| | Thanks for the correction in this five year old thread that no one has probably read in at least that length of time.
After the ridiculous quote about agnosticism in that article, one would hope that you would get the name correct of the individual who best defined it. I am interested in which quote you're referring, and what is "ridiculous" about it. Parille has many fans here, so if you wish to be taken seriously, then be specific.
I take it this is the quote that's rubbing you the wrong way:
Agnosticism is not simply the pleading of ignorance. It is the enshrinement of ignorance. . . . A passion for the arbitrary does not derive from concern for logic. Its root is a feeling that has been given precedence over logic. In some agnostics, the feeling is cowardice, the simple fear that a stand on contentious issues will antagonize people. In other agnostics, the feeling is more convoluted. It is akin to glee, the malicious glee of subverting all ideas and thus of baiting the men who have integrity required to hold convictions. This is the glee of the destroyer, the mind-hater, the nihilist. [Peikoff, OPAR, pp. 169-70.] If Peikoff is inaccurate, please enlighten us as to the true meaning of the concept. The fact that you're resistant to specifics seems ironic to Peikoff's explanation, don't you think? I couldn't think of a better way to get me in agreement with Peikoff than to defend the morality of a concept by simply asserting his criticisms are "ridiculous."
Peikoff has to be right. Look how they're disagreeing with him!
I understand that there are Atheist organizations that claim warm fuzzies for the word, but Objectivism, traditionally, isn't one of them. You can either help to change that, or continue to reinforce the current standing. Your choice.
|
|
