tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27279074.post4614426467566057948..comments2023-10-30T06:47:51.643-07:00Comments on ObjectiBlog: Libertarianism, Politics and Objectivism: You Can't Fake RealityNeil Parillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27279074.post-79963813075559161112009-08-18T10:46:33.683-07:002009-08-18T10:46:33.683-07:00Hilarious, Richard! You don't mind if I call y...Hilarious, Richard! You don't mind if I call you <b>Dick</b>, do you? ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27279074.post-62429004724610740522009-08-16T14:07:00.671-07:002009-08-16T14:07:00.671-07:00The actions of ARI, in its calculated release of R...The actions of ARI, in its calculated release of Rand's ideas, is a matter of focus. Given the seedy arguments of Objectivism's detractors, there is no room for releasing thought processes Rand doubted. Even her most brilliant conclusions are dismissed from ridiculous minutiae, whilst ignoring her most overwhelming demonstrations of Good. (That dishonesty is sickening, but it captures many.)<br /><br />By comparison, one can focus on the <b>fact</b> that Frank Truth farts, instead of his true intellectual & material achievements How would Frank like to be recalled by his farts, rather than his better accomplishments?<br /><br />Let us presume that Frank's YouTube posts were true and appropriate. Should -the-public focus on how he <a href="http://youtubedhimmis.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">swears</a> (F-words) at Sergey Brin and Larry Page of YouTube? Shouldn’t the World focus on Frank’s most rational arguments, and understand that his irate swearing is not <i>fundamental</i> to his character?<br /><br />(Frank, fix up <a href="http://youtubedhimmis.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">that webpage</a>, and turn it into a brutally calm and rational presentation of fact!)<br /><br />I only use Frank’s swearing, as an example of the mentality by which Rand is maligned. It disregards the good on which Frank wished to stand, by focusing on his bad farts. Worse, it seeks to <i>rationalize</i> Frank, ass ‘bad’, by disregarding both context and the conceptual hierarchy of his arguments exposing YouTube’s perfidy. That underlying motive is hardly appreciation of the Good for being good. Instead, the motive is to install Concrete Overshoes on a deliverer of the Good. That is, the motive is <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/envy-hatred_of_the_good_for_being_the_good.html" rel="nofollow">Hatred of the Good, for being Good</a>. <br /><br />Rand wrote on this exact mentality: <br />"<i>Observe the nature of mankind’s earliest legends —such as the fall of Lucifer, “the light-bearer”, for the sin of defying authority; or the story of Prometheus, who taught men the practical arts of survival. Power-seekers have always known that if men are to be made submissive, the obstacle is not their feelings, their wishes or their “instincts,” but their minds; if men are to be ruled, then the enemy is reason.<br /></i>" (see <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/reason.html" rel="nofollow">Prometheus</a>).<br /><br />The scholars at ARI recognize that even the most academic minds of today dwell upon minutiae, rather than essential principles. The academics are focusing on the trees without seeing the Forest. The academics (et al.) SEEK minutiae —however out of context and inapplicable— to dispute essential principles. <br /><br />Such is the nature of the Anti-Conceptual mentality of modern academia (plus TOC & ARCHN). ARI is not anti-fact, ARI is opposed to Anti-Conceptuals. Therefore, they act accordingly.<br /><br />Whilst some anti-conceptual minds are bound to 'pick-up' on the actions of ARI, better minds are able to see the forest for the trees. To which, of the two, would you rather appeal?<br /><br />Saps who thoughtlessly buy into the superficial claims of creatures like Nyquist, Barnes, Kelley, or the Brandens seek self esteem through fault, rather than genius. Sorry, vandalism is no substitute for creation.<br /><br />"Hatred of the Good for being good" is bigger than mere intellectual vandalism, it is the deliberate attempt to destroy the good, the creative and the genius, by any shallow means.<br /><br />Ultimately it can never work. That vandal's sense of self esteem & success is false. It is only enabled by duping & capturing naive minds — such as those unfamiliar with car parts, or with Rand's ideas. Nyquist, Barnes & co-conspirators function by capturing small fry, whilst thinking they are the God's of fishing. Over the length of history, their arguments are but potato peels discarded by a gourmet chef.<br /><br />Members of Objectiblog would do well to rethink Rand, and ask themselves why they spend time entertaining ideas that gleefully undercut the Reason of Rand! Petty killjoys will not bring down her genius.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27279074.post-10030683589322790282009-08-12T20:24:48.685-07:002009-08-12T20:24:48.685-07:00ARI's history of intellectual fraud is unbroke...ARI's history of intellectual fraud is unbroken. These malicious clowns and contemptible liars are simply too low for words. And these revelations in the upcoming book are only that which we currently <i>know</i> about! <br /><br />It seems highly likely that much or most of the historical record of the greatest philosopher which ever lived has been altered or destroyed <i>forever</i>. ARIans are drop-dead ENEMIES of Ayn Rand and Objectivism!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com