I've subscribed to JARS from the beginning. In fact it was Chris Sciabarra's book Ayn Rand, The Russian Radical that got be interested in Rand again.
It looks like the periodical will be up and running again. Even though the back issues are free I think people should subscribe and support it. Rand and Objectivism intersect with a lot of issues and people so the Journal always makes for interesting reading.
One of my personal favorites is Gregory Johnson's article in the first issue. It makes clear how weak Rand's argument against state paternalism is, and how it is more handwaving than logically rigorous. That paternalism is not always right doesn't mean that it is always wrong either. However, Objectivists know how to select their preferred context for things they abhor...
Thanks for the link-I'm sure you guys will get a good laugh at Andrew Bernstein's criticism of the journal! I've read one of his boooks and even met him in person once, and...yep, he really is the kind of dogmatic, cultish capital O Objectivist that I must thank sites like me from rescuing me from.
http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/reviews.asp, "Advocates of Objectivism Made New Inroads"
Jeffrey, that Bernstein story is one of my favourite moments in abject, groveling, Objectivist apparatchikdom. Oh, how the reality of official Objectivism is always so hilariously NON-Galtian.
How did Bernstein suffer for the failure to use his mind?
I love all this rhetoric. It's like Leonard Peikoff claiming that every fact has a moral significance. As David Kelley said, the number of blades of grass on Peikoff's lawn doesn't appear to be morally significant.
Bernstein has a PhD in philosophy but he mainly lectures and writes on Rand's novels and politics.
As Jonathan said, why don't these Objectivists PhDs attack O'ism's critics, invite them to respond, and then blow these criticisms out of the water.
NP: >As Jonathan said, why don't these Objectivists PhDs attack O'ism's critics, invite them to respond, and then blow these criticisms out of the water.
Randian doctrine is bluff, buttressed by abuse of all critics. Never forget the "bluff" part.
7 comments:
I've subscribed to JARS from the beginning. In fact it was Chris Sciabarra's book Ayn Rand, The Russian Radical that got be interested in Rand again.
It looks like the periodical will be up and running again. Even though the back issues are free I think people should subscribe and support it. Rand and Objectivism intersect with a lot of issues and people so the Journal always makes for interesting reading.
One of my personal favorites is Gregory Johnson's article in the first issue. It makes clear how weak Rand's argument against state paternalism is, and how it is more handwaving than logically rigorous. That paternalism is not always right doesn't mean that it is always wrong either. However, Objectivists know how to select their preferred context for things they abhor...
Thanks for the link-I'm sure you guys will get a good laugh at Andrew Bernstein's criticism of the journal! I've read one of his boooks and even met him in person once, and...yep, he really is the kind of dogmatic, cultish capital O Objectivist that I must thank sites like me from rescuing me from.
http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/reviews.asp, "Advocates of Objectivism Made New Inroads"
Jeffrey, that Bernstein story is one of my favourite moments in abject, groveling, Objectivist apparatchikdom. Oh, how the reality of official Objectivism is always so hilariously NON-Galtian.
I love all of the Andy Bernstein quote, but especially this part:
"In failing to do the requisite research and gather the necessary data, I failed to properly use my mind. I must now suffer the consequences of that."
These people are robotic caricatures of human beings.
How did Bernstein suffer for the failure to use his mind?
I love all this rhetoric. It's like Leonard Peikoff claiming that every fact has a moral significance. As David Kelley said, the number of blades of grass on Peikoff's lawn doesn't appear to be morally significant.
Bernstein has a PhD in philosophy but he mainly lectures and writes on Rand's novels and politics.
As Jonathan said, why don't these Objectivists PhDs attack O'ism's critics, invite them to respond, and then blow these criticisms out of the water.
NP:
>As Jonathan said, why don't these Objectivists PhDs attack O'ism's critics, invite them to respond, and then blow these criticisms out of the water.
Randian doctrine is bluff, buttressed by abuse of all critics. Never forget the "bluff" part.
Post a Comment