RoR: Forum

Both Adam Reed and Michael Newberry have a point, which makes it rather sad: We will never know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Post 21

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 7:42am

That's sadly true, Michelle. Given the competing agendas of the partisans, and all their selective editing (of their fading memories as well as diaries and documents), we'll only get a general outline of what went on.

But do we need more? I frankly don't care what went on in these people's private lives. The whole episode surrounding The Affair revealed an abundance of poor judgment and immaturity -- certainly enough to go around -- and opened Objectivism itself to endless ad hominem criticisms. Had the principals not proclaimed to the world a seamless connection between their ideas and their own lives -- had they not held themselves up as perfect living models of the philosophy -- this would not have been as big a deal. But those who make (or still defend) such ambitious claims about their personal character and its connection to Objectivism render the philosophy vulnerable to the criticism: "If THIS is what the Objectivism leads to in the lives of its most advanced proponents, then there must be something very wrong with Objectivism."

Objectivism's validity should not hinge on Ayn Rand's personal perfection. Those Objectivists who accept that premise, however, will have a vested interest in approaching Rand's life uncritically, never daring to admit a single personal flaw lest Objectivism itself be found wanting. This desperate effort to portray Rand as perfect has driven them to excruciatingly exaggerated claims about the woman, idolatry that has only opened the philosophical movement to further ridicule.

The time has long since passed to distinguish the validity of the philosophy from the personal life of the philosopher. Ayn Rand was an ingenious philosophical innovator, a brilliant artist, a passionate idealist and -- yes -- a remarkably noble soul. She need not have been a perfect person in order for us to honor her and her extraordinary achievements.

Post 22

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 7:54am

Both Adam Reed and Michael Newberry have a point, which makes it rather sad: We will never know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

You're being politically correct. We do know the whole truth about Rand and other things... Nothing that has been presented to us through all the various accounts of Rand's life and personality, is contradictory.

The true conflict arises between the agendas of various groups: You have people who understand that the true nature of something called "Objectivism" must be about objectivity and truth, and then you have the people who they have friction with, which are the dime-a-dozen wanna-be priest kings and acolytes who crave and have always craved to construct an organization whereby they can establish and inflict social hierarchy and boot-kissing.

Nathaniel Branden is of the first kind; Leonard Peikoff is of the second kind... this was always the case, and always will be the case. There are also, clearly, those same presences and agendas here at SOLO. I think it's rather easy to identify where they are, although it's no doubt unspokenly VERBOTEN to address them directly.

Post 23

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 7:55am

Robert,

I'm glad you continue to be involved here at SOLO! You are right on the mark with these comments.

Regards,

Ethan

Post 24

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 8:08am

Hey Linz,

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed a greater and greater number of TOCers posting at SOLO with regularity? It makes one wonder, doesn't it!

George

Post 25

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 9:03am

Hey George, haven't you heard? I left the employ of TOC over two years ago! I don't mean to suggest that I don't still support the organization -- I do! -- but I don't know that I can formally be called a "TOCer."

Those wanting to see what I'm up to these days should check out my blog: http://bidinotto.journalspace.com. Links on that page will send you to bio info, my www.ecoNOT.com web site, past writings and much more.

Post 26

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 9:06am

BTW, I'm just a few Atlas points south of the magic 133 that opens oh-so-many-doors here. So please be nice and click on that magic checkmark. ;^)

Post 27

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 9:08am

...or at least I THOUGHT there was something nice that happened at 133 points. Yes? No?

Post 28

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 9:11am

Robert,

Sorry Robert, I still make that mental connection whenever I see your name. Even so - In the last couple of weeks I've seen Bill Perry and even Ed Hudgins stalking about.

Whats next, an article/post by David Kelley?!

There goes the neighborhood!

George

Post 29

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 9:14am

At 133 Linz sends you a FU email. Or was that only for me?
(Edited by George W. Cordero on 2/10, 9:16am)

Post 30

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 9:17am

Our presence just underscores that you raving (or is that "rabid"?) SOLO subjectivists let <I>anybody</I> in here -- and proving that raving (or is that "rabid"?) subjectivism is, ultimately, self-defeating.

Or something...

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 2/10, 9:17am)

Post 31

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:08am

Robert,

Just 'subjectivist'?

You forgot to add 'intrinsicist' and 'rationalist' as well.

George

Post 32

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:11am

George, George, George -- You simultaneously can be an intrinsicist AND rationalist, OR a subjectivist -- but not a subjectivist AND an intrinsicist AND/OR a rationalist. Don't you epistemological savages (or is it "moral barbarians") know ANYTHING?????

Post 33

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:19am

ROFL

On Solo you can be all 3 at once - we call it the IRS trifecta. One part Plato, one part Kant, and just enough Popper to make sure we can talk ourselves into believing it.

George

Post 34

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:28am

"TOCer"....is that like "Kelleyite"? I seem to have earned that one somewhere, too. Though I prefer it to "Peikovian."

The right label is paramount to me, because I live for strangers to define who I am.

;)

Post 35

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:43am

Jennifer,

What is the proper term for those who frequent this site? SOLOist, SOLOite, Lindsayist, or my favorite that I'm coining--Perigonian?

We must all be categorized.

Bill

Post 36

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:55am

George et al.:

Clearly I have accidentally (i. e., non-Purposively) stumbled into the Non-A world of the social metaphysician qua Muscle-Mystic-Attila qua Cult of Moral Grayness qua Heraclitean flux. Yes. As I say: the world of Non-A, (e. g., B, C, D, or perhaps something else -- there are 26 such alternatives -- but certainly [that's epistemological, not metaphysical certainty we're talking about] Non-A.)

And I repudiate it all on such grounds.

Whether I shall remain here, however, depends on standards qua standards -- and I follow none by my own, formulated by my own mind, for my own selfish pleasure. (Do you hear me, Robert Stadler?)

Mine are: Do people here like me? Do they really like me?

Post 37

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 11:00am

Robert, I like you, *and* I don't like you - at the same time!

George

Post 38

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 11:01am

...but in the same respect???

Post 39

Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 11:02am