Donovan A.

Hello all, I was looking at PAR last night and found this list of movies that were shown at NBI: Dark Victory Bratya Karamazovy Quo Vadis Shane I am wondering if any other films were shown at NBI? Also, how would one go about getting permission to offer public viewings these movies? I'm hoping Barbara will help me out on this! Thanks so much, DA

Royalty payments must be made to the bookstore and I have written permission.

The Culture of Reason Center Presents: THE PHILOSOPHY OF OBJECTIVISM VOLUME 1 BY LEONARD PEIKOFF Please RSVP with: The Culture of Reason Center Facebook Group Friday August 21st through October 9th, 2009. (All lectures begin at 7:00 p.m.) Admission: $7.00 (unless prepaid). All payments are non-refundable. Each payment is due on the day of class. A package price of $45.00 is available for students/members that wish to gain access to all 8 of these lecture events at a discount. This offer is valid only until August 22, 2009! Prepay with PayPal: cultureofreasoncenter@gmail.com - For location address and or any further questions, please call 214-263-2002 or Email:cultureofreasoncenter@gmail.com CRC Audio-Lecture Syllabus: Friday, August 21: Lecture 1 Part 1 Friday, August 28: Lecture 1 Part 2 Friday, September 4: Lecture 2 Part 1 Friday, September 11: Lecture 2 Part 2 Friday, September 18: Lecture 3 Part 1 Friday, September 25: Lecture 3 Part 2 Friday, October 2: Lecture 4 Part 1 Friday, October 9: Lecture 4 Part 2 - Permission to host this lecture series has been given from Second Renaissance, Inc. - Ideas expressed in any of the materials or lectures do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Culture of Reason Center (CRC). - CRC is an independent entity and is not affiliated with The Ayn Rand Institute, The Atlas Society or any other organization. - CRC has the right to refuse any person access to these events for any reason at any time. Students may also be dismissed from the premises at any time and for any reason. - CRC will not share your contact information with any other organization. - Payment is required upfront, before or on the day of the lecture attended. - Audio-lectures may not be recorded. Note taking is permitted. - In the event of inclement weather or an emergency, we reserve the right to cancel or reschedule. - Lectures are for adults only. Children are not permitted on the premises. Participants are expected to make childcare arrangements. - Audio-Lecture/Facebook Discussion Board Civility Expectations: Students, members and guests are expected to use appropriate language and treat fellow participants with courtesy, civility and respect at all times. To participate in our audio-lecture discussion periods or facebook discussion boards, you are expected to refrain from personal (ad hominem) attacks against other CRC members, prominent Objectivists, or even controversial Objectivist lecturers and or writers. Disrespectful or hostile comments towards Objectivism, The Culture of Reason Center, The Ayn Rand Institute or The Atlas Society are considered inappropriate. Please be aware that that our civility expectations are intended only to be a restriction of how you present yourself and not a restriction on the body or content of your ideas, opinions or individual judgments. Thank you! Where to Find Us: This audio-lecture series is being offered by the Culture of Reason Center in Dallas, Texas. Please contact me for directions. Thank you! The Culture of Reason Center - Dallas, TX www.thecultureofreasoncenter.com www.thesocietyofreason.com

Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged explained her monumental dedication to the value of man’s rational thinking and ability to reason. These concepts are symbolized in the John Galt LibreCoin from the American Open Currency Standard. These ideals are behind the mission of AOCS and explain the reason for this being one of the firm’s initial offerings when they began setting the industry standard in 2007. Product Group: The LibreCoins Condition: Uncirculated Finish: Proof-like Material: .999 Silver Product Year: 2009 Product Size (mm): 39 Weight (troy ounces): 1 Weight (grams): 31.1 Order Now - Unit Price: $55.00 Note: Prices subject to change.

Hello everyone, I'm wondering how we can all help TAS improve their fundraising. I was thinking of some various ideas tonight: 1. Awareness. Let's try to motivate each other to donate. Sometimes a simple warm reminder to help fund TAS can be helpful. 2. Introduce new people to TNI. 3. Recommend The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand. 4. Start a local Objectivist study group and promote TAS. 5. Leave a portion of your life insurance or estate to TAS. Please feel free to add to this list. P.S. Serious comments only please. ;)

Donovan, You obviously mean the people who practice each, not the personification. I make the distinction to qualify my next statement. You are wise beyond your years. I suspect you drive some of the fundamentalists (both for and against Rand) crazy. Michael Michael, only a few of them get the pleasure of being driven "crazy" by me. I usually clash with fundamentalists so quickly, it would be improper to call the often brief encounters and exchanges I have had with dogmatic individuals as driving them crazy. I am repeatedly humored at how individuals who are often so far from perfection, stamp their fist with demands for intolerance (for people). If I were convinced that I should be intolerant to the point where not a crumb of irrationality should be tolerated, then I'd have to walk away from the person who is stamping his fist, and I usually do!

Thanks Michael, I realize your rant is not directed at me. However, I do think it is interesting how crazy and hostile some Objectivists or Students of Objectivism can get over debating the topics that divided Peikoff and Kelley. As a general rule, reason does not, nor should it fear religion. Religion has good cause to fear reason. I will let people read into my implication without me saying it directly.

This seems like a reasonable way to link ideas to moral evaluation: "We can evaluate an idea by its effects—the actions it leads people to take—as measured by the standard of human life. And we can evaluate an idea by the mental actions that produced it, as measured by the standard of rationality. In either case, the value significance of the idea is a derivative property, which depends not only on the content of the idea but on the nature of the relevant action. And in either case, as I said, “the concept of evil applies primarily to actions, and to the people who perform them.” It applies only in a derivative way to the ideas themselves." - CLAR, Kelley, p.40 In this respect, ideas most certainly can be evaluated as evil or good and as a matter of fact, I don't see another way of doing so. Ideas are not concepts without reference to reality. Ayn Rand named all kinds of ideas and even questions as immoral or dishonest, how did she perform this connection?

Hi Barbara, For over the past two years I have been studying Objectivism using a historical approach, and keeping a lookout for any and all information that might be relevant to the Peikoff/Kelley dispute. I have noticed that some terms seem to be rather loosely defined, some words even equivocated. This terminology seems to be highly problematic, especially if not clearly defined: Good/Bad Good/Evil Thoughts/Actions Emotion vs. Thought Idea/ideas Sanction/Existential Aid One of the major attacks and accusation I have heard repeatedly against Kelley from ARI-Objectivists is that Kelley does not judge ideas morally, but only epistemologically. That by Kelley's theory, evil is sanctioned (morally approved of) and tolerated (accepted or not judged). I find these quotes relevant and interesting: “Thinking according to Objectivism is the process of identification. So you simply make it a little more specific by saying well what does thinking consist of. And if you think about thinking you'll see all that you can do when you think is essentially ask what is something. If you ask why did something happen, your asking what is the cause, what is the identity of the cause. If you ask where did it happen, you are asking what is the place, what is the identity of of the place. If you ask when, what is the identity of the time. If you ask how, what is the identify of the means, etc. So there is really only one question you can ask in the process of thinking and that is the question: what is it? In other words, the process of grasping identity is what thinking consists of and that's why Objectivism specifies it by saying thinking is a process of identification.” - Introduction to Logic - Lecture 1 Disc 3 Track 2 at 10:34 - Leonard Peikoff "Abstract ideas are conceptual integrations which subsume an incalculable number of concretes—and . . . without abstract ideas you would not be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems. You would be in the position of a newborn infant, to whom every object is a unique, unprecedented phenomenon. The difference between his mental state and yours lies in the number of conceptual integrations your mind has performed." - Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concepts.html “The principle here is: you condemn morally only that which is volitional (assuming that you've done it wrong). It is pointless to condemn the automatic results. The emotion in this case is simply the automatic result of the premise. The thing that you have to focus on in terms of moral condemnation is the evasion (if such it was), the evasion which led to it. It is absolutely meaningless to focus on the automatic emotional result and say how bad it is. You have no choice about the result in that respect, what your choice lay in, the mental process which produced that result and that is what you judge one way or the other. The other aspect which is directly volitional and open to your moral appraisal is what action you take in regard to your emotion. Suppose you have a bad emotion of envy or jealously or hatred of someone that is unjustified and you don't act on it. [You] Try to identify what the cause is and so on, and uproot it, but you deliberately say I will not act on this. You are not subject to moral condemnation, because you are not acting on it. Morality applies to what is open to your choice. And action as we see is open to your choice. On the other hand, if you rush out in a frenzy of hostility and punch the guy in the face, then you are subject to moral condemnation. But then it's not the inner antagonism or hatred which is the root and the source, the object of the condemnation, it's the action that you willfully took on it. So, emotion as such is not the issue, you do not judge yourself by emotions, you don't condemn emotions.” - Leonard Peikoff - The Philosophy of ObjectivismL: Lecture 4 Disc 2 Track 4 at 9:18

- Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic, Leonard Peikoff - The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, David Kelley (p.25-26)

I think it would be very interesting to compare and contrast Peikoff's lecture on: Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic to David Kelley's The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand. I have not completed my study of Peikoff's lecture given in 1995, but take a look at the following quote: “A man with an evil idea is not thereby evil (you have to write that down). Now there is such a thing as an evil idea, not just a mistaken idea which is one [an idea] that doesn't correspond to reality. But an actual evil idea, which means by our definition of evil, an idea who's essence is destruction of something good. And I'll give you three [examples] right here: socialism, God and non-objective art. Socialism as an idea, is the enslavement and destruction of the producer (which means of the mind). God is the assault on every human concept and therefore [is] a direct assault on the mind. Non-objective art is an assault on all art and therefore on all human values. Those ideas are not merely wrong they are evil, as against and I could give you a whole list of ideas which are wrong but not inherently evil: hedonism, naturalism in art, Aristotle's theory of the golden mean. Materialism the way the ancient Atomists held it, now if materialism the way that B.F. Skinner holds it, where he is out annihilate consciousness and will and he calls his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity that is evil, because of all that he is trying to destroy. So if somebody is coming up with ideas that you disagree with, the first thing you have to do is decide, besides these ideas being false are they evil? And then, does the person holding the idea know the meaning and consequences of the idea. And if you don't know whether he knows, whats the simplest way of finding out? Ask him! Not only does he know? But ought he to know? Given his position in life and the actions he has taken.” Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic, Leonard Peikoff, Lecture 1, Disc 2, Track 1 at 00:22

Hey Michael, I don't think it comes across more cult-like to say I am a Student of Objectivism or any other school of thought, but this is more a matter of opinion (a judgment of how others might evaluate the terminology). In many ways this has to do with concept formation. "Objectivists" want their definition to be the widely accepted definition. They are drawing a line as to what range of colors fit into the definition of RED, or BLUE or whatever. Based on some of the arguments I have encountered, the last people who I think should adopt the name are in fact adopting the name Objectivist, and arguing in favor of a definition that they themselves do not fit in, perhaps this is out of ignorance or dishonesty (I don't know). I do not have a problem with defining Objectivism as the body of work that Ayn Rand produced or endorsed. So I will be a student until I have evaluated all there is to evaluate. Once I "understand" Objectivism (a judgment I alone have to make) I may no longer call myself a student. But just as Ayn Rand did not want others to pose as her representative, I do not want her or anyone else to pose as mine.

Based on so many of the arguments I have encountered, I would say nobody can ever graduate to being Ayn Rand. Even concepts like intellectual heir, really do not make any sense to me. Nobody can inherit someone's mind. I would state I agree with Kelley's position that substantial agreement with the core principles is sufficient, but this seems to be so inflammatory, it is just not worth it. I'm tired of infighting, it's amazing how much less irritating it all is from the outside.

Donovan, This is your right so I will not criticize you for it. However I do wonder when people make this choice whether they have any notion about when they can graduate. Who issues the diplomas? (Hat tip to Kitten for giving words to that.) As to myself, I am not against policy standards when someone is in charge of a specific organization and definitions are clear, but I am against vague definitions (like what an "Objectivist" is) and the notion that something cannot be learned ever. I call myself an Objectivist, but I consider Objectivist to be a word like Christian or Kantian. For the definition I use, it simply means someone who agrees more with Objectivist thought than any other body of thought on several fundamental issues and has familiarity with Rand's works. That's all. I do not consider Objectivist to be exclusively a designation indicating that one belongs to some kind of elite group, nor as ascending in stature or knowledge within an elite group or movement, nor as something like a being a soldier in an intellectual army or movement deployed (by whoever) to save the world. I personally am not any of that and I want none of it for my life. In my world you can have knowledgeable Objectivists and dumbass Objectivists, really big-hearted Objectivists and mean nasty petty Objectivists. Even partial-Objectivists. But that's me. I stand within my rights and no one can force me to do otherwise. Several Rand fundamentalists have tried intimidation, but it didn't work. Michael Thanks for your reply Michael. I am just tired of arguing with people about what Objectivism is and how much agreement with Rand is necessary to call myself an Objectivist. I feel much more liberated to just state I'm a student of her philosophy and that I have my own convictions and I have no intention of representing/misrepresenting Rand.

Thanks for your reply. Does anyone have a lead to this statement by Peikoff?

I have decided that I no longer wish to be an Objectivist, only a student of Objectivism. I would like to read Rand's point's on why people should identify themselves as students of Objectivism.

I am wondering if anyone can point me to the article where Rand stated generally that no one is authorized to call themselves "Objectivists" and that followers of her philosophy should instead refer to themselves at Students of Objectivism.

Oh no, I hope he is cutting on the ground. Otherwise, he might fall through. :bye:

I recently listened to Nathaniel Branden's audio-lecture course on the psychology of self-esteem. I am pretty sure I remember hearing Dr. Branden say he had a lot of self-esteem in reference to lecturing, since he has been giving lectures on psychology/philosophy successfully for so many years. I'm wondering if anyone has an idea where he might have said this in the lecture course? For some reason, I take mental note of things said and then when I need the source I cannot find it. Part of the reason I am asking is because recently I've been pondering and debating with a friend if self-esteem as a concept can be compartmentalized and applied to particulars or if it is a concept that only applies in a holistic or general sense. For example: is it possible for a person have self-esteem in regard to driving but not dancing? Also, how is self-esteem different from confidence? Looking forward to the replies, DA

Sherry, Yikes, when did this happen? You are aware that having such a discussion is against NTOS policy? Had I known that TAS/ARI issues were fair game, I would have made more effort to have been at the social. Personally, I would have liked to have heard the depth to which Dr. Lewis understands the philosophical issues that he says he has with TAS. For instance: what specifically does he disagree with and why? NTOS speaker event policy is as follows: *NTOS requests everyone to avoid Rand/Branden, Peikoff/Kelley, and ARI/TAS issues at our speaker and related events, which topics may be more appropriately and freely discussed at other NTOS events.

Excuses, excuses. LOL

Just to be a smart-ass, would it be bliss to not know that crack addiction is hell, and thus continue to be a crack addict?

I'm not sure that such expressions are quite as innocuous as you might think. A friend of mine firmly believes in the expression as a fact, which is what lead me to make that post. I do not think it is an accident that he often looks for ways to dull his mind, drink to excess and blank out his problems. In my opinion, the use of such a statement is a dire cry for dependence and should not be allowed into one's subconscious thinking. I attempt to be very conscious of what I allow into my mind, just as I attempt to be very conscious of what I drink and eat. DA

Every action taken by man depends on knowledge (identifying the facts of reality correctly) and knowledge can only be obtained by a process of reasoning, which means integrating data provided by the senses (facts) into abstractions. The idea that ignorance is bliss depends on and embraces the primacy of consciousness principle. So let us ask, how is not knowing, bliss? Suppose you are faced with a problem. Identifying that you have a problem is knowledge, so is it bliss to not be able to identify the problem? If you cannot identify a problem, by what means can you solve it? Consciousness is a process of identification, all identification is knowledge, so surely identification is not a vice. In my view, the idea that ignorance is bliss means that a person only wants to consume, only wants to feel good, only wants to be happy, only wants emotions to be causeless and disconnected from reality, only wants reality to conform to wishes, fears hopes and demands. Such a person wants to believe that if they do not know, then it does not exist. The concept that ignorance is bliss is a self-contradiction. If ignorance is truly bliss, ask yourself what it would mean to wipe out all abstractions. Would you not have to wipe out the abstraction that ignorance is bliss? Obviously this is not what people mean by ignorance is bliss, they do not mean it would be better to live as a plant or as any other unconscious life-form. This chain of reasoning would be considered extreme. So instead, one might say "some things I want to know, they make me happy and some things I don't want to know they make me unhappy or fearful or cause anxiety." Ask yourself, why do we feel anxiety, why do we feel fear, what causes such emotions? When you identify that something is a threat to your life (knowledge), to your values (more knowledge), you feel the appropriate emotions and such emotions should be proportional to your value judgments. Emotions, even negative emotions serve a purpose because they act as instant motivators. Evasion is not a virtue, it is the blanking out of facts, of knowledge and reality. Now one might ask, wouldn't it be wonderful to be a child again, ignorant, innocent and protected from reality? Even a child cannot live without some knowledge, or some abstractions, some understanding of cause and effect. I would also like to point out that it seems people have a rather compartmentalized memory of what it means to be a child. As a child, you may scream and cry in hope that someone, somehow will provide you with some new toy, who will provide it? What if your parents cannot afford such a toy? How about going to school, homework, dependence, and the inability to make judgements, to pursue your values. Was everyday as a child filled with bliss? Look back on your life and think about all the mistakes you have made, were those mistakes the result of knowledge or a lack of knowledge? Ignorance is not bliss, wisdom is bliss. Never substitute ignorance for wisdom, never assume that ignorance will bring happiness.

"Since philosophy deals with the broadest abstractions, which subsume an incalculable number of concretes, the application of basic principles to specific issues is open to innumerable errors and to disagreements. I expect that I shall disagree, at times, with some of those applications. If the error is serious, I may, occasionally, write a letter to the editor - to indicate a correction. But I am not editing this magazine, and my association with it is only that of philosophical consultant." - Ayn Rand, To the Readers of The Objectivist Forum, p.1 "I urge the readers to use their own judgment as to whether a particular article is or is not consonant with Objectivist principles. Remember, it is a fundamental tenet of Objectivism that one must not accept ideas on faith." - Ayn Rand, To the Readers of The Objectivist Forum, p.1 "(Now we must note that falsehood does not necessarily imply vice; honest errors of knowledge are possible. But such errors are not nearly so common as some people wish to think, especially in the field of philosophy. In our century, there have been countless mass movements dedicated to inherently dishonest ideas—e.g., Nazism, Communism, non-objective art, non-Aristotelian logic, egalitarianism, nihilism, the pragmatist cult of compromise, the Shirley MacLaine types, who “channel” with ghosts and recount their previous lives; etc. In all such cases, the ideas are not merely false; in one form or another, they represent an explicit rebellion against reason and reality (and, therefore, against man and values). If the conscientious attempt to perceive reality by the use of one’s mind is the essence of honesty, no such rebellion can qualify as “honest.”)" - Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Fact and Value "(The originators, leaders and intellectual spokesmen of all such movements are necessarily evaders on a major scale; they are not merely mistaken, but are crusading irrationalists. The mass base of such movements are not evaders of the same kind; but most of the followers are dishonest in their own passive way. They are unthinking, intellectually irresponsible ballast, unconcerned with logic or truth. They go along with corrupt trend-setters because their neighbors demand it, and/or because a given notion satisfies some out-of-context desire they happen to feel. People of this kind are not the helplessly ignorant, but the willfully self-deluded.")" - Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Fact and Value