| | Re Ed, 105
I do not disagree with the main gist of Randian ethics as principles. I think that where values come from and why they differ among individuals needs to be more closely and critically addressed and that biology provides a means of doing this. There is precious little I would say is wrong with her ethics except, perhaps, for a tendency to moralize and be judgmental for the sake of being judgmental which was never explicitly advocated but which is evident as implication in her later writings and actions.
Regarding Gallaudet, although some of the problems were ethical, the main problems would have remained that until their natures as spatial rather than sequential thinkers was analyzed (which could only be done through the specific sciences, and not through ethics) there would be no real understanding of their unique "subtype" or whatever you want to call it. I strongly suggest reading Sacks' book. It may not be obvious to someone not trained in linguistics as to what he is saying at all times, but perhaps Mike will review it for us as well.
----
My areas of "expertise" are biology (evolutionary, ecological, rather than physiological) philosophy, archeology, anthropology, and linguistics. I am a comparative thinker by nature. In general, I get frustrated when I hear people (o'ist or not) discussing topics like homosexuality and ebonics with a context that includes only modern Western English-language perspective that begins with the date of their birth. I like Paglia and many other thinkers who are not necessarily known to objectivists because they talk about controversial subjects in a very broad context. Talk to Paglia about homosexuality and she will not only reference the most recent scientific discoveries, but will draw comparisons with Antinous & Hadrian, with the initiation rites of New Guinea natives, with the transvestism and spirituality of the Siberian and Amerind Shamans and the attitude toward sodomy of the Catholic culture of the Middle Ages.
But most modern thought on the subject assumes that gay=leather clad parade exhibitionists=promiscuity=Democrat=so on. My comment on Rand compared to Jesus well towards the beginning of this post, where I said (admittedly provocatively) that for Rand, biology was tantamount to birth control, was an expression of this frustration when such parochialism appears in Objectivist thought.
Much of what I have been saying here needs very lengthy treatment in book form, and while I have discussed such issues before, I have usually held my tongue because I understand that without documentation and very detailed examples much of what I wish to say will be misconstrued or unclear. It is perhaps my fault that rather than holding my thoughts, I jumped into the fray this time. But given the recent more civil tone, I hope what I am saying is having some positive effect.
----
Again, I am not attacking any of Rand's politics or her analysis of the virtues. I am merely arguing that a broader understanding of human nature and a better worked out theory of value are necessary, and that the special sciences, specifically comparative and Darwinian methodologies will be most helpful in doing so. I am in no way interested in subjectivism, anarchism, Nietzscheanism, whim worship, or any of the like. I am interested in analyzing which values are universal, which are optional, which are "innate" and which are subject to change.
I am posting on my lunch break, so more later.
Ted
|
|
