It is run by Fred Miller, who has written for TOC. So I am correct in saying it is run by a neo-Randian.
Big jump. You still haven’t said what a neo-randian is.
Right, I said Miller wouldn’t mind. But you neglected to mention that he also had the following people as visiting scholars, all of which are associated with TOC:
Neera Badwhar
Howard Dickman
Stephen Hicks
Roderick Long
Eric Mack
Douglas Rasmussen
I’m still waiting for you to address my original 2 points.
I did define it. Check the earlier posts.
“Also, I define an Orthodox Objectivist as one who never writes a critical word of Rand, i.e. Peikoff, Gotthelf, Tara Smith, etc. and a neo-Randian who believes in the fundamentals of Rand’s philosophy while remaining critical–i.e. Douglas Den Uyl, Rasmussen, Machan, etc.”
The bottom line is that Miller has _written_ for TOC. An Orthodox Objectivist like Peikoff or Gotthelf would never do that.
Please address my 2 points about Miller and Mack.
No you didn’t.
Most of the world has never written a critical word of Rand.
I’ve never said Miller was orthodox Objectivist- you keep calling him a neo Objectivist along with anybody else who mentions they like Rand.
Check the date on Millers writing for toc.
Miller wrote for a TOC in 2000, providing commentary for Roderick Long’s monograph. Here is the link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai…=glance&s=books
Again, please respond to these 2 points:
-
Your point was that Social Philosophy and Policy hasn’t associated with Kelley. That is wrong. Furthermore, it has _recently_ published articles by neo-Randians–Long, Mack, Den Uyl, etc. It is run by Fred Miller, who has written for TOC. So I am correct in saying it is run by a neo-Randian, i.e. one who agrees with Rand’s fundamentals, while remaining critical.
-
Eric Mack is NOT Catholic. Here is his website:
http://www.tulane.edu/~phil/facMack.htm
No mention of being Catholic. Oh, also, here is an interview in which he states that he was raised Jewish!
Social Philosophy and Policy isn’t neo-Randian and isn’t associated with kelley.
I said it was run by a TOC supporter/neo-Randian, published articles by other neo-Randians, and has had a bunch of neo-Randians as fellows.
Please also admit that you were wrong in saying that Eric Mack is Catholic so we can move on.
Sure, that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think.
My support of ARI has nothing to do with my judgment. That you would even bring this up supports my inclination (which is now a confirmed fact) that you are not someone to be reasoned with.
“TOC and the like” do not progress Objectivism any more than conservatives progress capitalism.
cwolf, please admit you were wrong in calling Social philosophy and policy neo-randian(what ever thats suppose to mean),
2)that "toc and the like (who and what?) has been making progress in academia,
3)you made up “neo-randians run a respected journal”,
4)Gladsteins book and the novels of smith, holzer and york are not academic,
5)Mack didn’t write over 70 papers on Objectivism,
6)kelley writing an paper in 1984 does not mean the journal is associated with him,
7)saying “Sure that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think” is an ad hominem(poisoning the well).
Admit to these so we can move on.
My support of ARI has nothing to do with my judgment. That you would even bring this up supports my inclination (which is now a confirmed fact) that you are not someone to be reasoned with.
Bowzer, “C-Wolf” is sounding more and more like none other than the infamous Chris Wolf, rabid anti-ARI psychopath. Wolf is anti- anything/anyone associated with ARI, and reason and truth are his least-valued tools. If indeed this is Chris Wolf, don’t waste your breath on such slime. See Wolf’s “FAQ” at http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/ for more than sufficient evidence.
I am not “Chris Wolf.” My first name is Charles and I like Jack London’s book “The Sea Wolf.” And WGD, your lack of integrity is appalling. I have offered you concrete proof that you flat out lied, and you refuse to admit it.
“please admit you were wrong in calling Social philosophy and policy neo-randian(what ever thats suppose to mean)”
I said that Fred Miller, who runs it, is associated with TOC and a neo-Randian by the definition I gave countless times. It has published articles by, and had fellows who were neo-Randians.
2)that "toc and the like (who and what?) has been making progress in academia,
I have offered ample evidence of the contrary
3)you made up “neo-randians run a respected journal”,
See Fred Miller
4)Gladsteins book and the novels of smith, holzer and york are not academic,
Gladstein’s book is academic, but you are correct, those novels are not acadmic, but they are evidence of making progress.
5)Mack didn’t write over 70 papers on Objectivism,
I explicitly told you that I never said he wrote 70 papers ON Objectivism–I said they were written from his Randian perspective.
6)kelley writing an paper in 1984 does not mean the journal is associated with him,
You said that Social Philosophy and Policy did not associate with Kelley and I merely pointed out that they published his work.
7)saying “Sure that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think” is an ad hominem(poisoning the well).
That is not what I meant. I simply was stating that _since_ you are an ARI supporter, you would not consider TOC supporters publishing books as progress.
Admit to these so we can move on.
You have flat out lied, calling Eric Mack a Catholic. I have proven to you that that is false. You refuse to recognize this. You have no integrity.
I said that Fred Miller, who runs it, is associated with TOC and a neo-Randian by the definition I gave countless times…
I have offered ample evidence of the contrary
Fred Miller
Gladstein’s…
…Randian perspective.
6)kelley writing an paper in 1984 does not mean the journal is associated with him,
You said that Social Philosophy and Policy did not associate with Kelley and I merely pointed out that they published his work.
That is not what I meant. I simply was stating that _since_ you are an ARI supporter, you would not consider TOC supporters publishing books as progress.
He’s not and its not neo-Randian(what ever that is).
None!
Good answer
No & academic???
What is that?? Did he channel her?
SPP is not associated with kelley now and published when, oh 1984.
Thats what you meant. And it wasn’t me you said it to.
You have lied about so many things I don’t think you know what integrity is.
I am not “Chris Wolf.” My first name is Charles and I like Jack London’s book “The Sea Wolf.”
I apologize for suggesting that you may be he, but that is why I said “if.”
But, regardless, from the tone and content of your remarks, you two do seem to share some similar values. Have you looked at the URL I provided? I would be interested in hearing whether or not you are in essential agreement with what he has to say.
WGD: Even if you think I have been lying and have no integrity, don’t you value yours enough to admit when you have fabricated something out of thin air (i.e. calling Eric Mack Catholic)?
Stephen: I am just a student and I honestly haven’t studied Objectivism in enough depth to say whether or not I agree with it. I have studied certain aspects of the philosophy enough to know that I am in agreement with them and haven’t come across any major philosophic statements by Rand that I disagree with, however I still call myself Randian rather than Objectivist. I think that “Objectivism” _is_ a closed system because Rand created it and named it. That is why I prefer the term “Randian” because just as one can be an Aristotelian without agreeing with everything Aristotle wrote, one can be Randian without agreeing with everything Rand wrote (whereas I believe that calling oneself an Objectivist implies that one is in full agreement with Rand on everything).
The tone of my remarks is borne of frustration–specifically pointing out patent facts and still having them denied (e.g. my statement that Eric Mack is not a Catholic. I think that it is pretty slanderous to say that he is, given that he is actually an atheist and, from his writings, would be diametrically opposed to Catholicism in every way). I didn’t want this topic to devolve into a shouting match about tolerationism (although I am definitely willing to discuss the issue because it is obviously of crucial importance)–I simply wanted to correct a misrepresentation of the TOC seminar, a misrepresentation proferred by a person who was not even there and culled his evaluation from a few remarks by Lindsay Perigo.
Like most of what you said, the link to Mack’s site is wrong. That’s the Tulane philosophy depts site. When I went to his info at the Murphy Institute of political economy(under facultyand staff) all his personal stuff was gone. Since he’s still at the school, I will track down the info. If I misinterpted his views, then I’m wrong.
But he still does NOT call himself a neo-randian (what ever that is) in the interview you linked. If you read the interview, he thinks the libertarians are falling back not going forward in the academia.
Thinking anyone really cares enough to make up anything about Mack makes you look like a fool.
PS. Miller and SPP are still not neo-randian or associated with kelley.
YOU should care about fabricating stories about Mack because you should care about honesty and integrity. I never said that Mack or anyone called themselves a neo-Randian. It’s a neologism I coined to describe thinkers who agree with Rand’s fundamentals but are critical of other aspects of her work. That is why I consider people like Mack and Miller neo-Randians (even though they don’t self apply the term)–they agree with Rand’s essential framework while disagreeing with other elements.
Please post the link demonstrating that Mack is Catholic.
The tone of my remarks is borne of frustration–specifically pointing out patent facts and still having them denied
Your frustration comes from your anger at being wrong about Fred Miller, SPP, kelley, etc. Your “patent facts” are just fantasies and you just can’t face reality.
Now your implying Lindsay Perigo is lying about the panel he was on?
YOU should care about fabricating stories
Please give some evidence about how Lindsay Perigo lied about the panel. You were there.
I never said Perigo lied. I said “WGD: Even if you think I have been lying and have no integrity, don’t you value yours enough to admit when you have fabricated something out of thin air (i.e. calling Eric Mack Catholic)?” My remark was directed specifically about you calling Mack a Catholic, a statement which is completely wrong, yet you refuse to admit it.
I’m sorry, I quoted the wrong passage, I meant to quote:
“The tone of my remarks is borne of frustration–specifically pointing out patent facts and still having them denied (e.g. my statement that Eric Mack is not a Catholic. I think that it is pretty slanderous to say that he is, given that he is actually an atheist and, from his writings, would be diametrically opposed to Catholicism in every way).”
My remark was about Mack in particular. I think that most Objectivists would agree that calling someone Catholic when they are not is pretty slanderous.