RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 2:01pm

Link

Edit

Unless of course if he is more clever; Kant for instance.

Michael

Post 1

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 4:35pm

Link

Edit

Michael,

Now, you would say that, wouldn't you?* :-)

Kant wasn't cleverer than those who are right. He was cleverer than those who are wrong.
Rand, the rightest, made "mincemeat" of his cleverness.

*For those who are unaware, that was an ad hominem attack, which I'm sure Michael will appreciate.

(Edited by Bob Palin on 4/18, 4:41pm)

Post 2

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 6:08pm

Link

Edit

Bob,

Thank you for the compliment, it is right up my wicked line.

But I beg to differ! Clever against the right but dense wins every time! Can you hear the underlying theme of the grinder in the background? Now it is helpful that Rand was more clever than Kant. But she didn�t make mincemeat of him or there wouldn�t be so many Objectivist Kantian/Post Modernists, Fred Seddon to name one or all those that think abstract art is something more than a floating abstraction!

Btw, where did this quote that kan�t hold up to scrutiny come from?

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 4/18, 6:09pm)

Post 3

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 4:38pm

Link

Edit

Michael,

Ah, I see I should not have lightly expounded on your false premise because I have just encouraged you further. So...

The reason for Kant's "success" is not that he was clever (in fact, he was not clever at all.) The reason he was "successful" is because he was more consistent than the good, who have lacked the explicit clarity that Rand has now provided us.

The evil doer is never clever. If he were, he wouldn't be evil because there is no proper value to be gained from evil.

Captain McDonald was correct.

As to my source for this quote, I found it in the last paragraph of Andrew Bernstein's essay, "In Defense of the Cowboy."

Post 4

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 8:08pm

Link

Edit

Bob,

You're quite correct in one way: "The reason he was "successful" is because he was more consistent than the good, who have lacked the explicit clarity..."

And, yet, I am in another. The above could be stated as: the clever vs. the non-clever!!!!

And in this case I like the word "clever" because it doesn't apply to good or bad.

I knew where the link came from, ;)

Michael