From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: mindwalking buddhists, oh
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:14:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.180058.3507@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.4280.4181@dosgate> "stan pikul" <stan.pikul@canrem.com> writes:
>For philosophy, read
>Bertrand Russell (I _know_ that Rand doesn't like him, but one thing
>you need to learn is that Rand knows very little about what other
>philosophers actually think, although she does understand the
>_Zeitgeist_ to some extent), 

I very much disagree, as do a great many others, but since you raised no
specific specific objections, I can't address them in particular.  I should
add that I have read many of the writings of many of these guys and find
no problems with Rand's interpretations.  Her discussions are not point-by-
point refutations, but they don't claim to be anything different.

>W. V. O. Quine, and Frege; these are
>mathematical logicians, so you need to have or be able to develop some
>technical knowledge.  If you can handle earlier philosophers, I
>suggest Spinoza (but you might have trouble figuring out what he
>actually means; he's not deliberately obscure, but his terminology is
>old-fashioned).  I also suggest diving in and actually reading some of
>the "bad guys" (according to Rand): 

I recommend it too, but as I said, I find that Rand's criticisms are quite
valid.

>I've read Kant (a more mixed
>picture than Rand realizes), Nietzsche (a profound influence on Rand
>herself, which should give you serious pause), 

This is something Rand's critics have often asserted (without any analysis
I have ever seen), but Rand specifically denied it repeatedly.  On what
grounds do you reach this conclusion?  That she read and enjoyed Nietzsche
earlier in life?  So did I, but his "influence" on me is negligable...he was
a witty author and I enjoy reading even the things he writes with which I
disagree, but that's not a "profound influence".  I assume the same was
true of Rand.

>and Martin Heidegger (I
>read _Being and Time_ which is extremely difficult, but alarming;
>other stuff of his is easier to read).  I do think that all of these
>latter thinkers are misguided, but you won't get an accurate picture
>of what's going on from Rand.  In particular, she can't tell the
>proponents of logical analysis ("good guys", really) from the ordinary
>language philosophers ("bad guys", I think).

What's so good about the analysts?  Rand could certainly tell the difference,
and she explained it a number of times.

>What you need to learn from this (but I don't have high hopes) is that
>Ayn Rand is not a great philosopher.  

Perhaps you would like to offer some support to this arbitrary assertion?

>She is a novelist of ideas; as
>such, her ethics and politics (good subjects to bring out in a novel)
>are pretty good, while her philosophical underpinning in epistemology
>and metaphysics, while laden with good rational intentions, is
>unsound; 

Perhaps you would like to offer some support to this arbitrary assertion?

>she has some good ideas in these areas, but she should have
>refrained from trying to construct a "system"; 

without a "system, how can one relate ideas to one another?  If, for example,
her ideas lacked an epistemological theory, how could it support an ethical
system?  

>she did not know
>enough.  Her approach to intellectual history is simply dishonest;

Dishonest?  What's so dishonest about it?  Indeed, it is often *general*
but that's not dishonest.

>don't believe anything she says about any other thinker without
>checking it first.

I would add that this ought to be the case about any subject and author.
You and Rand included.

>>rationalist" types were the only ones who have ever *seen* a graph
>>before, and could figure out that the funny squiggles on the blackboard
>>had some kind of "real" meaning...)

>This is a good place to start thinking about Rand's philosophy
>critically; her philosophy of mathematics is unworkable.

What's so unworkable about it?  It's certainly not complete, but she never
claimed it was.

I wonder how you cam explain why so many math/science/engineering types
are attracted to Rand if her mathematical ideas were so aweful.  Presumably,
they would be the first to notice any problems, no?

>No.  Do you know about Jimbo Wales' mailing list for discussion of
>Objectivism?  It might be a good thing for you to get into.

I should note that Jimbo Wales and his cohorts are not considered by 
objectivists to understand and promote objectivism.  They are basically 
taking bits and pieces of objectivism and adding in their own various 
ideas (to yeild some kind of mongrel philosophy).  I subscribed to
the list at one time, but no longer do so.  You might want to try
Bob Stubblefield's Objectivism Study Group list (write to bob@osg.com for
more information).

--Brian