Mike11

Turtledove talked about Rand?

I may be wrong on the following having not studied these figures in years but - Hi. I know Derrida said repeatedly his own works, like all texts, could be subject to the tactic of deconstruction. As for Foucault (I guess that's who you meant), he was not, to my knowledge, a Deconstructionist; that said Derrida did attack his "Madness and Civilization" in a post modern way. Foucault tried to write a history of Madness, speaking for it and explaining how it was silenced in the modern world view - Madness has been defined religiously (possession to be treated by Baptism), as uncomformity (the Bourgeoisie often lumped the mad with the poor and other undesirables and treated them by having them imitate middle class behaviour, ie the Tea Party and Mad Hatter), as a scientific disease (the opposite of psychiatry, psychology etc); Madness has never been allowed to speak for itself, for what it is rather than what it is not. Derrida simply asked two things, where did the definition of Madness come from and how could Foucault, a rational man know it internally? Why did Foucault insist on treating madness as a stable idea if it was so enslaved to evolving world views, something inherantly unstable. Why assume it is an "it" at all? Foucault must fall back, inevitably, on the Church, the Bourgeoisie, the sciences to define madness, it never reached out to define itself. Second, how on Earth can any sane person write a history of madness from the perspective of madness? How can the "violence of reason" be avoided? How does a rationality try to define the irrational in irrational terms? "I shall not define X! Ever! I shall let X be free from the constraints of Reason and Language!", "Too late. You just did." Here is stuff from others who know more - http://molecularphilosopher.blogspot.com/2...ability-of.html

If I can't say something kind, I shouldn't say anything at all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Neva1th2LTI

All insular communites develop certain habits of speach. The most striking example (and I'm not calling people on here religous, please don't misunderstand) in my life has been evangelicals. Saying "just" alot while they pray, the phrase, "with every head bowed and every eye closed" are two examples. Heavily ARI-ized roids seem to have similar habits of speach. Here is Elan's first post - "I'm a little curious about a couple of things....What interests me most...I find it revealing" Is it just me or do alot of Roidish denounciations carry this distant, i have no balls, passive aggressive "This isn't an attack, I'm just interested" tone? I`m reminded of a poster on Objectivismonline and 4aynrandfans named Burgess Laughlin who, in my eyes at least, tended to phrase things like so, "I am very interested by what you meant by 'X'. Please give 'X' the thought it deserves as 'X' could substantially impact your place among us." The tone always seems to say nothing and everything. Like a self ashamed Stalinist interrogater who lacked the requisite nads to come out and say something, always shifting the burden on the accused to be burned at the steak when any (usually semantic) error is seen. Elan in a later post said something else that remided me of another typical roidism: They love to lose interest, its like double think. There are so, so many examples of roids priding themselves on ignorance. Roid 1 "Here is where I stopped reading" Roid 2 "Wait, I was pure and Galt like enough in my detection power I stopped a full 4 words before you. You must be a.....a..." 5 minutes later Betsy Speicher: Therefore, if he weighs as much as this Critique of Practical Reason, he's a Witch!" (Monty Python) Just my 2 cents

Mike11, No. Eating peanut butter is highly irrational and shows just what a subjectivist mystic and collectivist you are. You probably think Jews and Muslims like peanut butter, huh? That shows how much you know. Don't even get me started on jelly or bananas... Michael Well, my wagons have been circled; my house of cards collapsed like dominoes. Checkmate. I tip my hat off to you sir.

Fair enough. This is prabably the one conversation one can have where saying you prefer peanut butter will get you denounced at once as antisemetic and a neocon warmongerer.

I'm stalking MSK here and found this thread, in addition I'd like to recommend - The Mideast Web - Particularly: A "Balanced" History of Jews and Arabs History of Zionism Also: BBC's Israel main page Allaboutpalestine.com A forum with some heated visceral debates but there is some very good information, both in facts and moral perspectives. Leaning very pro-arab. Israel Forum AllAboutPalestine.com's jewish counterpart. Israel National News Front Page Mag for Israelis Jews Aainst Zionism A group of Jews basically disowned by 99% of Jews and posted here only for novelty. Zionism and Israel This is a site about well, Zionism and Israel.

Mr Marotta If you'll allow me to move this in a slightly different direction for a moment, a direction supported by attacks on America like the Beirut bombing and the attack on the USS Cole, America because of its global economic, cultural and political power must defend itself outside America just as much as on its own domestic turf. If you want to get specific and define the enemy as militant Islam then America is being defended by powers like Britain who support the War on Terror, Israel which is heavily involved for both good and ill, and nations like Spain that caved. The war is Global because America and the West are global. Arguably fronts like Afghanistan and Iraq are far more important to America's defense than anything Homeland Defense will ever be needed for and accomplish. Just thought I'd stress that dimension of things. As for defending America domestically I think that's a pipe dream by and large. We can use intelligence to use informants and surveillance to find terrorists before they strike but once that point is crossed, well, just think of how many people you could kill before work in the morning if you really wanted to.

Wow, thank you all for your replies. You have given me a wealth of information that will take me some time to sort through. I'm going to mow all this over and reply maybe in a few days. Thanks again.

True, I find with the Israeli/Arab dispute its about finding the least morally repugnant solutions, this is why I think for the sake of reality 2 states based on ethnic nationalism is the only solution possible, and even that may be beyond the capacities of many. I am curious though, what did you most strongly agree or disagree with?

Hello again, its me, Oist Troll qua Oist Troll. I honestly haven't been able to follow most of this conversation, the "Stockholm Syndrome" and "land qua land" comments went over my head. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by - So my comments here may be already known by all, out of context, or supremely irrelevant. That said I want to state a few basic opinions I've heard from Thomas Friedman, Mark Tessler, the usual historical revisionist suspets (Morris, Schlaim) and some Palestinians (Khalidi) with the grace of everyone who uses name dropping in place of arguementation I question the relevancy of basing anything on that map because it ignores the peril implicit in Israel holding the Territories, a peril that threatens the existence of Israel far more than the traditional arab adversaries and also it attempts to subsume palestinians into the arab world (by implication). For the Israelis: You can not have the territories captured in 67 integrated into the democratic jewish state given the arab population growth in the teritories being well beyond jewish growth. The first scenario is Israel remaining democratic and giving the vote to its arab inhabitants who would constitute a clear majority, in this case Israel ceases to be jewish and also possibly ceases being democratic. The second scenario is Israel keeping the territories but not extending sufferage, this is just a return to the pre 87 situation only Palestinian violence becomes even more pronounced given its current nationalism. The third possibility being Israel keeps the land, does not extend sufferage but decides to begin a campaign of outright ethnic cleansing as a solution to terror and the problem of being democratic and jewish; one last dirty task for the Right before the ideal can be realised. There is no scenario in which keeping the territories is good for Israel. For the Palestinians: As many have pointed out in this thread the arab attitude has largely been to give the cold shoulder to the Palestinians whenever possible, thier expulsion from arab states and Jim Crow like disrimination is famous. When combined with Israeli actions individual Palestinian groups have become a nationality through shared conditions and shaed struggles. In the 1970s the free elections held in the territories overshelmingly voted the PLO the representitives of the people. The Israeli Occupation was so thorough the arabs could see thier salvation only with each other, not through Jordan or Egypt. The go to Palestinian schools, they belong to Palestinian organisations, they no longer all themselves Syrian, Jordanian, or Egyptian. They are every bit the nation the Jews were in 1947. They have the same right to self determination. It does not matter what land Iraqis, Saudis or Libyans have any more than Arabs can argue the Israelis have America, France, Germany or Russia. You can argue the Palestinian Identity is now more religous than nationalist and so the arabs can be repatrioted to Islam but that would not be true. Hamas won more due to Fatah corruption than inherant Islamism among Palestinians: ( link ) From The Philadelphia Jewish Voice ( link ) From USA Today ( Link ) From CNN Even Hamas itself views argues fo an Islamic Palestinian Nation, distinct from the Islamic community as a whole. From the Hamas Charter Hamas argues that Islam ought to rule over the Palestinian nation in the same way early Zionists argued Communism should rule over Israel, the two are by no means mutally exclusive.

Serisously, this interests me, if anyone can shed some light on how Objectivist ethics sees this it would help. I read about this in TVOS a while back but lent that book out.

Reminds me of the time in ninth grade geometry when the guy in front of me said, "Prove that I exist." He had me stumped then, but I found a solution later. This ObjectivismOnline Feed must be where today's ninth graders hang out. Three words: "Man qua man." The reason why I posted this is it seems to get o the hear of where Objectivit ethics derive from as its shakey ground for me,my undestanding is man must Choose to live or die at which point"Man Qua Man", a being that does what is necessary to survive can exist, though I may be wrong.

My preresponse apology follows, skip the next paragragh if you want. The problem with the internet, more specifically myself on the internet is that I become a very bad person. More than most and as we know the internet is a very low brow jaded irrational circus freak show. I'm apologising in advance as I'm sure in your day to day life you are an upstanding person. Also, in this sort of area especially where people are so heated and so used to the "varied but at the core uninterrupted tripe of the enemy" we cease seeing the individuality of an arguement and see the arguement and the other person in a caricatured way. Maybe you don't generally I guess, but I do, every time. That said I think you have done that here to an extent to me though on one crucial matter I may have been vague. Sticking to what is important here as I normally nitpick. I'm also going to be far more polite than I would be if we were in person and I was in your punching radius. I'm really going to restrain myself here. Lots. 1. "The laws of Israel are those formulated in the Knesset, not gleaned from the Talmud. Israel is not a Jewish Shariah State." I did not claim this. My issue was limited and specific - "Israel does still have laws however that hinder what nonjews can do, they can not settle in certain areas, jews are given a free tcket to immigrate while gentiles are not, marriages are still defined by religous identities (mixed marriages are discouraged, when they are possible at all) and other "Apartheid-Lite" things like that which should be abolished" I also said they were, untill recently very much active in the teritories with famous slogans like "To surrender the Land is to defy God". You took me as saying far, far more than I was saying and attacked that. I know Israel is contradictery with plenty of highly liberal sentinments. I also know the compromises made with the Orthodox, the "disproportionate influence" you mentioned, these are what I was criticising as incompatable with a secular and liberal society. There are also race issues like the "Right of Return" I criticised left over from the nationalist days of the 1940s. Sure, Israel may have some edge on Japan but compare it to every other western nation and it quickly suffers in that comparison. Any time you set up an elite within a country, even if the elite is the majority you have a set up that causes excess. Unlike the Islamic world this elitism isn't total but it is still stronger than that found in the vast majority of western cultures. Further, once you set up this elitist mentality there is always the danger it will grow. This is why in America the Consitution does not say "The congress will not expand the state churches to more than 2 per town" but no state churches whatsoever. Consider the influence gained by right wing religous groups in Israel over the past few decades. 2. I may not have been clear on something. Antisemitism exists. Muslims, and Neo nazis can also hide behind human rights talk while being anti semetic. I was not trying to deny that. What I said was criticism of Israel in the western world, and its low esteem in many people's eye derives from Israel's own actions in the offensive polices enacted by certain aspects of Israeli society desined to colonise and expropriate a region, putting the people of that region in a very nasty place for 30 years. I may not have been clear but divestment campaigns, UN resolutions and the like that Western liberals mostly support are because of that. Islam has nothing to do with it. 3. I did not not deny muslims don't like jews by and large. This is why I said "... barbarism in the Arab world and general violence in the region Israel has a right to maintain a strong military capable of defending the state from military aggression. Further, to a point, "Jewish Identity" laws can be considered defencive in the context of the arab "Right of Return" which would immediatly lead to a "One state solution" which, at least in Palestine's current form, would be the end of liberal democracy and human rights in the Levant for decades to come." Antisemitism is getting overblown in 2 ways here, once as a cause for the Jewish State, secondly as the all encompassing reason ofr antizionism or criticising Israeli policies. It causes us to misunderstand what Israel is for, as something made out of fear rather than hope, and paint all Israelis and Israeli politics with one brush of "this is what real jews do and believe"- causing the problem opposition to antisemitsm tries to prevent. The "Jewishness" of Israel, like all national narratives (the palestinian one for example) can become a needed tool of survival for groups in extreme situations like the persecution in eastern europe. It also damages a liberal mentality though by putting up racial and religous walls around people and treating one inevetably as second class. Be aware of that, it happens everywhere. Israel is the jewishstate now however by sheer demograghics its future as the jewish homeland is secure. The nationalism is n longer a major survival tool, in terms of the globel support Israel needs to survive its becoming a draw back. Israel ought to be a democracy for all its citizens and leave the self imposed ghetto behind. That is my position, apologies if I was unclear earlier

This is a thought experiment that was presented to me by the good folks at objectivionline a few weeks back. Let's assume that Johny Q. has chosen Death as is starting point, let's also assume Johny Q will be taking out someone who loves his life before doing so, what will be the ethical status of his choice relative only to him? To the John Galt he kills? These were the asumptions at the forum - 1. He has no reason to kill Galt, no psychological motive and no percieved value is gained. He killed for the same reason Camus' Stranger killed the arab, because the Sun was bright. 2. Values and virtues depend on one's choice between life and death in Objectivism. Assuming one chooses death the values hierarchy becomes things that result in physical death and the virtues become acquiring these values. The conclusion reached by me and some others on the OO.net IRC chat was that we ran into some nteresting relativistic aspects of Egoism. The life/death choice can not be judged itself as there is no vantage point to do so, we have a case of 2 contradicting yet valid trajecteries where Johny Q. did nothing wrong (the man is not a lost value if one rejects life as a premise) yet John Galt's death relative to him and those he knows is a tragedy. Now if you want, feed the "antidogmatist yet domgatic in spite of himself" troll and discuss.

Greetings Objectivists and non-Objectivists! I know I promised I would not return but I needed to say a few (alot) of things about this thread. 1. Antisemitism is only one reason for the state of Israel and it is a secondary one. The Zionist critique of antisemitism places its cause as the fact that the Jews in Eastern Europe (where Zionism got rolling) were not a real people, they were like ghosts or vampires existing without identity or soil amongst those who had such. The only way the Jews would be spared antisemitism is if they became a people with a land of thier own ( link ). As a quick example look at the works of prominant Zionist Bar Borochov ( link ) . At a time when the eastern Jewish community was split largely in favour of communism he argued that there was no jewish working class that could rebel and a jewish state must be established first to create this class, followed by the Revolution. On another level many jewish poets and novelists in Russia during this period (1880-1920) stressed the "Wandering Jew" with no home of his own and thus no identity. Zionism existed to make the Jews like any other people, with a state and a soil; protection from antisemitism as a secondary goal. I mention this because the Jews are a people, with a state, now like any other. The Zionist cause is finished now that the Jews are the majority within Israel and jewish langage and culture are dominant. Israel does still have laws however that hinder what nonjews can do, they can not settle in certain areas, jews are given a free tcket to immigrate while gentiles are not, marriages are still defined by religous identities (mixed marriages are discouraged, when they are possible at all) and other "Apartheid-Lite" ( link ) things like that which should be abolished but Israel is secure in its jewish identity, preserving that is largely, apart from the "Right of Return", a nonissue. What I mean to say here is Zionism's main job is over. Mission accomplished. Time for postzionism ( link ). That said the jews have a complicated past and encompass social movements and philosophies from all over. The Zionism I adressed was "Labour Zionism" ( link ), the originater and leader to the 1970's of Jewish nationalism, but there were 2 other big ones I want to mention that have similar and unfullfilled goals. Revisionist Zionism ( link ) ( link ) and for lack of a better word, Orthodox Zionism ( link ) ( link ) . Revisionist Zionism takes its name from a rejection of the Brittish Mandate being split between Palestine and Transjordan. Mainstream Zionism agreed to settle in Palestine while the Revisionists wanted to colonise Transjordan aswell. This Revisionist Zionism was fascistic and capitalist as opposed to the more diplomatic and socialist mainstream. Stressing that Might makes Right the Revisionists were famous for thier violence (the Dier Yasin massacre was done by this wing), enshrining of fascistic ideals, and colonial attitudes. The divide between Revisionists and the mainstream became so severe that the Haganah (the Labour army and future IDF) once declared an open season to wipe out the Revisionist terror gangs wherever they were found. Labour controlled the show untill the 70's when corruption and the Yom Kippur War brought down the goernment. This is when the Israeli policy in the teritories shifted from "Land for Peace" to colonisation and expropriation. The Revisionist dream of a Jewish "Eretz Israel" (the name for Israel as it was in David's time) became possible and a system of Jewish supremacy with a second class client arab population was established in the territories. This was allied to jewish religous groups noted for thier racism against nonjews, the belief that God gave the land to the jews, and teroristic actions. Baruch Goldstien famous for a mass killing of arab civilians was one such settler; his hometown has a monumant in his honour ( link) . For killing 29 and wounding 150 muslims in prayer the following is inscribed in a park to his honour, "To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel." While the Israeli government dominated by Revisionists would often claim curfews, economic opresion and educational disruptions were needed to end Palestinian terror, they were in fact aswell the required machinery ofcolonial dominance. Annexation of East Jerusalem, tax breaks and military protection for colonials, water theft and disprpportionate distribution, restrictions on arab manufacturing, the reliance of the Israeli economy on cheap labour and a slave market and police protection ignoring jewish attacks on arabs were all part of this expansionist policy in the Revisionist and Orthodox war on the Palestinians. The term "Antisemitism" is often applied to those who condemn Israel for these impulses and actions or support the palestinian struggle for statehood which is an incredible peice of rhetoric. Israel has brought on justified condemnation in the form of divestment, UN resolutions (often unfairly applied true) and general "Pariah state of the West" status on its own with little help from Nazis or Islamofascists, much as many a right wing Zionist would like to hide behind them. That being said in part because of the Occupation, barbarism in the Arab world and general violence in the region Israel has a right to maintain a strong military capable of defending the state from military aggression. Further, to a point, "Jewish Identity" laws can be considered defencive in the context of the arab "Right of Return" link ) which would immediatly lead to a "One state solution" which, at least in Palestine's current form, would be the end of liberal democracy and human rights in the Levant for decades to come. Though racial identity is a bad thing to start protecting yourself with in the case of this war by other means its a legitimate tool. 2. Myth. "Palestine was not an empty land when Zionist immigration began. The lowest estimates claim there were about 410,000 Arab Muslims and Christians in Palestine in 1893. A Zionist estimate claimed there were over 600,000 Arabs in Palestine. in the 1890s. At this time, the number of Jewish immigrants to Palestine was still negligible by all accounts. It is unlikely that Palestinian immigration prior to this period was due to Zionist development. Though uncertainty exists concerning the precise numbers of Arabs living in the areas that later became Israel, it is very unlikely that the claims of Joan Peters that there were less than 100,000 Arabs living there are valid." ( link ). They came to a land whose residents outnumbered them, even as late as 1922, by 7 to 1, after 2 decades of jewish immigration. In 1900 jews were outnumbeed 500 to 25 thousand. 3. About the Jews going to America or America being the solution to the Jewish question that ought to have been pursued. Several million eastern jews did go to America, the minority going to Palestine, however when the major influx of jews arrived in Palestine and pushed the issue of Israel through the UN they did so at a time when some countries (like my hometown of Canada) had a complete wall against jewish immigration and others discouraged jews from immigrating. When combined with American and Brittish Christian Zionism (which predates and supported at all times jewish zionism) combining with Zionist diomacy the only place those Holocaust survivers were going was Palestine. By the end of WW2 jews hd only one shelter and it wasn't going to be America. Keep in mind though it is not out of the question for Israel to become a liberal secular state in the future. Sorry about all the typos, and you can find info on the Occupation by googling it, this was written between 2 and 4 am

Farewell to Objectivism 1) I came to a frightening realisation a few days ago, one which hit the core of who I consider myself to be. It would have been utterly impossible to dissuade me from my stance on the origens, meaning and relevance of Objectivism as I have become as dogmatic in my beliefs as Leonard Piekoff is in his. Having spent my time learning about Objectivism in a strong pro-ARI environment there was no one with whom I could rationally speak to about my growing concerns about Objectivism. I left the ARI circle and tried to start a campus TOC club, these attempts fell on deaf ears as I never heard back from the organisation despite having started with about a dozen interested people. With ARI idiocy on one side and no where else to go my concerns quickly became my final beliefs on the matter This was followed by a brief period of "owning" Objectivists; I grew to expect and enjoy the resulting ego trip. Like Rand being corrupted by so many young followers or Piekoff working as her "intellectual heir" I began to think of myself as being on a higher intellectual plane. I fear I have become as corrupt as those I oppose and will therefore not be returning to the movement. 2) The ARI owns the airwaves of Objectivism and its fanaticism drowns out more rational cool headed voices. If a rational Objectivism is to survive it must stop feeding off ARI recruits and aggressivly move into the mainstream. Objectivism does best as a multifaceted cultural movement and current technology favours this approach. It must be disseminated through the academia and through wider artistic culture but in order to do so its dominant approach must be broken. This has always been a movement geared toward fanatics. Environmentalism, Socialism, Post Modernism, Muslims are all cast in the most extreme form and are thus attacked while the vast majority of centrists drift on untouched, and if they do see they are pushed further in the opposite direction. I believe this strategy may be working in some way as most who encounter and take up the ARI stance are themselves fanatics. The center must be taken up on its own terms. Zero Sum apocalyptic games do not appeal to the majority of people, Objectivism rightly appears as a paranoid fantasy world of angels and demons to them. The movement must be taken out of its extreme apacolpytic mind set and become more mundane in its criticisms for its core to shine through. A pity I can not allow myself to participate. That is all I have to say. Regards to all of you.

Jst to throw in my 2 cents. Ellis was, arguably, the figure of psychology in the last 6000 years. I read somewhere Branden announced his talk was "devoid of intellectual content". If Ellis did not self-identify as a Libertarian or Capitalist it is understandable he would try to paint all of us in the same negative light.

Wow, Barbara Branden just talked to me, albeit in only 12 lines; I feel like I heard History. Okay, thankyou for you reply, You made some good points in thier but I disagree with you. 1)" For one thing, the ideal man, in her view, was always the rational man. Further, the importance and necessity of reason was a crucial issue for her even in childhood." I may not have been clear on point or may have simply emphasised things the wrong way. What I meant was Rand in her fiction painted the world as she thought it should be, this Vision included her beliefs in the virtues laid out in Galt's speach and a rough defence of the need to be rational. This vision was completly sincere and honest. My issue is with Objectivism as a formal system. It is one thing to say that reason is our greatest tool in a fictional work, quite another to begin defining that rational faculty so narrowly that belief in things like the synthetic apriori, gameplaying nature of language and behavioural conditioning are irrational and therefore anti-life positions (Nathaniel wrote about this in the Perils of Objectivism paper); while proclaiming your own very precise abstract system as Reason. Its the nature of the formal system I'm attacking here not Roark's lack of mysticism. 2)"However, it wouldn't matter if you were correct. Of what importance is it how a philosophy came into existence or was developed? What is important is whether it is true or false. I wouldn't particularly care if Aristotle arrived at his laws of logic in a dream; I care only whether they are valid or not. And similarly with Objectivism. " You're right in a sense here, the path one takes to a position does not impact its truth value (all cars are black, 2 and 2 are five - Therefore the Sun will come up tommorrow), but it does say a great deal about the probability of the idea being true. If someone came to me and said they had a Vision filled with heroes and demons in which all those who did not share the ideology were intentionally trying to corrupt us with alternate versions of the truth I would immediatly discount it, as would any rational person, because that way of thinking is so inherantly dogmatic and closed to doubt. If someone came to me and said through the free enterprise of reason, unchained by prior profound emotional commitments I would hear what they have to say in areas of metaphysics, epistemology and technical philosophy. My problem with the formal system's honesty is that despite the claim it is an advocacy first of a metaphysical, then an epistemological position with the rest flowing from it, she advocated a crude Nietzchean egoism, became highly emotionally involved in it, then used reason to refine and temper it. The formal system, frankly, is unstable enough that you ultimatly can not judge its truth as it more often than not, makes little sense. Words are often redifined without warning, strawmen are set up than bombastically taken down, you can not rationally try to deal with it. I have yet to read a single page of Rand that did not contradict itself or swing into the absurd. Not one page. It must be accepted, or rejected on intuition. Due to that its origin causes me to have a lack of requisite faith. 3) "I think you go too far when you begin reading Rand's mind -- saying such things as that she (and the early Objectivists, of whom I was one) feared dispassionate rationality. I say this not because it is Ayn Rand, or because it includes me, but because it is an unfair method of argument. Say, if you like, that certain ideas are not valid or reasonable, but don't become the all-knowing psychologist of the people you disagree with. You rightly object when this is done to Kant; don't do it to others." If someone claims to have a profound rational system of ethics it is entirely fair to ask how rational they were. Normally, in most philsophy (and the academic world generally) you don't need to go there because the academic world regulates itself, more often than not, against taking positioons for emotional reasons. There is peer review, there is skepticism, and thereis general cool headenes, none of which Rand would subject herself to. If I can't be safe to assume the author of an idea was rational it is right to research it. If I was in court for robbing a bank it would be legit to have my history as a car thief exposed. Its the same princible here. Kant, on the other hand, was far more logical and dispassionate than Rand and existed in the academia where he would have to take the heat of doubt. This is why Rand's perpetual claims of mysticism and intentional skewing of reality in the academia are wrong - the academia's counter criticisms of Rand's formal philosophy, are correct. 3 edits for removing direct attacks on specific problems in the formal system, I don't think I need to go there but will if asked

Interesting reponses all around, I'll only be responding directly to a few however. Also, I wanted to qoute Mr Bissell and Miss Branden but I guess I can't if they're on seperate pages. Anyway, here I go - This is close to what I mean by saying that rationality is not free to question in Objectivism, or at least move beyond Objectivism. This message expresses the same underlining point as Philosophical Investigations and Fact and Value. Here, reason and reality are simply accepted as a given, we have "Reason", narrowly defined by Objectivist epistemology, and we have "Reality" any questioning of this is and any new ideas on what Reason and Reality are simply undercut our Reason and our ability to work in Reality. Objectivism's views on Reason and Reality are closed to skepticism and possible falsehood. Further, "you undercut his means for obtaining happiness," implies that any counter view is dangerous as it must be, well, depressing to our happiness. Linking emotion to a view of the world like this prevents learning, this is why science proceeds Dispassionatly. Let me give a real life example of what I mean here. You have 2 people on a desert road, one is a man whose car broke down, the other is a stranger and they're trying to figure out how to fix the car (also I know nothing of cars but the specifics shouldn't interfere with the point): Man: Its obviously the carborater, I'll use the carboraterfixing strategy. Stranger: No, its not the carborater its worse, let me call Triple A. Man: No, its the carborater, isn't it far more Noble and Manly for me to fix this myself? You're just undercutting the fact that it is obviously the carborater, How can I possibly be Noble and fix this now if its not the carborater? Stranger: But the entire engine is on fire. Man: Well, I find that disturbing to my sense of happiness, its the Carborater. All Peikoff does is go one step further, he'd club the stranger on the head. This is what happens every time you ask "What Truth would make me happy?" and work backwards from there. Which is my entire point. Now to reply to Miss Branden....

So I didn't really get many replies, which I deserved. I did have a chip on my shoulder when I wrote that having just gone through a strenuous 2 hour arguement with a number of ARI Randroids, I should not have taken that agression and used it to fuel my first post here. My posts in the future will not be written in the same tone of hostility, arrogance or self righteousness. At this point I'll flesh out more of what my definitions and arguement are- To me there are essentially 2 different Objectivisms', one which is her fictional work, her prephilosphical "Vision" as Roger Bisell called it, the second being the system of abstract metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics; the "Philosophy". After reading most of Rand's fiction, her Journals, and layman's philosophy tracts (Virtue of Selfishness, Return to the Primitive, Philosophy: Who Needs it? and For the New Intellectual) it is my belief that the the second "Objectivism" is an attempt to prop up and defend the Vision of Ayn Rand and therefore Objectivism is not a legitimate Philosophy but a usefull and inspiring work in the field of Literature. The best way for me to explain my rationale for this position is to look at the development of Objectivism historically. When Ayn Rand wrote her screenplays she already solidified in her mind what a hero was and developed a profound attachment to this figure (as seen in the aura that surrounded him), she also laid down her disgust toawrd the evil anti-men whose depraved nature causes them to attack these Heroes. Further in her evolution of this Vision in the Fountainhead and Atlas she lays in down in stark relief what Heroism is in her mind aswell as the creation of Man Qua Man. No real work of philosophical abstraction has been done, no metaphysics or epistemeology has been laid down but Man Qua Man exists as a compelling vision. It is a Vision that, like Michaelangelo's David, I agree with. Man's possible Heroism, our possible virtue and independance I think strikes a chord in everyone who loves Liberty. It was after Atlas that Rand and the Branden's started thier philosophical endevours but I believe thier endevour to have been essentially corrupt. Let me explain what I mean by this as it is a central point in my beliefs about Objectivism. For philosophy to be authentic it must be guided by an unhindered rational faculty. Reason must be free to explore, challenge, contradict and doubt, to be open ended without a specific destination in mind; and when it doubts our most cherished, sacred, and needed beliefs a true lover of wisdom will follow it to its end. It is this dispassionate rationality Rand and the early Objectivists feared. As laid out in "Philosophical Investigations" and later in Pope Peikoff's "Fact and Value" any rational inquiry or statement which attacks the Vision of Man Qua Man simply Must be false and those who state it Must be motivated by malice in the same way as Toohey and the other Randian villains. In Investigations and Fact and Value we are often reminded to ask "Could I be Man Qua Man if X is true?" if not, the idea is false, if yes, the idea is true or at least not of malicious origin. Piekoff and the ARI take this to an extreme whereby Global Warming must be false as Man Qua Man requires industry and the like. This is also why, according to my understanding, "tolerance" is not a "virtue in the cognitive realm" according to the ARI, such would mean reason is free to challenge our values and our deepest beliefs, including Man Qua Man. Further, I would bet that the reason Kant is so villified for being intentionally corrupt (in Investigations Rand goes as far as to claim Kant literally intended to destroy our reason and leave us in evil Nihilism) is because they lacked any understanding of reason unchained by ideological or Visionary commitment. Because reason is not independant but servant to a Vision, Kant must have ben at root motivated by an anti-life vision. All philosophers, from Hesiod to Derrida, are assumed not to have simply followed thier ratioanl inquiry but expressed thier sense of life through thier philosophy. Reason was deployed exclusively toward the end of establishing Man Qua Man as a reality not as a free agent as such I am extremely skeptical of the truth of the abstract system laid out in places like OPAR or ITOE as everything I have read makes me believe it is about "proving" literature. The ARI gives the best examples of the kind of word games used to swing Objectivism's Vision as philosophical truth so here are two - Man Qua Man requires Free Will so Peikoff created a series of arguements about how free will is "axiomatic" and how if we are determined we could never know - unless we are free. He sidesteps the basic propostions of biological determinism in making this point (firing of nerves, chemicals etc) it seems like he is verbally running. Man Qua Man has rights becaus he is rational, but that means non-rational humans (down syndrome for example) have the same non-rights as animals. The ARI and people like Diane Hsieh come up with "Broken Units" to prove rights are dependant on speicies membership not an individual's faculties; odd logic for an individualist philosophy. I honestly don't know why they would bother. Literature speaks to the sense of life, not to our higher level abstractions. It should be as unnessecary to "prove" Objectivism as to "prove" that life is worth living, that Satie is moving etc. But to try to base an official abstract system on this sense of life and then announce others as evil for disagreeing (an idea laid down by Rand herself) is a corruption of reason and philosophy. I can give qoutes to "Philosophical Investigations" and "Fact and Value" as needed but I assume you are familiar with them. Edit for spelling and examples of ARI verbal gymnastics.

Hello, Long time lurker, first time poster and I have a question about what Objectivism really is. Feel free to ban me, I'm used to it from the other Objectivist groups, so I'll make this quick in case I'm wasting my time and yours. When Ayn Rand wrote her early stories, as recorded in her Journal, the main emotional ideals - strong determined men and the evil depraved hordes of humanity were already present. These ideals were further entrenched with the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The belief in human achievement, the key virtues, and the decrying of the depraved hordes of the rest of us are there largely in full; "Man Qua Man" is already entrenched in the fiction. Atlas of course did poorly causing Nathanial Branden and Ayn Rand to give the fictional ideals some justification (this great labour I recall was mentioned at the beginning of FTNI). Because Man Qua Man came into existence as a fiction the philosophy of "Objectivism" is largely a cover, something invented to crop up this Ideal. This is why Rand's slogan about not eing a proponant of egoism but of Reason is a joke, historically the Egoism came first and the "philosophy" was built toward that end. This is why those who attack "Man Qua Man" are seen as so depraved, reason free from myth is free to attack fictional ideals, Rand didn't see rational discourse as something free to doubt and to grow but a myth destroying monster that needed containment. You can see Rand's anti-reason attitude most greatly in "philosophical detection" in which she asks "if X were true, could Man Qua Man survive?, if he can't attack the belief as it is designed to attack your reason, by which I mean attack Man Qua Man". So, here is my question, do you see Objectivism as a philosophy or as a valuable myth?