Greybird Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I hate to say this, but I suspect that Rand would not have disagreed with or objected to virtually anything that Peikoff has done, said, or written since her death.The same Rand who spent the better part of a dozen years either rewriting, or hectoring him into revising, The Ominous Parallels? Not at all likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I don't regard my remark as much of an "indictment" at all.Yes, I was aware of that. But I do.I would like to believe that Rand would have ostracized Peikoff by now. But that's just what I'd like to believe. What I actually believe is another matter.ShayneWhat do you think Rand should have ostracized Peikoff for? GhsThat'd be a long list. At the top: creating a cult instead of an association of rational individualists.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I hate to say this, but I suspect that Rand would not have disagreed with or objected to virtually anything that Peikoff has done, said, or written since her death.The same Rand who spent the better part of a dozen years either rewriting, or hectoring him into revising, The Ominous Parallels? Not at all likely.I wasn't thinking about matters of style, which are relatively unimportant. I was referring to the various positions that Peikoff has taken on matters of substance.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I don't regard my remark as much of an "indictment" at all.Yes, I was aware of that. But I do.I would like to believe that Rand would have ostracized Peikoff by now. But that's just what I'd like to believe. What I actually believe is another matter.ShayneWhat do you think Rand should have ostracized Peikoff for? GhsThat'd be a long list. At the top: creating a cult instead of an association of rational individualists.ShayneTake the good stuff, leave the rest.How long can one continue blaming Rand for her contradictory actions?If she went off the rails with her 'ingathering' of the faithful, I find this easily forgettable - sometimes, even understandable.She espoused rational individualism, at every turn, and mostly lived it.That's memorable.Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I don't regard my remark as much of an "indictment" at all.Yes, I was aware of that. But I do.I would like to believe that Rand would have ostracized Peikoff by now. But that's just what I'd like to believe. What I actually believe is another matter.ShayneWhat do you think Rand should have ostracized Peikoff for? GhsThat'd be a long list. At the top: creating a cult instead of an association of rational individualists.ShayneWhy should Rand have ostracized Peikoff for a policy that she herself encouraged? That would have been hypocritical of her. (For the record, I would not use the term "cult" here, though I understand your point.)Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 How long can one continue blaming Rand for her contradictory actions?We were talking about Peikoff.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Why should Rand have ostracized Peikoff for a policy that she herself encouraged? That would have been hypocritical of her. (For the record, I would not use the term "cult" here, though I understand your point.)GhsFor sake of argument let's grant your premise that she encouraged this policy. Should a liar teach his children to lie just so he won't be a "hypocrite"?Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 What do you think Rand should have ostracized Peikoff for? GhsThat'd be a long list. At the top: creating a cult instead of an association of rational individualists.ShayneTake the good stuff, leave the rest.How long can one continue blaming Rand for her contradictory actions?If she went off the rails with her 'ingathering' of the faithful, I find this easily forgettable - sometimes, even understandable.She espoused rational individualism, at every turn, and mostly lived it.That's memorable.TonyWell put, Tony.Rand's life has been scrutinized and picked apart repeatedly and in detail. I think she comes out looking better than most of us would after being subjected to the same process. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Why should Rand have ostracized Peikoff for a policy that she herself encouraged? That would have been hypocritical of her. (For the record, I would not use the term "cult" here, though I understand your point.)GhsFor sake of argument let's grant your premise that she encouraged this policy. Should a liar teach his children to lie just so he won't be a "hypocrite"?ShayneI don't follow your analogy. This is not a matter of teaching anyone anything, and we are not dealing with children. It is a matter of whether I should ostracize someone who simply continues a policy that I initiated and encouraged. I think that would be hypocritical. You seem to be saying, in effect, that Rand should have done certain things differently. If so, that is a difficult proposition to disagree with. Yet I sometimes wonder if Ayn Rand minus the disagreeable aspects of her personality would have produced the good things she did. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Rand's life has been scrutinized and picked apart repeatedly and in detail. I think she comes out looking better than most of us would after being subjected to the same process. GhsYou're confused. Under Christianity it's judge not lest ye be judged. Under a rational philosophy, everything is open to scrutiny.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 (edited) I don't follow your analogy. This is not a matter of teaching anyone anything, and we are not dealing with children. It is a matter of whether I should ostracize someone who simply continues a policy that I initiated and encouraged. I think that would be hypocritical. You seem to be saying, in effect, that Rand should have done certain things differently. If so, that is a difficult proposition to disagree with. Yet I sometimes wonder if Ayn Rand minus the disagreeable aspects of her personality would have produced the good things she did. GhsIt's not an analogy. If you say "Should a person do X", the answer is "If X is right then they should, if it's wrong they shouldn't." The answer is not "Well, would they be a hypocrite if they did X?"Shayne - Again, this is not a Christian forum. Why are you coming in here with Christian premises? Edited June 1, 2011 by sjw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I don't follow your analogy. This is not a matter of teaching anyone anything, and we are not dealing with children. It is a matter of whether I should ostracize someone who simply continues a policy that I initiated and encouraged. I think that would be hypocritical. You seem to be saying, in effect, that Rand should have done certain things differently. If so, that is a difficult proposition to disagree with. Yet I sometimes wonder if Ayn Rand minus the disagreeable aspects of her personality would have produced the good things she did. GhsIt's not an analogy. If you say "Should a person do X", the answer is "If X is right then they should, if it's wrong they shouldn't." The answer is not "Well, would they be a hypocrite if they did X?"Shayne - Again, this is not a Christian forum. Why are you coming in here with Christian premises?If you don't want to call this an analogy, then fine. Let's just call it an irrelevant example.You are assuming that Rand was somehow wrong in treating Objectivism as a "closed system" -- an approach that was continued by Peikoff. Well, if she was wrong in some sense, she wasn't morally wrong, as your example of lying suggests. If Rand sincerely believed X -- i.e., if she sincerely believed that her "closed system" approach was correct -- then it would have clearly been hypocritical for her to condemn Peikoff for implementing her views. The fact that you happen to disagree with this approach -- and regard it as "wrong" in this sense -- has no bearing on this matter. We are talking about wise versus unwise, not morally right versus wrong.But let's take your example on its own terms. If a person is an inveterate liar, and if he regards lying as morally permissible, then it would indeed be hypocritical for him to condemn others for lying. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 - Again, this is not a Christian forum. Why are you coming in here with Christian premises?My, but you are just itching for fight. What's the matter? -- has your life been boring recently?Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 - Again, this is not a Christian forum. Why are you coming in here with Christian premises?My, but you are just itching for fight. What's the matter? -- has your life been boring recently?GhsIf you can't win an argument, change the subject.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 - Again, this is not a Christian forum. Why are you coming in here with Christian premises?My, but you are just itching for fight. What's the matter? -- has your life been boring recently?GhsIf you can't win an argument, change the subject.ShayneSo your reference to "Christian premises" was on topic? Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 You are assuming that Rand was somehow wrong in treating Objectivism as a "closed system" -- an approach that was continued by Peikoff.I am "assuming" that if someone asks "What should Rand have done", then I don't cut myself off from all the relevant information she actually had. I take the facts as she had them, the capacities she had to deal properly with those facts, and then answer. You on the other hand are the one bringing in the arbitrary assumptions. You stipulate that she was deluded about this or that, and would not have possibly been able to cure herself of the delusions, etc. You even go so far as saying that it is in the nature of "genius" to be deluded. One might speculate on just why you want delusion to be central to genius but I'll just leave it at that.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 You are assuming that Rand was somehow wrong in treating Objectivism as a "closed system" -- an approach that was continued by Peikoff.I am "assuming" that if someone asks "What should Rand have done", then I don't cut myself off from all the relevant information she actually had. I take the facts as she had them, the capacities she had to deal properly with those facts, and then answer. You on the other hand are the one bringing in the arbitrary assumptions. You stipulate that she was deluded about this or that, and would not have possibly been able to cure herself of the delusions, etc. You even go so far as saying that it is in the nature of "genius" to be deluded. One might speculate on just why you want delusion to be central to genius but I'll just leave it at that.ShayneI never said that "it is in the nature of "genius" to be deluded." Nor did I ever refer, whether explicitly or implicitly, to curing Rand of anything. Nor did I say that Rand was "deluded" about anything.I see you still haven't learned how to read a post.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 - Again, this is not a Christian forum. Why are you coming in here with Christian premises?My, but you are just itching for fight. What's the matter? -- has your life been boring recently?GhsIf you can't win an argument, change the subject.ShayneThis is an idea forum. If George is using "Christian Premises" that opens the door for an ad hominem assault from the practitioner of a rational philosophy? Shayne, I think you need to get your blood sugar up.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Rand's life has been scrutinized and picked apart repeatedly and in detail. I think she comes out looking better than most of us would after being subjected to the same process. GhsYou're confused. Under Christianity it's judge not lest ye be judged. Under a rational philosophy, everything is open to scrutiny.ShayneRead my comment again. Where does it say or suggest that we should not judge people?Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I don't follow your analogy. This is not a matter of teaching anyone anything, and we are not dealing with children. It is a matter of whether I should ostracize someone who simply continues a policy that I initiated and encouraged. I think that would be hypocritical. You seem to be saying, in effect, that Rand should have done certain things differently. If so, that is a difficult proposition to disagree with. Yet I sometimes wonder if Ayn Rand minus the disagreeable aspects of her personality would have produced the good things she did. GhsIt's not an analogy. If you say "Should a person do X", the answer is "If X is right then they should, if it's wrong they shouldn't." The answer is not "Well, would they be a hypocrite if they did X?"Shayne - Again, this is not a Christian forum. Why are you coming in here with Christian premises?George: You did not get the memo from Salt Lake City! Metaphors aren't reasons.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I never said that "it is in the nature of "genius" to be deluded."You're saying it, albeit in obfuscated language. You call it "intellectual eccentricity." But really you're talking about delusion.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I never said that "it is in the nature of "genius" to be deluded."You're saying it, albeit in obfuscated language. You call it "intellectual eccentricity." But really you're talking about delusion.ShayneMaybe he is, really, but "intellectual eccentricity" doesn't have to encompass delusion. It is basically a reflection of individualism manifested best in a free society.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I never said that "it is in the nature of "genius" to be deluded."You're saying it, albeit in obfuscated language. You call it "intellectual eccentricity." But really you're talking about delusion.ShayneThis is absurd. The only people who would confuse eccentricities with delusions are mediocrities who believe that their way of living is the only "right" way, and that people who disagree must be deluded in some fashion. I won't name any names, of course.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I never said that "it is in the nature of "genius" to be deluded."You're saying it, albeit in obfuscated language. You call it "intellectual eccentricity." But really you're talking about delusion.ShayneMaybe he is, really, but "intellectual eccentricity" doesn't have to encompass delusion. It is basically a reflection of individualism manifested best in a free society.--BrantYou're quibbling. Go back and see what he actually *means*.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 This is absurd. The only people who would confuse eccentricities with delusions are mediocrities who believe that their way of living is the only "right" way, and that people who disagree must be deluded in some fashion. I won't name any names, of course.GhsDo you think you're sly with your conceptual shell games? What I don't understand is why Brant's giving you the opening.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now