I saw a pair of You Tube presentations. Both were interviews at UFM, a university in Guatamala. The topic of both presentations was the same: what is capitalism?

One presentation was an interview with Yaaron Brook and the other with David Kelley.

I listened to both carefully and I could not detect any essential differences in what these two men said.

So what is the conflict between David Kelley and other big O objectivists.?

Thanks in advance:

Ba'al Chatzaf

Egos?

Tribe.

I think Kolker knows this already but I'll give my spin on it.

Kelley wrote in, I think it was, "Truth and Toleration" that in the "cognitive realm" one should take care to understand what someone else means when they speak and evaluate what they say rationally - suspending one's emotional response while doing so. This way of thinking has also gone by the names "thinking rationally" and "thinking objectively". Perhaps the most telling thing about the ARI is that Kelley was ousted for this.

Lenny, Schwartz and the other circus clowns believe that one should always caricature and systematically misunderstand an opponent whenever possible and begin frothing immediately before their single synapse has had a chance to fire. MSK wrote about this as well, far less bitterly, in a post concerning Orthodox Objectiroids' propensity to evaluate before they understand a situation or position.

In terms of content I don't know where the differences are but in form the differences are vast. Followers of Kelley have something between their ears.

The Kelley-ARI battle is out of my domain of understanding. Since I am "not of the body (an Objectivist)" I hesitate to make judgments or hard conclusions about a battle that is analogous to that between the Catholics and the Protestants. Or even more correctly, the Shi'iah and he Suni.

Apparently (from what I have read) Kelley differed on judgments of motivation, in a manner that differed from Pope Leonard and his friends. I also read that David actually spoke in front of Libertarians (oh my!). What I don't know, and can't even begin to comprehend is why this should produce such hostility and acrimony. That just plain beats me.

Since I lack passion and certainty on the issue, I must be one of the hated Tolerationists. Boy! Am I glad I am not an Ob jectivist. I am just one of the pagans who gaze with great amaze at the fireworks.

Ba'al Chatzaf

MSK should pin this link -

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;hl=timeline

Its the time line and logic of the split.

Some of the entries in the above list of links were quite informative. Thank you for the pointer.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It should be understood that Objectivism--the official variety--is not what Leonard Peikoff says it is.

It is only what Ayn Rand said it was.

If Peikoff says more than that then he is outside the closed system he claims Objectivism is.

If he keeps his mouth shut then he is inside it to the extent he actually is, but no one can know that because Rand is dead.

I think I can stand being sophistical like this once in a while. The fun overcomes the bad taste.

--Brant