From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Summary: fleeting fitch
Date: 7 Nov 92 10:48:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov7.054834.17198
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Nov6.175024.13668@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>Peter Nelson (I think):

PN:
>>  ...
>>   Having read Rand's political and ethical writings, I have found 
>>   nothing of sufficient intellectual rigor to form the basis of 
>>   anything relevant to the discussion.  Her work is incredibly flawed
>>   and empty for someone who has attracted so much attention.  (Although
>>   it should be noted that the attention she attracts is among "middle-
>>   brows", sophomore philosophy students and the like; she has little
>>   following among serious philsophers or political thinkers.) ...

GF:
>First of all, let's dispense with the notion, implicit in so
>much that I see written here, that one philsophical text can
>be determined in some objective or absolute way to be better
>or truer than another.

Only if you can suggest a more convincing reason to dispense with it
than your say-so.  On second thought, such a reason would have to be
"objective or absolute", wouldn't it?

GF:
>		         For instance, Peter asserts that
>Rand's work is bad because no academic philosophers take it 
>seriously.  But that is not because there is something
>inherently wrong with Rand's work, it's because it doesn't
>serve their needs.
>
>This is because Rand's philosophy is, as noted,
>fundamentally middlebrow.  That is, it is more rationalized 
>than vulgar philosophy, which is almost always characterized 
>by simple assertions, and yet it requires almost no effort to
>understand beyond the initial reading.  It is ideally
>attuned, then, to persons whose formal intellectual training
>is at about a high-school or college freshman level, and who
>are not really interested in abstract thought.  The academic,
>on the other hand, needs heavier stuff both for aesthetic
>reasons and also because, to maintain the respect of her
>profession, she must prove she can manipulate and
>interpret difficult texts and complex ideas.

Could she be looking for *truer* stuff instead? nah, she wouldn't dare
to interfere with your pleasant pragmatist preconceptions.

GF:
>Now, middlebrowness itself would not explain the enduring
>popularity of Rand's writing; every year, hundreds, if not
>thousands, of resolutely middlebrow texts appear, telling
>their readers what to think and how to get through life,
>to be soon replaced by more of their kind.  Few of them,
>however, deal as well with guilt as Rand's.
>
>The function which Rand's philosophy admirably serves is
>the extrusion of guilt.  I say this because of the prominent
>place given to the idea that selfishness is a good thing.
>Most people would not think in these terms because they
>would already regard selfishness as a necessary thing.  But
>many parents teach their children rather impractical ideas,
>including the idea that selfishness is evil, others
>(especially the parents, or a favored sibling) come first, 
>and so forth.  There may also be some kind of biological 
>programing towards altruism.  In any case, guilt about 
>selfishness obviously is an important problem for many
>people.

How amusing.  Would you like to tell me about your preferred
techniques for dealing with your own guilt of this sort?

GF:
>In order to extrude guilt, Rand sets up a logical engine
>which can operate only in a solid, mechanical universe with
>well-defined components.  Hence, Objectivism.  Once the
>premises (the worldview) are set up, the engine can be run
>and the guilt can be extruded -- can be shown to be not only
>irrelevant, but evil.  Thus, Rand's philosophy actually
>accomplishes something useful, which is more than can be
>said about a great many philosophers.  The fact that it is
>not of the highest quality from an academic or aesthetic 
>point of view is unimportant.  The only thing I really see
>"wrong" with it -- from my point of view -- is that the
>deterministic performance of the logical engine, along 
>with the strong emotional need for it, produce a kind of
>totalitarianism in many of its adherents.  For instance,
>this article may well draw _angry_ rebuttals because it will
>seem insufficiently reverent.

Actually, I find it insufficiently irreverent, but after all,
mealy-mouthed liberal sententiousness is just what I have come to
expect from you.

GF:
>On the whole, I think philosophies should be judged on how
>well they serve those who consume them, as judged by the
>consumer.

After you finish compiling your Consumer Satisfaction Index, perhaps
you can take some time off to explain to me whether a happy National
Socialist ought to be regarded as evidencing the philosophical merits
of his _Weltanschauung_ in comparison with a Humanist, who is
perpetually rendered uncomfortable by the incongruity of his
philosophical ideals with the actual state of affairs.

GF:
>	    Not everyone can metabolize Wittgenstein or 
>Heidegger, nor should they.

Indeed, I would recommend an emetic to anyone who thinks otherwise.

>-- 
>
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4896 talk.philosophy.misc:2439 rec.arts.books:20058