The Wrath Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 I just finished reading VOR and, in the final essay, Peikoff says "Whatever her errors, she practiced what she preached, both epistemologically and morally." What errors is he referring to? He mentioned that he sometimes got frustrated with her when she would get angry, but then he said that her anger was perfectly rational, so I'm really at a loss as to what he is referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 I think it was more of a hypothetical question, as in, "even supposing she had any errors", rather than, "putting aside her errors". Regarding aspects of personality, those are not 'errors' per se, and different people respond to them differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted April 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Are there areas on which he disagrees with her? I seem to remember someone mentioning the fact that he disagree with her ideas about a woman president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Errors don't necessarily refer to philosophical errors. In The Voice of Reason Dr. Peikoff mentions that Miss Rand was always looking for that intellectual equal she could talk to; it made her vulnerable to people that were looking to use her abilities to benefit them. Those kinds of errors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted April 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 Right, but does he disagree with her about anything? What about the woman president issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 Right, but does he disagree with her about anything? What about the woman president issue? It's very easy for people with the exact same philosophy to disagree on concrete issues. Look at all the fierce debates on this forum. I don't know if Dr. Peikoff and Ms. Rand had a disagreement about whether or not there could or should be a woman president. If they did, I don't find it of very high importance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted April 6, 2005 Report Share Posted April 6, 2005 The "woman president" issue is an application of philosophy, too, not a part of it, so it's perfectly fine to disagree about it so long as you have a valid reason and context for doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.