Kinda like Rand seems, from what little I know of her – Randian Objectivism just takes philosophical objectivism (the fairly common sense belief that there’s a reality external to our minds that we’re experiencing semi-accurately through our senses)**, then races screaming of a cliff with it (somehow taking it to imply that we should then be empowered to do whatever we want in a laissez-faire utopia).

It seems to me that many seriously nutty philosophies come when someone takes simple, commonly held beliefs, then grafts their own particular piece of crazy on top and claims it to be a special philosophy that is both provable, insightful, and unique. So, apparently you’re meant to capitalize Rand’s version, cos it’s extra special..

Fruitloops.

I like plain old philosophical objectivism – it pisses me off that Rand co-opted it. Persuasion through obfuscation! Yay!

* Philosophical objectivism, to some extent, underlies an awful lot of discourse – you can’t really take learning, knowledge gathering or discourse seriously without at least some flavour of it – for example, the scientific method is learning about _something_ through observing it – the existence of that something is generally presumed necessary. Of course, then relativism gets in the way, and you can start arguing about how many somethings there are, and whether they are subjectively experienced, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish.

I hear Cresswell’s been angry ever since Jameson crossed over from the Judean People’s Front to the People’s Front of Judea.

It does puzzle me, the strange goings on in small parties. I gave up on the kiwiblog comments section when I saw a couple of Act party supporters agonising over who would be number 12 on their party list.

Politics has long been an option for career advancement. I do not see why Jameson, or anyone for that matter, should have to pass an Ideological Purity Test.

If by that you mean…

“common sense blown out of all proportion by artificial devices until it doesn’t resemble common sense at all”

…then it’s actually a pretty good metaphor.

L

Actually, I’d just call Objectivism common sense on steroids. See.

And I wouldn’t call Jameson an Objectivist. Just an arsehole with bad grammar.

Fair enough, but isn’t that inseparability business the whole point of objectivism?

A either equals A’ or it doesn’t Phil.

In effect, you are implying that one cannot separate their personal view from their professional occupation.

Seems to be a shallower pool than I first thought.

Anyone with a SOLO account want to ask him whether `less’ was intentional or not?

L

Extracts from Glenn Jameson’s feedback, on Willie Jackson’s “Eye to Eye” website, commenting on Te Reo:

Objectively speaking, Maori is, outside of their own communities, schools and Maori TV, completely and utterly useless. And these brown clowns want to make it compulsory?! … The moral inversion these debates create is sickening, with brown-nosing dimwits like Linda Ross-Smith bleating on about the “bigotry displayed by your two pakeha guests.” The only racists in that room, Hone, were the “Mordi” on the geographical and political left of that panel, who insist on shoving ethnic-based policies — which are by their very nature racist — down our throats.

Now that’s what you call off-message!