Epistemology Without Weights -- Followup

Elliot:

In context, she was defining the context of her use of the word 'we'.

But let me be clear; I admire Rand's works; I don't, however, worship her. Part of my interpretation of Rand was 'blindly worship nobody...including me.'

It shatters neither my worldview, nor her feet of clay, to include Rand in the occasional abusers of anonymous 'we' as a leglifting tactic. Just...not in those examples, which were precisely her going to great lengths to define her limited context of 'we.' (Wasn't the context hawking a newsletter????)

Yes, the word passed her lips, but context is important to form fully formed ideas, else we are hurling dictionaries into blenders and spouting words.

Free association('come join us') is not forced association('we are -all- in this together.') But come to think of it, there are at least two forms of forced association: aggressive-- the assertion that 'we are all in this together.' And passive -- speaking for 'we' outside of any context.

You will seldom see me(or anyone here, else I'd have bailed long ago)thumping AS or quoting John Galt 3:16. That's not me. You can pretty much assume folks here have read Rand.

My criticism of Rand includes my belief that she is too easily demagogued as "I vs We." For sure, it was front and center in Anthem. And she was, I suspect, purposefully in the tribe's face with pushing 'The Virtue of Selfishness." I understand her point, she writes clearly--with a giant, can't miss it if you tried screaming crayon. But in a Jersey Shore world, Jersey Shore deep analysis is not going to go any deeper than the title of the book, and that is a Jersey Deep losing title.

She'd have done a far more effective marketing job, I think, if she would have emphasized free vs forced association. Forced association is a massively losing hand, and is far more accessible to Jersey Shore deep analysis. Who is ever going to line up and march behind the fasces of 'forced association?'

I don't think Rand's central message (which I've shortened considerably to "One Skin, One Driver")is so much "I vs We" as it is free vs forced association; reasonable, rational people freely form associations all the time--as did the heroes in her romantic works of art. It is all forms of forced association that I find odious -- acts of aggression, both active and passive.

regards,
Fred

Post 21

Monday, July 29, 2013 - 1:19pm

If people here don't like John Galt and Ayn Rand quoting, why are they here?

And didn't you just kinda speak for others here?

(Edited by Elliot Temple on 7/29, 1:20pm)

Post 22

Monday, July 29, 2013 - 3:03pm

Elliot,

I just read your reply to Fred and it makes me wonder if you aren't just trying to stir the pot and are willing to totally ignore what he wrote to do it.

He wrote, quite clearly, "I admire Rand's works" - and, he didn't say people don't like quotes of Rand, but that they don't use them like evangelicals do. How could someone read those and say, "If people here don't like John Galt and Ayn Rand quoting, why are they here?" (That's kind of a peculiar sentence, since it implies that people just come here to seek out or deliver John Galt and Ayn Rand quotes.)
-------------

Fred explained why he chooses to phrase things so as to not appear to represent the views of others when, in fact, he is advocating something that is his belief. You replied, ...didn't you just kinda speak for others here? The only place in his post where there is a 'we' or 'us' type of reference is here: "You will seldom see me(or anyone here, else I'd have bailed long ago)thumping AS or quoting John Galt 3:16. That's not me. You can pretty much assume folks here have read Rand." That is a statement of Fred's opinion that the people here don't tend to blindly quote Rand like some Christians quote scripture. He is saying that if he had seen that kind of behavior here, he would have left. And he is telling you that having been here for a while he knows that most of the people here have read Rand. Stating what he has observed as facts regarding the people here, is totally different from speaking on behalf of others as if he were an authorized and/or accurate representative of their beliefs.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 7/29, 3:11pm)

Post 23

Monday, July 29, 2013 - 3:46pm