Philosophy On One Foot-The Basics of Objectivism by Ayn Rand
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
During the last week, we've had 2 or 3 posts related to Conservatism vs Objectivism. I ran into this brief reply by Ayn Rand when she was asked if she could explain her philosophy while standing on one foot.
Her entire reply is well worth a read, but the last sentence of her reply is exactly on point to the disagreements expressed by some commenters in those referenced posts:
" Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics."
That reply was in 1962, but still addresses politics today, particularly here in Galt's Gulch. .
Her entire reply is well worth a read, but the last sentence of her reply is exactly on point to the disagreements expressed by some commenters in those referenced posts:
" Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics."
That reply was in 1962, but still addresses politics today, particularly here in Galt's Gulch. .
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
From all the years of attempting to explain to and argue with others, at the foundational level, it's unacknowledged or unchallenged belief systems instilled or accepted during developmental and/or educational levels. Many, if not most of those beliefs aren't even consciously adopted, they seem to those that have them, as if they're just right. Those belief systems are throughout our lives, professions, and searches for answers.
There are as well, in Heinlein's words, 'those that can't or won't think' or fear doing it for themselves. But those are separate from the above description. I'm afraid, I just don't waste to much effort or time with men of this level (except when I find them on this site.)
The trick though still remains in the work Rand recommends for consistency in application and life.
as a single page, in case anyone wants it. -- j
.
.
This context dropping happens plenty in the gulch and even among Os.
I think of it like this. If someone uses Rand as an authority with me, rather than a source of material, I don't want to be an Objectivist. If someone uses Rand as a brilliant writer/philosopher and asks me to engage with them, unpacking the package deals, we are Objectivists.
You start with the beauty of Atlas Shrugged (Aesthetics/Realization). They counter with heartless poltiics.
So, you then talk about individual rights (Politics/Respect), they counter with heartless morality.
So, you then talk about rational self interest (Ethics/Responsibility), they counter with multiculturalism and relativism.
So, you then talk about non-contradiction, logic, and axioms (Epistemology/Reason), and they counter with the quantum nature of reality and Kantian categories.
So, you ask them if they exist (Metaphysics/Reality), and they counter with you being a dogmatic Randroid - or some other personal attack, that being the only place you can go when someone demands of you that you treat reality as if it were real.
Always know the level you are arguing on, and always know that Reality is the foundation, without which, no traction will be gained. Work from Reality, through Reason, to Responsibility - especially the Responsibility to champion Respect in service of Realization. :-)
Load more comments...