curi

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About curi

  • Rank
    $

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Elliot Temple
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking
  1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propagate people knowing how Objectivism works is different than being exposed to it. something pretty near 100% of disagreement with Objectivism is due to not understanding it, not knowing what it really says. and a lot of people who say they agree don't really know what it means either.
  2. I don't agree with this. I don't mean this as a criticism of Rand, but I don't think she was really that successful at propagating her philosophy. It's not a criticism because I think propagating reason is VERY VERY VERY hard, and no one else did great either, and there weren't any good ideas about how to do it that Rand ignored. Rand has a large casual following, but I think she'd be one of the first to say that isn't worth very much. Today, ARI is bad – but still closer to Rand's philosophy than the splits. Rand could not find even one intellectual heir who was much good. That's how much dif
  3. if you just want a short approximate introduction, Rand's is fine. i'd say my disagreements are confined to issues beyond the introductory. i don't think one-size-fits-all introductions work well. i've written some, but not i'm really satisfied with the results. i think a big key for people actually learning or understanding anything is back-and-forth discussion – that goes back and forth MANY times, typically in small chunks. this is why i run a philosophy discussion forum (in my signature). people vary. and especially interesting/intelligent people are especially diverse. a good starting poi
  4. It means, in this context, thoroughly Randian, or original, proto-, primitive. See Wiktionary's entry for all the flavours. FYI you shouldn't call Objectivists "Randians" unless you are trying to insult them. Rand did not want it named after herself. I'm not thoroughly Objectivist. I disagree on some things and believe my own philosophy is more consistent. An example point of disagreement is anarchism. capitalism: the unknown ideal To this I would point out that there already are competing governments and police forces in the world. Although they are geographically separated, they sometimes d
  5. Any chance you could give us a quick rundown of your understanding of the intrincist/subjectivist dichotomy? It’s got to be in one of those old Peikoff courses. Particularly as it relates to Meta-Ethics?Why do you want it?
  6. What is "Ur-Randian"? Many people think how much they dislike you or disagree with you measures your age. It doesn't. But it does reveal their ageism.
  7. well other than believing it's designed, a secularist has no trouble then. and you don't have to believe it's designed to try to learn how it works and try to understand it.
  8. That would all depend on what their subjective opinion of right and wrong is. And this needs clarification... in that for secularists there is can be no objective moral standard because there is nothing greater than them to have created it for their own good... which by default leaves only peoples' subjective opinions based on what they think and feel. In fact a secularist can't even declare one subjective opinion to be better than another for that in itself is just another subjective opinion of no greater weight than anyone else's subjective opinion. Morality for the secularist is the futilit
  9. This is false. Just because you want something it does not follow that you ought to (or should or must) do what it takes to obtain it. It might be immoral to want x. Maybe you shouldn't want it, and should change your preference instead of pursuing that preference. I agree. Amorally is holds true, but falls apart the instant morality is invoked. For secularists, morality by default can only be a matter of subjective opinion, as there is no standard of behavior greater than what people think or feel it is. Hi, Do you think Ayn Rand was a secularist? Yes, right? Do you think Ayn Rand's morality
  10. Yes. I don't understand. You think I put fake dates on my blog posts? What for? Can you explain what you're talking about? This seems to be a misconception I haven't encountered before.
  11. VoS: What do you think that was about? Some aspect of Branden not involving any ideas? Ideas are everywhere in life, there's no getting away from them. Regarding Kelley, he laid out ideas incompatible with Objectivism after Rand died.
  12. Mr. Elliot, This is incorrect and it's right in front of your nose. I'll only ask one more time. Do you have difficulty reading? Michael Here is a screenshot. As you can see, your name is in the body of your original post that I quoted. As you can also see, hitting "quote" on that post creates a quote that includes your name. That's because it's part of the post. http://puu.sh/hX9IB/1052b3c36f.png
  13. Mr. Temple, Why did you put my name in this quote? Do you have difficulty reading? Michael I'm confused. I copy pasted your entire post. you included your name in the post I quoted.
  14. Reidy, It's not true that if you want to achieve x, and y is the only way to do so, you "must" do y. You have the option to instead abandon the goal of doing x, which may be the better option. The criterion for philosophical alignment is what ideas are held here and popular and promoted. So, for example, Rand considered the ideas of the Brandens unacceptable, and, I believe, would have considered Kelley's ideas unacceptable. People at this forum generally, contrary to Rand, consider those ideas OK, reasonable, not necessarily perfect but a valuable perspective that is worthy of a forum section
  15. I'm talking about the section in the book I quoted. This is the forum section for George H. Smith, read his book if you want more context, but I did provide the full syllogism, which is enough to see that it's false. Yes I'm familiar with Ayn Rand. I'm also familiar with OL – it's Branden and Kelley aligned, not Rand aligned, which is why I don't normally post here. Why did you quote the book? A page number would help for I don't see any context. Anything to do with atheism? Is this a logic lesson? --Brant I quoted the book here because this is a the "George H. Smith Corner", it's his book, a