| | Teresa,
It's true that Burns knows Rand more than most. But as "Morpheus" says in the movie, the Matrix, there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. Burns knows a ton of facts, but that doesn't mean that she understands Objectivism. From her WBUR interview I would ascertain that she knows isolated arguments and codified responses. There are 4 subjects in which Burns' answers were 'sketchy':
(1) Burns said that long-term, wide-spread scandals like the Bernie Madoff scandal weren't covered by Rand
-- But that's a misunderstanding of Rand. Rand implicitly covered such things, even if she didn't explicitly have a con-man work for years in duping dozens of individuals out of millions of dollars. Rand covered it philosophically, rather than existentially.
(2) Burns said that, in her emphasis on trade, the notion of a loving benevolence toward one's family and children weren't covered by Rand
-- But again, Rand covered these things implicitly and philosophically, though not explicitly.
(3) Burns said that Rand's "emphasis on rationality led her to really denigrate emotional knowledge."
-- But, as has been worked out here and elsewhere, that is not a good understanding of Rand's integrated view of rationality and emotion and knowledge. Burns goes on to say that if Rand wasn't so empirical, then she'd be more true to herself, though not in so few words (she conjectured that the affair might not have happened if Rand was more in tune with her emotions). This is basically dime-store psychologizing from the bleachers. Folks sitting way up in the bleachers can barely see the game, let alone make bold conjecture regarding the aspirations and motivations of the players on the field.
(4) Burns said that Rand is, at least historically if not factually, a "gateway drug to life on the Right." A dispensable 'starter-kit.' She went on to mention how many fall away from Objectivism as they question the proper placement of religion in man's life (or in their own life). She mentioned how so much in life was left out in Rand.
-- But think about that for a moment. Think about judging a painting as poor not because its creation lacked artistic skill, not because it doesn't capture real beauty or concretize metaphysical values, but because the painting, itself, does not include the whole of existence. Because there's so much more in the world than that painting. It's an immature evaluation to do that.
In sum, Burns is a hot chick, but I wouldn't court her unless she got a philosophical tune-up first.
:-)
Ed
|
|
