Kimmler

"How should we act towards others with poor conceptual habits? How should one act towards others who consistently refuse to use some concepts properly? For example, those who call margarine "butter" despite the drastic difference in their chemical makeup. " 10/10 for the question...but how would you answer it?

Firstly: New York magazine is a pseudo-intellectual mutual masturbatory device for smug Eastern Establishment Liberals who (as post-modernist subjectivists) need constant reassurance when they nervously notice that the world is not cooperating with their fantasies. Consequently, anyone who questions their zeitgeist must be mocked. Hence, their obsessive attacks on Rand, the quintessential opponent of their world view. So, are they trying to make you laugh? Yes. And to dismiss any challenge to their ideology without actually considering the critics' arguments. " I doubt I'd ever kiss an Objectivist" (don't you want to live dangerously?) "or they'd want to kiss me. I probably don't deserve a kiss from one" (Not if they've been reading your posts here. They need convincing. Tell them you are a critic,...but that you are open to her/his arguments. Have a copy of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemolgy on display , highlight some passages. as bait) "But what is the deal here?" (I'm telling you. Pay attention!) "Do you have to tell your objectivist partner that she deserves a kiss before you just kiss her/him? Or do you just kiss her/him?" (I see that you are not familiar with Roark's method of getting down to business with Dominique). However, the modern ARIan always consults certified Randroids before proceeding. Please seen Ellen Kenner's "The Selfish Path To Romance: How To Love With Passion and Reason. Inspired by the Ideas of Ayn Rand". Follow her steps explicitly. Send her an outline of your planned strategy. Wait for her written approval or corrections.[Do not deviate from the assigned path unless you want to receive a stern scolding from Leonard!] Note: She also does phone consulting, so you can call her 'on the spot' if you need step-by-step counseling. Tell us how this works out. Good luck. Or as Rand would say, "Good premises!" I am indebted to those fine folks at ARCHN for the following: ASK ARISTOTLE! Rational romantic advice for the Singular Single Q. My boyfriend is an Objectivist (I'm not) and he said it would really turn him on if I could win a debate with him. How can I do that? A. You can't. A non-Objectivist can never win a debate, or even an argument, with an Objectivist, as it is not of the essence of an Objectivist to lose arguments in concordance with the Law of Identity. What happens, you might ask in logical extension, should an Objectivist happen to argue with another Objectivist? Foolish girl. Your dumb question is an obvious denial of reality. No wonder your boyfriend is looking for an excuse to dump you. An Objectivist would never argue with another Objectivist,as both begin from the same agreed premise and proceed logically to the correct conclusion. Have you not even heard of the Laws of Pyrrhus? (Guest Advisor was the Sybil of Cumae. Ari had more valuable things to do with his time this week) For the link here: http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2011/01/reminder-sundays-rationally-selfish.html

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2010/12/rand-and-empirical-responsibility-7.html From the article: - “An emotion that clashes with your reason is only the carcass of that stale thinking which you forbade your mind to revise.” How on earth did Rand know this? Without providing even a jot of evidence, it becomes impossible for a rational person to judge this assertion. Let us conduct a little thought experiment to see if we can figure out how Rand came to this extraordinary judgment. Let us begin by inquiring as to where Rand could have ever come by such knowledge. I can think of only three possible ways: 1. Very sophisticated cognitive science experiments 2. Through introspection 3. By reading other people's minds I’d say you can only reach this (Rand’s) conclusion after 1)…yet Rand never carried out these very sophisticated cognitive science experiments. So on what grounds can you make such statement if you haven’t done 1)?

Atlas may sell hundreds of thousands of copies a year but it sure does not make that many objectivists. In fact the 'conversion' rate is pretty low. Over at ARCHN we worked it out at 0.5% of those that read it become objectivists. Nothing to write home about now is it?

Part of why Greg does what he does at ARCHN is to highlight what Chris Wolf has spotted in his essay http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/wrong.html "Anyone who has had much contact with the Objectivist movement knows that it is far from being a united movement. On the contrary, the in-fighting, warring factions, and schisms would rival those of any religious cult. This seems very strange, coming as it does from a philosophical movement that proudly claims its devotion to reason and logic, and insists that its entire philosophy is an integrated whole. The fact is, Objectivists are in violent disagreement concerning the applications of their philosophy. Of course, disagreement as to the correct application of any philosophy is to be expected. This is inherent in the fact that conceptual knowledge is not automatically given to human beings. Such knowledge must be discovered by individuals who are not omniscient. But in Objectivism, the disagreement is seldom polite. Friendships, marriages, and lifetime associations are constantly torn apart by disagreements among Objectivists. Obviously there is much more going on here than a simple academic disagreement over the proper interpretation of a philosophy." As for the bit in bold...you don't say! Though I've never experienced that myself. As for Rand flourishing...there is ample evidence at ARCHN that objectivism isn't. Moreover if you listen to the Islamists and the scientologists they are flourishing too. But should we take their word for that or seek independent evidence?

http://nymag.com/news/features/artifact/51814/ No but seriously...are they being serious or are they just trying to make me laugh here? I doubt I'd ever kiss an objectivist or they'd want to kiss me...I probably don't deserve a kiss from one. But, what is the deal here? Do you have to tell your objectivist partner that she deserves a kiss before you kiss him/her or do you just kiss her/him? But if it doesn't work out for them at least they can be like Rob from California: "I have yet to find a girl deserving of my falling in love with her. But “other people” are secondary values no matter what, so finding someone is not a priority for me."

Have you read Big Sister is watching you by Whittaker Chambers? Here is the link http://www.potowmack.org/aynrand.html But go the ARCHN and read the series on empirical responsibility too. You will find plenty of criticisms of objectivism here too http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/

"Her works speak to the minds and hearts of millions, while extreme critics have very little influence. In the wise words of one David Kelley, I have better things to do." Last things first MSK, you are a good man with better things to do and as for not having to defend her as her words speak to the minds and hearts of millions what sort of arguement is that? So do the words of Popper, Kant, Hume, Marx, Mao, Lenin...does that mean that they are immune from criticism? As for Rand's critics having little influence then why is say, old Whit Chambers is so hated in O's circles? Perhaps her critics have had little influence but purely because not pen but her own could condemn her so.

Why does he do it? I can't read his mind and answer for him. Perhaps he feels that Rand and Objectivism has been too readily dismissed by academia and needs to be thoroughly examined. He also shows just how destructive an influence objectivism can be to individuals and their relations with friends and family, their thinking etc. The fact that he spends so much time analysing objectivism in no way validates it, you might as well ask Richard Dawkins why he spends so much time attacking religion and to stop doing this as this in some way proves there is a god. If you don't think much of Greg & co's arguements why not pop over there and give show them where they are going wrong?

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/ I think Greg and his regular contributors have done a yeomans job of showing where Rand went wrong. This lastest blog entry is part 9 in an ongoing series on Rand & empirical responsibility. Worth a look and wonder what your take would be on parts 1 - 9.

Too much for you. --Brant That doesn't make me a bad person.

New Rules for Rand Criticism have just been announced! http://www.solopassion.com/node/8230 These laws have been laid down by the ultimate philosopher himself, a Mr. C Cathcart and nope I’ve never heard of him either. You have to read something called OPAR and have a familiarity with LPs Understanding Objectivism and a familiarity with his advanced seminar course on OPAR. The later being the icing on the cake. Now whilst that rules me out (never, I hear you cry!). But Kimmler has to ask, are you a fit and proper person to discuss objectivism with?

http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/ Do we really want to live in their world? The honest answer has to be no.

Rand-bashers will say this sort of thing regardless of the casting. Ghs You better believe it!

I read it once and that was enough. It was sillier than the Fountainhead and not as good. Though the first 100 pages were ok-ish but then it became obvious what was going on. I still am confused as to how the looters, incompetent to a man, managed to get into power in the first place and as for the Winston Tunnel scene...sheesh that had me lobbing the book at the wall. Though objectivists might enjoy that part of the book the best. I wonder how many of you here would be allowed into Galt's Gulch?

Attention seeking? From a staunch fiscal conservative who wants serious entitlement reform, who hoping to repeal Obamacare? Perish the thought.

Well I guess the looters having seen their world destroyed get down on their knees and pray that the prime movers return to save them, as they are too stupid to run things on their own. Picture the scene, a looter couple who have seen their family torn apart and say two of their four kids die because of this, get down on bended knee to pray for forgiveness. Effigies of Robin Hood are burnt in every major city and every baby born is named John or Dagny. http://rebirthofreason.com/Spirit/Jokes/371.shtml

I resolved to make no resolutions. Ba'al Chatzaf Well sir not harm can come from this. All you need do on NYE is say "I aim to carry on as before"

On the eve of every 31st of December it is traditional to make decisions which will fundamentally affects life; New years resolutions. Are decisions like this to be taken only after a period of reflection and introspection or should we say to hell with that and let's make some resolutions now (on the 31/12)? Given that most of us will then go on to break them you have to wonder why we bother. Clearly if we do break our promises you ourselves this can be a tad depressing and lead one to take up bad habits (again) When it comes to resolutions I try to keep them realistic and achievable. Such as walking a couple of miles a day to keep in trim. That way you will have evidence at the end of the year that you have kept your vow. But given, that in our altruistic society, resolutions are viewed as being a good thing. The aim being to turn yourself into a better person, I wonder if objectivists make new years resolutions or are you virtuous enough already?

Sorry was the 'wrong' video put up? As those guys are statists not socialists. I'm confused now. When do the socialists turn up to debate with the objectivists? Here in the UK socialists have tried to debate with the 'offical' objectivist organisation; the UKOA. But they backed down, saying they have nobody with any debating experience. Erm...earth to them, you ain't born with this experience you had to go out and acquire it. Man up and sink or swim.

Yeah, well in the early 30’s hardly anyone was taking advice from the vagabond son of a carpenter with a virgin mother. Peikoff is Jesus? Actually Peikoff who? Nobody knows who he is in England. Have we got that right? It's called hyperbole. It might have made better sense if I likened him to St. Peter, but as jokes go, this one didn't spend much time in the polishing department. FWIW I say it's a good thing if nobody knows who he is in England, the fewer places the better. Alternately, I wouldn't mind if we did ship him over, the Brits have their share of loons, I bet he'll fit in nicely. Oh it was a joke! Oh...I get it now. Yes, the penny has dropped. Sure, we will take Peikoff if you take the cast of Top Gear. Though I wonder what Peikoff will make of our NHS? Which isn't socialism but he probably thinks it is.

Please, lets not speak ill of the dead. Remember - De mortuis nil nisi bonum RIP

From the socialist standard. Smashes through the claim that the NHS or Obamacare are anything to do with socialism. Not us!!!! We never asked for either. I know you objectivists are big on reason, lets hope you can read this and see reason. How many times have I gotta say it? State run medicine is not socialism. I don't care what Obama says or any other politician. Since when are we naive enough to believe what they say. Sure the soviets say health care in the USSR was socialism, but pssssssst, they lied. Not just about that but about everything. Sorry to break that one to you. The National Health Service is trumpeted as the finest achievement of the Labour Party throughout its entire history. For years Labour supporters when tackled on the non-socialist and pro-capitalist nature of the Labour Party would reply with the one riposte, ‘Ah, but what about the NHS?’ Regarded by many Labour supporters as a socialist measure and holding out a promise of solving one of the most distressing problems of being a worker, being looked after when you were ill, it is hardly surprising that it was seen as a huge step forward in working class emancipation. One reform out of the multitude of reforms put into practice by a reformist party has survived — has it worked? What did the NHS claim to do at its inception? Its chief architect Aneurin Bevan was very sure of his aims: it was to be an institution which would take care of all the medical needs of the working class for evermore and, hold your breath, without charge. However expensive the treatment might be medical attention could be obtained for all. For free! But it left a question hanging in the air, why was it only the working class who needed this ambitious solution? There was no problem for the capitalist class, who didn’t need a health service. They could obtain all that was available from existing medical services by paying for it. However, in the context of the time and given the pro capitalist inclinations of the Labour Party it was a bold, even visionary solution to the poor state of health of the mass of the working class after a long period of economic depression followed by six years of war. A situation, that had already been a serious cause of concern for government before the war. (Though in some respects the wartime diet plus the fact that unemployment had virtually ended for the duration had improved health standards). The NHS plan struck an immediate chord with the mass of the working class who saw in it a promise for massive changes for the better in the post-war period. Carried away by the prospect of free teeth and glasses for all, the NHS helped to allay the grim years of rationing and shortages and helped to secure a second term for the Labour Government. Bevan is usually given sole credit for the NHS, but the real picture is slightly different. Like its companion, the Beveridge scheme for social security, it was implemented by the Labour Party but had the support of other parties, who generally recognised that some form of welfare was badly needed. So the NHS did not spring from nothing, as with the big bang theory of the Universe. There had been health provision for the working class before the war that was free of charge, but it had been very haphazard, with some areas over supplied and others very badly neglected. Also it relied upon charity. It was not there by right and most people saw a big difference. Bevan promoted a scheme that would abolish the stigma and unpredictability of charity and was comprehensive and open to all. And he had to fight for it, even against opposition within his own party, and from the British Medical Association, who saw a threat to their own power within a government run scheme. But once the scheme had been publicised there was no going back. Yet those were minor obstacles compared to a force that neither Bevan nor the Labour Party has ever properly understood, the forces of capitalist economics. Money problems The NHS had to be paid for, and the money had to come from the capitalist class. Ever since its inception the history of the NHS has been a story of trying to provide adequate funding. Every government has looked for ways to find the money and cut the costs, and every government has failed. The original set-up has been modified, tinkered with or altered repeatedly, all, we are told in the interests of efficiency. And every government produces a fresh plan with a fanfare of trumpets that promises to solve all problems. Bevan initiated a reform that would prove to be one of the biggest headaches of all time for his own party or for any party trying to run capitalism, including Margaret Thatcher, who thought she had the magic formula to solve all problems, privatisation, but ended up by spending as much as anyone. In truth there are many factors within capitalism which augur badly for the NHS. Although the trend for well-established capitalist countries is to gravitate from a production economy to a service economy, this can have problems. Manufactured goods, once they are into full mass production generally go down in price, notwithstanding inflation because they embody less labour. But not all wealth can be mass-produced. Many jobs that require intensive labour-power cannot be made more productive by technology. But wages paid have to come into line with those of production workers where fewer workers still produce as much or more. This is why it is so expensive to have such things as electrical or building work done. Nursing comes into this category: you can’t replace a nurse by a machine (although they do their best). So, if there are going to be enough nurses to run a health service the total cost of nursing care has to go up. In addition to which, nurses have to be trained to manage the increasing technical demands of modern health care. The government try to overcome this problem by the well-used tactic of recruiting from countries with lower wages, such as the West Indies, South Africa and Poland. Another tried and tested solution favoured by employers is that of up-grading, i.e. allowing some tasks to be undertaken by those not previously regarded as having the necessary skills; for example, encouraging nurses to undertake minor surgery, thus relieving some pressure on doctors. But this is minor, compared to the increasing costs of drug treatment, which have risen to astronomical proportions since the NHS was founded. When Bevan dreamed up his panacea for the working class of Britain, which was going to be the envy of the world, the practice of medicine was not as advanced as it is today. Drug treatment, as we know it today, apart from the heavy reliance on aspirin and the wartime use of penicillin, was unknown. Modern medical science was more or less born during the Second World War and it has made giant strides since, especially with regard to costs. Developing a modern medical drug can cost millions of pounds. And, as every reader of any newspaper must have noticed, new, ‘wonder drugs’ are launched with astonishing frequency, generally leading newspaper articles somewhere asking indignantly, “Why cannot this life saving drug be made available to anyone who needs it?” The pressures on the NHS are relentless, all of them making for increasing costs. Population trends are swelling the numbers of old in relation to the young, and as we all know older people tend to have more illnesses, and their illnesses are more likely to take the form of expensive operations such as hip replacements. All these items are creating big problems for the NHS. and resulting in intensive press coverage, most of it highly critical, especially when it comes to waiting lists. It must be pointed out that this does not just apply to the NHS. Other capitalist institutions, paid for out of taxation levied upon the wealthy, are being cut, notably the armed forces, the police force and the fire service. And private (more or less) firms, which cannot apply technology to reduce costs (read, manpower), like the post office, are cutting the numbers of branches. So, what does the future hold for the NHS and its equivalents in other capitalist countries? Decline As the longest running institution of its kind the NHS is probably the creakiest in Europe, but there is nothing special about British capitalism that makes it more likely than any other to undergo decline. Most European countries are already showing signs of strain in funding their welfare systems and what applies to the UK must inevitably follow with them. The conclusion must be that to fulfil the professed aims of Bevan for a health service that would cover the needs of the working class was never more than a pipe dream. No government will dare to upset their masters to the extent necessary to maintain a decent health service. The most likely prognosis is that it will carry on much as now with an increasing bias towards private hospitals and treatment that is paid for at the point of consumption. In fact it never lived up to its hype from the beginning; within months charges were being introduced for dental and optical services. There is no such thing as an adequate health service within a capitalist system of society and there never can be. It seems the current trend is to go back to something similar to pre NHS. and have a two tier system where what you get will be what you pay for. The rise in private hospitals and health insurance is a potent symbol of this trend. No doubt most workers will conclude that any deficiencies in the NHS can be put right by a change of government and that it lies within the power of the political process to achieve a viable health system. This is a fallacy. The money system we live under is inherently biased towards satisfying the demands of a minority ruling class who are only concerned with having a working class fit enough to go to work and fight their wars for them. Capitalism can never be run in the interests of the majority and in any case will always throw up new problems of ill health as it progresses. The rickets and tuberculosis of the Victorians are being replaced by more sophisticated illnesses such as heart failure, stress and obesity of a more modern age, not to mention AIDS. In a socialist society where the capacity for wealth production, unhampered by the colossal waste endemic to this one, can be released to the full, human values will predominate and energy can be concentrated on the causes of disease and its prevention. Issues such as the need for pharmaceuticals to make billions of pounds in profit will not exist. The NHS has managed to carry on so far as a more or less viable service largely due to the dedication and hard work of its members but this cannot last forever. - Socialist Standard April 2005

Yeah, well in the early 30’s hardly anyone was taking advice from the vagabond son of a carpenter with a virgin mother. Peikoff is Jesus? Actually Peikoff who? Nobody knows who he is in England. Have we got that right? Oh come on, talk about ambiguity! Are you wowing Peikoff’s statement, or the reaction it’s getting? I gather there's someone else on this thread already defending him.

Nay, nay and thrice nay! Not to me, but as for the others here...well don't hold your breath for them to answer.