New Name for Objectivism
Malrassic Park
acar
> Vulgarism.
Interesting.
Regarding the more colorful cases, the two possibilities are:
1. That they were intelligent, decent individuals before they were
Objectivists; then Objectivism changed them into worthless bums.
2. That they were worthless bums before they became Objectivists, and
Objectivism failed to clean them up.
I can not tell.
The only thing that we know for sure is that they are worthless bums
today.
Jim Klein
> 2. That they were worthless bums before they became Objectivists, and
> Objectivism failed to clean them up.
Oh, that's me...only I never even became an Objectivist!
[Alright, I might've used the term for a very short time, long ago.]
Am I lucky that in your world, it's entirely possible that
"fail to clean up" might render someone perfectly clean!
That's what happens when words fail to mean things,
and in your case I'm not even sure you're at the point
where you acknowledge that there even ARE things!
I think you think there are, but are totally convinced
that we can never identify them. So you've got the
things and the attendant concepts (and the words
that denote them), but you can't figure out that
there really is a necessary connection.
That's what academia'll do to you---overthink the
meaning of necessity until it refers to specifically
things that aren't.
jk
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>That's what academia'll do to you---overthink the
>meaning of necessity until it refers to specifically
>things that aren't.
Academia is one of a Randroid's favorite scapegoats.
acar
>
> Oh, that's me...only I never even became an Objectivist!
>
Your displays of vulgarity have been few and far between to my
knowledge. (After all, that's how Rand wants us to deal with
situations - not necessarily according to the facts but accordig to
our perception of them. But I digress.) To my recollection you have
been an uninhibited antagonist and an uncensored plaything of your
emotions, but not often vulgar. (Oh, you may have said fuck a few
times but nowadays that's part of the vocabulary.) Let's put it this
way - you have been uninhibited but not malicious. You have confined
your insults to me and that doesn't make you a turd. I still think of
you as a decent person who wants to do the right thing. Of course that
does not absolve you from being a blathering idiot. You have a rotten
mind but not a rotten heart. At least that's how I judge you - the
Rand way - according to the evidence available to me. Of course, I
could be wrong ...
When I said "rotten heart" I disobeyed Christ's command of not
judging. But then I also disobeyed Rand by saying that I could be
wrong.
acar
> On Dec 30, 7:45�pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> When I said "rotten heart"
When I said "rotten mind" ...
Jim Klein
> To my recollection you have
> been an uninhibited antagonist and an uncensored plaything of your
> emotions, but not often vulgar.
Wow---I don't know how you manage to get even THAT backwards!
> (Oh, you may have said fuck a few
> times but nowadays that's part of the vocabulary.) Let's put it this
> way - you have been uninhibited
Get with the times, willya? These days, it's "disinhibited."
> but not malicious.
Only of the philosophy, pal, only the philosophy.
It's nice to see hypocrisy isn't reserved for ARIans around
here. Or were you not malicious to Jerry?
> You have confined
> your insults to me
You gotta be kiddin'. What is it with you guys...don't
you even GLANCE at the facts?
> and that doesn't make you a turd.
But then, it wouldn't make me not one either, would it?
> I still think of
> you as a decent person who wants to do the right thing.
Aw shucks. Really, that has me pegged in the entirety. What
makes me a little different is that I know what that right thing is.
Alas, that leaves me with no excuses either.
> Of course that
> does not absolve you from being a blathering idiot.
I addressed both your compliment and this already.
Like I said, how lucky for me that your appraisals and
judgments have no correlation with reality. Well, they
seem to have an inverse correlation to me, but that's
a pretty small sample.
So I'll take your POV on this point---they just have no
necessary correlation.
> You have a rotten
> mind but not a rotten heart.
I don't get that too much, though some would say
the opposite. Indeed, I sort of thought you were one
of those...I guess that goes back to the correlation thing.
> At least that's how I judge you - the
> Rand way - according to the evidence available to me. Of course, I
> could be wrong ...
>
> When I said "rotten heart" I disobeyed Christ's command of not
> judging. But then I also disobeyed Rand by saying that I could be
> wrong.
Lemme know when you come across yourself. Who knows...
maybe there's something interesting there.
jk
acar
> On Dec 31 2009, 1:20 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> Like I said, how lucky for me that your appraisals and
> judgments have no correlation with reality. �Well, they
> seem to have an inverse correlation to me, but that's
> a pretty small sample.
I was prepared to be judged, so no harm done. But I am supposed to
judge as well, am I not? So you think that following Rand's advise may
lead to a bad judgment?
> (more stuff)
What did I tell you? Rotten mind!
.
.
.
Jim Klein
> I was prepared to be judged, so no harm done. But I am supposed to
> judge as well, am I not?
I don't know what this means---"supposed to judge."
You DO judge, period.
> So you think that following Rand's advise may
> lead to a bad judgment?
I think bad integration of facts leads to bad
judgments.
jk