tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post116192119213153424..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Objectivists and PoliticsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1162487360769756102006-11-02T12:09:00.000-05:002006-11-02T12:09:00.000-05:00Is Objectivism leaderless?The problem is that whil...Is Objectivism leaderless?<BR/><BR/>The problem is that while objectivists may well benefit from having a leader, the concept of a leader seems alien to those objectivists who would most qualify for this role. This I think is in the nature of objectivism. From what I see(someone correct me if I am wrong), objectivism is more about method then result. Therefore, Peikoff gave us the answer, and expects us to figure out how he got it on our own. I find it interesting that whenever there is a disagreement between objectivists, the disagreement somehow ends up being about the people involved instead of the issue. Meanwhile Peikoff very calmly and almost without notice makes his DIM hypothesis lectures(300$ worth) free, and we respond by saying, "he needs to show his work", well I think he feels he has and it is up to us now.<BR/><BR/>Finally I want to point out that Dr Peikoff is an actual person with actual values, and I believe right now is in the middle of writing a book that is his eqivalent of Atlas Shrugged. If he would rather do this then attempt the imposible task of answering infinate repetative questions about an election, I don't blame him. Perhaps instead of writing him a letter to question him about this, why not write him to thank him for his generosity in making his course free and wish him well with his new book.<BR/><BR/>And Nicholas, thank you as well for the wonderful work you do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1162145137041064002006-10-29T13:05:00.000-05:002006-10-29T13:05:00.000-05:00It looks like Diana Hsieh on her blog Noodle Food ...It looks like Diana Hsieh on her blog Noodle Food has "showed the work" that leads to Dr. Peikoff's conclusion. Thank you, Diana!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1162095423557978852006-10-29T00:17:00.000-04:002006-10-29T00:17:00.000-04:00Leonard Peikoff's statement is sort of like saying...Leonard Peikoff's statement is sort of like saying, "Fermat's Last Theorem is true. And if you don't agree with me, you don't have a firm grasp of mathematics." He may be right about the election and, having read The Ominous Parallels, I have an inkling of why he says what he does here. But he needs to do one thing when making statements like this: he needs to show his work!<BR/><BR/>Objectivism doesn't need leaders any more than mathematics needs leaders. As a philosophy, Objectivism is not about "following the leader." It is about conforming to reality.<BR/><BR/>True, mathematics is numerical and philosophy is not. But Objectivism is still susceptible to the same sorts of logic and proof as mathematics. That is necessary AND SUFFICIENT to establish the truth of Objectivism and any application thereof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1162072199764954312006-10-28T17:49:00.000-04:002006-10-28T17:49:00.000-04:00>Is Objectivism leaderless?I think so. A leader wo...>Is Objectivism leaderless?<BR/><BR/>I think so. A leader would be able to unite differing concrete opinions around a common, more fundamental view. Leonard Peikoff’s Q&A does the exact opposite, because it utterly fails to examine its subject in sufficient depth to justify its flip tone. <BR/><BR/>But does Objectivism need a sole leader to take Objectivists to the next level? I argue that Objectivism needs many leaders. In fact, I think we need something like an Objectivist leadership summit, to help develop our new leaders and their leadership skills.Nicholas Provenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10926131141263622350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1162062859355601202006-10-28T15:14:00.000-04:002006-10-28T15:14:00.000-04:00Given the way our elections work, it is simply too...Given the way our elections work, it is simply too early for a third party attempt by Objectivists. First, where would we draw quality candidates? Our numbers are far from ideal. Second, what will this party do when it inevitably looses? Third, just how much would this party gain once it elects the token Objectivist into the government? Would that be enough to raise the funding necessary to sustain the effort?<BR/><BR/>That said, there is a lot a small yet vocal core of Objectivists could do to attack the ideas of the status quo. They don’t need to run for office to activate such a program.<BR/><BR/>Do you want to help the change the culture and build the foundation for a better life? Give a kid in your life a copy of “The Fountainhead.” Introduce a friend to Ed Cline’s Sparrowhawk series. Underwrite the costs of bringing an Objectivist speaker to a campus near you. Subscribe to the Objective Standard—and share its articles with people you know. Write a letter to the editor or start up a blog. Go to one of Lee Sandstead’s art tours. Help me make CAC into the preeminent defender of the moral case for capitalism. <BR/><BR/>Any of these or other common sense ideas would have a practical benefit, right here, right now. An Objectivist political party? Not so much . . .Nicholas Provenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10926131141263622350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1162057210790463292006-10-28T13:40:00.000-04:002006-10-28T13:40:00.000-04:00Dr. Pekoff's article, is in Q/A format. The Q was ...Dr. Pekoff's article, is in Q/A format. The Q was supplied by me. The larger context was a query of his (or other's) interest in starting an Objectivist Party. I think this could make a greater difference than trying to salvage the two bankrupt parties currently in power. I'd be interested to see if there is interest in this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1162048802753806162006-10-28T11:20:00.000-04:002006-10-28T11:20:00.000-04:00Is Objectivism leaderless? I have been an Objectiv...Is Objectivism leaderless? <BR/><BR/>I have been an Objectivist for over a decade now, and I have never seen the movement as fractured as it is today. Who is that person who stands above the fray and unites? All I see is division, division, division.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1162047135454913292006-10-28T10:52:00.000-04:002006-10-28T10:52:00.000-04:00Leaving all that aside, what interests me is Peiko...Leaving all that aside, what interests me is Peikoff's statement that anyone who votes Republican--even if a good candidate--is committing an immoral act. <BR/><BR/>"Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.” <BR/><BR/>If it is immoral to vote Republican, what about Tracinski who wrote an entire article arguing that we should vote Republican? Are we really to suppose that Tracinski is now an immoral person because of this? Or that this is even an immoral act? <BR/><BR/>What is the relationship between an immoral act and the character of a person? Can a person commit an immoral act and still be moral?<BR/><BR/>And if we decide that a person is immoral, what is our relationship with that person to be?<BR/><BR/>I've know Rob for years, and yes, I understand that many of his political arguments have not been popular--but I can only see good in this guy who is out there everyday fighting in the trenches.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com