tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27279074.post1074497720804102136..comments2009-04-18T20:34:42.464-07:00Neil Parillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27279074.post-40774913183087949222009-04-18T20:34:00.000-07:002009-04-18T20:34:00.000-07:00Enjoyed your article. What occurs to me is that there is a distinction between the philosophy of Objectivism and the ideas, beliefs, utterances, notions, expressions voiced by those who assert that they are true Objectivists and that what they therefore say is what the Objectivist position on any issue really is.<br /><br />When I read your article where you show how Peikoff leaves out Kant's arguments and if one were to rely exclusively on Peikoff's statements about Kant that one would have a mistaken understanding of Kant, that is a valid criticism of Peikoff not of Objectivism itself.<br /><br />I appreciate that one must be careful to avoid conclusions based on limited exposure to anything especially when trying to grasp the truth of an issue where an Objectivist might be skewing the information. But that is not limited to Objectivists. <br /><br />Ayn Rand used to say that her supporters should describe them selves as students of Objectivism and that she at the time was the only official spokesperson for the philosophy. Nowadays many who have studied Objectivist literature are willing to identify themselves as Objectivists once they are familiar with the basic tenets in the fundamental realms. That doesn't mean that they necessarily know the Objectivist position on issues about which they have not familiarized themselves.<br /><br />Enjoyed your article and glad I found this site. <br /><br />WmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com