seymourblogger
-
Posts
381 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by seymourblogger
-
-
Why don't you link to a real scholar, Babette Babich who also has graduate degrees in Germany altho an American. Many of her articles on Nietzsche are written in German and translated into English by herself., Her books, her journal on Nietzsche, interviews are all bilingual as the English ones she translates herself back into German. She writes also on Hannah Arendt and Heidegger. Hicks may be a good lecturer, - Penn State is it? - but he is not a world authority on Nietzsche as Babich is. Her understanding of him is intuitive,deep and "true" if I may say that, and comes from a long career reading Nietzsche.
The focus of here is on Ayn Rand's reception of Nietzsche - does B. Babich address this too, and if yes, to what extent?
edited to add:
I just googled "Babich and Ayn Rand" and got a link to a passage of Babich's book on Nietzsche's Philosophy of Science where she writes [bolding mine]:
http://books.google.de/books?id=NhNwUjBT-ecC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=babich+and+ayn+rand&source=bl&ots=tJt0JCr7Tf&sig=c2JlwT1r1bJlAN2Hh_PW-G8cBXw&hl=de&sa=X&ei=x9tlT8rqAYrptQaM0MzgBQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false"BB: "This fear stems in part from the tendency to conceptual solecism that equates Nietzsche's thought with that of Ayn Rand and other more classic proponents of aristo-vulgar esoteric doctrines".
Here is the German translation (going by what you said, I assume it was done by Babich herself):
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false
BB: "Diese Furcht unterscheidet sich von der Neigung zur begrifflichen Sünde, die Nietzsches Gedanken mit denen von Ayn Rand und anderen eher klassichen Fürsprechern aristokratisch-vulgären esotersichen Doktrinen verbindet."
Note that "stems" in the English version is mistranslated in her German version as "unterscheidet", which means something else: 'differs'.
As for the term "begriffliche Sünde", (her translation of "conceptual solecism"), it does not exist in German.
"Solecism" has to be translated as e. g. "Sprachschnitzer" (language blunder), "sprachliche Ungereimtheit", etc.
Grammar mistake: it is not "vulgären esoterschen, but "vulgärer esoterischer".
I'd recommend reading BB's work in her native English.
For if one random single sentence in German already shows a number of mistakes, one can imagine what the rest looks like ...
Babich is NOT translating her own work. She is writing it in 2 languages as she is bilingual.
Some words are just NOT the same in another language. To do a LITERAL translation of your own work is an oxymoron.
-
Apparently spelling is no longer a required discipline, even if it changes the meanings of a sentence.
I pray that the signs that say "DANGER: DO NOT TOUCH" are spelled correctly and that young technicians can still read,
Good grief...we are doomed.
even if it changes the meanings of a sentence.
Good grief selene: the meanings of a sentence or the meaning of a sentence. Now I just lost another post correcting your syntax. What's the difference between grammar and syntax anyway?
-
I think the notion of "linearity" is connected to our thinking in "time arrow" mode. For example, we compare "then" and "now", we notice the change between what was "before" and what came "after"; we look "back" into the past and "forward" for the future, etc. You open a book - it has a "beginning" and an "end" (even if it should happen to be be a postmodern story attacking the idea of 'beginning' and 'end'The world happens by Events. Things do not develop linearly. They appear to because of our perceptual illusions but linearity is just an illusion. LIke those booklets that when you flutter the pages like a deck of cards the figures appear to be walking or running or....
). Reading the book through from beginning to end happens within a section of the time arrow structuring our thinking. "I went to Delaware in 62 to grad school", you wrote. Again, this places you in a specific place within a linearly conceived time arrow where one marks a "past" (1962) and a "present" (March 2012) when you wrote this.
But this "Event" can also be positioned linearly on the time arrow as having happened at a specific time in the past.NBI was an Event on the scene, unexpected, coming from elsewhere, unpredicted, unplanned, just a little 2 x 3 inch rectangle in the entertainment section of the Sunday Inquirer. And my mother who read every single death and birth notice saw it.
Often, we are only able to 'connect the dots' in hindsight, when "looking back".Three Events that intersected in my life. Destiny. The moment of kairos as the Greeks said. Without that, no grad school, no thousands of things it enabled me to do because it was a particular push. Her fiction would never have done that for me.
That's quite ironic indeed, lol. Didn't you have a relapse when reading all those atmospheric scenes where the heroes and the heroine enjoy their cigarettes?was reading Atlas at that exact time and I was enthralled. I was also quitting smoking on a deconditioning program I read about while I was reading Atlas. Think of the irony of that!
As for the 'villains' in AS - did any of them ever have a smoke? I don't think so, but maybe my memory fails me.
But isn't it important, before offering a gift (or counter-gift), to consider whether the receiver is going to like it?I owe the Brandens my life, even more so than Rand. I received a great gift from Rand through the Brandens. Now it is time for the Counter-gift. I intend to make Rand more radical than she ever dreamed of being. Just as Baudrillard made Foucault more radical than Foucault ever dreamed of being. Such is the counter-gift.I think the notion of "linearity" is connected to our thinking in "time arrow" mode. For example, we compare "then" and "now", we notice the change between what was "before" and what came "after"; we look "back" into the past and "forward" for the future, etc.
And: Often, we are only able to 'connect the dots' in hindsight, when "looking back".
Exactly. We look back and "paste" a cause on what happened. It's called precession. And in fact causes may have been made up all along. How about that!
I refer you to the first conversation between Roark and Wyand on exactly this. Roark says he knew these moments when they happened. Wyand says he knew them only in retrospect. These are Foucauldian "cuts" at a micro level in a single human life. Remember when Wyand says:Here's Rand:
....Howard, when you look back, does it seem to you as if all your days had rolled forward evenly, like a sort of typing exercise, all alike? Or were their stops - points reached - and then the typing rolled on again?
"There were stops."
"Did you know them at the time - did you know that that's what they were?"
"Yes."
"I didn't. I knew afterward....."(F 25th ed p. 542-3)
This is the first conversation in Howard's office with Gail. In Foucault's language a stop can be seen as a CUT, although he saves the term for a more elaborate genealogy rather than a personal instance in a life. IMO it is the micro, so I will use it.
Don't you remember anything x-ray? I feel I explain over and over and you never get it. I do not have the exquisite patience darren has with you.
But isn't it important, before offering a gift (or counter-gift), to consider whether the receiver is going to like it?
As for cigarettes it made me wonder about their take on reality. You see I knew what it was doing to me to smoke. I wondered why they didn't know how it was affecting them if they were so adament about reality.
X-ray your problem is still that you are a literal thinking person. You are defining gift in your mind as a present, like a Xmas present. This "gift" falls within the order of Symbolic Exchange and Death. The 9-11 attack can be seen as the "gift" to which the US must reply with the "counter-gift" or suicide. We have not returned the "counter-gift.
Reading the book through from beginning to end happens within a section of the time arrow structuring our thinking.
-
In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true.
This is beautiful. Thank you.
-
This site is a good mini example of a fascist organized site with a group of people who follow the party line here. (This is bound to get me in the garbage pile again eh.) Lest you think I am partial to criticizing you all, The heavy hitting liberal site - The Dailykos - is the very worst offender having driven off a wave of really good posters when the brownshirts came to get them all, one by one by one. Needless to say I went to the camps too.
The generally poor reception you get on OL is not because you are a maverick -- almost every regular poster on OL is a maverick of some kind -- but because you are a fool. Even that might be tolerable if you were not also an annoying fool, i.e., a twit.
To the gas chambers-- Go!. And take your shopping cart with you.
Ghs
Maybe I am a fool for commenting here. But I am not getting drunk because my money has been cut off and my landlady is threatening eviction as I am in arrears on my rent.
Who is the fool? Yes?
And I would bet that law organization in Bloomington is run by Michael Ausbrook. Yes?
-
1) I think that this whole discussion of what is, and is not, "official" Objectivism is only necessary because of the unforunate efforts of some ARIans to attempt to rewrite the history of the development of this philosophy. . . .
No. Rand wanted her philosophy displayed exactly for the philosophy she saw it to be.
Correct.
Peikoff and Kelley have both tried to carry on Rand’s quest for her philosophy in that respect. They hold themselves forth as expert, reliable expositors of what is Rand’s philosophy Objectivism.It is stated above that two individuals hold themselves forth as expert, reliable expositors of what is Rand's philosophy Objectivism.
But these individuals disagree on an essential issue (closed versus open system). The result is a contradiction.
The Objectivist approach to contradictions is that they are the result of at least one false premise.
What could be the false premise (or premises) here?
I am not persuaded that “there could never have been Objectivism without Branden and NBI,” as Janet put it. Branden could have been killed in an auto accident before the founding of NBI, Rand could have continued her publications, and Objectivism as a philosophy and as a “movement” would have continued much the same as it did. I had read all those publications up to the time of the split between Rand and Branden. I had never heard any tapes of NBI. That institution was irrelevant to the understanding of Objectivism that Rand had instilled in me and in my associates.Stephen,
Both you and Janet are speculating; but do you really believe that without Branden and the NBI, Objectivism would have become a widespread movement?
Absolutely it would not without NBI. It reached enough people that when the tapes came out there were those ready to listen. I went to Delaware in 62 to grad school. Again.
I think I saw on the bulletin board somewhere that someone was advertising for anyone who wanted to do the tapes. I called the person, talked to her and she and a young man came tomy apartment. They wanted to do the tapes with me because I had done the lectures for 2 years, doing the Basic Principles twice. I knew it cold. I had it memorized by heart. I lived it to the minute. I was in grad school in the behavioral sciences thrown in with really smart psychology majors and I didn't know shit. I had burned all my bridges in public school teaching behind me. I didn't feel I had a choice but to study all the time and really learn the stuff. It was the very first time in my life that I couldn't con my way through courses and do OK.
I couldn't. I was terrified. The only thing holding me together was objectivism. The only thing. You do not get that from reading Rand's fiction. If you read Nathaniel's book, he had endless personal tutoring from Rand about all his questions. discussions through the night. It never stopped for him. He went to Mew York with Barbara and Rand followed him. It is important to register the fact that she went from her beautiful home in California, the home O'Conner loved and his garden. If you have never had a garden that you loved you can't understand what she did to him, and what he gave up. Heller sees this in her biography when she quotes someone being so sad because here Frank was painting flowers instead of tending them and growing them and arranging them. and he was arranging windows for display. So sad.
I think Rand knew she was never going to finish Atlas without him, and so she sacrificed everything else to be near him. He was her muse pure and simple.
I don't think I was the only one so serious about objectivism. There had to have been others. And a handful is really all you need. Jesus only had 12 was it. Loyola only had 12 to start the Jesuits.
The world happens by Events. Things do not develop linearly. They appear to because of our perceptual illusions but linearity is just an illusion. LIke those booklets that when you flutter the pages like a deck of cards the figures appear to be walking or running or....
NBI was an Event on the scene, unexpected, coming from elsewhere, unpredicted, unplanned, just a little 2 x 3 inch rectangle in the entertainment section of the Sunday Inquirer. And my mother who read every single death and birth notice saw it. I was reading Atlas at that exact time and I was enthralled. I was also quitting smoking on a deconditioning program I read about while I was reading Atlas. Think of the irony of that!
Three Events that intersected in my life. Destiny. The moment of kairos as the Greeks said. Without that, no grad school, no thousands of things it enabled me to do because it was a particular push. Her fiction would never have done that for me.
The only thing since I can compare it to was reading Foucault for the first time and feeling the light bulb go on, feeling all that I knew being ordered in a different way. A feeling of complete calm that I was where I should be in life at that exact time.
Kairos.
I owe the Brandens my life, even more so than Rand. I received a great gift from Rand through the Brandens. Now it is time for the Counter-gift. I intend to make Rand more radical than she ever dreamed of being. Just as Baudrillard made Foucault more radical than Foucault ever dreamed of being. Such is the counter-gift.
I am out of my 5 posts for today and the way this software is I may not be able to post this either. So in that case I will do it tomorrow.
You got Objectivism "through the Brandens." Which you came here first denigrating. Her "gift" to Nathaniel. Do you begin to understand how mixed up you are? Remember Barbara's "35th" rate intellect? Do you begin to understand that you are insane? How can you make Rand any more than Rand made herself? Double nuts.
--Brant
You got Objectivism "through the Brandens." Which you came here first denigrating.
Am I to assume you have never had a teacher that you learned much from who was not an exceptionally intelligent person?
Remember Barbara's "35th" rate intellect?
I still think that.
How smartdo you have to be to read verbatim a prepared lecture and answer catechism questions from Rand's fiction rather than the Bible?
Do you begin to understand that you are insane?
Insane is a legal definition which means that one has to be declared insane by the state. Since that is not the case I could sue you. That is, if you had anything to get. But people with nothing to get often shoot off their mouths like hot shot adolescents in a drive by, not because there is such a thing as free speech, but because they have nothing to lose in legal action.
Be much more careful Brant. You know what you said about Foucault and AIDS and Mexican boys. You were laying low for awhile after the brutal hacking I received from objectivist lliving. I suspect you of being involved. No I don't think you have the smarts to do it yourself, but that's the way you operate.
The above is probably going to put this in the garbage pile. Never mind. I have saved a copy. You keep on with this mfkng crap and you will be sorrier than the last time. Your name, attack on Foucault, irresponsible name-calling Brant Gaede, will circulate on the internet along with hacking, hacked, hacker. Do you want to keep this up since maybe something else won't go up?
I am grateful forever that Barbara Branden came to Philadelphia every Tuesday night for 2 years to deliver the NBI Lectures. I used to have exact and well detailed notes, but no longer. A pity. Nathaniel in writing them probably had Rand at his elbow doing much of the dictating. He was not an originator of the material but a synthesizer, a condenser, the person who sifted it out of her fiction. This required enormous time and knowledge of her work. A genius? No, I think not, but so what, as Werner would say. He was the perfect person at the right time to lift Rand into a different kind of prominence. Interpreting whether he was a necessary or sufficient condition is an interesting game to play. It means nothing. He did it, and he has not been fully recognized for his achievement. Nice that he is being recognized here.
And that the NBI Lectures are authentic Rand, edited and approved by herself.
And lastly,
How can you make Rand any more than Rand made herself? Double nuts.
Watch me. LIsten and learn.
-
I owe the Brandens my life, even more so than Rand. I received a great gift from Rand through the Brandens. Now it is time for the Counter-gift. I intend to make Rand more radical than she ever dreamed of being. Just as Baudrillard made Foucault more radical than Foucault ever dreamed of being. Such is the counter-gift.
I am out of my 5 posts for today and the way this software is I may not be able to post this either. So in that case I will do it tomorrow.
You got Objectivism "through the Brandens." Which you came here first denigrating. Her "gift" to Nathaniel. Do you begin to understand how mixed up you are? Remember, Barbara's "35th" rate intellect? Do you begin to understand that you are insane? How can you make Rand any more than Rand made herself? Double nuts.
--Brant
She's going to do for Rand what Baudrillard did for Foucault.
Baudrillard’s focus in the first section of this book is to introduce the concept that the world in which we live consists of images and signs that have disengaged themselves from “reality.” The new postmodern world is made up of simulations that are not based on “reality” but are devised by our imaginations. For example, he believes that in the past a map was a representation of reality itself. Today it is too difficult to distinguish between reality and the image of reality due to simulation. This blurring of what is “real” and “unreal” is what the author calls “hyperreality.”
Making Rand more radical? I know. Let's change "existence exists" to "hyperreality simulates." That's our new axiom. Catchy, huh?
Excellent! A perfect ready-made sound-bite. Existence exists is pretty sound bitey too eh.
Rand is far more radical than even you folks have dreamed. Or Peikoff. Or Branden, Or....or....or.......
Simulated hyperreality.
Hyper simulated reality.
Reality simulated hyperly.
Fun huh!
-
You posted this nearly two months ago. Still waiting for you to "get into her style" ...I agree Rand's writing is terrible in WTL, but it is also terrible in Atlas, but that is precisely what makes it perfct for the theme she is writing about. Later I will get into her style.Briefly. The style in which you write something must be a mirror of what you are writing about. Meyer in Twilight is writing about seduction. Her style is more seductive (to Muse and other rock music) than the seduction she is writing about. Rand's choppy, gestapo boot style that was panned by Chambers is perfect for the rusty, inefficient, clunky bureaucracy she is writing about. Her style mirrors that bureaucracy. Cosmoplis does this when Packer is in the limo start, stopping "moving in quarter inches" through the New York city traffic jam. It is soaring when he is projecting into the seagull in the sky. It is seductive when he is trying to get his wife to screw him just about anywhere each time he meets her. Sasha, that utterly wonderful book reviewer of a blogger does this for Nabokov's Lolita, so read her review of Lolita in her archives. http://silverfysh.wordpress.com/ Sasha is 22 years old and a Fillapina I believe. She is an extraordinary writer.
-
1) I think that this whole discussion of what is, and is not, "official" Objectivism is only necessary because of the unforunate efforts of some ARIans to attempt to rewrite the history of the development of this philosophy. . . .
No. Rand wanted her philosophy displayed exactly for the philosophy she saw it to be.
Correct.
Peikoff and Kelley have both tried to carry on Rand’s quest for her philosophy in that respect. They hold themselves forth as expert, reliable expositors of what is Rand’s philosophy Objectivism.It is stated above that two individuals hold themselves forth as expert, reliable expositors of what is Rand's philosophy Objectivism.
But these individuals disagree on an essential issue (closed versus open system). The result is a contradiction.
The Objectivist approach to contradictions is that they are the result of at least one false premise.
What could be the false premise (or premises) here?
I am not persuaded that “there could never have been Objectivism without Branden and NBI,” as Janet put it. Branden could have been killed in an auto accident before the founding of NBI, Rand could have continued her publications, and Objectivism as a philosophy and as a “movement” would have continued much the same as it did. I had read all those publications up to the time of the split between Rand and Branden. I had never heard any tapes of NBI. That institution was irrelevant to the understanding of Objectivism that Rand had instilled in me and in my associates.Stephen,
Both you and Janet are speculating; but do you really believe that without Branden and the NBI, Objectivism would have become a widespread movement?
Absolutely it would not without NBI. It reached enough people that when the tapes came out there were those ready to listen. I went to Delaware in 62 to grad school. Again.
I think I saw on the bulletin board somewhere that someone was advertising for anyone who wanted to do the tapes. I called the person, talked to her and she and a young man came tomy apartment. They wanted to do the tapes with me because I had done the lectures for 2 years, doing the Basic Principles twice. I knew it cold. I had it memorized by heart. I lived it to the minute. I was in grad school in the behavioral sciences thrown in with really smart psychology majors and I didn't know shit. I had burned all my bridges in public school teaching behind me. I didn't feel I had a choice but to study all the time and really learn the stuff. It was the very first time in my life that I couldn't con my way through courses and do OK.
I couldn't. I was terrified. The only thing holding me together was objectivism. The only thing. You do not get that from reading Rand's fiction. If you read Nathaniel's book, he had endless personal tutoring from Rand about all his questions. discussions through the night. It never stopped for him. He went to Mew York with Barbara and Rand followed him. It is important to register the fact that she went from her beautiful home in California, the home O'Conner loved and his garden. If you have never had a garden that you loved you can't understand what she did to him, and what he gave up. Heller sees this in her biography when she quotes someone being so sad because here Frank was painting flowers instead of tending them and growing them and arranging them. and he was arranging windows for display. So sad.
I think Rand knew she was never going to finish Atlas without him, and so she sacrificed everything else to be near him. He was her muse pure and simple.
I don't think I was the only one so serious about objectivism. There had to have been others. And a handful is really all you need. Jesus only had 12 was it. Loyola only had 12 to start the Jesuits.
The world happens by Events. Things do not develop linearly. They appear to because of our perceptual illusions but linearity is just an illusion. LIke those booklets that when you flutter the pages like a deck of cards the figures appear to be walking or running or....
NBI was an Event on the scene, unexpected, coming from elsewhere, unpredicted, unplanned, just a little 2 x 3 inch rectangle in the entertainment section of the Sunday Inquirer. And my mother who read every single death and birth notice saw it. I was reading Atlas at that exact time and I was enthralled. I was also quitting smoking on a deconditioning program I read about while I was reading Atlas. Think of the irony of that!
Three Events that intersected in my life. Destiny. The moment of kairos as the Greeks said. Without that, no grad school, no thousands of things it enabled me to do because it was a particular push. Her fiction would never have done that for me.
The only thing since I can compare it to was reading Foucault for the first time and feeling the light bulb go on, feeling all that I knew being ordered in a different way. A feeling of complete calm that I was where I should be in life at that exact time.
Kairos.
I owe the Brandens my life, even more so than Rand. I received a great gift from Rand through the Brandens. Now it is time for the Counter-gift. I intend to make Rand more radical than she ever dreamed of being. Just as Baudrillard made Foucault more radical than Foucault ever dreamed of being. Such is the counter-gift.
I am out of my 5 posts for today and the way this software is I may not be able to post this either. So in that case I will do it tomorrow.
-
Here is a link to an Atlas Society cyberseminar about Nietzsche and Rand. It has a detailed list (compiled by S. Hicks) about agreements and disagreements between their philosophies: http://www.atlassoci...he-and-ayn-rand
<...>
(C. Sciabarra and E. Mozes added two interesting comments as well).
I am aware of Hicks's take on this. x-ray. A comparison and contrast lies within the Dialectical Discourse. Did you forget that I am not there?
Janet,
Of course you are "not there", (i. e. in the "Dialectical Discourse").
Before getting into that in detail in a separate post, a general remark: forum posts are always also posts to a 'public', i. e. they are not exclusively addressed to a specific poster. My link to Hicks's take on the issue is to be understood that way.
From your prior posts I know that you think "Hicks sucks", but your personal opinion is irrelevant in the context in which I posted the link to his article: I think it offers ample material for further discussion.
I've talked with Chris [sciabarra] about this. He is interested in my POV.Has Chris also commented on your POV (for signaling interest in something does not necessarily result in further action).
There also exists the possibility of you having misinterpreted as "interest" what may merely have been a polite answer on Sciabarra's part.
I didn't misinterpret as I didn't have to interpret at all.
Your comments are restored as the spam filter took them to be perused.
You are free to link to as much misinformation as you want. Why don't you link to a real scholar, Babette Babich who also has graduate degrees in Germany altho an American. Many of her articles on Nietzsche are written in German and translated into English by herself., Her books, her journal on Nietzsche, interviews are all bilingual as the English ones she translates herself back into German. She writes also on Hannah Arendt and Heidegger. Hicks may be a good lecturer, - Penn State is it? - but he is not a world authority on Nietzsche as Babich is. Her understanding of him is intuitive,deep and "true" if I may say that, and comes from a long career reading Nietzsche.
May I say you seem to have a real aversion to your fellow Germans when it comes to this subject. Any reason?
You seem to have a real aversion to considering that more than one person can provide information or insight on any given topic; the "world authority", the "best", the "leader in the field" are the only ones worth listening to, everyone else is a fifth-rater, ---there's always only one.Foucault was top dog then pouf! Baudrillard knocked him out, like Hemingway and Mailer gamely swung for the Great Heavyweight American Novelist championship.
Others have called you a guru-seeker, and it is easy to see why you were attracted to the early Ayn Rand movement - the stories of which are very interesting, by the way.
Any reason?
Remember that part in the Fountainhead when Dominique drags Wynand to the theatre to watch a very mediocre performance which Toohey had had praised in The Banner? NO? I'll refresh your memory then.
To praise, award, and revere the mediocre in the place of excellence, is to destroy excellence. Hicks is adequate, but not of the caliber of Babich. But he doesn't need to be. Nietzsche is not his specialty. Nietzsche is Babich's specialty among others like Arendt who gave a series of lectures on Nietzsche at the New School in New York and Heidegger who reads through Nietzsche. Don't take my word for it, these are the major philosophers of our time on this subject. When you want to know something go to the top. Read Nietzsche first, not Hicks on Nietzsche. Then read Hicks if you so desire. But know that Babich exists and is considered the premier scholar on Nietzsche at the present time. I am sure she has said something about Hicks. Has Hicks said something about Babich or maybe he doesn't know she exists. Maybe he hasn't read the Journal on Nietzsche Babich started and published.
Baudrillard did not "knock out" Foucault. He proved everyone of Foucault's points and made Foucault more radical, more Foucault than Foucault ever dreamed of being. Zizek is going to do the same with Hegel in his new book out in April.
See dancer, you go off about something you know nothing about, have never read or studied and shoot off your mouth. All that does is make you sound stupid. And you are stupid for doing it. It says more about you than Foucault, Baudrillard and my posts and comments.
BTW how are your chicklet teeth coming along? They sure are white.
Garbage pile!
-
In free PDF format: http://members.shaw....horitarians.pdf See how fucking nice I can be sometimes. BTW Altemeyer likes me. A lot.
Seymourblogger,
I skimmed it. I might look deeper later, but on first blush, I would give it a subtitle: Psychobabble Your Way To Liberal Bliss And Hating The True Bogeyman, The American Right.
Authoritarianism is a great topic for delving into an important facet of the human mind, irrespective of left, right, religious, atheist, or otherwise. It's a pity to see partisan propaganda where ideas should be--but then again, this is the academic world funded by government handouts.
At least I hope Altemeyer got tenure in exchange for selling out.
Michael
I guess you weren't kidding when you said you skimmed.
Altemeyer took zero - 0 - funds from anyone to do his work. Not theory but questionaires, endlessly revised to be more precise for over 20 years.
As you probably don't know, authoritarianism is the psychological counterpart to the political organization we all know and love and call fascism. This site is a good mini example of a fascist organized site with a group of people who follow the party line here. (This is bound to get me in the garbage pile again eh.) Lest you think I am partial to criticizing you all, The heavy hitting liberal site - The Dailykos - is the very worst offender having driven off a wave of really good posters when the brownshirts came to get them all, one by one by one. Needless to say I went to the camps too.
-
Here is a link to an Atlas Society cyberseminar about Nietzsche and Rand. It has a detailed list (compiled by S. Hicks) about agreements and disagreements between their philosophies: http://www.atlassoci...he-and-ayn-rand
<...>
(C. Sciabarra and E. Mozes added two interesting comments as well).
I am aware of Hicks's take on this. x-ray. A comparison and contrast lies within the Dialectical Discourse. Did you forget that I am not there?
Janet,
Of course you are "not there", (i. e. in the "Dialectical Discourse").
Before getting into that in detail in a separate post, a general remark: forum posts are always also posts to a 'public', i. e. they are not exclusively addressed to a specific poster. My link to Hicks's take on the issue is to be understood that way.
From your prior posts I know that you think "Hicks sucks", but your personal opinion is irrelevant in the context in which I posted the link to his article: I think it offers ample material for further discussion.
I've talked with Chris [sciabarra] about this. He is interested in my POV.Has Chris also commented on your POV (for signaling interest in something does not necessarily result in further action).
There also exists the possibility of you having misinterpreted as "interest" what may merely have been a polite answer on Sciabarra's part.
I didn't misinterpret as I didn't have to interpret at all.
Your comments are restored as the spam filter took them to be perused.
You are free to link to as much misinformation as you want. Why don't you link to a real scholar, Babette Babich who also has graduate degrees in Germany altho an American. Many of her articles on Nietzsche are written in German and translated into English by herself., Her books, her journal on Nietzsche, interviews are all bilingual as the English ones she translates herself back into German. She writes also on Hannah Arendt and Heidegger. Hicks may be a good lecturer, - Penn State is it? - but he is not a world authority on Nietzsche as Babich is. Her understanding of him is intuitive,deep and "true" if I may say that, and comes from a long career reading Nietzsche.
May I say you seem to have a real aversion to your fellow Germans when it comes to this subject. Any reason?
-
It is perhaps the best high school trailer for Atlas Shrugged on YouTube. I posted others a couple of years before and then this in late 2009:
http://www.objectivi...?showtopic=8028
Using tools such as XtraNormal, you will be able to make your own Atlas Shrugged with the movie stars you want - Diana Rigg, Humphrey Bogart, River Phoenix, whoever. When you consider the huge world of "fan fic" in science fiction, the lack of it among Objectivists is telling. But, be that as it may, there are a lot of kids out there influenced by Ayn Rand. I was. In fact the girl in this one sort of reminds me of my girlfriend in high school when we read Rand together.
Do you think that the movie will inspire people as well as the book doses?
No. No more than a movie of Pride and Prejudice or LOTR "inspires" people to read the books. The movies may have that affect on some, of course. Indeed, I only read P&P recently after watching all of the remakes, some more than a few times. I also read Northanger Abbey after watching The Jane Austen Book Club. But really, such movies are typically made for fans. Do you think that the 2009 Star Trek movie boosted sales of DS9 on DVD? In point of fact, I just bought three Star Trek role playing manuals and a Tholian cruiser, but I was already a fan. I think that applies to Atlas, also. Some will be motivated, truly indeed, but, no, largely the movie was made and sold to a precommitted viewership.
Because they made a stupid movie out of it. Lousy script, lousy directing, lousy actors, what else to expect but a lousy movie. I bet a great animation one could be made of it.
And oh you know about fanfic. How about that. 18,000 plus for Twilight. And now Fifty (MOTU) by James best seller. I've done 2 of them. Check my irresistible destiny link. Bel Ami crossed with House of MIrth. Porno of course. and a Twilight one also porno.
-
Here is a link to an Atlas Society cyberseminar about Nietzsche and Rand. It has a detailed list (compiled by S. Hicks) about agreements and disagreements between their philosophies:
http://www.atlassoci...he-and-ayn-rand
[s. Hicks]: Conclusion: Summarizing the key differences and similarities. My judgment is that the differences between Nietzsche and Rand greatly outweigh the similarities. They are both atheists, they both are naturalistic in their approach to consciousness and values, and they are both hostile to altruism. Yet they share very little positive philosophy: they disagree on virtually every fundamental issue in metaphysics, epistemology, and human nature; and they disagree about the proper positive standard, means, and end of ethics. My post does not address the questions of Nietzsche’s influence upon Rand or of the extent to which Rand later expunged earlier Nietzschean elements in her thinking. Please feel welcome to address those questions too.(C. Sciabarra and E. Mozes added two interesting comments as well).
I am aware of Hicks's take on this. x-ray. A comparison and contrast lies within the Dialectical Discourse. Did you forget that I am not there?
I've talked with Chris about this. He is interested in my POV.
Did you forget also about agreeing and disagreeing in an exchange of ideas?
-
I remember that one. Tedious + obnoxious. Hope he’s not coming back!I think Darren is the same poster who posted here for awhile uder the screen name AristotlesAdvance arguing for Intelligent Design (and soon being limited to 5 posts a day).Darren knows better than to argue for Intelligent Design, so it could not be darren you are theorizing about.
x-ray sorry I changed my mind. Your being alive is PROOF of Intelligent Design.
Let's do a test run.....
Let's not and say we did.
-
Michael,
Excellent examples of Lacanian "floating signs" acting as masks, Deterrence, you just gave m'boy.
I mean you've gotta give PhD's something to do to justify the student loans to get it, the "hard" work and all.
Yeh. It's all just Deterrence. A mask to hide the fact that it is primarily an "empty sign".
Now Robert Altemeyer's research on Authoritarianism, all done with his own money. Never wrote or got a grant. The basis of Conservatives Without Conscience - John Dean.
In free PDF format: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf See how fucking nice I can be sometimes. BTW Altemeyer likes me. A lot.
-
Badges for government handout parasites? MichaelSerious academic research is the kind that gets you grants, tenure, career brownie points, more money, prestige, etc etc etc.Gee I thought I wasn't gonna get to say something nice to you MSK. This was funny.
Not all "serious academic research" is parasitical, of course. But enough of it is to make "serious academic research" become a synonym for a kowtowing leech culture in a phony intellectual wrapper.
Michael
This one was even better. 2 down and 3 to go.
-
What is serious academic research?
Is it the opposite of unserious academic research?
Michael
Per Janet, it would be botany.
Serious academic research is the kind that gets you grants, tenure, career brownie points, more money, prestige, etc etc etc.
But none of you know that? I guess not.
-
Why not regard the "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'?
Do u think it is serious?
Note that Ielf out the comma on purpose.in my sentence "Why not regard he "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'?
There is a difference of meaning bewtween the sentence
"The academics, who do serious reaearch ......
"The academics who do serious research"....
The first sentence attributes "doing serious research" to all academics
Whereas the second sentence does not refer to all academics, but only to those doing serious research.
Correct, but the comma after "research" is incorrect. It can give the impression that you intended "who do serious research" to be a nonrestrictive modifier but neglected to place a comma after "academics out there." In short, you should use two commas or none at all.
Ghs
x-ray now you have company. There are 2 of u looking at the veins in the leaves while the forest burns down around u.
-
Note that Ielf out the comma on purpose.in my sentence "Why not regard he "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'? There is a difference of meaning bewtween the sentence "The academics, who do serious reaearch ...... "The academics who do serious research".... The first sentence attributes "doing serious research" to all academics Whereas the second sentence does not refer to all academics, but only to those doing serious research.
Do u think it is serious?Why not regard the "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'?One does not do serious academic research without govt grants. There are a few exceptions. Robert Altemeyer's work on authoritarianism is just one. You must churn out this stuff for promotions and tenure, jump starting your career, going to a better university, etc.
There was a time when this was not the way it was done, but that time is over.
Again you are examining the veins in the leaves on the tree and the forest is burning down around you.
-
Does anybody have a non-snarky answer for why Rand was hesitant about Darwin in the first place?
I have a pseudo-theory, which I have sort of felt was right ever since the first time I saw that response/remark from mid 80's, but am hesitant to throw it out there.
The theory, in a nutshell, is that apes are disgusting, let alone little wiggly things in the primordal soup...
I doubt you'd be surprised to learn that the subject of Rand re evolution has come up before on this board.
Here are some excerpts from a long post of mine from one of the previous threads ("History of Evolutionism"):
[....]I'll repeat a warning I've made several times. She's sometimes criticized for not addressing theories of evolutionary psychology which today are prominent. This criticism is anachronistic. Those theories didn't begin to be prominently written about in popular books until the mid-'70s (Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, 1976; Wilson's Sociobiology, 1975). She wouldn't have had a way to know about those theories at the time when she was formulating her ideas on ethics.
Furthermore, her disregard of evolution as relevant to human behavior was shared by mainstream thought, which considered that cultural factors had taken over when the big brain appeared. Where she was out of keeping with the scientific views of the time wasn't in her extreme non-nativism but instead in her rejection of every form of determinism.
[....]
[subquote from earlier post:]
So I don't think it's the case that she avoided evolutionary theory; I think she just wasn't much interested, since she didn't see its relevance to the "essential" characteristic, in her opinion, of the human, i.e., the human type of consciousness (as she saw that type of consciousness).
WE know Rand read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals when young in Russia and continuing with him in the US until middle age when she wrote Fountainhead.
In it NIetzsche writes about "dawning" consciousness of humanity. Produced by torture. Torture inscribes the body/mind and engraves memory on the body/mind.
Consciousness, has its structural bedrock on memory. Without memory there is no consciousness. Nietzsche leaves no doubt about this and Rand certainly read it.
Nietzsche goes on to say that over millennia torture produced memory which led to consciousness. Others have said that someone tortured never forgets it. Our present craze for tattoos is a ritual floating sign of this. Ask anyone with a tattoo to tell you about it. They know why they got it, how they chose it, who did it, and all things tattoo. It is a way present people engrave memory on their bodies as a ritual, a trendy ritual.
If you read Nietzsche's genealogy it is about Events, not a slow continuous evolutionary climb. This is what Foucault seized upon. Rand knew it too. Did she know she knew? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But she knew enough in her gut not to get entangled in evolutionary Discourse.
AS Rumsfeld and Zizek might say, her unknown knowns.
-
On another thread, I made some comments about the following statement by a former student at ARI’s Objectivist Graduate Center:
“Objectivism, as both a systematized philosophy and a movement, exists because of Dr. [Leonard] Peikoff.”
According to Stephen Boydstun, Yaron Brook, ARI’s executive director, recently made a similar claim. Stephen says: "The proposition that without Peikoff’s efforts Objectivism as a systematized philosophy would not exist was a proposition put forward by Brook last summer."
I consider this evidence of an attempt by the teachers at the OGC to completely rewrite Objectivist history. It is an effort to erase any and all contributions by Nathaniel Branden to Objectivism.
In 1958, Nathaniel Branden began offering a lecture course on “The Basic Principles of Objectivism” at Nathaniel Branden Institute. This was the first detailed, systematic presentation of Objectivism. NBI, as an institution founded for the purpose of teaching and propagating the Objectivist philosophy, launched the Objectivist movement.
Having corrected that obvious bit of ARI foolishness, it suddenly dawns on me that this fact of history has a rather interesting implication.
Leonard Peikoff is well known for arguing, in his essay “Fact and Value,” that Objectivism became a “closed” system at the time of Ayn Rand’s death. “Official Objectivism”--according to Peikoff--is limited to the corpus of works on the Objectivist philosophy approved by Ayn Rand prior to her death. Although I disagree with such nonsense—Ayn Rand made clear that no single person could fully work out a philosophical system in their lifetime—Peikoff’s position regarding “closed Objectivism” leads to a fascinating logical consequence—a consequence Peikoff will not like and for which he may well need his tap-dancing shoes.
During the many years of their association, Ayn Rand considered Nathaniel Branden much more of an authority on Objectivism than Leonard Peikoff. Prior to repudiating him, she elevated Branden to a status equal to herself and designated him as her intellectual heir. She never gave Peikoff (or anyone else) similar status. Peikoff claims to be Rand’s new “intellectual heir,” but this has been shown to be a pretense with no factual basis. (Peikoff: The Great Pretender) In addition, it is an historical fact that Ayn Rand repeatedly banished Peikoff to 'Objectivist Siberia' for making statements that she found utterly contemptible and contrary to Objectivism. We have every reason to question whether she ever felt Peikoff truly qualified as an expert on her philosophy.
Ayn Rand gave her explicit, unqualified approval to the content of Branden’s “Basic Principles” course at NBI. The original ‘Basic Principles of Objectivism’ course now exists in book form: The Vision of Ayn Rand. The book is a literal transcript of the original lectures. Therefore, according to Peikoff’s “closed Objectivism” criteria, The Vision of Ayn Rand is a reliable and accurate systematic presentation of Objectivism.
In fact, of the two comprehensive, systematic presentations of Objectivism in book form, only one meets Peikoff’s criteria of “official Objectivism.” Rand fully and unqualifiedly approved every word of Branden’s “Basic Principles” course, and—to repeat--VOAR is a literal transcript of those recorded lectures. In contrast, by Peikoff’s own admission, Rand had to correct multiple errors in his original course on “The Philosophy of Objectivism.” OPAR was largely based on Peikoff’s own Objectivism lectures, but is not a literal transcript, so we have no basis to conclude that she gave official approval to one word of it.
With the exception of Branden’s later essay, “The Benefits and Hazards of The Philosophy of Ayn Rand,” all of the philosophical material in VOAR was officially approved by Ayn Rand as consistent with Objectivism. Because it was written after her death and is not a literal transcript, exactly none of the material in OPAR was ever officially endorsed by Ayn Rand.
According to Peikoff’s criterion of material approved by Ayn Rand before her philosophy became “closed,” VOAR is “official” Objectivism.
OPAR is not.
What you say about Branden's lectures is true. I attended Barbara Branden's first series of lectures in Philadelphia in 1960. I retook it in 1961-62, took Kures course in art of which I remember little except she hated abstract expressionism. I went to NY for Peikoff's introd course in philosophy in the summer of 1962 intending to take the second part in the fall, but graduate studies pulled me away and then I was gone from the fold except for what remained in my mind and still does to this day. Sciabarra's book is excellent and he is clear on the fact that Rand wanted it to be a closed system. Peikoff is merely continuing her wishes. See Sciabarra if you doubt me. He is complimentary to Peikoff and Branden both.
What I absolutely agree with in what you said is that I know there would never have been Objectivism without Branden and NBI. At that time my education required a systematic presentation and BP was definitely exactly that. I could not have absorbed objectivism from Rand's fiction without the BP course. And no one taking it with me would have been able to either.
Peikoff was a fine lecturer, but he simply did not have the sexual charisma Branden had, and underestimate that in a teacher and you will lose. Teacher's have always known that seduction, acted out or not, is an emotional part of learning since the Greeks. It was Branden that brought Rand's objectivism mainstream.
It just would never have happened otherwise and to deny him credit for this because of integrity issues is just plain stupid. Who cares now and who cares about Monica's blue dress now. Utter silliness.
The way he writes about Patrecia in his book is really very intuitive and insightful. She must have been an amazing young woman. I don't mean the fact of her beauty, just the simple but wonderful things she said to him, Really lovely. He would have been a fool not to have loved her.
Her statements about acting alone were beautiful. About being totally in the now, the present, where each little gesture you made required absolute consciousness. Perfect.
-
BTW Seymour, how are the numbers for your threads on Solo?
I never bother looking. Why don't you tell me. I just noticed OL today that's how curious I am.
-
One more post....da da da.
For the first time I took a look at the stats for this post today.
10,000 plus people may have wanted to kno9w more about Rand and Nietzsche but what did they get? From the first comment by 9th doctor, an arrow to the heart. Do you have proof of that statement? Gah.
Anyone who has read at least a little of Nietzsche knows. If s/he hasn't then maybe I'll find out reading this post. No such luck babe. All you're gonna get is vitriol. Someone with a different view around here on OL is gonna get called a troll. The same people come out all over someone new to cajole, reward submissiveness and pleas for help, throw darts, of yell troll troll troll.
So be the littlest Bily Goat Gruff when you post and comment here folks. Sorry you didn't get much Nietzsche but you sure did drive up the hits for Michael Stuart Kelly eh?
He didn't even say thank you. 10,000 plus and no wink or salute. Alas. And comments excessive of other blogs. And the time frame of not even 2 months! For all these hits!
Something is in the air. It smells like Nietzsche.
). Reading the book through from beginning to end happens within a section of the time arrow structuring our thinking. "I went to Delaware in 62 to grad school", you wrote. Again, this places you in a specific place within a linearly conceived time arrow where one marks a "past" (1962) and a "present" (March 2012) when you wrote this. 
As for the 'villains' in AS - did any of them ever have a smoke? I don't think so, but maybe my memory fails me. 
Branden’s "Vision of Ayn Rand" as “Official Objectivism”
in About Objectivism
Posted
Did I say Gaede did the hacking? No. I don't think he could do it. That's not to say he couldn't have instigated it. Could HItler fly an airplane? No. But he put an airforce in motion did he not?
You can make 1 more posts until Today, 10:47 PM. This restriction is in place until you have 99614 more approved posts
Does this mjean that I will have 5 more posts after 10:47? Does a new day start at 10:48? Will I get 5 more posts? Or will I lose 5? This software sucks. You need to pay more money and gt a better person to fix your software.