No. 33 Secretary wrote:
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>> Kaos wrote:
>>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>>> Bill Wayne wrote:
>>>>No different then getting it from a book. Suppose Ayn Rand had skipped
>>>>the book and done The Fountainhead as a movie. Would the ideas in it
>>>>have less meaning?
>>>
>>> Is it possible for it to have less meaning in the first place?
>>> (Outside of an objectivist "our groupthink isn't groupthink at all"
>>> camp, that is...)
>>
>> Your above comment shows you have either not read, or have not
>> understood, Rand's philosophy. It is easily possible to show that her
>> philosophy has FLAWS -- basically the same flaws pure Communism has,
>> in a dark mirror -- but dismissing it so casually indicates a failure
>> to grasp it at all.
>>
> "I still believe that Rand was a great philosopher. But I am ****fting
> toward the position that her greatness is as an unhappy example of
> inadvertent folly."
>
> http://home.ca.inter.net/~grantsky/re-evaluating.html
>
> The most common description I see of Rand (other than from people who
> sound
> like over-excited puppies, that is) is "cult leader." Not someone whose
> opinions I really care about.
O.K. then, what philosopher rules? Nietzsche is out. He was too affected
by
bauhaus and urban expressionism to have his philosophy outlive his
generation. Sartre is out. He is but a pale reflection of Simone de
Beauvoir. She is out, in her gender blindness . Heidigger is out, taking a
polarized view across from Rand, and being too affected by Nietzsche's
rose
colored opticals. McDowell is too quiet in a chaotic universe, he liked
Kant to much anyway. Evans is out, his works are incomplete. Kripke is
out,
for philosophy can exist without language. Putnam is a contender...
Habermas
is out though, his view of philosophy as being im****tant exclusively with
communication and cutting off the rest of the universe demonstrates the
walls of the sandbox he is playing in. Honneth is out, his philosophy is
about materialism and recognition. Wittgenstein is out too, being too
focused on philosophy as a form of communication as opposed to a state of
being. Schopenhauer is a contender. Berkeley is out, holding up the
development of mathmatics for almost 200 years on account of irrational
religious beliefs instantly disqualifies him. Buddism is a strong
contender
amonsgt religions, however the capacity of buddism to tolerate continuous
suffering and pain is discouraging, to say the least. The Vedic texts seem
strong as well, however overly concentrate on the social aspects of
philosophy.
So... Putnam and Schopenhauer. Too bad there are not more works on native
american and african philosophies.
Re,
Dirk
|
