Ayn Rand/Objectivism Sightings
Free Radical Updates
Local Club Meeting Plans
News & Interesting Links
PI Editorial. Wed May 29
Jason says, " ... my criticisms of Objectivism as a 'reformed Objectivist' are that it's too relative and subjective and thus self-defeating if carried to its logical ends." I don't know how "relative & subjective" something has to be to be TOO relative & subjective, nor do I know how Objectivism is self-defeating if carried to its logical ends. Jason refers to an earlier post, whose content I've forgotten as I write this. The comments I wanted to address briefly here are these:
"Disagree with an Objectivist and you'll either be excommunicated, told you're going to philosophical hell, told you're evil, or told you're anti-reason. The last label is particularly ironic. ... Walter Kaufman [sic] once said (in his Critique of Religion and Philosophy) that the difference between a philosopher and a theologian is that the former searches for truth regardless of where it leads, and the latter starts with an idea of what is true and defends it at all costs, even against reality. Objectivists have a tendency to be closer to the latter than the former."
These criticisms are scarcely new - nor are they unfounded. TOC was a rebellion against the above tendencies; so too, in part, is SOLO. Jason's observations would be more complete if he acknowledged that. But the answer to this sort of dogmatism is not another type which enjoins, at least implicitly, that the function of philosophy is endless nitpicking devoid of conclusions & militantly devoid of moral judgement. It is that view of philosophy that has rendered it useless, & led some of its practitioners openly to PROCLAIM that it's useless. For examples, see my editorial in the upcoming Free Radical.
Anger born of religiosity is a sad spectacle. Anger born of exasperation with perverse, perverted pedantry is legitimate; indeed, it's the absence of such anger that's a sad spectacle.
Discuss this Article (2 messages)