Fred Weiss
-
Posts
295 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Fred Weiss
-
-
How can you possibly claim that a film is bad without actually watching it?
How can you possibly claim that Australia exists without actually going there and seeing it for yourself?
Not everything requires your own first hand observation for you to know something about it, which in any case would be impossible. I've not been to the former WTC site, but I believe it's an absolute certainty that the WTC no longer exists.
I suppose it's possible that even it's supporters - who acknowledge it is blatantly slanted propaganda - might even be wrong about it. But how likely is that? I suppose it's possible that the dozens of reports about it, which include factual descriptions of its content, might all be false. If that were the case, I wonder then why even Moore and his supporters don't deny them.
This btw is the best review of it I've read, the best epistemologically, i.e. the one that most fundamentally names what is wrong with the illogical way that Moore thinks - and, I might add, much of the left these days. Not surprisingly it was written by Mark Steyn:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn04.html
Fred Weiss
-
Betsy - didn't mean to trouble you. I was simply pointing out that certainty without evidence is as much a problem for a relativist as it is for a theist, atheist or objectivist. My question to the group is 'How does one qualify evidence to be evidence?' To me something maybe fantasy, to you it would be life-or-death certainty. For example, your critique of my finite mind's inability to be certain could be shown likewise show your own mental limitations of certainty, and would leave both of us with the inability to assert "certainty".
You're really asking, "Can we really know anything?" which is an invalid question. You can't ask - or answer - such a question without presupposing the very thing you are questioning. You can ask, "How do we know?" but not whether we can know.
We know by means of evidence and by being able to distinguish fantasy from reality, by being able to identify the logical connection between things. Without that you couldn't have knowledge. So to question that is to question the very possibility of knowledge itself, which renders the very question meaningless, and makes it impossible to answer.
As to how one "qualifies" evidence - by which I assume you mean judges whether evidence is sound or not - that's the purpose of careful observation and logic. Why in the year 2004, 100's of years after the Scientific Revolution, in the face of the existence of our advanced civilization and that we have gone from oxcarts to spaceships, are you still confused about that? I ask that not so much with the intention of insulting you, but it puzzles me in regard to anyone who, in this era, still holds on to the epistemological equivalent of primitive savagery governed by belief in superstition and magic
Fred Weiss
-
...There doesnt seem to actually be a way to determine somethings identity without observing how it interacts with other objects,...
That's probably true. So? I don't believe anyone is saying otherwise.
You are really changing the terms of the discussion by bringing in the (indefinite) future, which would presuppose omniscience. Even given conditions in Hume's time and the knowledge of the human body and nutrition which was not yet known, he should have been able to acknowledge the necessary connection between eating bread and nourishing the human body. Starving people survived after eating it. Starving people without it died. Without knowledge of Vitamin C they knew that eating lemons and limes prevented scurvy. They knew there was "something" in them which prevented it.Let's take something concrete: in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Hume used the example of a loaf of bread. We know that the bread nourishes humans, but we don't know why (remember this was written in the 18th century before scientists had an understanding of the human body). Therefore, we have no justification for believing that bread will nourish humans in the future, other than the fact that it has always done so in the past.I could imagine that had this conversation occurred 150 years ago, some people might have been devout that the identity of metal precludes it from flying through the air.Given the knowledge of the time, they would have been correct.
Fred Weiss
-
<nitpick>
Buttinsky here. I don't think that your knowledge of a thing's identity has any influence on what it can and cannot do. But it does determine whether you know what it can and cannot do. This is why bumblebees were able to fly, for I suppose hundreds of millions of years, before we sorted out the physics of bumblebee flight.
</nitpick>
Yes, you're right. A bit more than a nit since I had let some "primacy of consciousness" slip into my formulation.
But it is nonetheless important to emphasize in this context that our knowledge, once firmly established, i.e. once we have achieved certainty, and if it therefore constitutes an identification of metaphysical necessity (what Betsy is calling "knowledge of identity"), does impart logical necessity. That is, it then does become a contradiction to deny it.
Fred Weiss
-
...The principle of identity tells us that a thing is what it is. As such, it is uninformative regarding the content of the external world...Since the identity principle cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality, it has no value as a check on empirical generalisations, ...
If the laws of physics tell you that a cow cannot jump over the moon, i.e. that the identity of a cow is such that it lacks the propulsive force to break through the atmosphere of the earth, you don't regard that as "informative regarding the content of the external world" or as a fact which distinguishes between a fairy tale and reality?
Modern philosophy tells you that it is not a (logical) contradiction to assert that a cow can jump over the moon. All you have to do is ignore (and contradict) everything we know in the process of uttering such a pronouncement. The essence of such a view is that - logically - there is no distinction between cartoons and fairytales and actual reality. It is in fact the outright denial of the Law of Identity (and its corollary, the Law of Causality) which lies at the heart of modern philosophy and has severed the relationship of logic to reality - leading you to say things like logic has nothing to do with reality.
What Betsy is saying is that once you know the identity of something, it necessarily determines - *logically* if you will - what it can and cannot do. In other words we reside in a universe governed by Identity, not in a Walt Disney cartoon - or in a mystical world subject to miracles.
No, just knowing that everything has identity doesn't tell you what that identity is. That in every instance we have to discover. But once discovered and known...then it is discovered and known. And that knowledge cannot be ignored...cannot *logically* be ignored. Well, except at your peril.
To grasp this principle, stand in front of an oncoming speeding train and wish - wish as hard as you can - that it won't smash you to smithereens. Or stand in a cow pasture and wish that the cows - any cow - will on your behalf jump over the moon. In fact even if you wish very hard, none of them will even be able to jump the fence.
Such is the Law of Identity applied to "empirical reality".
Fred Weiss
-
To continue your example, if the fictional account of the American Revolution had the entire text of Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government embedded within it, as well as the full Declaration of Independence, American Constitution, and assorted political speeches by Franklin and Jefferson, then I would claim that it would lose its classification of 'fiction' and become a hybrid of fiction and political philosophy. This is essentially how I view Atlas Shrugged.
If Atlas had included the equivalent of the "entire text" of OPAR, yes I'd agree with you. But keep in mind that OPAR itself is a summary of the philosophy. So Galt's Speech is a bare bones summary - and, I might add, a brilliant exercise in essentializing.
As for a fictional account of the American Revolution, yes it should include something like the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence and a number of the key speeches of the Founders. No, not the entire Constitution, but certainly the Bill of Rights and a number of the key provisions which are at the heart of the American system of gov't (such as "separation of powers"). But keep in mind this would be a fictional account assuming that it had never occured, so these would be documents the reader had never seen before. How could anyone grasp anything like the magnitude of the American Revolution *without* those documents? They were what made it possible. In the same way, the speeches in Atlas explain what made the strike possible and what motivated the key players to take the action they did. Without those speeches how could you understand what motivated them?
Again, this is action motivated and driven by ideas - ideas that are entirely revolutionary and which had never been heard before. This is the first time in history anyone had ever conceived of anything like this. So those speeches were not only not superfluous, they were essential to the storyline. Without them the story in Atlas would not have made sense - any more than the American Revolution would have made sense without the Declaration and the ideas of the Founders presented in their speeches and the key documents they produced.
It is entirely arbitrary to declare that since Atlas includes philosophical statements it can't be truly regarded as fiction. Yes, Atlas is also philosophical (and it is hardly the first novel which is). But its essence is a masterful integration of philosophy and fiction. That there are very few, if any, other novels which managed to achieve that integration with the skill of AR can hardly be held against her. It is yet another example of her extraordinary and original genius.
Fred Weiss
-
I do not like these scisms they are ugly and unnecessary.
I agree. I think it was "ugly and unnecessary" for Kelley to reject certain key fundamentals of Objectivism and then to continue calling what he was advocating "Objectivism".
For a good statement of some of the issues involved from a strong former supporter of Kelley's I suggest the following:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/toc/statement.html
I should add that while I admire Ms. Hsieh's courage in making this statement, she apparently still has a way to go in grasping the full implications of her insights. For example, she still supports Chris Sciabarra and for some puzzling reason doesn't see that everything she says about Kelley applies just as much, if not moreso, to him.
Fred Weiss
-
Well I agree that AS was a great book, I just don't think it is great as literature qua literature. While I'm sure you enjoyed the many mini-essays (as did I), this would primarilly be because you agreed with their content. Someone who did not share Rand's philosophy would most likely have grown tired of the relentless proselytizing that occured on almost every second page. It's certainly hard to imagine someone unsympathetic to Rand's beliefs happily plowing through the forty-seventh speech that explains why morality is objective and why the failure to recognise this is destroying society.
I don't think that major agreement with an author's philosophy should be a pre-requistite to enjoy a book. It's certainly possible to write an Objectivism-themed novel without beating the reader over the head with the principles every second sentence, and Rand achieved this in the Fountainhead (probably in We Are The Living too, but I havent read it yet). Consider other supposed works of great literature such as those outputted by Tolstoy, Doestovsky or Hugo. Someone who disagreed with the philosophies of these authors may still find much of value within their works, and enjoy reading them regardless. I cannot say the same with regard to Atlas Shrugged.
So if the American Revolution had not occured and some genius of AR's caliber had conceived it in fiction, including the essence of the critical and motivating speeches and documents, would you also regard including them in the novel as mere proselytizing? And then would you also say that it would be unfair to include them because communists, socialists, and fascists would disagree with them - and why don't they have the right to enjoy the book as much as supporters of liberty?
Incidentally, a great many opponents of Objectivism have read and appreciated AS, even if they disagreed with it, just as Objectivists have read and appreciated any number of novels (such as Hugo's) which project philosophical beliefs they don't agree with.
What AS does require is a somewhat more sophisticated reader - but that is true of any great work of art, whether novel, symphony, drama, poetry, or music. In the case of AS all they would need to grasp and appreciate is the importance of ideas in shaping important events in history. True, some people don't get this or regard ideas as "just theory" or find them boring. And in fact, I understand, AR's publisher pleaded with her to cut some of it to make it more appealing and saleable. But AR knew to omit the ideas would in effect diminish the power of the book and thereby its greatness. Furthermore, it proved to be a phenomenal best seller and in contrast to many lesser works which don't burden the reader with what you regard as gratuitous speeches and which in fact became best sellers of their day, they have died and hardly anyone reads them any longer. But AS continues to sell and has to be regarded as a modern classic. It, along with its speeches, will be read for centuries to come.
Fred Weiss
-
Taken purely as works of fiction, ie novels, I would say that Fountainhead is many times better than Atlas Shrugged, since it is _actually_ a novel, whereas AS is more of a fiction-nonfiction hybrid. A book which contains dozens of philosophical tracts often longer than a page cannot be classed as 'fiction' in the sense that the term is normally used. A book with a 130 page essay embedded within it is not a 'novel', by any accepted definiton of the word.
As a work of philosophy however, AS is obviously far superior (although I do think that Galt's speech is out of place - it's far too indepth and long to be proper for inclusion in a piece of literature, and far too simplistic and unscholarly to stand-alone as a work of philosophy. I doubt that 90% of readers bothered reading more than a few pages of it on their first reading of the book)
The speeches in AS are well integrated into the story line and in fact, given the nature of that story, are essential to it. This is a story of the strike of "the men of the mind", at the root of which were a body of ideas - and one cannot understand that strike without those ideas. It would be as if one were to write a fictionalized account of the American Revolution without the key ideas which prompted and motivated it.
Galt's Speech summarizes the ideas behind the strike. It couldn't be more than a summary and it had to be written in the form it was because it was a radio speech. But to also criticize it for not being a fully worked out philosophical treatise drops the entire context. (Ayn Rand spent the next 25 years of her life expanding on it.)
Whether readers pause and carefully study the speech on their first reading of the novel is really irrelevant. How many listeners to the (fictional) radio talk would have done that?
I'll just add that if what you said were true, then Victor Hugo didn't write novels either, since all his novels also include long essays on subjects related to the story.
In contrast to AR however the necessity of Hugo's digressions are often of questionable value to the story and are usually at best of marginal interest.
AS is in fact an extraordinary integration of ideas and story, of logical plot development and intriguing character development, combined with beautiful, clear writing style. In my view it is the greatest novel ever written.
Fred Weiss
-
That's more or less correct. Their basic error, epistemologically anyway, is to confuse definitions with the things defined, so they end up looking at words rather than reality. That's how they can reach such absurd conclusions with seemingly convincing arguments.
I think that's a very good insight. Would you care to elaborate?
Fred Weiss
-
(For Objectivists following this post: anyone notice the similarity between the case against abortion and the case for anarchy?)
It wouldn't surprise me if there were a similarity since they both take rights as floating abstractions and argue rationalistically to absurd conclusions, so I'd be interested in what you're noticing.
Fred Weiss
-
Yes; I think that's the essence of Fred's objection to certainty as a singular state. The emotional and the epistemological integrate at the point of founding that feeling of confidence in rational analysis of the facts. And unfortunately, it is perfectly correct to use the term in both ways. Referring to the emotion with a word such as "confidence" may help keep the concepts separate.
Gee, I hope not. Then I'd be falling into Gordon's distinction of "feeling" certain vs. "epistemic" certainty (which we all concluded I thought was an "anti-concept").
Just to clarify for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with these hpo debates, it is possible for people to *feel* certain about many things, including the irrational. So obviously merely feeling certain doesn't constitute any basis for rational certainty. Rational certainty must be arrived at by reason supported by conclusive evidence, with no contrary evidence. So, whatever feelings may accompanying it, the rational basis for the certainty is not a feeling.
The question is whether a degree of evidence can be achieved sufficient for such certainty, but where additional supporting evidence can add even more weight to that certainty, making it in effect "even more certain".
I haven't been ignoring the arguments of all you "singularists", I'm just still thinking about it.
Incidentally, in relation to the discussion of rationalism, I'll pass along a "secret" to all of you on how to ward off that mode of thinking. I won't be convinced about this issue until I can thoroughly *concretize* it in my mind, i.e. reduce it to actual examples in reality. The reason for my delay is that, given the limited amount of time I've had to devote to this issue, the only examples I can come up with so far support the "singularist" argument. But I want to keep trying to come up with a counter example(s) - in effect, "See, here's an example of justifiable certainty, but where adding more evidence makes it even more certain". Something like, "It was certain that Saddam Hussein had WMD and he constituted a danger to us in that regard." Then we discover some actual caches of the stuff and some of the people involved in the program admit that he was planning to use them. Now we can be "even more certain of it". Notice, if it were true that the former was sufficient for the certainty and justified the invasion, then mentioning the discovery of actual caches of the stuff shouldn't matter and would be entirely superfluous. But I doubt anyone would fail to mention it if such evidence existed. If it doesn't add to the certainty, why mention it?
Fred Weiss
-
I haven't followed the specifics of this particular debate. I don't know who Woxor is. But I agree with the spirit of what Don is saying and my general impression is that the axe is given to opponents of Objectivism much too quickly here.
Don't diminish the power of Objectivism. It's critics can be answered but you need to develop the skills at doing it effectively. When you do it effectively, they tend to shut up quickly. But you are not going to develop those skills if you simply chase people away before they have been answered.
Fred Weiss
-
... I personally can empathize with the assertion that it is our moral duty to ensure state education is improved, ...
The best way to improve state education is to abolish it.
Fred Weiss
-
Can we know when a fetus becomes a person
I don't believe that's relevant. What's relevant is when it has rights. In my view it's when it is an independent being, no longer dependent on the mother's body for its survival and no longer residing in the mother's body. At birth, while it is still dependent, it is no longer dependent specifically on the mother - in that sense it is a separate independent entity - and most importantly in my view, it no longer resides in the woman's body.
At that point, as an (infant) human being, it is a person and has rights.
Even if you concocted some notion of "person" for which a fetus qualified, it would still be the case that it is dependent on the mother and resides in her body - and therefore bestowing any rights on it would require a denial of the rights of the mother upon whom it depends for its existence.
Fred Weiss
-
Matt: Doesn't citing Orrin Boyle in such a manner accomplish the same thing as what I stated originally? It ignores the virtuous businessmen, which effectively denies their existence.
You may just be dealing with "Missing Link" types (I'm referring to AR's essay on the subject in PWNI), i.e. people who just can't grasp the kinds of distinctions AR makes or think in essentials or think conceptually at a high enough level to get what she is driving at - either with regard to the issue you are raising or any other.
You know, for many, if not most, people FTHD and Atlas are just stories with little or no philosophical implications that they can discern or have any interest in grappling with.
Fred Weiss
-
... the united states is really lucky for all the immigrants its attracted. it filters out the moochers of the world...who stay in their socialist governments...and only attracts those who actually see the great benefits of capitalism. myself included ...as i am an immigrant and proud citizen of this country.
p.s. i am against all forms of socialism...including welfare...and would be quite happy to see it eliminated.
The irony is that our welfare state has made immigration essential in certain fields, most notably health care. Increasing gov't encroachment in health care has made the field increasingly unattractive to the "best and the brightest" and the most ambitious of Americans as it was in years past, requiring us more and more to depend on immigrants to fill in the gaps.
How much of our welfare system would be additionally "burdened" by immigrants who presumptively wouldn't be contributing to it is questionable in my mind. Even in the early years, immigrants were not only considered entitled to public education (not to mention other basic services such as police protection) but it was considered desirable - under the principle of the "melting pot" - to give it to them. Today admittedly they are "entitled" to much more, so there may be a legitimate concern there. But I strongly doubt the merit of the argument when weighed against the enormous benefit we would experience from a major influx of immigrants eager to work hard and succeed.
Fred Weiss
-
I would like to comment simply on this one aspect. One of the most vicious arguments opponents of abortion make is this: the woman chose to engage in an action that she knew could lead to the conception of a child, and therefore she must accept the consequences that follow.
Yeah, you're absolutely right.
They might as well say it's your responsibility if you get hit by a car crossing the street. So, you got hit by a car. Tough. Next time don't cross the street. That'll teach ya!
It turns the act of sex into a crap shoot, since even in situations where the woman doesn't want a child and takes measures against it, such as contraception, it might fail - and suddenly she is burdened with the responsibility of an unwanted child.
For religious fundamentalists, who regard the act of sex as primarily for the purpose of procreation, this is not a problem. But to hear purported Objectivists sometimes arguing along these lines is truly amazing. It always suggest to me that there are some other, more fundamental, problems they have with the philosophy.
Fred Weiss
-
I saw an analogy earlier in this thread involving an oak tree.
The argument was something like this: "an acorn is a potential oak tree, but one cannot build a house with it." A baby oak tree that is six inches high is an actual oak tree, but one could not build a house with it either.
But an acorn is still not an oak tree. Ask any squirrel.
I would argue that, in the same way, a fertilized egg is an actual human being, but it cannot do most of the things most other humans can.I'm not aware of anything it can do which humans can.
Here's the fundamental issue: prior to birth a fetus is physically dependent on its mother upon whom it depends for survival and it is in the mother's body, which is her property. After birth it is no longer dependent on the mother (anyone can care for it) and it is no longer in the mother's body, i.e. it is a separate being.
So, it is at that point, at birth, that a logical point exists to acknowledge the existence of rights. Prior to that point, to arbitrarily grant the fetus rights, you would have to override the mother's right to her body - not to mention, when considering the whole range of moral, legal and financial obligations which ensue upon child birth - the woman's right to her life.
Fred Weiss
-
I must say that I’ve read the novel a few times but Eddie wasn’t my focus. So, his psychology I can’t really say much about. Maybe on my next read I’ll focus better on him. But certainly there is something wrong with his role as informant to “the enemy”.
Yeah, but Dagny isn't really "the enemy" - I mean hardly. Galt afterall is extremely attracted to her and considers her his most important potential recruit, along with Rearden.
Considering that Galt and Dagny end up lovers, do you really think she would have fired Eddie Willers? Keep in mind she and Eddie had known each other since childhood, so for Eddie to talk about Dagny in deeply personal terms to someone whom he regarded as a confidant and someone he could trust is not inappropriate. He had no reason to suspect it would go any further and given the way things were going he needed someone to talk to about the company and woman he worshipped.
True, someone else might not have revealed that information. But Eddie Willers wasn't someone else. He was Eddie Willers with a very specific relationship to Dagny.
Fred Weiss
-
Eddie Willers ..reveals all these secrets about Dagny to a total stranger, to a person whose name he doesn’t know.., he acts on his feelings: he is irrational...I too felt sad and anger at Eddie’s end but then I remembered his betrayal and felt a sense of justice... Although, Eddie was a good man.
I'm not exactly sure how you can regard a supposedly untrustworthy and irrational man as nonetheless good!
Yours is surely the most bizarre interpretation of Eddie Willers I have ever heard.
First, there is no implication in the book that he is consciously betraying Dagny. It is not even clear that he is being indiscreet. He obviously has no idea that he is talking to John Galt.
Secondly, not being consciously, explicitly clear about all your values and principles does not mean you are irrational! If that were the case than even Roark and Rearden were irrational, both of whom struggled to understand certain principles which weren't clear to them.
Eddie is not an intellectual and he's about perhaps of average intelligence, but he is clearly depicted as a thoroughly decent and good man, conscientiously attempting to do what is right. He symbolizes the very best of "everyman", those in fact who are the *victims* of the irrationality of their betters in the kind of culture depicted in Atlas.
No, he couldn't be admitted to Galt's Gulch, the admission to which was highly, highly selective. If it had included the "Eddie Willers" of the world it would have had to accomodate 1000s of people. The people in Galt's Gulch were intended to symbolize the "men of the mind", those upon whom the "Eddie Willers" of the world depend for their survival. The distinction was not between the rational and the irrational. Many rational men were left behind.
Fred Weiss
-
BTW I am frankly puzzled at the nature of my indecency and ingraciousness which you referred to -- it certainly was not my intent to snub you.
I'll get to your - and Betsy's and Don's - more substantive comments later but in regard to this, I do hope you realize that I was just "pulling your string" and teasing you.
Fred Weiss
-
Yes, I had browsed over the movies thread and saw Betsy comment that Objectivists often disagree on movies.
No, it's not that. It's that everything Betsy likes, we like something else. And we really don't like what Stephen likes!
One other thing to keep in mind is that your tastes can change over time. I like certain books/movies now that I didn't like when I was younger.Disagreement is fine! People may like a movie for many different reasons, some of which may have very little to do wiht Objectivism (such as the movie reminding them of something special, loving a particular actor/actress or enjoying a certain kind of humor). It seems hard for Objectivists to understand that.As for Hugo, I love his work,...That just goes to show what a person of advanced and refined tastes you are.
I couldn't have gotten through 10 pages of a Hugo novel when I was younger.
.. but I can understand impatience with it. It's translated from French, has 30-50 page long commercials on barnacles or the historical architecture of french chrurches and certainly not light reading. If you don't love readin already, Hugo maybe a stretch. A gratifying stretch, but a stretch nonetheless. Ahh, intellectual yoga, I love it!
That's not usually what I hear from the Objectivists who don't like him. It's the tragic element. That's a whole other topic.
Btw, I understand that those lengthy "sidebars" where he goes on for pages and pages describing cathedrals or battlefields, he did entirely from memory and with nonetheless uncanny accuracy. The man had an incredible mind for detail which I understand is a not uncommon characteristic of men of great genius. AR is another example.
A good fictional example is Jed Bartlett, the President in the TV show, West Wing. There are some funny bits where he bores some staffer to tears with long, detailed descriptions of the national parks or some historical event or any of a myriad of other things at which he is an expert.
Fred Weiss
-
I can't speak for Betsy of course, but the answer, in my view, is no, you cannot be certain unless you reduce an inductive conclusion to an identity. Otherwise, what you have is a correlation, which - even if it is a 100% correlation - is not necessarily a causal connection.
I'm not sure what you (or Betsy) mean by "reducing it to an identity". Are you saying that you can't be certain that if you push a glass off a table that it won't crash to the floor unless you understand the physics of it?
Also none of you really responded yet to my contention that it is perfectly valid to refer to your view of something that you are more - or less - certain of it than something else. And, that you could say of something, "I'm even more certain of it now than I was before". This would suggest that certainty is not necessarily a "singularity" and could allow for a continuum.
Stephen once tried to explain to me why this view of mine causes some problems but I wasn't clear what his point was and I remain unconvinced.
Incidentally, I don't think Peikoff is definitive on this subject, though he appears to favor your view of it more than mine. The point is though that I don't think his view of it necessarily precludes mine.
I have a trick question for you. Which do you think is more certain - that smoking causes cancer or that a cow can't jump over the moon?
Fred Weiss
P.S.: One of the anti-Objectivist academics on hpo - I think it may have been Churl Beck - contended that "furniture" (and some other concepts) don't have any apparent CCD's (Conceptual Common Denominators) throwing AR's entire theory of concepts into question. Don, do I understand it that you think you have an answer to this challenge on your web page? I thought I saw what appeared to be a comment of yours which addresses this question. Am I correct?
Homogenization
in Current Events
Posted
You mean if we regard Ayn Rand as "just like you and me", just the lil' ol' woman next door who just happened to write Atlas Shrugged, our critics will think better of us?
Apparently you don't realize what a profoundly cowardly and second-handed type of view that is.
Screw our critics. Their entire purpose is to diminish Objectivism and drag it down to the level of the ordinary, i.e. down to their level. And you think by embracing that view we promote Objectivism?
There's also a fairly obvious dishonesty in the way in which you frame your comment. Who, including AR herself, ever said she never made mistakes. You are setting up a deliberately irrational standard for judgement and then using it as a means to insult both Ayn Rand and her admirers.
I suggest you start by questioning what you regard as "perfection" in judging a person.
Fred Weiss