|
Hi VictorBravo! you are so right! As a late comer, I read here stuff in the 90's, after she had long passed away (yea, it bugged me that I won't get to talk to her in the after life). Her followers didn't seem to have her sense of reason. To quote you
"Her epistemology is pretty shallow, but functional: She doesn’t ask where reason comes from, she takes it as a given. In that sense, she could join with those who believe in a creator. Except she rejects a creator—not because of lack of evidence or because of logic, but because she assumes from the start that one is not needed."
That is true, we know that reason and logic come from God. I used her epistemology in college and befuddled the philosophy department. they were on the far left as I am the right. Kantian and Hegalian to the core. But one day the head said to me, "Tim, you have the most logical consistant world view I have ever seen." We used to gang up together on the moderates.
I loved hearing how you used their own logic against them at the seminar. Her followers are another matter altogether. They do not epitimise what I read in her work. Thanks for the Post, you've given me stuff to think about while at work. God Bless!!
|