I apologize if this post is a bit short, but: very good point…

I do agree that a person’s ideas can be used to evaluate that person. What else, after all, can we use to evaluate a person but behavior and speech– verbalized ideas? Even that, though is dangerous, the infamous Machiavelli was few of the things he is famous for promoting.

But I think I can understand where John is coming from, but that maybe what he was trying to say (and maybe I’m wrong) was a bit misconstrued:

When judging an idea, we must judge it separately from the man who proposes and promotes it, conversely, when judging a man, we must judge him in light of all the ideas he proposes and promotes.

As the definition wanders along, it starts to lose me too. “…laissez-faire capitalism and blah blah art blah abstract blah blah blah blah…”

That said, I don’t much disagree with the beginning part of the definition of Objectivism:

“that there is a mind-independent reality; that individuals are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that humans gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement and form valid concepts by measurement omission”

Sure, I’m with all of that. And I tend to be somewhere between Sartrean existentialism and Camusian absurdism in my own views. Hell, even Sartre, the high priest of subjectivism, acknowledged “mind-independent reality,” which he dubbed “being in-itself.” But beyond that, Rand’s ideas don’t much appeal to me.

What Kim meant, I don’t know. I do know that positions that include ‘no critics allowed’ reflect badly upon the persons holding those position. Maybe that’s just me?

I’ll look up Nathaniel and Barbara when I get the chance.

I suspect that she was just confused, particularly since the statement seems like a mangled condensation of my criteria for a mailing list for Objectivist bloggers. (I didn’t want people friendly with the lying critics of Ayn Rand, such as Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, to join the list. I’m friendly with some of those people, including bloggers, so I wanted to be clear from the get-go when I posted my invitation to join the list.)

FYI, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden are the major source of the claims about Ayn Rand’s cultism, neurosis, etc. Their accounts of Ayn Rand have been very thoroughly demolished by Jim Valliant’s recent book _The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics_. Their biographies should have been looked at with a bit more skepticism from the outset, however. Seriously, how would you like your life story to be written after your death by your former lover and his wife, with whom you broke after discovering their years of deception? (It wasn’t adultery, btw, as all parties consented.) Also, reports from people I know who around at the time suggest that Nathaniel Branden was the power-hungry cultist — acting without Ayn Rand’s knowledge or permission — as a little dictator.

However, you can also see for yourself what Ayn Rand was like. The Ayn Rand Institute (aynrand.org) has a huge audio library of her Ford Hall Forum (and other) talks. So you can hear how she answered questions, interacted with interviewers, and the like. You’ll find that she was consistently patient and polite, i.e. nothing like what her critics claim.

Sure. Of course. What puzzles me is why someone would choose a definition that reflects so badly upon the person who chose it.

Indeed, that is wrong. An Objectivist is simply someone who agrees with and lives by Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism.

You have to make the separation. Consider: A man imprisoned for multiple violent rape and murder, having nothing better to do, spends his sentence studying mathematics and ultimately provides the equations that connect relativity and quantum mechanics. Dismiss those equations because the man is flawed? No. That makes no sense.

You cite Dr. Sanity approvingly that “you must judge an idea separate from the person who conceives it or promotes it.” On the face, this doesn’t sound like a good policy. If someone you know sudden conceives of and starts promoting the idea that rape is okay, I would be totally appalled and would immediately judge that person to be evil. There is no way I could divorce the idea from the person promoting it. I am not sure what you gain by separating the judgment of an idea from those promoting it.

Like I said, it is sad. Rand was probably smarter than the average bear.

Double posting is OK if you’ve got new content. See? I just double posted too.

There is probably something to what you say about successful people and egos, at least in a very broad survey sort of way. And I understand the wish to defend your brainchild, but a brainchild worth its salt ought to able to stand on its own… and it ought to be able to grow.

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=7933&SectionName=After%20Words&PlayMedia=Yes