From: Dan Adams (danadams@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat May 27 2000 - 21:50:41 MDT
Once again, the level of discussion has gone far
beyond what my meager mind can comprehend...I just
enjoy starting the discussions and then seeing how
they evolve. It can be quite informative. The
conversation you two gentlemen have had has been
somewhat enlightening regarding the later (post-Rand)
bent of objectivist philosophy (contradiction
children?).
Danke as always
Dan
--- Technotranscendence <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
wrote:
> On Saturday, May 27, 2000 6:39 PM E. Shaun Russell
> e_shaun@uniserve.com
> wrote:
> > >It's sad that Rand wasted such a brilliant mind
> on
> > >such a defeatist, "mental-masturbatory"
> philosophy...
> > >
> > >and, before I get flamed for that statement, I
> realize
> > >we all share her ideals of independence.
> Nonetheless,
> > >as one who has studied her work thoroughly, I
> feel
> > >confident (though, granted, not infallible) in
> saying
> > >that she turned a golden ideal into an empty
> > >rhetoric...
> >
> > I won't flame you, but I will disagree. Despite
> the direction Peikoff has
> > taken the Objectivist Institute in recent years,
>
> Correction: Peikoff is with the Ayn Rand Institute.
> The Institute for
> Objectivist Studies is its rival and has been
> renamed The Objectivist
> Center.
>
> Peikoff's stance has always been -- not just in
> recent years -- very
> orthodox and inflexible.
>
> > philosophical Objectivism
> > still has merit. Very few who have been
> influenced by Rand's philosophy
> > have revoked that influence...most still try to
> attain the ideal. I have
> > often suggested that Extropy is the next logical
> step to Objectivism:
> using
> > the acknowledgment of individual ability proferred
> by Rand's philosophy
> and
> > uniting it with a focus on future progress.
>
> I'd like to see how this is so, especially given the
> deeper aspects of
> Objectivism's view of man and ethics. I think there
> is a lot to be gained
> from studying both views, though I do think there
> are some differences.
>
> > I will agree that her personal life (as cited in
> her biographies) did not
> > always match her philosophical offerings, but I
> would be hard pressed to
> > think that any of her ideals (or those in her
> books) can be considered
> > rhetoric.
>
> I would say they are rhetoric, but not empty
> rhetoric. I agree that Rand's
> life and the life of her followers (especially the
> soulless ones:) should
> not be used as an indictment of Objectivism as a
> philosophy. That would be
> nothing more than a simple ad hominem attack. (And
> even flawed people can
> be right.)
>
> See my site for some of my criticisms/refinements of
> Objectivism.
>
> Later!
>
> Daniel Ust
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:51 MST