured by any 'hierarchical' members to do this, I apologize for that accusation, too.

Next time, I hope you will find out whether your assumptions are true BEFORE you accuse.

I said 'seems' because there is no other way I can go about this, right?

Wrong. Moral judgment is a serious business and facts should guide us. Assumptions and second-hand claims are not facts and condemnations based on them are unwarranted and unfair.

And to say that evidence don't point in certain directions would be far from my impressions.

Impressions are not a proper basis for the kind of judgments you were making -- particularly since they were false impressions.

And in JARS, Rand a fascist and so forth, where did that come from? 

My statements and judgments are always based on facts and I did provide a link to the table of contents of that issue in my posting. If you missed it, you will find it by clicking here.

The very first article mentioned there is the following:

"THE ACTUALITY OF AYN RAND, pp. 215-27

"SLAVOJ ZIZEK argues that Rand's fascination for male figures displaying absolute, unswayable determination of their Will, seems to offer the best imaginable confirmation of Sylvia Plath's famous line, "every woman adores a Fascist." But the properly subversive dimension of Rand's ideological procedure is not to be underestimated: Rand fits into the line of 'overconformist' authors who undermine the ruling ideological edifice by their very excessive identification with it. Her over-orthodoxy was directed at capitalism itself; for Rand, the truly heretic thing today is to embrace the basic premise of capitalism without its sugar-coating."

That is followed by ...

"THE TRICKSTER ICON AND OBJECTIVISM, pp. 229-58

"JOSEPH MAURONE examines the Trickster---that mischievous character who challenges conventional boundaries and distinctions and who plays a crucial role in much of the world's mythology and folklore. Maurone rereads the fiction and life of Ayn Rand as an expression of the Trickster's quest to invert traditional mores. Using the insights of writers as diverse as Lewis Hyde, Carl Jung, Carl Kerenyi, and Percy Bysshe Shelley, Maurone examines Promethean and other Trickster archetypes in Rand's work. He views Rand herself as the real-life Trickster incarnate; her personal failings provide an opportunity for post-Randian thinkers to move Objectivism beyond its residual dogmatism."

==

In the words of the immortal Dave Barry, "I am not making this up."

[Bowzer]

Pardon my French, but "true scholarship" my ass!