I like the idea of synchronicity and the quantum physical approach to reality that contends that nothing exists until we observe it (and thus we act continuously in the creation of the world around us).
I start this blog and this book comes out. And a few days after I start reading Atlas Shrugged, this article is published in The New Republic.
Read it... it's a little long, but eye-openeing!
2 comments:
Hey Eric,
Good to see that you're keeping up with the book and the blog. Lately, I've gotten into a deeply existential kick, and I sort of see the whole left-right debate (and many of the other things we do) as a distraction to help keep us from realizing that we're adrift in a meaningless world. Depressing, I know. So, I'll say something constructive about your post.
The general consensus in the philosophical community is that Ayn Rand is a philosopher with an asterisk. If you look on her wikipedia page, her arguments are seen as a rehash of fallacies that have been knocked down time and again. However, she applies her epistemology to an ethics that encouragess people to act selfishly (which in a capitalist society will typically allow you to make more money), and packages it in entertaining stories. Because of this, people see the results of her set of prescribed behaviors and buy in to the arguments.
Fact: when a person truly believes something, and that person is faced with an irrefutable argument against their false belief, they will tend to believe more strongly. Trying to argue against true believers will never work. Rand's arguments support a frame that certain people already have in their minds. Why people have this frame is a discussion for another time. It doesn't matter what people say about Rand's arguments, if you believe them then you believe them, if you don't then you don't. Unless you're truly undecided, rational argument will not persuade you.
Now, the flip side to this is that arguments by people on the left are equally unassailable. For instance, I believe that Obama is a US citizen by birth, and I automatically assume that any piece of evidence presented in refutation of that fact must be fake. I admit that no amount of evidence or rational argument would get me to give up this belief.
In conclusion, congratulations on proving Objectivism wrong. You're the latest in a long line of distinguished thinkers. However, it doesn't matter how many times it's proved wrong; as long as her system supports the natural inclinations of 10% of the population, her ideas will not go away.
-Ringo
Hey Eric,
I'm lazier and shorter on time at the moment than Ringo, but have you read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? Good libertarian sci-fi with a sense of humor, i.e. possibly less likely than "Atlas" to make one want to shoot oneself right out of the gate.
Post a Comment