| | That quote is from Rand's article "How to Judge a Political Candidate," in the March 1964 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter in which she wrote: "One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate’s total philosophy—only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials)…if he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours.”
I cited that quote in my article, "Objectivism, Contextual Knowledge and the Correspondence Theory of Truth (Part II)," which was written over a year ago, as evidence that Rand did not agree with the view advanced by Peter Schwartz and his associates at the Ayn Rand Institute. According to Schwartz and company, the reasons for a conclusion condition its meaning, so if the reasons are wrong, then the conclusion must be wrong, because it must then mean something different than it would if the reasons for it were right.
Schwartz gives the example of a Christian who believes that murder is wrong, because it is against God's commandments. The Christian, you see, doesn't really believe that murder is wrong, because since he opposes murder based on God's commandments, he'd be perfectly willing to commit murder if God commanded it.
Thus, according to Schwartz and contrary to Rand, Barry Goldwater could not have advocated the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical (or religious) reasons, because the man whom Rand endorsed for president would have been perfectly willing to renounce those principles if God had commanded it.
If only Schwartz had been around to enlighten Rand at the time she made that statement, he could have spared her the indignity of contradicting her own philosophy.
- Bill
|
|
"If he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours."
