About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 3:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Based on the linked article provided (and assuming that GSII has not changed his views on these subjects since October 2002), I have to say this seems like a perfectly fair call by Linz and Joe.  What have government prohibitions on drug use and assisted suicide got to do with Objectivism?



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 3
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 3
Post 1

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 7:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I enjoy Mr. Stolyarov's posts. I do not agree with all of his positions, but his posts demonstrate courtesy, thoughtfulness, and original thinking. These are not the salient characteristics of a typical Objectivist discussion. Rather than simply parroting Ayn Rand's arguments, Mr. Stolyarov works from basic principles and arrives at positions sometimes contrary to what most of us conclude. He is obviously sincere. I have seen him remain reasonable in the face of withering criticism, and he has, on occasion, graciously consented to reformulate his ideas into less dense prose.

I hope that he continues to contribute, and that Solo members engage him in lively discussion about his errors, and he ours.

- Scott Schad



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 10:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes Linz, that sums it all up quite nicely I'd say- and it is appropriate for you to post it. Having said that, I do hope that Mr. Stolyarov does NOT take umbrage as I am sure that I am not the only secret admirer of his "phormal phrigidism". Entertainment-wise, he is an anthropological delight and his intensity and passion is priceless :-).




Post 3

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I cannot praise Linz and Joe enough, first, for making this decision, and second, for making it explicit. Mr. Stolyarov is indeed an intelligent, meticulous, and hard-working individual--one look at the volume of his work makes that crystal clear. But he is also not a SOLO'ist. And his "phrigid phormalism" is indeed an ARI legacy behavior that is the polar opposite of what I understand SOLO to be about. I dont ~want~ so much formalism, so much dispassion when talking about such important things. I dont ~want~ to have to engage someone with book-length, repetitive exchanges when they misrepresent what it 'plain' or 'logical' or 'Objectivism,' but Mr. Stolyarov's style and this medium (Internet) seem to require it.

Mimicing the form of logic and parroting the phrases used in Objectivism does not make a lengthy, well-written article logical or particularly Objectivist, just like being polite does not define a SOLO'ist.

As I have said before, giving a stage to those compulsive souls who will publish endlessly on their personal spin on 'Objectivism' will create a deluge of 'Objectivist' articles whose effect will be to mislead and confuse as to what the entire organization is about. And there will always be more pages submitted by that lot than there will be the real Hank Reardens, Dagny Taggarts and Howard Roarks, who are out in the world, building and doing.

No insult meant to Mr. Stolyarov, and all praise to Joe and Linz for making a tough decision, and who I perhaps have misjudged.



Post 4

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 12:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I disagree with Mr Stolyarov's positions on a number of issues, I think he is certainly a very committed and passionate campaigner for the causes in which he believes, and for that he has my admiration (indeed I believe I came across The Rational Argumentator prior to my own involvement with SOLO, and I recall being greatly impressed by certain of the contributions there).

I firmly believe that Objectivists have much to gain from dialogue with those whom we disagree with to varying extents, including rational conservatives, Christian libertarians, minimal state conservatives and the like (Note: I am not attributing any of those labels to Mr Stolyarov) and also from co-operation with such groups where this is possible, thus SOLO's general tolerance towards dissenters on this board is something for which all concerned there should be praised. In any such co-operative relationship however, lines and boundaries may eventually have to be drawn, and Joe and Lindsay clearly think such a boundary is appropriate here. I fully endorse the posters above who have expressed the hope that Mr Stolyarov not take this personally, and continue with his contributions here at SOLO.

MH




Post 5

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 11:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
many, many thanks for posting this... i am one who was approached by mr. stolyarov with regards to publishing my manuscript... this now gives me pause... because of the extentivenessof his involvement with SOLO, was under the impression this would have been something in the way of a subsidiary publishing for your group... it seems to be nothing of the sort, but something quite separate, and, in view of your comments, a wee bit questionable to get involved with... at any rate, much thinking must be given to the proposal...

but then the question does arise - does SOLO do publishing? if so, how would i go about getting my manuscript reviewed by you, to seeing if worthy of being published?it is, as said, a manuscript, 200+ pages, typed double-spaced, including three pages pics of my works - not something print-ready on a disk...




Post 6

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 12:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I support this distancing, and I would also support more distancing from those who have standing here only because they are libertarians. The math:

(Politics) - (The right philosophy) = The world as it is today

I have to say that, so far, I find Mr. S interesting as a person. But I have not read all the novel-length threads around his views and do not know how I would feel after having studied the reasons behind his opinions. It goes without saying that I strongly disagree with those opinions on independent grounds. He seemed to like two of my melodies (see my Profile), and I must confess that is a factor--as well as my own possibly self-endangering impulse to see the good in people.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 8/02, 12:50pm)




Post 7

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 12:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am SO glad that Lindsay did make this explicit. I have been lurking around these boards for some time and only began posting very very recently...partially because I was slightly disturbed by some of the things that Stolyarov was coming out with...I *did* have a bit of the impression (from the sheer volume of his articles) that he was heavily endorsed by SOLO.

So...thanks!

Tessa



Post 8

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LP said:  But they will carry the philosophical equivalent of a health warning.
 
Will Stolyarov be alone in this because he is prolific?  Or is it an across-the-board deal?  You've got that "...views do not necessarily express.." statement already up.




Post 9

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 1:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phlindsay Pherigo,

You refuse to generate more traffic for your own products without having to do a thing other than to give permission? Too bad. The favor I was to grant you is not something that will devastate me when refused. And I will gladly announce my store, at a time of my choosing.

You can claim the "spirit" of your organization to be anything you wish: property rights reign supreme. That is not the point here. I will let the facts of reality speak for themselves: Ayn Rand wrote only one paragraf on abortion, nothing on euthanasia, nothing on marriage (this is Phlinz's private "gay privileges" crusade; Rand detested the sort of clamoring and publicization of the private that it implies), and virtually nothing on any of the other issues where I diverge from the mainstream "Objectivist" orthodoxy. (The drug issue is an exception, and one that I had since recanted; for the record, I do not, any longer, believe in prohibitions against the personal use of any substances, so long as no other parties are involved or hurt. Milton Friedman had a greater role in convincing me of this than Rand, however. I still, however, maintain a supreme loathing of drugs, alcohol, nicotine, unprotected intercourse, etc.)

Mr. Perigo's orthodoxy is bent not on propagating Rand's Objectivism, but its own "refocused" version thereof, dissent from which it meets not with outright excommunication (that would repeat history too much), but with smear-hurling, context-dropping, and evasion. Let me quote this announcement for further proof of this:

..more recently, a friend apprised me of Mr Stolyarov’s position on voluntary euthanasia...  

In the Old Soviet Union, we had a name for "friends" like these: informants.

I resolved at that moment that in no way would I permit the impression to be created that, simply because Mr Stolyarov is a prolific contributor to SOLOHQ—one whose articles and posts have been unimpeachable and inspiring as often as they’ve been appalling, both in letter and spirit—he and SOLO are in any way aligned.

Yes, yes. Ignore all the good things he has done, and focus on the bad, simply because he did not pass every round of the Party's ideology screening. He is not a loyal drone, and cannot be counted on for unconditional obedience when called on. Rather, he has that "disturbing" habit of doing and thinking whatever he wishes.

The last thing I would wish is for visitors to SOLOHQ to observe the sheer volume of Mr Stolyarov’s articles and posts and conclude that he is the arch-embodiment of SOLO. This most assuredly is not the case.
 
Yes, ignore the evidence of your senses and your reason that all speak favorably of the presence of Mr. Stolyarov and heed faithfully the word of the arch-Phlinz of SOLO, all ye onlookers!

 But they will carry the philosophical equivalent of a health warning.

Old Soviet texts reprinting the works of Western novelists and thinkers often carried the warnings: "Although X was a lackey of bourgeois interests, we think his particular characterization in this work is demonstrative of our passionate vision for the true spirit of the proletariat!"

And I shall avoid like the plague anything that suggests that SOLO should embrace the obnoxious, Nietzschean, vainglorious, authoritarian facets of Mr Stolyarov’s beliefs that owe more to pathology than to objectivity.

(The Soviets also labelled any persistent disagreement with the Party line as "pathological." There were "mental health clinics" back there that aimed specifically at declaring insane and institutionalizing political dissenters. Whenever ideological disagreements are translated into the personal condemnations, the totalitarianism of the spirit results.)

 But let the reader judge who is the pathological one here:

* Is it someone who sees a humorous quote from Ronald Reagan and calls its poster a "rationalistic, pseudo-Objectivist conservative"?
* Is it someone who reads an extensive treatise on marriage and, instead of addressing a single argument, dismisses everything, in the tone of a screeching leftist hippie headbasher as "irrational fascist crap"?
* Is it someone who witnesses another's Atlas Points gratuitously taken away by an obsessive hooligan with a vendetta, and announces publicly the hooligan's good taste?
* Is it someone who has never done more than send a one-line private message of praise to a contributor for an article well written, while not hesitating to launch into lengthy public diatribes against the person of the contributor for any slight divergence from his orthodoxy?
* Is it someone who receives an absolutely benevolent and confidential offer from another person to freely advertise his works, and generate income for him at no obligation whatsoever, and responds with a public denunciation labelling the presenter of such an offer as "pathological"?

Alas, it is not! For the word of the arch-Phlinz equals "objectivity." The true pathological one here is:

* Someone who has published a multiplicity of perspectives on abortion and euthanasia on his magazine.
* Someone who has not hesitated to dispense praise to anyone who merits it, even people like Peikoff and Perigo whose sour temperament and cultish insistence on the status quo orthodoxy render their respectability virtually impossible in the eyes of the average layman.
* Someone who is ready to change any position of his when the evidence presented in favor of such a change is strong enough.
* Someone who is willing to accomodate his style to the function of a given piece of writing rather than arbitrary formalistic (yes, formalistic, ironically enough!) restrictions imposed by somebody else's subjective notions of "passion" and "spirit."
* Someone who advocates logical substance and precision over glamorous catch frases and knee-jerk denunciations, the cold but surgically accurate blade of reason over the indiscriminately searing hot iron of emotionalism and whimsical hatred.
* Moreover, someone who persistently contributes to his chief denouncer's organization, and without whom the chief denouncer would have fewer contributions.
* Someone who demands for these contributions nothing more than the respect proper to a human being, especially an admittedly intelligent and productive one.
* Someone who rejects pre-conceptions and groupthink of all sorts, whether it comes from the Gospel of Peikoff, or the Gospel of the arch-Phlinz, or the Gospel of Modern Liberalism.
* Someone who pathologically insists on questioning everything on the basis of fundamentals and not letting himself become obstructed by obscure periferals.

Absurd? You bet. I am becoming ever more convinced that these infantile group-purges and the mentalities behind them are of greater danger to the progress of filosofy and Reason than any external menace. (Just like the greatest foe of man is other men, so the greatest foes of an Objectivist are other Objectivists, fanatical ones, that is!) They killed the prospects of Objectivism's cultrual infusion in 1968, in 1989, and have already done much to damage Objectivism's future in 2004 (from the excommunication of Henry Emrich, to the Diana Hsieh debacle, to the brutal and vulgar treatment encountered by Logan Feys on this site).

It is a pity that such a technologically fine, opportune, prominent, (ideally) ideologically diverse, and (initially) tolerant organization is being headed by such a petty, concrete-bound, evasive, fanatical, infantile, sensationalist, and utterly tactless man. (I can play the insults game better than you, Mr. Perigo, and I am doing you a favor by not going into it further. Unlike you, I see no point in it. Give up this nonsense now, and look the other way whenever our interests diverge.) I can see that his intentions in the past months have been to enrage me enough to provoke me to leave. This will not happen. I will remain here as the proverbial thorn in Mr. Perigo's side, bugging him and his kind to check their premises whenever they are too comfortable with ANY status quo orthodoxy (as we well know, such comfort results in ideological authoritarianism).   

None of my behaviors on SOLO will change as a result of this diatribe, as none of them should. Howard Roark would not have changed any of his in a comparable situation. I remain. You have no way of getting rid of me outside of banning me outright, and that is a step you would not wish to take for (justified and even wise) fear of hypocrisy.

Phlindsay Pherigo, I AM NOT AFRAID OF YOU!
 
I am
G. Stolyarov II
Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917
 
A further note: this in no way reflects on my opinion of any other SOLO member or contributor in particular. I consider many of them intelligent and productive people, well worth my time despite the arch-Phlinz's periodic sprees of Stolyarov-bashing. This is why I keep going here in the first place. And, for the time being, I see nothing that would change such a fact.

(Edited by G. Stolyarov II on 8/02, 1:29pm)




Post 10

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greetings, Mr. Stolyarov.
 
You noted: >>this is Phlinz's private "gay privileges" crusade; Rand detested the sort of clamoring and publicization of the private that it implies<<
 
Indeed, that is the pervesity of the "gay rights" agenda, which is merely the most recent irrational manifestation of leftist identity politics.
 
It is interesting that this agenda has seized such a stronghead beach head in Objectivism.  Leninz and his ilk have exploited the difficulty Objectivists have had in articulating a philosophy of marriage, family, and parenthood to fill in these blanks left by Rand to suit their sexual antinomianism (which includes libertines of all stripes).  This is THEIR territory now, Mr. Stolyarov, and how dare you argue otherwise from Objectivist principles.  Little wonder Leninz has now read you out of the party for suggesting that nihilistic practices like abortion and euthanasia are immoral.
 
My question to you, my friend, is why continue to sanction Leninz and his forum with your contributions?  At best they patronize you.  Usually they ridicule you.  You have asked to work with SOLO to its benefit, and Leninz told you to go to hell because you won't sign onto what he says is the Objectivist position on matters Rand had little or nothing to say about.  Time to strike SOLO, don't you think?
 
Best regards,
Bill




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 3:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe and Linz can stick up for themselves. But I would just like to point out a few things. First, no one is excommunicating you, Mr. Stolyarov. Linz praised many of your characteristics and contributions in his article. He just wants to make it clear, since you are far and away the most prolific contributor, that your views, while welcome, should not be taken to be 'official' SOLO views. Is that so wrong?

Second, other than addressing your change of heart re: personal consumption decisions, do you deny that many of your positions ~in substance~ are at odds with Objectivism and SOLOism? If this is the case, why would you take such exception to someone noting the clear line of delineation between yourself and Messrs. Perigo and Rowlands' SOLO?

Third, did you notice that your ~response~ to Linz is about 3 times longer than his article? Do you agree, or disagree, that your presentation or ~style~ it at variance with SOLO'ism, and is more structured and formalistic along the lines of ARI exchanges? Can you see why, with a contributor as prolific as you, there might be a concern with so much formalistic and dry writing such as you contribute, that a visitor to SOLO might decide that SOLO is just a wing of the ARI?

Fourth, regarding Linz's description of certain aspects of your work as "...obnoxious, Nietzschean, vainglorious, authoritarian..." --this is harsh crticism, to be sure. But certainly no more harsh than you have faced on the boards after many of your articles have been published. I myself have strongly suggested that some of your views would require a totalitarian state to enforce--and would set a free nation down that road. Many others have disagreed with you along the same lines.

Finally, yes, Linz can be an asshole, a passionate, fired up, volcano of a man whose feelings sometimes find expression in words too warm for the occasion. But he is also a deep, wonderful, and honest gentleman whose love of red wine is exceeded only by his delight in finding a fresh defender of reason, passion, and the world as it ought to be. Joe is true and the very opposite of a hooligan (I assume it is he whom you address as a hooligan in your post). I have read his exchanges with you with interest. I wonder why you would describe him so.

Maybe I can shed some light upon this rift. How many subscribers/how much web traffic do you get over at the Rational Argumentator? And how much does SOLOHQ and the SOLOforum generate? And after an invitation by you to become more closely allied with SOLO via a web store, SOLO wishes to make a clear line of demarcation separating the two organizations? IS the tone and length of your response sour grapes? Either this has some validity or it is one heck of a coincidence.

This is a demarcation. Not a denunciation, nor excommunication.



Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 3:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I got an idea for you, Citizen Rat. Why dont YOU 'strike SOLO' for good? You never contribute anything positive, all you do is bitch about how terrible this person is, or howrotten that person is. Mr. Stolyarov at least makes some positive contributions. You're a rabble rouser.



Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 3:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Personally, I think there is nothing to lose and everything to gain from allowing Mr. Stolyarov to market SOLO products on his site. If anything, you could agree to a disclaimer that specifies "Rational Argumentator" and "SOLO" are two different organizations, with different approaches to philosophy. This would not be too different from how a television station would show, before televising an infomercial, a disclaimer along the lines of "the following paid advertisement does not reflect the views of this station". I am surprised Objectivists do not implement some of the strategies the successful capitalists of the world practice on a regular basis. I do strongly disagree with Mr. Stolyarov on some of his interpretations of Objectivism, especially on social issues, but he at least tries to argue from Objectivist principles. Of course, this problem is precipitated by the fact SOLO is, for the most part, an open forum by nature, and Mr. Stolyarov is one of the more prolific contributors in spite of hostility to many of his social views . . .




Post 14

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 3:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh please Bill.  I'm not gay and I detest Stolyarov's advocating government involvement--whether he admits it or not--in marriage.  One has nothing to do with the other in my book, and whatever anyone else gets out of it, I will continue to refuse to accept waging morality wars against most of the population because Stolyarov doesn't think most people are capable of being responsible for themselves and their loved ones.

I don't see much purpose in this announcement beyond letting new SOLOists know that the particular views of SOLOHQ's various contributors do not reflect the yada yada yada.  Mr. Stolyarov bases himself at his Rational Argumentator site, and promotes that fact consistently, so I was never under the impression SOLO was backing him; therefore the announcement was personally superfluous.  (Not to mention I've read every word he's ever posted on SOLOHQ and while I disagree with him a lot I am filled with inspiration and admiration at G's obvious brilliance.) 

"Striking" SOLO is a chump's way out.  G. is not a chump.  Why give him that advice when you could take it yourself?  G. can work this out on his own.  Let him be.

Edit:  PS I find it rather funny that there's an article on accepting anger as valid and applaudable when one's premises are being questioned or assaulted, but some have implored that G. not get riled up about this little to-do.  I certainly would, even if not to that particular degree.  But I know that G. can handle this, and so can SOLO's apparent ogres of the encroaching Red October Part 2.  Pfffffttttttt................ 

(Edited by Jeremy on 8/02, 3:28pm)




Post 15

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 3:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greetings.

Many more comments have since been posted for me to think and write about. I will do so shortly. However, I simply want to mention to Mr. DeSalvo that I do not consider Mr. Rowlands a "hooligan," though support Mr. Perigo's position here he may. My reference to the "hooligan" was made w.r.t. the man who had anonymously un-sanctioned 179 of my posts. (What else can one call him?) I write this now to avoid further confusion on the matter.

Mr. Rowlands and I are not on the best of terms, but I do not wish to insult him. In my book, he does not deserve it. I do appreciate his undoubted technical excellence and inventorial ingenuity, by the way.

I am
G. Stolyarov II
Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Scott T. Schad wrote:

Rather than simply parroting Ayn Rand's arguments, Mr. Stolyarov works from basic principles and arrives at positions sometimes contrary to what most of us conclude.

On the first part of your sentence, the SOLO position on abortion, suicide, marriage, etc. is not “parroting Ayn Rand’s arguments,” or the “orthodox” position on these issues. As Stolyarov himself has said, Ayn Rand has said little or nothing on them. The fact that most Objectivist thinkers come to the same conclusions speaks only to the fact that they use the same (correct) philosophical method to reach them.

 

The second part of your sentence is the crux of the problem I have with Mr. Stolyarov and why I support Linz and Joe’s position. Mr. Stolyarov is a philosophical illusionist. On his controversial positions, he starts with what appear to be Objectivist principles. Then with a little sleight of hand, he produces an ethical/political position anathema to Objectivism. Take the law of causality and – viola! – abortion is illegal; take the right to life and – ta da! – euthanasia and suicide are banned; take the impressionable nature of children and ­– abracadabra! – state-granted marriage licenses; take the right to privacy and - hey presto! - miniskirts are immoral.

 

Magic tricks rely on distraction: Rationalistic deduction without induction or application to reality loses the reader in a world of abstractions. And formalistic verbiage distracts the reader with non-essentials, while truly critical principles are skipped over. A bad idea argued on the basis of pseudo-Objectivism that appears convincing is much more dangerous than the same bad idea argued on the basis of “faith.”

 

One thing to which Stolyarov and allies seem oblivious is that Objectivism is not “conservatism on speed.” Claiming that a SOLOist shares a particular view with the liberal left is not a game-breaking argument. There are many liberal left issues Objectivists should support and many conservative right issues Objectivists should oppose.

 

 

(Edited by Glenn Lamont on 8/03, 3:14am)

(Edited by Glenn Lamont on 8/03, 2:54pm)




Post 17

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 3:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
GS2 sure writes a lot... his posts are too big. i can't bother to read so much. i am very slow at reading.

well, it'd be nice if he'd at least get his so called facts right.

he (GS2) wrote

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
"That is not the point here. I will let the facts of reality speak for themselves: Ayn Rand wrote only one paragraf on abortion, nothing on euthanasia, nothing on marriage (this is Phlinz's private "gay privileges" crusade; Rand detested the sort of clamoring and publicization of the private that it implies), and virtually nothing on any of the other issues where I diverge from the mainstream "Objectivist" orthodoxy."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

i knew this was wrong, so i went and got my copy of the ayn rand lexicon. ayn rand wrote at least:

8 paragraphs on abortion, about a page and 3/4ths and
1 paragraph on marraige (well, this may have been stated, instead of written by her, but she did have a lot to do with the editing for the final version, or so i read).

i just wanted to point out something simple and easy that was wrong with his post. i'm not going to bother arguing his stance, because i can't trouble myself to read what he has to say in his huge posts. anyway, so much of what he opposes is clearly in conflict with basic objectivist principals (like man's rights). no exhaustive essays will change that.


eli



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 6
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 6
Post 18

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I thoroughly agree with Lindsay's and Joe's decision, and the tantrum Stolyarov posted in reply is testament to everything Linz said. SOLO was never set up as an amorphous blob with no identity, open to hijacking by nutty conservatives claiming bizarrely to be Objectivists. It *is* something, it has a credo, it has a purpose. Like any organisation, it is entitled to protect that purpose from being hijacked. One can make as many deranged rationalistic twistings of Objectivism one likes (including advocating the utterly un-Objectivist and despicable: enforced suffering of the terminally ill and the pushing of women into backstreet abortions), but one cannot claim the "right" to be listened to, respected for or given a forum for one's rants by others who see your vision for the world as inimical to their own.

To hear from conservative authoritarians such as Stolyarov and Citizen Rat that Lindsay, in acting to protect the integrity of this site and the ethos it presents to the world, is a Stalinist is downright disgusting. There is no justice in the attempt to hijack someone else's vision then when he acts to protect that vision complain that you're being mistreated.  

Stolyarov's comparison of himself to Howard Roark made me feel unwell. Roark didn't claim his right to vain "self-expression" on other people's work. That's what Stolyarov is doing here.





Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I disagree with a lot of stolyarov's posts. while I havent taken precise count, it might even be fair to say I disagree with most of them. that said, I consider him to be a very intelligent, rational, and respectable person. however, while I could write a generic defense-of-stoly post here, i've defended him elsewhere and don't feel the need to repeat myself. I will however, nitpick one particular component of Lindsay Perigo's statement here: his calling of some of Stolyarov's points "nietzschean". this strikes me as unintelligible. I can think of a lot of things to call mr stolyarov, but nietzschean isnt one of them. Friedrich Nietzsche would, in all likelihood, probably not get along with mr stolyarov at all. whatever the intellectual merits or demerits of nietzsche, and whatever the intellectual merits or demerits of Stolyarov, we should at least be able to agree on this: the two of them have virtually nothing in common.



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.