Donovan A.

But how relevant is posting a post about relevance? Relevance is only relavant to the concept of relevance itself and is totally irrelevant to the topic of the thread - which is what you were complaining about in the first place! Dude, you've like totally violated the law of non-contradiction.... So then it is never relevant to ask people to stay on topic? When people get off topic, it is irrelevant to point it out? Then you are as guilty as I am for your comment as well by your own logic. If a person can never identify the irrelevant because relevance cannot be defined, then anything can posted on this thread and be considered relevant. This is the same fallacy as asking that a person be orderly chaotic. Let's stay on track, Sherry is new here (I have referred her here) and I think actions like this detract from what OL could be and should be, i.e., a please for reasonable discussion.

Michael, What does it take for people to post relevant information in relation to these threads. Why are so many threads all over the map? Maybe Barbara Branden's Efficient Thinking Course should be a prerequisite to posting!!! DA

I thought this would be related, but it does not seem so. Regardless it's interesting to compare these two quotes:

I am looking for a quote by Nathaniel Branden "Somehow always means somebody," which I know is located in The Basic Principles of Objectivism Course. Can anyone help me find the quote? It might also be located in his book: Who is Ayn Rand? Any assistance would be appreciated. I will offer an interesting comparison if I can get a hold of this quote. Thanks so much, DA

Filtering out the predictable sycophancy, I get the impression that Leonard Peikoff considers the moral issues involved to be somewhat treacherous. He ought to. Since Jim Valliant is a ferocious proponent of lies told to protect privacy (to the extent that he still refuses to acknowledge how Dr. Peikoff's statement in OPAR is a departure from all previous nonfiction treatments of Objectivism), I'll be addressing the issue before I bid adieu over at SOLOP. Mr. Valliant's model is taken from Atlas Shrugged. The trouble with using that epic novel as a model is that it appears to license the conclusion that only certain people are permitted to lie to protect their privacy. Robert Campbell Perhaps this quote would be helpful to Mrs. Hsieh and Dr. Peikoff: “Honesty does not mean that you owe an answer to any idle or impertinent question anyone chooses to ask you. You do not owe information to those who have no right, purpose or business to question you about matters which do not affect them. In such cases honesty consists of refusing to answer, not of lying. In such cases, you may point out if you care to that their question is improper. But you don’t lower yourself to the status of a liar for the sake of their impropriety. Nor does honesty demand that you become what may be called an aggressive truth teller who volunteers his unsolicited, unflattering opinion to anyone, on any subject, justifying himself in the name of honesty. We all know there is that type also. In situations which do not concern you, or in situations which were not created by your choice and action, but which are imposed on you by others, the moral alternative is not: to tell truth or lie, but to tell the truth or nothing.” - Nathaniel Branden, The Basic Principles of Objectivism, Lecture 11 - Reason and Virtue: Track 3 at 15:26 *Emphasis added by me.

Which philosophy produces a correct scientific method? How about a philosophy that states that there are no absolutes? Will that give rise to a proper scientific method? Will teaching children to be skeptical of the axioms help them if they wish to become serious scientists? I am not writing historically, I am writing in terms of human chronological and conceptual development. One needs to understand basic addition before one can proceed to understand or discover calculus. I do not mean to offend, but I think your definition of science is a frozen abstraction. If you disconnect philosophy from reality, you implicitly disconnect science from reality. Without reason, science would not be possible. Epistemology precedes even logic. "Science was born as a result and consequence of philosophy; it cannot survive without a philosophical (particularly epistemological) base. If philosophy perishes, science will be next to go." For the New Intellectual "It is not the special sciences that teach man to think; it is philosophy that lays down the epistemological criteria of all special sciences." - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/science.html Confusing science with philosophy as one and the same will not work in terms of arguing for an open-system approach to Objectivism. Objectivism is a philosophy, it is not a hard science. Since Objectivism is concerned with reality, since it is a reality oriented philosophy in essence, the foundation cannot be false. The derivatives, the extensions of Objectivism which depend on building abstractions from abstractions allows room for many errors unlike Piekoff's position that "errors are not nearly so common as some people wish to think, especially in the field of philosophy." - Fact and Value

How do they become aware? Just as a conceptual level of consciousness gives rise to philosophy, philosophy gives rise to the scientific method. Reason is not automatic, one must discover the correct principles of knowledge before one can theorize about science. To conclude that epistemology and philosophy is irrelevant to science is no different than to call science witchcraft.

In general, this is partially true. Philosophers must use arguments to support their postulates. But, I don't think that reason vs. mysticism is just a matter of argument, nor that either camp should just be considered as "one view or another." Philosophy, in particular metaphysical reality and a correct epistemology is the only mechanism which will validate a person's arguments and theories. Science depends on philosophy to establish the correct principles of epistemology. Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as: What is truth? What is proof? Science depends on the answers to those questions.

Adam, You can find an edited version of this quote in the book: Ayn Rand Answers p.72. The question to her was: What do you think of the Libertarian Movement? Her answer was aggressively opposed to Libertarianism, in particular she called anarchists "scum." Aside from all of this, I'd like to comment that Miss Rand probably voiced the loudest and most hostile emotions over Libertarians. But, philosophically I would say she was against every American political party. For a time, it seemed that Miss Rand was willing to endorse some Republican candidates as the lesser of the evils, implying that whichever candidate one votes for, it should be with the purpose of attempting to slow our march toward dictatorship.

If Objectivism is not limited to only the work that Ayn Rand endorsed or wrote herself, then it is a living (open to reason and reality) philosophy. Generally, Objectivist philosophers take credit for and differentiate their integrations, discoveries and contributions when they sign their work. I am convinced that the open system approach is consistent with the fundamental principles of Objectivism. A closed (to reason and reality) approach is dogmatic and rationalistic, which means the philosophy becomes divorced from reality. A Neo-Objectivist approach is subjectivism, where anything can be Objectivism, reality is whatever one wishes. The Objectivist approach rejects both dogma and subjectivism and requires that the philosophy be tied to reality. If there is a philosophical error in the work of Miss Rand or in the work of any of her followers, Objectivism must ultimately yield to reality, for reality will not bend to any set of disconnected rules, dogmas, demands or commandments. In fact, I think even the strongest ARI loyalists cannot avoid calling themselves Objectivists while at the same time they often disagree with at least something Miss. Rand or Peikoff has said or written. As for being concerned about possible public confusion in understanding what Objectivism is and is not, I find this to be a rather social metaphysical concern. Ayn Rand wrote: "The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: "Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?" -The Virtue of Selfishness p. vii (Introduction) Her answer was: "To those who ask it, my answer is: For the reason that makes you afraid of it." This is not the type of answer that denotes a concern with whatever confusions a person may have or not about Objectivism. But this does not deal directly with the concern that most ARI minded Objectivists have, i.e., what will happen if people who are not actually Objectivists act as self-appointed experts or representatives of Objectivism? In reference to the world today, I would have to acknowledge that Objectivism has many critics and many enemies who do not understand Objectivism or who are severely threatened by the ideas. In many respects, it is appropriate to voice disagreement, disapproval and even moral condemnation when we see individuals masquerade as Objectivists and espouse ideas which are totally false and incompatible with reality. This then brings us to another point of division between ARI and TAS, i.e., moral judgment. Before issuing condemnations, should we consider a person's context? Should we consider their intentions? Should we consider the degree of their error or evil? In my understanding Kelley would say yes to all of these questions, and Peikoff would say no. Peikoff would say: all you need to know is the idea itself because some ideas are "inherently dishonest." In Peikoff's view, from the ideas alone, you can deem a person as honest or dishonest. In effect, you can know a person's reasoning and or context based on their conclusions. Ironically in the dispute between Peikoff and Kelley the concrete of an academic marxist is used, where Peikoff writes: "As one of his examples of an intellectually honest man, to whom others should show “tolerance” and “benevolence,” David Kelley offers not a groping teenager, but “an academic Marxist,” i.e., an adult who devotes his life to the job of teaching unreason, self-sacrifice and slavery to generations of young minds. " - Fact and Value. Now consider this quote from Miss Rand: "I would deal with a marxist, with much greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding and much greater respect." - 28:18 (The Moratorium on Brains (Q&A))

"through history, the arrow has also symbolized war, power, swiftness, the rays of the sun, knowledge... as well as deities such as the Greek god Apollo and goddess Artemis (both hunters)" http://www.radioliberty.com/Symbolsandtheirmeaning.html

The Culture of Reason Center is proud to present its new logo provided by Gary Bulin.

Does anyone know how this course might compare to the course Branden gave at NBI? http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/pr...;products_id=85 Unfortunately, the link to purchase the item does not work!

It can come about from a misapplication of some of the principles of the philosophy. For instance, if a person is not thinking in full context they can hold expectations of other people that are unrealistic and therefore it becomes easy to issue denunciations unjustly. It can also be intoxicating to issue moral condemnations. If a person makes a habit of this behavior recklessly, they can create a sense of false superiority in themselves. It probably would have been helpful had Ayn Rand spent additional time discussing moral grayness, the proper application of sanction in our daily lives, and Objectivism as an open or closed system. Obviously many of the disagreements come from gaps of clarity within the philosophy. Rand may not have actually had fully developed answers for these questions either. It seems that she had some integration issues herself. This is not so much a problem, since rationally speaking we should be able to separate her character from her philosophy. It seems to be a problem for those that are unable to differentiate the difference. Certainly there are people who are attracted to Objectivism for the wrong reasons. Some of them are looking for a way to justify being loners and jerks. With a superficial understanding or misunderstanding of the philosophy, I think such people believe that they can support their poor behavior and feel moral superiority at the same time. Ironically the contradiction is theirs and the result is quite logical: they do not achieve happiness in my opinion. A person can only achieve pseudo-self-esteem, to the degree they live by social-metaphysics. Absolutely. See Fact and Value by Peikoff. I'm not sure they are nuts exactly, nor can I say they are of no importance or consequence, but I do think the source does come from a handful of people that should not be taken too seriously.

Ed, I'm sorry to hear about your crisis. I hope things turn out okay.

No, I heard of a meeting between Kelley and Brook, to see if there could be any cooperation between TAS and ARI. I also heard that they could not agree on anything.

I heard that David Kelley had a meeting with Yarron Brook some time ago? I also heard that they were unable to come to much if any agreements. Does anyone know anything about this meeting? What was the purpose of their talking? Just curious.

I was not sure if anyone has posted this already, nor have I read all 50 pages of this thread. I plan on doing so, when and if I have time. Understanding Objectivism CD 11 (Disc 2) Track 4: 11:04 Question: “It’s easy for you to dismiss outright the Libertarian biographies of Ayn Rand because you knew her so closely. But there’s no other sources of such information maybe it would be useful if you could comment at length on at least one of these books so we can know which of these facts are true and which is misrepresentation. Ayn Rand is very dear to us as a great person not only as an author.” Answer by Leonard Peikoff: “Well I would regard commenting on these books that are forthcoming on of which I know really as an issue of the sanction of evil and I would not do it. I know the authors in some cases. These books got willful falsehoods, motivated by malice mixed into the text. I simply would not ever make a comment on a book that I know is of that nature. I appreciate the interest in Ayn Rand’s biography and I certainly do intend to authorized a biography, where I believe that it will be done objectively and not by not for any reason of personal malice and in that case when that happens I will certainly open up all of her papers etc. to such a biographer. But I can tell you that I’m speaking now in December of 1983, I have not done that, and I will not not, now not nor ever have a comment on some of the forthcoming biographies. For the reason that I mentioned, I would consider it immoral on my part to comment. To even get to the point of distinguishing this page was true and this page was false. On exactly the grounds that I would not take some libel from the Nazi party against the Jews and say: well now on page 34 maybe he made a good point, but the first 12 pages are dishonest. In its inception and by its method it is corrupt and the same thing exactly in this case” *emphasis added by me* ----------- Isn't this what PARC is? Has Valliant not done exactly what Peikoff said would be immoral and sanctioning evil? Why would someone sign up for a job that Peikff himself would not do on moral grounds?

Of course you can make recommendations. I will try to order it from TAS. Thank you.

It would also be nice to have a function that deals with one's location.

Sorry I keep mentioning the competition, but on OO.net, they added a sexual orientation feature to profiles. I like this a lot. It is difficult to find other Gay-Objectivists. Obviously those who do not wish to disclose their sexual orientation do not have to. If everyone was the same, then advertising would not be necessary.

Last night I ran my first Ayn Rand Ford Hall Lecture at CRC: The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age with Q&A. In the Q&A period, a questioner asks about pollution. Rand answered by stating that a person could sue and should win such a lawsuit against factories that pollute the air, if it can be proven that there is in fact demonstrable damage done to one's lungs by smokestacks. At the same time, she also argued against the penalty being so severe that the factory would have to go out of business and the whole community starve. She also made a point about community involvement (which was unclear) in terms of objective law. My interpretation of community involvement was: community participation in forming a legal judgment, or rules regarding such issues. I think it is important to distinguish between actual legality and philosophical moral epistemology. In many cases today, since the epistemology of our culture is weak, it is no surprise that we can find laws that contradict themselves. For instance, Rand was strongly against anti-trust laws and price controls and regulation, which basically meant that a businessman could be penalized or persecuted just for entering business. If he (the businessman) charges the same price as his competitor, that could be considered collusion, if he charges under his competitor, that could be considered an attempt to monopolize the market, if he charges over his competitor, then he could be charged with taking advantage of the public. I believe this would be an example of non-objective law, because regardless of what you do, you could be in danger legally and it is impossible to know. So now back to zoning: From my understanding, and I am writing in reference to the Objectivist theory of rights, property rights are not absolute. One must consider the principle of property rights in relation to context. I have often seen in these conversations, that people start throwing random concretes at each other, many of them very outlandish, to make a clear, cut and dry demonstration of the principle they are concerned about. On one side, a person considers property rights to mean: I dispose of and use my property regardless of its effects on other people. On the other side, we see what looks like the initiation of force against someone who is being outrageously inconsiderate to others that are around him or perhaps is ignoring another person's rights completely.

Are you not outing yourself here and now? Are you annoyed that people associate certain types of behavior and mannerisms with sexual orientation? If so, why does it bother you so much? Do straight people not also behave in tribal ways? To be honest, I have not experienced a lot of pressure to conform to any particular stereotypical behavior, or ideology from the gay community. It is true that most gay people become philosophically homeless once they conclude that they must choose between their sexual orientation and their religion, and as a result they sign up for anything that they think is now pro to their sexual identity. In many ways, most people are socialistic, even republicans are. Politically active gays vote usually based on the single issues which are important to them (gay rights). We can argue about whether those ideas are right or wrong, but I have met my fair share of capitalistic gays. I think there is some confusion here. Generally, gays do not want to be discriminated against. And on moral and epistemological grounds I agree with them, one's sexual orientation is usually insignificant when it comes to a person's qualifications for most jobs. This does not mean that one's sexual identity is not important. Generally, gay pride is an inaccuracy of language. What is really meant by gay pride is: be proud of your honesty, be proud of being a human being, be proud of being an individual, be proud that you have courage, be proud that you seek happiness. Should a person face the threat of violence based on acting like a woman? Don't get me wrong, I think a person should seriously consider their behavior in some contexts to avoid being a target of violence. There is a difference between foolishness and courage. You are putting a lot of pressure on yourself and on others by your harsh words. What is your motive? Do you want people to conform to your view of the "Gay" category? Is that not also tribalism? Why do you notice them? Will getting rid of these people create the people you are looking for? Those seem like pretty superficial reasons to be sick of someone. I am offended by your use of the term, and I am not a typical homosexual. The whole purpose of using that word is to scare and bully people into collectivism and conformity, not in regard to just what a person wears, but their very sexual identity. The motive of using that language is to scare someone into rejecting who they are. The motive of using that language is to make someone feel they have to choose between their sexual identity and their life and or happiness. Using that language is certainly not an offering of respect to individuality. If being tribal means you wear the same or similar clothes, that you have the same values, the same interests, the same ideas, then who is not part of a tribe? Individualism means using your own judgment in relation to the facts of reality that you have identified as opposed to implementing the psychology of a social metaphysician.

Michael, Yes, I think that would be fine. I just think it's ironic to not have an Ayn Rand corner. Ideally, I would have an Ayn Rand corner and then the sub categories you suggest under that umbrella. It's only my point of view, for what it's worth. - Donovan P.S. I'd still like to see that chat function come about.

Hi Michael, I am certainly not looking to complicate things. I just think that it would be nice to have an area dedicated to discussing Rand's specific work as opposed to rooms that are for discussing the work of the Branden's or Kelley or Peikoff. I think that those who have made up their minds to be hostile to OL will be hostile, regardless of what you do, unless OL is to conform to what they want (and even then I'm not sure). If Objectivism is not limited to the work that Ayn Rand endorsed or wrote herself, then it is a living (open to reason and reality) philosophy. We give credit to each person's contributions or discoveries by acknowledging their name when they sign their work. I am convinced that the open system approach is consistent with the fundamental principles of Objectivism. A closed (to reason and reality) approach is dogmatic and rationalistic, which means the philosophy becomes divorced from reality. A Neo-Objectivist approach is subjectivism, where anything can be Objectivism, reality is whatever one wishes. The Objectivist approach rejects both dogma and subjectivism and requires that the philosophy be tied to reality. If there is a philosophical error in the work of Miss Rand, or in the work of any of her followers, Objectivism must ultimately bend to reality, for reality will not bend to any set of disconnected rules, demands or commandments. In fact, I think even the "true believers" cannot avoid calling themselves Objectivists while at the same time they usually disagree with something Miss. Rand or Peikoff has said or written. Donovan