| | "Objectivism needs to be cut down to its roots and thoroughly re-evaluated and understood apart from all its principals, past and present."
By "roots" I assume the meaning is the most basic principles. A set of 4, 5, 6, or 7 bullet-points type of exposition.
And "apart from its principals, past and present" I assume to be a call to separate the philosophy from its advocates, including Rand.
"re-evaluated" implies a disagreement with some of the current evaluations by the principle principals.
The statement is a little bit vague as to what is "terrifying" about the "simplicity" (not enough guidance for those who need or want to be guided?)
If all (except for the "roots") that has been said and written by the principals is discarded, and the philosophy is chopped down to the barest of principles, then we are alone, or at least starting from scratch, in determining how to apply the basic principles to the complexity of all the details life presents for us to make choices on.
It is an intriguing statement, but I'm not sure it is very helpful. It leaves out much that would be needed to support it, or explain it, as well as what parts of Objectivism are most in need of "re-evaluating."
It is interesting that Brant uses it as an explanation why another poster should NOT attempt to be a calm bridge of reason between warring factions of Objectivism. It is like the message is, let them rain destruction till we are back at the roots, or ignore them all... we all must find our own way - there are no leaders here. But that is just my flight of fancy on what is intended.
|
|
Objectivism needs to be cut down to its roots and thoroughly re-evaluated and understood apart from all its principals, past and present. Most people--Objectivists--do not understand the actual terrifying simplicity of Objectivism and that the complexity and difficulty is in the details of living an individual life.
