Daily Linz 14 - Friday Miscellany
by Lindsay Perigo
My mellow musings for this week’s end:
* I still haven’t been back to the Duty to Live? Thread for a concerted review of the postings. However, in a quick skim, I was gratified to see the following, from Bill Dwyer, who had taken a while to get to this point:
I must apologize for not being sufficiently sensitive in my previous post to the full context of Peikoff's remarks, for it is now quite clear that he does indeed contradict himself, a contradiction which, unfortunately, no amount of exegetical parsing can resolve. To say that there "~are~ grounds for a (certain) primary choice," that "those grounds are reality" and that "a man who would throw away his life without cause...would belong on the lowest rung of Hell" is simply another way of saying that the primary choice ~is~ a moral choice, after all. There is no justification whatsoever for consigning a person who makes a pre-moral choice to the lowest rung of Hell, which is a moralistic metaphor if I ever heard one! I now see that Kelley was absolutely right in his criticism of Peikoff, and that Linz's original article made a valid and insightful point, after all. … if the choice to live is not a moral choice, then the choice to die cannot be immoral; it cannot be a choice that defies reality and merits consignment to the lowest rung of Hell.
That’s it, pure and simple. No need for tortuous gymnastics, unless one is trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Of the two propositions, that the choice to live is pre-moral and that someone who chooses not to live belongs on the lowest rung of hell, one has to go. Nothing to do with suicide-bombers. Red herring! (Though the fact that in the Peikovian view the suicidist sits alongside the bombers on the lowest rung of hell – and I’m assuming no one would claim they belong on a higher rung - is a further clue as to the untenability of that view). Dwyer takes the view that it’s “pre-moral” that has to go. I don’t think so. If the choice to live is the first moral choice, as opposed to being the choice that renders morality necessary and possible, then I want to know, says who? Says life itself? Says God? You’re slap bang up against the inherent imperative or duty view that I spoke of no matter how you try to talk your way round it. No, it’s “lowest rung of hell” that has to go, if we are to avoid Peikovian intrinsicism. Robert Campbell and Joe dealt with this very neatly.
* Gratifying also to see the response to my tribute to Joe Rowlands. Someone asked about webmaster Jeff Landauer in the ensuing thread. Nothing in my salute to Joe should be construed as taking anything away from Jeff. I can only deal with one hero at a time! Jeff’s around, but pleasantly distracted, I’m given to understand.
* The Forums have been especially fractious this week. I’m of the view, as I’ve stated many times, that it’s good and healthy to have a place where Objectivists can air their differences, along with Objectivists and good-faith non-Objectivists. But this week saw one of the few occasions where I saw fit to ask posters to tone down the venom. “Dumb little troll” and “lousy fucking useless bastard” shouldn’t be the result of a legitimate debating point (in this case the desirability of deploying religious conservatives to write in an Objectivist magazine). SOLOists should remember that when they post, the whole world is watching, and not only their reputation but SOLO’s is affected, even though it should be clear that SOLO is not SOLOHQ posters. No, I’m not advocating Coates-style emotion-sanitising, Galt forbid, just asking for a little forethought on the part of those inclined to charge in without it.
* Here’s another thing to consider before posting: is your post better off submitted as an article? Some posts are article-length, and the article cupboard would be a little bare without my dailies and Tibor’s prolific musings right now. This is something to bear in mind in particular if your post represents a thread-hijack. Rather than take the thread off on a tangent, why not start a new one with an article?
* Speaking of conservatives appearing in Objectivist magazines, my copy of The New Individualist arrived today. This is the first FBB (Full-Blown Bidinotto) TNI that caused the above-mentioned stir, and I look forward to devouring it this weekend. As I said on that thread, I agree with Robert’s editorial policy as he explained it here, and practise the same policy where The Free Radical is concerned.
* Someone asked whether my Fundamental Stuff essays will go up to Descartes. I think, therefore they shall. And beyond. Right up to the present day, if I live long enough. Then they’ll be put together in a collection, something useful for those who behold the dominant ideas, or anti-ideas, of our time and ask, “How the hell did it come to this?” These essays are very distilled and leave a lot out, but for an essentialised overview with an Objectivist spin, I hope they’ll be invaluable.
That’s it from me this week. I’m off to savour some Bidinotto and Shiraz. As always, have a KASS weekend, NEMs!
Discuss this Article (11 messages)
|
