Robert Jones Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 (edited) One of my personal flaws is that I will never read anything objectivists write about "chewing on ideas." It is sad, but nonetheless true. Not that I mind the concept, or the analogy, but I have a very vivid imagination.I first encountered the term "chewing" in a Leonard Peikoff taped lecture. Ever since then, I could not help but to form images in my head of Leonard Peikoff spelling out concepts with Alpha Bits cereal letters, and then chewing on them.Chewing ceaselessly, the processed oat cereal grinding between his molars........the milk dribbling from his chin........his eyes opening and closing in sync behind his TV set glasses........all the while, he doesn't stop his lecture, he just talks and talks and talks.That's why I have an aversion to that phrase from the objectivist lexicon. Edited August 11, 2006 by Robert Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Robert,LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLThat is probably one of the funniest posts I have read in a long time.Dayaamm!Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 (edited) It's like when Chris Rock tells that joke about wife beating (paraphrase)- "I don't agree with it, but I understand "It's as good a phrase as any, I suppose, Robert. Think of it this way- at least our maestro MSK made an area for it. Give him some slack, mon- it's like picking band names...a lot of pressure and they never turn out right. rdeAlways flosses after chewing. Edited August 12, 2006 by Rich Engle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweiss Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 One of my personal flaws is that I will never read anything objectivists write about "chewing on ideas." It is sad, but nonetheless true. Not that I mind the concept, or the analogy, but I have a very vivid imagination.I first encountered the term "chewing" in a Leonard Peikoff taped lecture. Ever since then, I could not help but to form images in my head of Leonard Peikoff spelling out concepts with Alpha Bits cereal letters, and then chewing on them.Chewing ceaselessly, the processed oat cereal grinding between his molars........the milk dribbling from his chin........his eyes opening and closing in sync behind his TV set glasses........all the while, he doesn't stop his lecture, he just talks and talks and talks.That's why I have an aversion to that phrase from the objectivist lexicon.You don't like Dr. Peikoff much, do you? You seem to have a horroresque image of him.Might I ask why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 His CNN appearance did it for me. Yikes!rdeThe TV guys just always have to trot out the disheveled Mad Scientist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbara Branden Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Robert, my own particular aversion is to the phrase "enemies of Objectivism." It always reminds me of a much better phrase, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."Barbara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Barbara uses her legendary, laser-like focus and picks out the pointless paranoia. <---nice alliteration! Robert, my own particular aversion is to the phrase "enemies of Objectivism." It always reminds me of a much better phrase, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."It's always such a sign of weakness when someone raises false demons.... rde"Poor Leonard" - (Forget who said it...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Jones Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) You don't like Dr. Peikoff much, do you? You seem to have a horroresque image of him.Might I ask why?Well, I don't like Lenny Peikoff in the main because he's sort of got this Norman Bates quality of having taken Mother (or, the philosophy of Objectivism and Ayn Rand's legacy), and filled it up with sawdust, and put in glass eyeballs, etc. Thus, while the slowly-rotting taxidermized corpse of Objectivism is ostensibly "pure," it is nonetheless beyond the stages of atrophy and rigor mortis. And, it kinda smells, too. Besides that, I have nothing against Leonard Peikoff. His speaking style was better in the 1980s, before he first took over the Bates Motel, er, I mean the Ayn Rand Institute. But it has become, shall we say, a bit shrill as of late: That business about endorsing evil if one votes for Republicans was way out of left field, and a very paranoiac way of viewing politics. And I'm not saying that because I'm a Republican, because I'm not; I'm a Democrat. But, stating that the goal of ALL the politicians in the Republican Party is to impose a theocracy on the rest of us is irresponsible. If he meant it facetiously(a la Bill Maher or Michael Moore), I could've chuckled, and taken it for what it's worth. But he really believes this stuff 100% seriously..... It's as though he lives all alone in a musty house atop a hill, having done nothing for 25 years but tend to the needs of his mummy (pun intended). Seriously, Peikoff lives in the real world as much as does the Scientology crowd. Edited January 9, 2007 by Robert Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Heaps-Nelson Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I keep getting this image of Leonard Peikoff trying to lecture Howard Roark on the precision of his concepts. Reality orientation is not necessarily in how well crafted your arguments or how well integrated your concepts are. A better test of reality orientation is continuing to gather information from the world as it is and to not discount new information that may be at odds with what you already know.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 (edited) Jim; One of the funnier ideas is a visit by Howard Roark to ARI. I have the feeling he would be asked to leave in about ten minutes or less Edited January 10, 2007 by Chris Grieb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Jones Posted January 11, 2007 Author Share Posted January 11, 2007 Jim; One of the funnier ideas is a visit by Howard Roark to ARI. I have the feeling he would be asked to leave in about ten minutes or lessThis is why I think Chuck Heston would have been a great Howard Roark:"It's a MADHOUSE!!!! A MADHOUSE!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 James H-N goes laser-like to the dirty little secret that has caused so much grief, and not just in O-world:A better test of reality orientation is continuing to gather information from the world as it is and to not discount new information that may be at odds with what you already know.Yup. Nothing like being thrown out of the comfort zone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Jones Posted January 15, 2007 Author Share Posted January 15, 2007 James H-N goes laser-like to the dirty little secret that has caused so much grief, and not just in O-world:A better test of reality orientation is continuing to gather information from the world as it is and to not discount new information that may be at odds with what you already know.Yup. Nothing like being thrown out of the comfort zone!I guess that means the Republican Party hasn't been informed of that then. 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