Recommended Posts

Half of this story is copied from Edgar Allan Poe. The rest is updated to today and modern Objectivism. Like Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness (1899) adapted to Francis Ford Coppola's film Apocalypse Now (1979).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I tried it and now I'm in. . .

I'm back. Bah, a waste of time. Read the original instead.

I think Poe has been described as "the first modern writer [of fiction]."

--Brant

didn't he die drunk in the gutter? (Americans drank in those days like they've never drunk since)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Peikoff doesn't deserve this making it crap.

Hasn't Peikoff damaged the hell out of the Objectivist Movement by treating the philosophy as a religion and promoting cultism? Haven't all his excommunications and rewritings of history hurt the spirit of the private adherents, and made Objectivism a type of public laughing stock? Hasn't Peikoff and his allies slowed the progress of man via not allowing this vivid philosophical alternative to monotheistic-based right-wing conservatism and collectivist-based left-wing progressivism to show itself in a more normal, healthy, appealing, charming light? How does Peikoff not deserve this short story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff is merely the extension in action of the model created by Rand and Branden expressed most in NBI in the 1960s. I'm sorry I got too nuanced. I just had no way to say he deserves a little less than this that made communicative sense. Therefore I'll approach this from my angle, not his, and this article we are talking about as a Poe take-off is clever but illustrates nothing. If the idea is merely to take Peikoff down I've a different orientation for I've been taking him down for decades but always in the context of saying why I'm doing it and this author doesn't. Since he doesn't Peikoff doesn't deserve this by which I mean nobody does except who wrote it and put it out as backlash.

--Brant

I don't go for Star Chambers either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff is merely the extension in action of the model created by Rand and Branden expressed most in NBI in the 1960s.

If there is truth to this, I wonder if NBI - ARI could be considered the creation-evolution of a (sort of) 'political wing' of Objectivism? Political organisations, with their leaders, power vacuums, divisions, power brokering and power-jockeying run against the spirit of Objectivism to my mind. In self-defence and for now, an Objectivist may have to call himself "Independent", as Peter Taylor does, risking redundancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff is merely the extension in action of the model created by Rand and Branden expressed most in NBI in the 1960s.

If there is truth to this, I wonder if NBI - ARI could be considered the creation-evolution of a (sort of) 'political wing' of Objectivism? Political organisations, with their leaders, power vacuums, divisions, power brokering and power-jockeying run against the spirit of Objectivism to my mind. In self-defence and for now, an Objectivist may have to call himself "Independent", as Peter Taylor does, risking redundancy.

They don't do a good job with it regardless.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this