| | Mindy, thanks for your response.
I want to say a word in defense of the non-philosophical: They aren't necessarily non-philosophical! And ... to the extent that the non-philosophical aren't necessarily non-philosophical, they're not "bad" people.
:-)
Surely, Ed, we don't want to give the impression that reason, sense, and right-living began with Objectivism. No. And by including Jesuits -- folks who've been around for a real long time (long before Objectivism), I didn't think that I was doing that.
People are still living well and reasonably without "studying," or having any alignment with a school of thought. I elaborate the point because I think your post smacks of what makes Objectivism seem cultish. I agree that my post smacks of what makes Objectivism seem cultish to certain folks, but I disagree that folks can live well without any alignment with a school of thought, philosophy, or worldview (i.e., a background by which they adjust and evaluate their life choices and actions).
I think that you might mean that there are folks living well who don't explicitly align themselves with certain popular schools of thought. I don't disagree with that, but would like to communicate that humans are a certain kind of creature which cannot flourish without some "studying" or "school of thought" or "ordering principles" for living their lives.
You wanted to make sure I didn't give the impression that "right-living began with Objectivism", I'd like to make sure that you don't give the impression that "right-living" or "living well" is possible without set principles.
:-)
I myself disagree with some of the details of Rand's epistemology ... I'd be interested to discuss these details -- if you are interested in discussing them.
But it is no service to our aims in advancing precious ideas to speak this way, Ed, if I get you right. I think you are trying to motivate us, fine, if you aren't preaching to the choir, but I think this kind of talk is detrimental to the purpose. I don't think you get me right. Maybe my answers below will make this point.
Doesn't it remind you of the counter-establishment threat that if you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem? Doesn't it place membership above substantial, existential issues?
A good thing about what I said is that it involved two groups (Objectivists and Catholics) which don't have common membership. Not having common membership, it doesn't place membership above the substantial, existential issue -- i.e., the issue of respecting reason as necessary for man, or for the good of man, which both Objectivists and certain Catholics share.
(P.S. What's with "problems are good"?? ) Problems, when we respond to them well, build character and virtue (i.e., self-esteem and other values).
Rand once mentioned an indestructible robot who had no real problems to solve (because nothing affected it). That robot -- if it were, counter-factually, a human -- would not be able to flourish. Problems are good for humans because of our minds and how they require that we exercise our minds. It's when we exercise our minds and develop the self-esteem of accomplishment that we flourish.
Animals and plants are different. They don't require problems in order to thrive -- at least not like we do.
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/30, 3:23pm)
|
|
Today, large parts of the modern world have abandoned reason as well as religion. If you were to look among academics for an intellectual defense of reason, you wouldn’t find many players on the field. I’m aware of a handful of philosophers who work in the Objectivist and Aristotelian tradition of Ayn Rand. There are Catholic philosophers. That’s it. The rest of academia is either actively hostile to the idea of reason itself, or has retreated to the safety of narrow, technical knowledge.
