| | It seems I need to make a clarification here, because a seperate argument sprouted in this thread, which was unfortunately and confusingly mixed with mine.
I agree with Linz that Rand was honest about what she was doing. She set forth the limitations of her "review" clearly from the beginning, and didn't pretend they didn't exist. She referred to Mr. Cohen, the reviewer, throughout her article. She did, however, slip up when she assumed that Rawls had an incomprehensible unclear argumentative-writing style -- which she simply wasn't justified in doing without having actually read it. Other than that, I think she made some good points and some questionable points in that article, and wasn't guilty of dishonesty.
Point is: I was certainly issuing no moral impugnity. If it seemed like I was, I regret the implication.
I stated my criticism in my previous posts, but let me state its essence once again for clarification. I merely wish that Rand had written a thorough review of Rawls (which would have required her to have read his book, as I'm sure you'd all agree). I wish it for the sake of my own benefit and the benefit of the cause, since Rawls was the most influencial academic philosopher of the 20th century, and a thorough Randian refutation would have benefited all of us who wish to exorcise him from the culture. I think that such an article would've been more valuable than anything else she wrote from 1974 on.
Again, I don't retrospectively demand such a thing from Rand; I only wish it. More fundamentally, I regret her latter-day refusal to debate any other philosophers. That was a symptom of her generally dark attitude regarding the outside world late in her life. It was an attitude she clearly did not have earlier in her life, as her Letters show, and it was an attitude that caused her so much sadness. All of which did not have to be. All of which I regret.
Alec
|
|
