Ayn Rand Society


Guyau

Recommended Posts

On January 10, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Guyau said:

The audience was only eight people. They ranged in age from about twenty to seventy.

I see another explanation, not related to the travails of academic philosophy as a whole, or of the APA.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guyau said:

At Objectivist Living there are comments by Robert Campbell on the second of Greg’s posts here.

Jean-Marie,

I appreciate the mention here.

It appears we are both skeptical of the doctrine of the arbitrary.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doctrine seems to be an argument against "the arbitrary" without using reason--that is, "reason" on automatic pilot. The DIM "hypothesis" seems to be an extension of that, on steroids. They both create conclusions that must either be accepted on faith or reconstructed backwards for logical and factual verifications. The minimum bottom line seems to be more work for less result or the anti-reason result of what is de facto faith or authoritarian based. This brokering of reason's results is a bad middleman of the intellectual and moral just like the worthless business model of Enron was bad financially and productively (and morally) respecting the oil industry and somewhat if not completely innocent parties.

--Brant

this "arbitrary" business seems to be part and parcel of an Objectivist power struggle based on the fallacy of necessary exclusion which worked for exclusion which is why the "movement" long ago ceased to exist although a logical extension of what Rand herself had been up and about about without any buffering doctrine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Jean-Marie,

I appreciate the mention here.

It appears we are both skeptical of the doctrine of the arbitrary.

Robert

Robert, kind of curious--are you on Spring Break and are you stuck behind your desk because your car broke down and is in the shop?

--Brant

arbitrary questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

In the April 2016 issue of The Classical Review, Robert Mayhew has a review of Performing Citizenship in Plato's Laws (Lucia Prauscello, Cambridge 2014).

In college about 50 years ago, I recall from a course in the history of political philosophy our professor referring to Laws as setting out Plato’s second-best state (Magnesia). From what I was hearing, I found it better than his best state, that of Republic (Callipolis). I see the first two chapters of Prauscello’s book address citizenship in each.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2016 at 3:46 PM, Peter said:

Brant asked, "Robert, kind of curious--are you on Spring Break . . ."

Obama was on Spring Break in Cuba. He feels so at ease with dictators and Communists.

Peter 

 

Just a minute now.  Cuba will be 90 miles south of Florida no matter who is in charge there.  In the long run it were better if relations between the U.S. and Cuba were peaceful and stable and we had a good flow of trade between the countries.  Trade is good for both parties involved.  Adjusting the relations between Cuba and the U.S.  is necessary for the benefit of both parties.  We do not need an Enemy 90 miles from our shores.  If it isn't Obama doing the thing then it will be someone else, sooner or later.  Do you expect The Donald, he of the stubby fingers to do anything useful in this regard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote: Adjusting the relations between Cuba and the U.S. is necessary for the benefit of both parties.  We do not need an Enemy 90 miles from our shores. end quote

It galls me. I suppose that since I consider Barack (the noise you make to facilitate the release of gas when belching) an enemy of the Constitution, (and he has literally said so) and freedom, (he wants to take the earned income from the better off, and give it to those less better off), and he is a racist, AND throughout his life has associated himself with socialist/communist doctrine. He reveres Che Rivera and Fidel as heroes. Cuban exiles are disgusted with Obama and don’t think he has done anything to destroy the dictatorship there. Will free trade and tourists do that? When I see Cubans traveling to America and then voluntarily going back to Cuba I will think Obama has accomplished something.  

Yet, I also dread what Trump would do. 

Peter    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Just a minute now.  Cuba will be 90 miles south of Florida no matter who is in charge there.  In the long run it were better if relations between the U.S. and Cuba were peaceful and stable and we had a good flow of trade between the countries.  Trade is good for both parties involved.  Adjusting the relations between Cuba and the U.S.  is necessary for the benefit of both parties.  We do not need an Enemy 90 miles from our shores.  If it isn't Obama doing the thing then it will be someone else, sooner or later.  Do you expect The Donald, he of the stubby fingers to do anything useful in this regard?

Are you amoral?

The minimal proper justification for improved relations with Cuba is the regime freeing up the economy. Otherwise you only sanction the regressive status quo. This isn't China; no major strategic considerations are in play. Above all, if we accept your thesis--which is defendable, just not by me--Obama didn't have to go down there and compare the American Revolution with the abomination of what Castro did, hoodwinking his way into power courtesy of the Cuban middle class and The New York Slimes, America's traitor newspaper.

The left is at war with America, much more profoundly than any Muslims, and it's mostly from the inside. That's why the Muslims can be "civilized with a Krag" and eventually will be (tomorrow is optional). Not the left. Shooting bullets at the left is like firing bullets into a mountain of jello.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Peter said:

Yet, I also dread what Trump would do. 

Peter    

More importantly, what would you do?

If you were President today, what would be your top three (3) policy directives on Cuba?

Thanks.

A...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should have demanded the mineral rights to the whole island in exchange for making the Castro regime stronger. Just joking. We said, Howdy Raul, how's Fidel? Here's a blank check for being such a stanch ally of totalitarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, merjet said:

How is Cuba, Trump and Obama relevant to a thread about the Ayn Rand Society? :huh:

Not. I mostly post reactively, seldom thinking about what the thread is about if it's not blatantly obvious.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2016 at 3:46 PM, Peter said:

Brant asked, "Robert, kind of curious--are you on Spring Break . . ."

Obama was on Spring Break in Cuba. He feels so at ease with dictators and Communists.

Peter 

 

What a surprise, Sir Peter Of The Non Sequitur [sp?] led us to the Castro Penal Colony!

He would have led Lewis and Clarke to Honduras!

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam admitted: What a surprise, Sir Peter Of The Non Sequitur [sp?] led us to the Castro Penal Colony! end quote

Sorry Merlin, I've got to say it. Adam, why are you bringing male anatomy onto this thread.

Peter    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Peter said:

Adam admitted: What a surprise, Sir Peter Of The Non Sequitur [sp?] led us to the Castro Penal Colony! end quote

Sorry Merlin, I've got to say it. Adam, why are you bringing male anatomy onto this thread.

Peter    

 

I am not the one who made a big deal out of the name "Pecker" on the trump thread!

Selective retention is such a soothing balm for the brain!

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam wrote: I am not the one who made a big deal out of the name "Pecker" on the trump thread! Selective retention is such a soothing balm for the brain! end quote

It was the capital T trump thread. I bet someone that is exactly what you would say but in your egocentrically suspicious world you would guess that and say instead, Good job, Pedro! I was wrong. And in the capital T trump thread, trump’s small hands would indicate a smaller (wood)pecker and . . . do you have any suggestions about how to beat out the other kids during the Easter egg hunt tomorrow? Unless provoked I will get off Stephen's ARS.

Peter       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tibor Machan died this past week, at age 77.

At the end of the twentieth century, he delivered a paper in Boston to the APA session of the Ayn Rand Society. The theme of the session was “Teaching Ayn Rand in Introductory Courses.” Allan Gotthelf delivered a paper on teaching Rand on free will, and Tibor Machan’s was on teaching Rand’s ethical egoism. Tibor’s paper was published in 2001 in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (V3N1). See also on his layout of Rand’s ethics Chapter 3 of his book Ayn Rand (1999). The dedication page says “For Kate.” My deepest sympathy to Kate and Erin and Thomas and all who loved and admired Tibor.

In 1975 I studied Tibor’s fine book Human Rights and Human Liberties.* Lately I’ve gotten his Individuals and Their Rights (1989) and his Objectivity – Recovering Determinate Reality in Philosophy, Science, and Everyday Life (2004). I’ve more to learn from him in the days not yet broken.

Chapter 2 of Tibor’s Ayn Rand had appeared in my journal Objectivity (V1N4) in 1992. The essay title is “Evidence of Necessary Existence.”* ABSTRACT

From the Introduction of Tibor’s Ayn Rand (1999):

“In addition there have been specialized journals, such as Objectivity—edited by Stephen C. Boydstun—in which Rand’s work is the animating idea for most papers, while others such as Reason Papers—edited by myself—pay frequent attention to works that develop or criticize Rand’s ideas. Any serious student of Rand needs to take a look at the wide array of topics with which the authors of Objectivity grapple, as well as at some of the study groups in cyberspace that regularly conduct extensive seminars and produce substantial papers on or inspired by Rand’s work.

. . .

“In choosing a given person for consideration when that person isn’t hailed by one’s culture, the author reveals his own esteem or respect for that person. The charge often follows that objective treatment of the person is impossible.

“Yet to think this way, to deny objectivity when it is coupled with respect or even admiration, is to confuse objectivity with neutrality or nonpartisanship. A doctor needn’t be neutral about a patient’s ailment in order to be objective in deciding what treatment it requires.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is from an interview of Tibor Machan in Full Context in May 1994. The questioner was Jack Criss.

Criss: “Is there a predominant figure in philosophy anymore? From what I gather, Kant is no longer the towering figure he was maybe a hundred years ago.

Machan: “Except he still holds sway over much of the discourse in moral philosophy in sort of a subtle way. For example, it is still one of the major themes in moral philosophy (now getting into applied ethics like business ethics) that if you’re interested in something, or you get something out of it, it cannot have moral merit.”

Criss: “But don’t you think that’s because of Kant’s similarity of religious views?”

Machan: “No, I don’t think so. I think it’s really a Kantian influence that has made a big impact on the way people look at morality. It’s confused with the notion of being principled, and since being principled, in the normal world, is out (because of skepticism) the only way one can secure a place for being principled is in a pure-formalism. And a pure-formalism then means that whatever your principles are cannot have anything to do with any objectives, any goals or ends. As a result, morality is consigned to being a kind of a formal principle of manners with no objective design for them. So people like engineers and members of the business community, and anybody who is embarking on some productive endeavor in life lack the support of moral philosophy.”

. . .

Machan: “One of the things that makes the modern philosophical era unusual, and so alien to the more ancient, Aristotelian one, is that in modern philosophy, too many people are very anti-metaphysical on the basis of scientific growth and change. Since science keeps changing so much, they draw the conclusion that metaphysics is impossible But that’s because they want more out of metaphysics than it ought to deliver. Metaphysics ought to be very minimalistic, it should provide us with very simple, elementary, fundamental principles with no context whatsoever other than the content that everything is.”

Criss: “Axiomatic, in other words?”

Machan: “This is what I wrote in my piece for Objectivity called ‘Evidence for Necessary Existence’. The piece develops the notion of axiomatic concepts in the Randian tradition, as an ultra-minimalistic metaphysical principle. It spells out why that much is all that one can get out of metaphysics. Metaphysics is not supposed to be the science of any particular thing or any region of the world; metaphysics is the science of everything. As such, it can only have very minimal principles because all the details have to be discovered on their own— they’re a matter of scientific specialization.”

In his essay, Tibor does not neglect the axiom of identity, along with existence and consciousness, and their validations as axioms. Even so, I’m not quite so minimalist in modern metaphysics as Tibor thought right. I think it still right to additionally take up the ancient challenge of identifying the most fundamental categories of existence wherein to locate all things. Rand made her attempt on that, and lately have been my years to compose my own design on it (informed by past and recent category-schemes and by modern science). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On January 10, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Guyau said:

.

The two papers delivered last Thursday at ARS in DC were excellent. Jason Hill’s topic was “Biological Collectivism and the Politics of Racial Identity.” Greg Salimeri wrote a stimulating Comment. I expect both papers will be included in the forthcoming ARS volume on Rand’s political philosophy. The ensuing discussion was also very fine. James Lennox was our moderator. . . .

 

Prof. Hill has an article here in Salon on his life and Ayn Rand in it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

.

 

The forthcoming third volume in the series Ayn Rand Philosophical Studies is being edited by Greg Salmieri and Robert Mayhew. The title is The Philosophy of Capitalism: Objectivism and Alternative Approaches.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now