[WGD]

On March 26th at www.dianahsieh.com/blog, Diana Hsieh compared Op-Eds
from ARI and toc on the subjects of Valentine day, Christmas, The Passion,
and "Under God" in the Pledge.


"Garmong's analysis is clear, engaging, and true--i.e. all that the TOC Op-Ed is
not."

"All in all, the sharp contrasts between the quality, clarity, insight, and the
objectivity of the articles produced by ARI and those of TOC ought to be
deeply troubling to any serious advocate of Objectivism who also suports
TOC. Since the moral is the practical, a bit of premise-checking seems to be
in order."

[Joerj11]

I emailed Diana congratulating her on her leaving the TOC and asked her why she had not become a full supporter of ARI. Her problem lies in the idea that A can be A and B(edit: her error is that A can be not A). She thinks that more can be added to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism.(Edit: Note, she did not say this, this is merely my interpretation of what she said) I emailed her back telling her that Objectivism is Ayn Rand’s philosophy and only that and that nothing could be added to what Ayn Rand put in her philosophy unless Ayn did it herself, which of course is now impossible. I said that any other theories or ideas that come about, that lie directly in sync with Objectivism would also be just that, ideas that lie in sync with Objectivism and that Objectivist agree with and could never be a part of Objectivism itself.

Its amazing how people can study Ayn Rand’s works for many years, in her case 10+, and still think that they can put words in someone else’s mouth.

I haven’t receive an email in response to this, but I’ll let you know what happens if a response comes

[Invictus]

I've not read much of what TOC have produced. Why the hate?

[Capitalism Forever]

Invictus, on Apr 7 2004, 07:22 AM, said:

I've not read much of what TOC have produced. Why the hate?

They are wolves in a sheep's clothing (albeit a rather transparent one, for anyone who understands Objectivism).

[BlackSabbath]

Capitalism Forever, on Apr 7 2004, 11:41 AM, said:

Invictus, on Apr 7 2004, 07:22 AM, said:

I've not read much of what TOC have produced. Why the hate?

They are wolves in a sheep's clothing (albeit a rather transparent one, for anyone who understands Objectivism).

Am I right in thinking that the TOC or at least Nathaniel Branden were opposed to the ARI's campaign against volunteerism when Bill Clinton was president?

[AutoJC]

BlackSabbath, on Apr 7 2004, 11:52 AM, said:

Am I right in thinking that the TOC or at least Nathaniel Branden were opposed to the ARI's campaign against volunteerism when Bill Clinton was president?

This, I believe, is the stand of TOC regarding "volunteerism."

It's consistent with capitalist attitudes regarding this issue.

[AutoJC]

I really have to read her commentary on TOC vs. ARI.

In my opinion, ARI seems to be the livelier of the two sites.

Topping both those sites, in my opinion, is www.capitalism.org.

If you like Robert Garmong you'll find his articles and commentaries here as well.

[BlackSabbath]

AutoJC, on Apr 9 2004, 03:18 PM, said:

I really have to read her commentary on TOC vs. ARI.

In my opinion, ARI seems to be the livelier of the two sites.

Topping both those sites, in my opinion, is www.capitalism.org.

If you like Robert Garmong you'll find his articles and commentaries here as well.

The Capitalism.org site is loosely linked with the ARI as is the Capitalism Magazine site.

I've got a tape from Second Renaissance books which is by Robert Garmong.

[Areactor]

BlackSabbath, on Apr 11 2004, 10:30 AM, said:

The Capitalism.org site is loosely linked with the ARI as is the Capitalism Magazine site.

I've got a tape from Second Renaissance books which is by Robert Garmong.

Hello

Someone really needs to explain the waring fractions to me. First I find out there's ARI, then I find out there's TOC, then out of nowhere I find out there's SOLO. Before I read the letters that "explained" the schisms, I thought they were all in tuned with each other. I've met people from all three organizations though. And the funny thing, they all some what differ in personality.

The ARI's are usually very serious and out of nowhere goes John Galt at me where they give me a philosophy lesson.

The TOC's are usually not very serious. If ARI was the fundementalist Christians, the TOC's would be your liberal Christians. Though I'm most in tune with ARI when it comes to personality, I enjoy discussions with the TOC's more then ARI because it's a discussion and not a philosophy lesson.

I've only met people from SOLO on the internet for they seem only to be internet based.

They all have beef with each other, but they all seem personal if you ask me with my current knowledge of the situation.

[BlackSabbath]

What's SOLO?

As for the TOC, I agree with what was written on the Blog.

I read a few of their articles a few years ago and they just all appear to have this watered down quality about them. None of their articles were as good as those written by the ARI writers.

[Areactor]

BlackSabbath, on Apr 11 2004, 11:30 AM, said:

What's SOLO?

As for the TOC, I agree with what was written on the Blog.

I read a few of their articles a few years ago and they just all appear to have this watered down quality about them. None of their articles were as good as those written by the  ARI writers.

Sense of Life Objectivists

http://www.solohq.com/

ARI articles are good but I still think TOC have a wider viarity then ARI. Maybe I really need to search through ARI more.

BTW, SOLO is an organization loosely tied to http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/
and
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/

All very informative. I suggest you look into them.

Now from the top of my head, SOLO broke from TOC like TOC broke away from ARI. Apparently SOLO says that TOC is just to damn tolerant. If ARI was dad and TOC was mom, SOLO would be daddy's little girl.

I like SOLO's approach a lot more when it comes to articles. After reading the article, you can just click and enter a discussion with the readers.

[WGD]

sense of life objectivists.

They think ARI is wrong about O'ism being a closed system...and they think
David Kelley is wrong about it being an open system.

They support preemption in the terror war... and America
is starting wars all over the place.

They have no problems with homosexuals in O'ism... and think homosexuals are
trying to take over O'ism.

They think TOC is too intellectual.
"It [TOC] was aimed at expanding the theory of Objectivism and wasn't primarily an agent of cultural change. It still uses dry, logical style of a think tank. Although this style is effective at communicating logical arguments and explanations, it does little to inspire or impress."

They seem to like "activism." Read mindless action.

[Areactor]

WGD, on Apr 11 2004, 02:58 PM, said:

sense of life objectivists.

They think ARI is wrong about O'ism being a closed system...and they think
David Kelley is wrong about it being an open system.

They support preemption in the terror war... and America
is starting wars all over the place.

They have no problems with homosexuals in O'ism... and think homosexuals are
trying to take over O'ism.

They think TOC is too intellectual. 
"It [TOC] was aimed at expanding the theory of Objectivism and wasn't primarily an agent of cultural change. It still uses dry, logical style of a think tank. Although this style is effective at communicating logical arguments and explanations, it does little to inspire or impress."

They seem to like "activism." Read mindless action.

Hello WGD

I don't know if they've ever gone far as to say they didn't like TOC because they believed TOC was wrong in believing Objectivism wasn't a closed system.

As for the homosexual one, they have the famous Chris Sciabarra, I don't know how such a stance is possible.

I'll look more into it.

[Areactor]

But nevertheless, even if they adhere to such contradictions, I enjoy many of their articles and discussions which leaves room for the authors and readers to converse. It also leaves room to bring up disagreements. But what I like the most about SOLO is that sometimes the authors will disagree with each other and discuss openly for all eyes to see.

[WGD]

solo founder Lindsay Perigo says David Kelley is wrong about O'ism being a
closed system. Joe Rowland runs solo and thinks David is right.

Perigo and Sciabarra are Homosexuals but then there is Reginald Firehammer, who wrote and sells a book called "Hijacking of a Philosophy." Its about a cabal of homosexual seeking to take over O'ism.[non fiction]

Sciabarra disagrees with the book, but encourages people to read it.

Perigo supports preemption in the terror war but Sciabarra thinks preemption is the opposite of what Ayn Rand supported.

But Reginald Firehammer agrees with Sciabarra that Perigo's view of preemption
is total non-O'ist.

Then there is...G. Stolyarov the II.
He's worth the price of admission all by himself.
He has his own spelling of words. Example: philosophy is filosofy and
photographic is fotografic. He must also get paid per word, but not to make sense.

[Areactor]

WGD, on Apr 11 2004, 04:44 PM, said:

solo founder Lindsay Perigo says David Kelley is wrong about O'ism being a
closed system. Joe Rowland runs solo and thinks David is right.

Perigo and Sciabarra are Homosexuals but then there is Reginald Firehammer, who wrote and sells a book called "Hijacking of a Philosophy." Its about a cabal of homosexual seeking to take over O'ism.[non fiction]

Sciabarra disagrees with the book, but encourages people to read it.

Perigo supports preemption in the terror war but Sciabarra thinks preemption is the opposite of what Ayn Rand supported.

But Reginald Firehammer agrees with Sciabarra that Perigo's view of preemption
is total non-O'ist.

Then there is...G. Stolyarov the II.
He's worth the price of admission all by himself.
He has his own spelling of words. Example: philosophy is filosofy and
photographic is fotografic. He must also get paid per word, but not to make sense.

lol. Seems Chris is the only sane one. But really, I ignore the crazys. If there's anything of value, I'll acknowledge it.

[BlackSabbath]

Areactor, on Apr 11 2004, 03:20 PM, said:

<Snip>

As for the homosexual one, they have the famous Chris Sciabarra, I don't know how such a stance is possible.

I'll look more into it.

Oh my god!

Chris Sciabarra. That's the biggest reason I stopped reading anything from the TOC. He is awful and talks the most byzantine drivel.

He once reviewed favourably an article (which wasn't linked and I never got to read) that said Georg Hegel's view of liberty was more Aristotelian than Ayn Rand!

And as for 'Feminist interpretations of Ayn Rand', give me a bucket.

[Richard_Halley]

This entire discussion is based on the absurd notion that the merit of each institution's depends on how nicely written (and various) its articles are.

The important issue is not the quality of the articles but the quality of the ideas.

Incidentally, we have a number of discussions explaining why the ideas supported by the Ayn Rand Institute are superior to those of TOC and SOLO...

[Areactor]

BlackSabbath, on Apr 11 2004, 05:15 PM, said:

Oh my god!

Chris Sciabarra. That's the biggest reason I stopped reading anything from the TOC. He is awful and talks the most byzantine drivel.

He once reviewed favourably an article (which wasn't linked and I never got to read) that said Georg Hegel's view of liberty was more Aristotelian than Ayn Rand!

And as for 'Feminist interpretations of Ayn Rand', give me a bucket.

The TOC has Sciabarra's writings?

Anyway, I find a lot of his writings to be quite enlightening. There's somethings I disagree with certain authors, but I stop stop reading them. For example, I found out that some authors of Capmag.com has articles posted on Worldnetdaily.com, a conservative YET highly fundementalist Christian website.

[BlackSabbath]

Areactor, on Apr 11 2004, 05:59 PM, said:

The TOC has Sciabarra's writings?

Anyway, I find a lot of his writings to be quite enlightening. There's somethings I disagree with certain authors, but I stop stop reading them. For example, I found out that some authors of Capmag.com has articles posted on Worldnetdaily.com, a conservative YET highly fundementalist Christian website.

Well not quite, but there used to be a magazine on-line called the Daily Objectivist which Sciabarra wrote for along with 'Objectivists' of the TOC.

They were awful so I stopped reading them.

Capmag does have caveats at the bottom of each article and I have noticed that some of it's columnists aren't objectivists.

Some of their writers are better than others. Capmag presumably allows them because of the political views expressed in particular articles as long as they do not explicitly recommend Christianity.

ANd I agree with Richard Halley about the ARI Vs TOC. The ARI articels are far more confident in nature and not watered down by tolerationism.