Mammon Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Michael Stuart Kelly Why does this name sound familiar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Brandenites and other assorted n'er-do-wells. You'll want to steer clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted August 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 other assorted n'er-do-wells. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 What? David Kelley people. I wonder if they're related... Or are you asking what's a Brandenite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Michael Stuart Kelly Why does this name sound familiar? He runs another Objectivist related forum at http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php? Barbara Branden posts there. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kori Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) He's a really cool dude, if I do say so myself. But why would you ask? I already told you. BTW: Don't take recommendations from these peeps. Go and see for yourself. Edited August 27, 2007 by Kori Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_aver Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Don't evul people ever take recommendations from ORTHODOX CHRURCH OF RAND-PEIKOFF OBJECTIVISM? Isn't that Kelly's allerged closed-mindedness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 BTW: Don't take recommendations from these peeps. Go and see for yourself. That is right. They should go and see for themselves how confused he is on so many issues (although surly he does not think so). His recent toleration of plagiarism (the most severe case I have ever seen) on his site that has gone on for months (despite complains from some of the members) is especially worthy of others attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kori Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Lex, where've you been!? *senses this thread will surely turn into a hate thread* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_aver Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Agree. I saw some threads there. In one a man actually bashes Rand with vicious personal attack while claiming that she didn't solve is/ought problem. But instead of exlplaining why every is implies an ought, M.S. Kelly just argues on minor points. In another thread, a guy "criticizes" Rand by saying that the motivation of developing Objectivism was to justify Capialism. But instead of asking how is motivation relevant to validity of a philosophy, M.S. actually apologises to him! The last nail in the coffin of his integrity is a thread where decent libertarian argues for a bunch of "owns" that somehow constitute self-ownership. M.S. does assert that these are consequences of right to life, but at the same time he in every way tries to soften the pill just not to abuse his libertarian correspondent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 *senses this thread will surely turn into a hate thread* Therefore, here's a suggestion: now that folks have enough to know where to look, let's leave it at that. (I plan to close this thread soon.) If, on the other hand, there is some interesting philosophic question that this person raises and that folks wish to discuss, let's discuss that... in a separate thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kori Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Close indeed. Thanks, sNerd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted August 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 He's a really cool dude, if I do say so myself. But why would you ask? I already told you. BTW: Don't take recommendations from these peeps. Go and see for yourself. Like I said, I've heard the name brought up somewhere else so I wanted to find out where and why. It's kind of obvious why now. He might be a member of the Sinstero Corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benpercent Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 I was about to start another thread asking this very question, but I'll pose another question here for the sake of non-clutter. Now I know why I shouldn't add Objectivistliving to my bookmarks, but, originally, what caused the split between Kelly and Peikoff? I never heard of this man until after the separation and only in the context of the split. Was is just due to his inability to learn, or unwillingness to understand? He doesn't sound as if he would be equal to the Brandens concerning negativity against Objectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 Now I know why I shouldn't add Objectivistliving to my bookmarks, but, originally, what caused the split between Kelly and Peikoff?You probably should get the word from someone who was in active contact with the involved individuals at the time; my understanding is that it stems from Kelley's inclination to see Objectivism as a mass movement with a fluid boundary and thus broad appeal -- right now, no need to change any minds. I think Peikoff saw / sees Objectivism more as a set of ideas that are right or wrong on their own merit, without reference to popularity. This appears to have come to a head over the point that Kelley sees Objectivism as a "kind of libertarianism", and thus he thinks that there's a natural affinity between Objectivism and libertarians. I must say that I understand the confusion, having once been a libertarian, but where libertarians get it wrong is that "liberty" is not really a decent fundamental for a rational philosophical system, and certainly not one resembling the philosophy held by Ayn Rand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.