sjw

It's rational to wonder, but it's conceding to the arbitrary (i.e., it's irrational) to accept the fear-mongering on that basis, which is what you did in your first post. If you don't know, you don't know, and that's it. Shayne

Do you mean by this what you appear to mean? Namely, that you believe I have a simplistic understanding of how creative work is done, but your understanding is full and enlightened? Or maybe it's worse. Maybe you think that your enlightenment consists the fact that you recognize your ignorance, while you think I am oblivious to my own? Shayne

Ross: Ellen's right, and more so: all that stuff you said about radiation was wrong too. We could drop a bunch of nukes and it would have little consequence except for what would be destroyed. All that stuff they taught us in high school about how using nukes would poison everything is all nonsense.

Jim: I won't pretend to know exactly what you're getting at, but I will say that those of us who have done creative work know it's a painstaking, step by step process (leaving aside modern art, which is trash not creation). You don't need psychology or neuroscience to know what it takes to create, and to admire it. But you don't need me to tell you about Rand's efforts, there's her journals and books on fiction/non-fiction writing that make it clear that she was not merely a genius but had a god-like work ethic and integrity. Shayne

Brilliant! Once I posted to Solo that the best way to change the culture was to actually be a producer, to apply Objectivism to one's field and demonstrate how practical the philosophy is. Linz took exception. Shayne

Robert, I agree with everything you said. I was careful to say the moral/legal dichotomy was strange *in this context*, because it's used as if to say that something could be morally right while legally wrong. Assuming a proper legal system this is false. But the reverse is true: something can be morally wrong and legally "right" (that's not precise: really I mean "legally agnostic"). But there is no such thing as something that's morally right and legally wrong. Shayne

Interesting comments Paul. I'd say there's two bad tendencies possible here: Those of the blind worshipper, who sees Ayn Rand as a prophet; and those of an impertinent subjectivist, the rebel without a cause, who appreciates Ayn Rand's conclusions on some level but doesn't pay her the proper respect nor comprehend that he owes much of what he unjustly regards as purely his own thinking to her. For my part I recognize that I probably would not have learned how to think without Ayn Rand, I would have stayed in the quagmire of uncertainty about the vast range of issues she opened up for me without her help. On the other hand I actually believe that she helped me! (Imagine that!) I do feel confident now that I can tackle almost any intellectual problem, probably not at her speed, but I can still do it.

One of the unfortunate consequences of ARI's (& Solo's) irrationally skewed hatred of subjectivism while tolerating intrinsicism is that it skews all the counterpart movements toward subjectivism--if you viciously ban or harass those with subjectivist tendencies but coddle budding intrinsicists, then there's an exodus of the former to fill up these counterpart movements. Which creates a vicious cycle, making the remaining intrinsicists foam all the more about the antics of the counterparts, but not without good cause in many instances. Which is to say that Brook's previous comments aren't completely wrong-headed. What he's reacting to is the pacifist mentality that says it's our duty to take grave risks preserve innocent life. His reaction relative to the status quo is right on a basic level; but his reasoning is all wrong. E.g., his attempt to paint a picture of all the innocents being guilty to some degree is collectivist and obviously wrong: there's children there. In fact it is not our duty to sacrifice ourselves to preserve the life of innocent children in the aggressor nation. ARI offers chillingly anti-life rationalizations precisely *why* this is so, but that doesn't make what they are arguing for completely wrong (on the other hand, there's no way one could trust them to make correct application in real life). As I have mentioned elsewhere, the real justification is along the same lines as we'd use to justify tragically killing innocents in a hostage scenario when that was the only reasonable way to protect everyone else (this isn't my argument, I'm just trying to give the basic idea for the right argument). These new quotes allegedly from Brook (I have serious doubts over their accuracy, I would be surprised if he actually said that) indicate the same sort of emotionalism interfering with proper arguments. It's certainly true that the creature who would wear a Bin Laden shirt is as low as you can get, but clearly, the fact that someone is a lowlife doesn't grant you the right to take his life (he allegedly says "moral right"--as against what? "Legal right"? That's a very odd and not Objectivist distinction to use in this context; it's rather the distinction a collectivist would make; if Brook didn't really say this, then the person fabricating the quote is probably a collectivist).

Thanks guys! Michael: Yes, I'm certain that we would have our disagreements if I posted much here. But your posts are so damn long that I think I'll just throw up the white flag right now. Shayne

I just discovered this thread tonight after spending far too much time at Solo trying to figure out exactly how people using the name "Objectivist" could have so insanely perverted Ayn Rand's philosophy. I don't think I agree exactly with anyone's viewpoint here, but I have to say, at least you guys have a basic respect for individual rights. Which shouldn't be saying much, but evidently, it is. Shayne PS: I think it's critical to make sure those Yaron Brook quotes are correct and in context, because they are indeed a damning and eloquent summary of the attitude spewing from the ARI crowd.