Free Republic

"I love being a proponent of a philosophy that allows me to "shut down" those who disagree with it so easily and completely, and with their own words."

AND

"But there is a second faction, run by Objectivist philosopher David Kelley, who started and runs the Objectivist Institute, a competing organization whose view of Objectivism is that it is not complete, and can be improved."

Question: if you go around, all day every day, with the idea that your philosophy is "incomplete" and "can be improved," how are you in a position to "shut anyone down"? Not to mention the fact that belief in a "higher power" contradicts the axioms of Objectivism or any other secular philosophy.

The best thing to read to understand why Objectivism and religion are incompatible is Rand's essay entitled "Faith and Force," which I believe is in the book, "Philosophy: Who Needs It," available at your local bookstore.

We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

No, you're not at all slow. The more you understand her philosophy, and the more you see examples of what she predicted come true in the real world (both in the people you know, and the news of the world at large), the more her writing gets to you emotionally. Many people think her writing and characters are "stiff," just because they don't go emoting at the lowest level all over the place. (This is what they're used to in popular novels.) However, once you come to understand the values the characters hold, and how the events in the story relate to those values, you understand how emotional the characters really are.

She was not "pro-abortion," she was "pro-choice." Who in their right mind would WANT to have an abortion, if they could avoid it? To my knowledge, she never had an abortion. (If she had, I'm sure one of her critics would have brought it out by now.) During her child-bearing years, abortions were illegal and quite dangerous. I imagine she did what other intelligent women did -- use birth control.

You really need to do some homework.

Click here and read for a few hours.

Then come back and try again.

OOPS, My bad.

This thread should be named something different, like "Justice Department Power Grab," so that this issue gets the attention it deserves. I'm sure a number of freepers would be horrified at what happened to Peikoff if they only knew. Do you know how to rename it without duplicating the thread?

BUMP -- and a link . . .

Mini-page on this issue

You may not like his writing style (I do), but no one has come close to his hierarchical presentation of Rand's philosophy. In addition, Peikoff has done an excellent job (along with ARI) of promoting her works, and of bringing out Rand's unpublished works, such as her journals, her letters, and some of her early unpublished fiction. And he's still going strong, currently working on a book on induction and integration -- for which he's undertaken an intenstive study of the history of physics. This man is not a "whiner."

As for his decision to "give in," I will remind you that his opponent has unlimited funds (which consists of all OUR tax dollars, no less), and has a reputation for treating authors and estates quite horribly. My step father died of a heart attack which I believe was brought on by the stress of going through personal bankruptcy. Just imagine the stress of having the Department of INjustice suing you for $1.1 million. He's much better off spending his time and energy writing his new book -- which I, for one, am looking forward to.

And I guess you haven't seen his wife . . .

Re #57 I wonder this, too. I seem to be reading more and more Guardian U.K. articles in the past month or so. I think a lot of U.S. citizens would appreciate reading this story.

However, 58 percent oppose including any part of Jerusalem in the new nation.

Well, at least they're not completely suicidal. And since the Palestinians won't agree with this provision, nor with the existence of an Israeli state, for that matter, the fighting will go on. Until one of the two wipes the other out, this will not end (because the Palestinians will settle for no less). I guess I can't say "Let's Roll" here, because I'm not Israeli, but whatever I'd say to communicate a similar sentiment, just pretend as if I'd said it.

Re #6. I agree wholeheartedly, unfortunately. How we respond to Israel defending its interests tells the whole story about how we are conducting our war on terrorism.

I am not barfing. This IS an unjust double standard.

Well, I guess he's just guaranteed his unemployability for the foreseeable future, which means we'll all be paying for him to live with our tax $$$.

I, too, agree that a temporary ban on certain kind of flights is not the death knell to individual rights that many think it is. But, as I said in another thread, the other part of the deal is that the government, who imposed that ban, needs to do everything possible to make sure the ban can be lifted quickly. This means our government must conduct a real war, using the weapons necessary to achieve victory quickly, and with the fewest American casualities possible. And given the new anthrax scare, nukes may become the weapon of choice, and may have to be dropped in more places than Afghanistan in order to achieve the desired result.

The upshot? Given that the current administration doesn't seem to be conducting a serious enough war to intimidate terrorists, then it isn't justified in restricting our rights. But, in principle, I do not see a problem with certain freedoms being suspended in times of war.

Re#4 I am sympathetic to your plea for concern. But I don't mind a ban on certain private plane flights, so long as the bans are for only a limited time, and so long as the government is doing its part in fighting a proper war, to ensure that limited time is as short as possible.

Because there are certain epistemological problems with detecting which small, private plane holds an enemy, and which holds a citizen (I admit, because of our government's lax policy on granting visas, etc.), I agree with banning the flights _as a temporary measure_. But I am sceptical as to whether the government is doing its part, either in the war, or in correcting their lax visa policies. If I was a private pilot, that's the message I'd be trying to get out there. Each of us has to work on our own front to (1) try and preserve our own lives and our own rights, and (2) try and get the government to start doing its job properly, without endangering either. This, unfortunately, is a monumental task.

With sympathy,

Lynn

Did you try the non-fiction? Or just the fiction? I realize that by even asking that question I may sound like I'm proselytizing (sp?), but some people do prefer the non-fiction to the fiction. I'm just happy to see that the people of this country (even if not its politicians) are so strongly in favor of self-defense.

Re#54 Perhaps not -- but I just fear that we don't have the luxury of the kind of time Bush may need to get a clue. I mean, we're talking about ANTHRAX now. Would you have ever imagined this 2 months ago? And yet we're doing lighter bombing on Friday so as not to offend our enemies?

I appreciate your optimism, though. What is it that Rand or Peikoff often said at the end of a grim prognosis? Where there's life, there's hope? I think that's it. Well, as of Friday evening, October 12, there's still life.

Can you believe how far this country has declined? Our founding fathers responded to a _tax imposed without representation_ with the words "give me liberty, or give me death." Now, over 6,000 of our citizens are attacked on our own shores, and we can't get up enough balls to fight a real war. I'm getting depressed again when I think that Peikoff's words are so controversial.

Re#44 I don't know that that's quite fair (after all, an unarmed 9-1 is not really that effective), but one thing is for sure: if we decide that it is necessary to destroy the current Iranian regime in order to defend ourselves, we cannot be concerned with the fact that some innocent people will necessarily die in the process. By definition, if it's necessary to take military action to defend ourselves, then we're saying it's our innocents, or theirs. The choice must be made.