59 minutes ago, Jonathan13 said:
Do you have no answers?
For completeness, I believe that dream_weaver did reply, albeit in another thread. Here’s that post, in case you’re only looking here:
On 4/3/2016 at 7:23 PM, dream_weaver said:
I am reminded of one of the reasons why this course is so instructive. Piekoff’s selection of philosophers to cover, the identification of the developments of the main schools of thought over the centuries, the indications which tie into cultural trends the ideas bear close parallels to.
Miss Rand was not known for paying homage to the gatekeepers, publishing her works via the anointed scholastic philosophic channels, or going through the charade of pretending some of their questions were debatable.
Whether it be logical positivism, empiricism, intrinsicism, mysticism, etc., the key, to me, is to be able to identify the variant, and while I may not be able to explain what is wrong with it extemporaneously, at least know where to go for a refreshment on the point. It is in this way, I can serve as a signpost indicating the direction to go. A signpost cannot take you to your destination. It merely points the way.
In this sense, one doesn’t need to become a philosopher in order to benefit from the philosopher.
While I wouldn’t call for “paying homage to the gatekeepers,” per se, I do sometimes wonder about the utility of engagement through… “normal channels,” such as Universities or journals. It seems to me that there’s potentially something important to be gained there, to the extent one desires Objectivism to penetrate the culture, even if it does require utilizing the existing procedures set up for such a thing.
59 minutes ago, Jonathan13 said:
Instead of hiding from criticism, and censoring it and banning it (or requiring something akin to loyalty oaths to join a site or forum), Objectivists should be seeking out criticism, inviting it, and accommodating it. They should eager to face all challengers on neutral or even hostile ground, especially those with the most potent arguments. That would be the strong, confident thing to do.
This is right. Whether or not one agrees with every decision to engage with specific criticism (a personal matter, based on one’s context, and I don’t believe anyone to be “duty-bound” in any event), the “spirit” of this sings to my heart.
I say to the world “bring it on,” and not because I wish to appear “strong” or “confident” to those who are swayed by such things, but because I am confident in the strength of Objectivism, which is the philosophy of reason.
There exists no argument in the world that can show A to be not-A: so in any forum of contest or comparison, those beliefs consonant with reality can only look the better, to honest minds.
On 4/2/2016 at 3:30 PM, Jonathan13 said:
Please post links to Objectivism’s heirs and leaders addressing informed criticism from philosophical experts.
Are we doing this? (I sincerely want to know.) I hope that we are. I hope that there’s a literature being built, both in and out of academia.
The way I imagine it (which may not correspond with reality exactly) is that with every essay or blog post or speaking engagement, though it be a drop in the proverbial pond, there is a ripple effect – and a chance to reach those who are perhaps at some crossroads or tipping point or on the verge of discovery.
And if those who evade such that they cannot be swayed by reason are forced into contortions to defend the indefensible, so much the better. They must cloak themselves in language so obscure as to be ineffectual; or they must reveal their hidden premises; or they must finally descend to insults, or even violence, and are thus fatally unmasked.
When it comes to physical violence, might makes the difference, and we cannot be guaranteed of victory. In silence or insult, too, bad ideas tend to flourish. Civil discussion is the arena where Objectivism stands to reign supreme. That is the ground we should claim as our own.