Self-intro

[gurugeorge]

I've leapt into a couple of discussions somewhat, so I think I should introduce myself. I've a long-standing interest in Objectivism, and prior to that, and throughout all, a long-standing amateur's passion for philosophy. I wouldn't say I'm an Objectivist, because I'm still undecided on a lot of philosophical issues - I've held several positions, and see many sides to many arguments on most of the points discussed here. In general, I'd say that I agree with many Objectivist premises and conclusions, but not all, and that while I admire the architectonic of Objectivism, and some lines of Objectivist argument, I cannot accept it as an integrated whole.

My personal philosophy is fundamentally Popperian, with a lot of the later Wittgenstein, and a dash of C I Lewis, Rand, Nietzsche, Kant, Schopenhauer, Stirner, Locke, Reid and a few others. (i.e., what I mean is, I see some common threads in all these philosophies, which I think taken together amount to the correct philosophy.) Of ancients, I love Parmenides, Heraclitus, Epicurus, and a few others. Of contemporary philosophers, my absolute and wild favourite is Dennett.

I am, actually, that much-reviled figure amongst Objectivists - a mystic. Boo! The fact of the matter is that while I am a stone-gone rationalist and materialist, and humanist, by intellectual temperament and conviction, I happen to have had mystical experiences of "oneness with the Universe", as it's lamely called. That informs my philosophical thinking to a limited extent. I should say, to clarify, that I don't think mystical experiences are a "source" of cognition in the sense Rand defines - but then, as a Popperian, I am sublimely indifferent to the question of "sources of cognition"!

I decided to join in the fun here because I love passionate intellectual discussion, and I enjoy discussion with Objectivists as a foil to sharpen my own thinking (I used to hang around some Objectivist newsgroups in the old days), and to help me construct my own model of the world. IMHO one of the great things Rand did was to make philosophy the property of non-specialist people, or perhaps one might even say, to help non-specialists and interested amateurs discover a passion for philosophy they perhaps never knew they would have. It's a wonderful thing - of a piece with her re-stimulation of the classical idea that philosophy matters.

I have a great deal of respect for Rand as a person and as an author and philosopher - I have issues with her and her philosophy, but none of them big enough to make me dismiss her with contempt, in the ludicrous way some intellectuals do.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I think an intellectual's position on Rand is a kind of rough-and-ready barometer as to whether I ought to devote any precious time or energy to entertaining their thoughts. One may disagree with Rand in all sorts of ways, absolutely loathe her philosophy from top to bottom, but if one doesn't or can't admit 1) that she was tremendously smart, and 2) that her system has to be taken seriously as a philosophical contender, has to be dealt with, then by my estimation, one isn't a thinker to be taken seriously. In such a case, I usually suspect the kind of psychological syndrome Rand herself talks about - something is being evaded.

[shadesofgrey]

Welcome to the forum. You certainly have a strong philosophical background and I look forward to reading your exchanges.

Hope you brought a helmet

Edited July 7, 2009 by shadesofgrey

[gurugeorge]

Welcome to the forum. You certainly have a strong philosophical background and I look forward to reading your exchanges.

Hope you brought a helmet

Hehe, thanks. I have come fully equipped with a full suit of plate armour AND flame-retardant suit