|
Hmm... You'all have given me something to ponder. I read those 2 critiques of her work. They seem to misrepresent what Faith is though. I mean if we have the kind of faith that the reviewers seemed to present, ours would be worthless.
I quote one of the reviews: "no man has yet established truth via his unaided intellect. Objectivism has not changed that fact, for it shares the axiom of autonomy with other secular philosophies. It, too, will be eclipsed by a new surge of skepticism, and rightly so, for it has furnished no good reasons for believing in the ability of the human mind to create a system of knowledge." Actually, she makes a good case for knowledge based on the human mind. Yea, its Aristotelian, but she unshackles it from the group think our scientists use today. Knowledge is not determined by the masses. And from the quote of this specific forum, we know not to base our philosophy on the things of this world. Col 2:8
They also misrepresnt her philosophy on one foot.
You have heard it said:
"Metaphysics: Indestructible Matter
Epistemology: Skepticismp
Ethics: Hedonism
Politics: Anarchism"
But I say unto you it's really:
Metaphysics: objective reality
Epistemology: reason
Ethics:self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
at least that's what she really said. now for the commentary
Now, Objective reality is not indestructible matter. If she talks about intellect, how is that indestructible matter? Reality exists..we need to see it as such. ie like is not God objectively real?? we don't need blind faith or even faith in something that is unreasonable to believe. Which leads to the next -
Epistemology - reason. This is where she would say "check your premises" and the one part that I would disagree with her about. But this is the part of philosophy that deals with how do we know what we know? Yes I'm going VanTill on y'all. That is why her critique of the church is dead on. They say and most still do say that we take things on faith. That's just rubbish or as she called them, the voodoo doctors of the primative savages. There is nothing unreasonable about God. There's a difference between apprehension and fully understanding. But with her premise, yea, they do have a point. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Boy, do the liberals need to learn that!
Ethics: I wish we had more real self-interest instead of the Lets help the poor out junk in our society. That people would rather look good (Democrats) instead of doing Good(Haliburton and Exxon) is true. Even Joel Osteen's crowd that is full of self interest, and my own church's self-centered choruses are not real self interest. More like self-centeredness. She also talked about the welfare state. yes it sounds so pious, helping the little man out, but altruism is for suckers is true. Especially since it is at the point of a gun (or even God will not be pleased, which is spiritual blackmail) There is a difference between altruism and compassion.
Politics - Capitalism. Well if I have to explain, lazzie-fare means the government stays out of it, not anarchy. Our problems in the business sector is because of the government, not big business. Big business is what is good for America and our freedoms. And my paycheck. (I wish. I'm just a cook, but when the rich get richer, they go out to eat more, which provides me with more ways and more $$ to feed my family)
Anyway, great thoughts. I've read reviews, it seems the secularists don't like her at all either, and I'm finding out the Christian camp doesn't either. But feel free to rant on. I remain interested. Grymir
|