Well, it turns out Ayn Rand used the same typing analogy, and in his Understanding Objectivism course, Peikoff used the same poker analogy! Even when you haven’t heard something before, it seems that chances are Rand or some other Objectivist probably said it first!
That’s a funny story. I guess that is the price you pay for not being born sooner!
Regarding using your own words to express thoughts: That is one of the reasons I so much enjoy the writings of Tara Smith. I have read so much by so many good Objectivists over the years, yet Tara Smith’s words make me see Objectivist ideas from a fresh perspective.
One of the reasons I enjoy explaining physics to others, is precisely because of the struggle to express complex and technical ideas in a simplified form. To extract the essence of mathematics and physics and find the right words to express the ideas, is not only challenging but also self-rewarding. As I say in the introduction to my TEW articles:
“Although I love and revere mathematics, I firmly believe if you cannot explain a principle of physics in common language and terms, then you probably do not fully grasp the principle in the first place.”
Btw, I am having some severe problems with getting the MySQL database for the Wiki working after an upgrade. If anyone wants to spend a few hours tinkering with it, or can provide PHP/MySQL web hosting for wiki.objectivismonline.net, I’d be much obliged.
Anyway - I want to bring to your attention an interesting initiative called Creative Commons (see - http://creativecommons.org/). This initiative offers a range of choices for creators to share their copyrights with others.
I think it will be a good place to start definning the Copyright status of this Wiki.
It’s currently running on my computer, at the linked URL. I spent several hours trying to upgrade it on this server, but it didn’t work. I will try again if someone offers PHP/MySQL hosting, or when the final version comes out. Meanwhile, you can view and edit it at the alternative site.
The Wiki is back and better than ever! Unfortunately, the database/software upgrade resulted in the edit history and user profiles being lost, so you will have to re-create your profile.
(For anyone interested in the technical details, the old database was not lost, but my hosting provider does not allow me to restore it because of overly strict MySQL settings. You can remedy this by volunteering PHP/MySQL web hosting for the Wiki. The old database is currently running on my pc.)
It seems to me that the idea of an Objectivist Wiki is self-contradictory.
People keep telling me that Objectivism is a closed system – it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter).
But a Wiki is supposed to consist of writings by many people. And clearly, in this case, Ayn Rand is not around to give her approval (or disapproval) of them.
-All content you submit to the Wiki, whether original or from an outside source, is assumed to be in the public domain, unless explicitly mentioned.
-If the content is not the public domain, you must either obtain permission from the author or be the author.
Ayn Rand is not available to give her permission to quote her in the Wiki; and it seem unlikely that Leonard Peikoff would give permission for wholesale quotes since it would decrease the value of his copyrights in her work. After all you would be competing with him and ARI.
You should just convince Dr. Peikoff to let you gradually put OPAR online
Good luck with that. And OPAR is not strictly part of Objectivism as defined by Ayn Rand.
But a Wiki is supposed to consist of writings by many people. And clearly, in this case, Ayn Rand is not around to give her approval (or disapproval) of them.
A “Wiki” is a particular means of structuring, posting and updating information. It isn’t inherent in the Wiki concept that many people must create it. Id addition, your implication that Rand’s approval is required is wrong – if that were so, nobody could legitimately discuss Objectivism because Rand has not approved our discussion. All you need to understand is that the statements in the Wiki are not necessarily authoritative and definitional of Objectivism. Though in fact I don’t see anything that’s wrong in the Wiki.
Ayn Rand is not available to give her permission to quote her in the Wiki; and it seem unlikely that Leonard Peikoff would give permission for wholesale quotes since it would decrease the value of his copyrights in her work. After all you would be competing with him and ARI.
Permission is not required under copyright law, to include parts of either of their works in the Wiki. The “fair use” exception, where protected material can be copied for the purposes of discussion, is fundamental to copyright law. What’s prohibited is ripping off and selling a clone of e.g. AS or OPAR. Such discussions do not damage the value of protected works, indeed they tend to enhance their value.
The point is, and has been all along, that The Constitution is really poorly written. It is massively unclear.
I agree with this conclusion from the thread “U.S.Constitution: What is wrong with it?” in the “Political Philosophy” subforum.
Writing a substitute Constitution based on Objectivist principles could not be done in an ordinary thread. So it occurred to me that we could try to do it as part of the Objectivist Wiki.
I suggest that a new section be created in the Wiki under Politics which would contain the following subsections:
It would be a fun exercise to take the U.S. Constitution as it exists and try to add/change/delete the bare minimum to correct it.
[Judge Narragansett] had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade …”
Personally, this type of exercise would interest me more than trying to write a new model constitution. The reason is that I think the exercise would help me understand the current constitution much better. On the other hand, a blank-slate Objectivist constitution would not interest me personally in today’s context.
Personally, I think this project is pretty silly, but if that’s what you want to do, it’s your time.
But.. I can’t believe you butchered the preamble! It’s a perfectly good preamble and much more poetic that the text that replaced it. What sort of logic takes out the preamble but leaves in the 16th Amendment??
But.. I can’t believe you butchered the preamble! It’s a perfectly good preamble and much more poetic that the text that replaced it. What sort of logic takes out the preamble but leaves in the 16th Amendment??
Well, it’s not in page-proof stage. And there is tons of stuff that still needs to be deleted. Most important is, delete any use of the word “welfare”.
