I think this touches on why I've come to believe that Objectivism will not have a greater cultural impact in the foreseeable future. Those at ARI, obsessed with intellectual purity, will not give up control of "the philosophy". Said another way, they will not "let it go" and let the "non-philosophers" tinker and play with it and see what they can do with it. They won't let the other half of the virtuous circle do its job.
I agree that too much focus on intellectual purity typically leads to rationalism (which I’ve come to learn is endemic amongst Objectivists), and this lessens or even sabotages some of the cultural impact it would otherwise have. But if particular ideas make sense and work in reality, they will have a cultural impact, regardless of whatever flaws their promoters bring. The main impact will be seen implicitly though, without it being explicitly referenced to Objectivism. That’s consistent with what Robert is saying too. I think we’re already seeing that.
Fascinating? Your reading and studying of philosophy, begetting your brilliant writing and theorizing, inductively supports, as it affirms, this here blue collar workers inconvenient truth, I mean theory, that climate apocolytptos, puritanical puritans, wannabe authoritarian’s, et al, dire warnings about climate change, that I have been denying, but not all but ignoring (global pollution has always been a man made huge problem) for the last 30 fing years of my life, is nothing but a cabal of inbred power hungry pseudo intellectual Ivy Leaguers authoritarians, to wit, neo-international socialists and an equally reinforcing mob of mad scientists force feeding off the public trough who’s power and monies flow from the politicians who preach their supposed revelations with Leviticus hellfire. What’s good for the politician is good for the scientists, in cahoots with the former, the former always all in with what scientists that support the political powers that be. So, speaking of bad ideas spreading from the top, down, like Carbon Bigfoot Al Bore’s alarmism and his accomplices in the liberal arts and sciences giving rise to the “wokeism” of climate emergency downward spiraling into a subculture of educated village idiots actually believing there is such thing as a transformer, I mean transgendered human being, to everything now being about race, gender and class in the academies (what da f is coming next, I do not have any idea because I do not go to school anymore than mass) not having read “What Went Right”, I am curious if you expound on the Revelations of the now all encompassing man made climate change going to lead to cataclysmic theories? In other words, does that fit in with a corollary thesis What Went Wrong? Of course, if you indulge me, it will be with more clarity, brevity and lucidity for the reader, this here ramblin man that has not enough time in the day to edit. Gotta run on. Thanks for taking my rant Bob. Peace through superior mental firepower
I agree, it's reciprocal, and that's all we need to know. Trying to identify what came first, philosophy or other fields of knowledge is like trying to identify if the chicken or egg came first.
Well, I think it's a bit like that chicken-and-the-egg questions in that we actually know which came first: the egg. Animals were reproducing by laying eggs for many millions of years before one of them evolved--through natural and artificial selection--into gallus domesticus. Similarly, we know philosophy didn't come first, because we know who started it, so we know something was happening before it. So you're right. The interesting question is the relation between philosophy and other fields once it comes along.
I think this touches on why I've come to believe that Objectivism will not have a greater cultural impact in the foreseeable future. Those at ARI, obsessed with intellectual purity, will not give up control of "the philosophy". Said another way, they will not "let it go" and let the "non-philosophers" tinker and play with it and see what they can do with it. They won't let the other half of the virtuous circle do its job.
Very good observation.
I agree that too much focus on intellectual purity typically leads to rationalism (which I’ve come to learn is endemic amongst Objectivists), and this lessens or even sabotages some of the cultural impact it would otherwise have. But if particular ideas make sense and work in reality, they will have a cultural impact, regardless of whatever flaws their promoters bring. The main impact will be seen implicitly though, without it being explicitly referenced to Objectivism. That’s consistent with what Robert is saying too. I think we’re already seeing that.
Didn’t Ayn Rand herself say that she would not have able to arrive at her philosophy were it not for the industrial revolution?
Fascinating? Your reading and studying of philosophy, begetting your brilliant writing and theorizing, inductively supports, as it affirms, this here blue collar workers inconvenient truth, I mean theory, that climate apocolytptos, puritanical puritans, wannabe authoritarian’s, et al, dire warnings about climate change, that I have been denying, but not all but ignoring (global pollution has always been a man made huge problem) for the last 30 fing years of my life, is nothing but a cabal of inbred power hungry pseudo intellectual Ivy Leaguers authoritarians, to wit, neo-international socialists and an equally reinforcing mob of mad scientists force feeding off the public trough who’s power and monies flow from the politicians who preach their supposed revelations with Leviticus hellfire. What’s good for the politician is good for the scientists, in cahoots with the former, the former always all in with what scientists that support the political powers that be. So, speaking of bad ideas spreading from the top, down, like Carbon Bigfoot Al Bore’s alarmism and his accomplices in the liberal arts and sciences giving rise to the “wokeism” of climate emergency downward spiraling into a subculture of educated village idiots actually believing there is such thing as a transformer, I mean transgendered human being, to everything now being about race, gender and class in the academies (what da f is coming next, I do not have any idea because I do not go to school anymore than mass) not having read “What Went Right”, I am curious if you expound on the Revelations of the now all encompassing man made climate change going to lead to cataclysmic theories? In other words, does that fit in with a corollary thesis What Went Wrong? Of course, if you indulge me, it will be with more clarity, brevity and lucidity for the reader, this here ramblin man that has not enough time in the day to edit. Gotta run on. Thanks for taking my rant Bob. Peace through superior mental firepower
I agree, it's reciprocal, and that's all we need to know. Trying to identify what came first, philosophy or other fields of knowledge is like trying to identify if the chicken or egg came first.
Well, I think it's a bit like that chicken-and-the-egg questions in that we actually know which came first: the egg. Animals were reproducing by laying eggs for many millions of years before one of them evolved--through natural and artificial selection--into gallus domesticus. Similarly, we know philosophy didn't come first, because we know who started it, so we know something was happening before it. So you're right. The interesting question is the relation between philosophy and other fields once it comes along.