| | Hippie:
First, I'm impressed! You've read a lot of what most Objectivists would probably consider the "core texts" of Objectivism (altho I don't neccesarily think that "We the living" and "anthem" illustrate Objectivism in any sort of formulated way. From what I've pieced together, through reading, is that Rand's "sense of life" really comes through, in those earlier works.
This is probably going to annoy somebody, but I gotta say it: when people criticize Rand's later novels -- the Fountainhead/Atlas shrugged -- they sometimes have a point. Rand was a genius, don't get me wrong, but we have to acknowledge that her writing in the later novels is kind of ponderous. Elegant, yes, but also HEAVY.
I just ordered "for the new intellectual" from Amazon, so I'll have to read that one. I'm still learning (as we all are, hopefully), but Objectivism has already helped me in several ways:
1. it's gotten me to re-examine how I related to my family, and stop playing the deterministic "blame game" (IE, "I can't help how am! It's my upbringing!") In realizing that I indeed DO have free will (the capacity to choose between possible alternatives), my entire outlook has changed.
2. I no longer buy into the notion of "let the government do it". one of the worst things that ever happened, was when Hegel gave "philosophical legitimacy" to the notion that the State -- government, in other words -- was the universal remedy for all "social ills".
In fact, the whole notion of "social ills" is somewhat suspect, to my mind. If a problem (say, pornography or drunken driving) is seen as a "social" problem, then it follows that INDIVIDUALS must be restricted as a neccesary condition of solving that "problem", and the main way that happens is through State-sanctioned force.
There are many other ways Objectivism has helped (and IS helping) me, almost on a daily basis. I have far less tolerance for pseudo-intellectuals who depend on "credentials" to get them heard. One of the key points about philosophy is that flawed premises equal flawed results. If (like Hitler or the Inquisition), you believe that the Individual's sole (or even primary) purpose is to "serve" others (IE an "authority", be it God, the State, the Tribe, whatever), then it inevitably follows that the Individual should be COMPELLED to that "service" by whatever means neccesary -- death included.
Objectivism makes it MUCH easier to see through flawed argumentation -- even among "Objectivists" themselves.
You may have noticed that people sometiems will sneer at you for being an Ojectivist (or even maintaining any of the Objectivist viewpoints). This is not an indication you are wrong. This is due to a vested interest on THEIR part to never allow the facts to get in the way of their ponderous "philosophising".
(For evidence, I would point you to a certain Steve M. who trolls this board, saying things like "modern philosophers are CERTAIN that no certainty can ever be attained." Circular? You betcha!
The problem is, I think, when people misunderstand the statement that the basic axioms (Existence, consiousness, Identity), are "outside the province of proof". they automatically assume that since they cannot be "proven", that we take them "on faith", when in fact, it is exactly the opposite: the core axioms of Objectivism are unassailable.
Everyone (even solipsists), acknowledges that SOMETHING exists (namely, themselves.)
They admit that they are consious (or else, how would they even be asking the question?)
They also admit that the THING which they are asking about is a SPECIFIC THING (IE, that it has an Identity) -- otherwise, what are they asking about?
Now, what exactly DO we mean when we say that the axioms are "beyond proof?" As Peikoff lucidly states in his book (OPAR, the philosophy of Ayn Rand), "proof" is the process of reducing a proposition to axioms (IE, ultimately to sensory evidence.
Things can only be "proven" in relation to the evidence, and solipsists/subjectivists, having disqualified the only evidence available -- and defaulted to gibbering wordplay in the process -- are without any ground upon which to stand, whatsoever.
Wow, that was something of a polemic, wasn't it? (grin!)
I hope this has helped you, Hippie. Glad to see another Newbie on board!
|
|
