Are There Common Elements Of Objectivism In Jainism?


Selene

Recommended Posts

I am not that familiar with this philosophical religian of ancient India.

However, it appears to have influenced many different paths of religions in India.

India appears to have the most interest in Ayn's philosophy.

Soes anyone have any knowleddge about it?

The wiki has a symbol that surprised me:

90px-Jain_Prateek_Chihna.svg.png

I don't know about you, however it got my attention.

Jain philosophy deals with metaphysics, reality, cosmology, ontology, epistemology and divinity. Jainism is a transtheistic religion of ancient India. The distinguishing features of Jain philosophy are its belief on independent existence of soul and matter, absence of a supreme divine creator, owner, preserver or destroyer, potency of karma, eternal and uncreated universe, a strong emphasis on non-violence, accent on relativity and multiple facets of truth, and morality and ethics based on liberation of soul. Jain philosophy attempts to explain the rationale of being and existence, the nature of the Universe and its constituents, the nature of bondage and the means to achieve liberation.

Jainism has often been described as an ascetic movement for its strong emphasis on self-control, austerities and renunciation. It has also been called a model of philosophical liberalism for its insistence that truth is relative and multifaceted and for its willingness to accommodate all possible view-points of the rival philosophies. It strongly upholds the individualistic nature of soul and personal responsibility for one's decisions; and that self-reliance and individual efforts alone are responsible for one's liberation.

Throughout its history, the Jain philosophy remained unified and single, although as a religion, Jainism was divided into various sects and traditions. The contribution of Jain philosophy in developing some Indian philosophies has been significant. Jain philosophical concepts like Ahimsa, Karma, Moksa, Samsara and like have been assimilated into the philosophies of other Indian religions like Hinduism and Buddhism in various forms. While Jainism traces its philosophy from teachings of tirthankara, various Jain philosophers from Kundakunda and Umaswati in ancient times to Yaśovijaya in recent times have contributed greatly in developing and refining the Jain and Indian philosophical concepts.

Thanks.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma
160px-Karma_AS.jpg
magnify-clip.png
Karma as action and reaction: if we sow goodness, we will reap goodness.
Main article: Karma in Jainism

In Jainism, karma is the basic principle within an overarching psycho-cosmology. It not only encompasses the causality of transmigration, but is also conceived of as an extremely subtle matter, which infiltrates the soul—obscuring its natural, transparent and pure qualities. Karma is thought of as a kind of pollution, that taints the soul with various colours (leśyā).[6] Based on its karma, a soul undergoes transmigration and reincarnates in various states of existence—like heavens or hells, or as humans or animals.

Jains cite inequalities, sufferings, and pain as evidence for the existence of karma. Jain texts have classified the various types of karma according to their effects on the potency of the soul. The Jain theory seeks to explain the karmic process by specifying the various causes of karmic influx (āsrava) and bondage (bandha), placing equal emphasis on deeds themselves, and the intentions behind those deeds.[7]The Jain karmic theory attaches great responsibility to individual actions, and eliminates reliance on supposed existence of divine grace or retribution.[8] The Jain doctrine also holds that it is possible for us to both modify our karma, and to obtain release from it, through the austerities and purity of conduct.

Greg - do you have a problem with what I hilited in red, because it sure sounds similar.

Not making a judgement...lol, one of my favorite Ayn quotes is tne obverse of "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jainism is one of the oldest religions in the world.[2] Jains traditionally trace their history through a succession of twenty-four propagators of their faith known as tirthankaras with Rishabha as the first and Mahāvīra as the last of the current era.

For long periods of time, Jainism was the state religion of Indian kingdoms and widely adopted in the Indian subcontinent. The religion has been in decline since the 8th century AD due to the growth of, and oppression by the followers of Hinduism[3] and Islam.[4]

The decline of Jainism continued after the Islamic conquest of India. The Muslims conquerors of India, such as Mahmud Ghazni (1001), Mohammad Ghori (1175) and Ala-ud-din Muhammed Shah Khilji (1298) further oppressed the Jain community.[83] They vandalized idols and destroyed temples or converted them into mosques. They also burned the Jain books and killed Jains. Some conversions were peaceful, however; Pir Mahabir Khamdayat (c. 13th century CE) is well known for his peaceful propagation of Islam.[83][84]

Islam is a religion of peace?

hmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jainism is a religious minority in India, with 4.2 million adherents, and there are small but notable immigrant communities in Belgium, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, and the United States.[5] Jains have the highest degree of literacy of any religious community in India (94.1 percent),[6] and their manuscript libraries are the oldest in the country.[7] The population of Jain community across the world is around 6.1 million.[8]

Percentage wise - real close to Objectiviists in America...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, does this fit your "storyline" theory?

There are several legends about the mass massacre of Jains in the ancient times. The Buddhist king Ashoka (304-232 BCE) is said to have ordered killings of 18,000 Jains or Ajivikas after someone drew a picture of Buddha bowing at the feet of Mahavira.[77][78] The Saivite king Koon Pandiyan, who briefly converted to Jainism, is said to have ordered a massacre of 8,000 Jains after his re-conversion to Saivism. However, these legends are not found in the Jain texts, and appear to be fabricated propaganda by Buddhists and Saivites.[79][80] Such stories of destruction of one sect by another sect were common at the time, and were used as a way to prove the superiority of one sect over the other. There are stories about a Jain king of Kanchi persecuting the Buddhists in a similar way.[81] Another such legend about Vishnuvardhana ordering the Jains to be crushed in an oil mill doesn't appear to be historically true.[82]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I haven't listened to the video, I recall that Sowell, Gilder and other libertarians have noted India's long traditions of learning, enterprise and saving which have helped emigrants to do well all over the world, including the US. Friedman once remarked, well before the deregulation of recent decades, that India was on its way to becoming the only country in the world not benefiting from these traditions.

Sowell (I think) notes that Indians came to South Africa as slaves and, as Coloureds, lived under halfway apartheid for most of the twentieth century but have prospered anyway; they are wealthier on the average than whites.

This is interesting in light of Rand's habit of citing India as the paradigm of the destructive effects of mysticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I haven't listened to the video, I recall that Sowell, Gilder and other libertarians have noted India's long traditions of learning, enterprise and saving which have helped emigrants to do well all over the world, including the US. Friedman once remarked, well before the deregulation of recent decades, that India was on its way to becoming the only country in the world not benefiting from these traditions.

Sowell (I think) notes that Indians came to South Africa as slaves and, as Coloureds, lived under halfway apartheid for most of the twentieth century but have prospered anyway; they are wealthier on the average than whites.

This is interesting in light of Rand's habit of citing India as the paradigm of the destructive effects of mysticism.

Rand could be right. Mysticism might have been very harmful to India in the past. In the absence of mysticism, India might be much better developed. However, I think there is every reason to be optimistic about India going forward and, in my view, the video reinforces that conclusion.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, does this fit your "storyline" theory?

Adam,

I need to go through this thread and read the stuff when I get time (and I will). I know nothing about Jainism.

However, a while back I came across a most interesting infographic called: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion.

Here is the graphic (if the following is difficult to see, I will reduce it and upload it to OL--but you can also see it at the Pinterest link above):

d8ecc07e906127bf0fd4623504b7eca8.jpg

As with all attempts at broad syntheses like this, there are things I am sure different people will contest.

However, I think the attempt is a very interesting approach and provides a better framework than the oversimplified "mysticism is bad and reason is good" thing from Rand.

How can something be all bad if it was with humans since the dawn of human existence?

Mysticism satisfies a deep human need. Otherwise it would disappear. And I doubt that need is to evade or be dishonest.

I'm all for identifying that need and filling it with stories and ideas more in line with reason, but if I were to accept the fact that all mysticism is evil, look at the logic:

All mysticism is evil.

Mysticism has been with humans since the beginning.

Therefore, humans came into existence as evil creatures.

That smells an awful lot like the Christian Original Sin concept.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I think the attempt is a very interesting approach and provides a better framework than the oversimplified "mysticism is bad and reason is good" thing from Rand.

How can something be all bad if it was with humans since the dawn of human existence?

Thanks for the graphic.

Your question is one I've wondered about ever since my first reading of Galt's Speech.

The speech does contain an "answer," but not one I've ever found plausible. :smile:

Man has the power to act as his own destroyer--and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.

[....] Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice--and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal.

[Lengthier excerpt here]

~~~

The wiki has a symbol that surprised me:

90px-Jain_Prateek_Chihna.svg.png

I don't know about you, however it got my attention.

I'm supposing that the swastika is what surprised you in the image.

The swastika has an old history and has appeared in multiple traditions. A brief history can be found on a site called "Reclaim The Swastika."

link

The swastika has held a place of great importance in India and Asia for thousands of years, and is widely used by Hindus, Jains and Buddhists.

[....] It may well be the most prevalent symbol one will see in India.

However, the swastika is not limited to India and Asia. Evidence suggests that the swastika was in use in many other cultures too.

[....]

The swastika was also used widely in the pre-Nazi twentieth century:

Dust-covers of books by Rudyard Kipling and other authors

Boy Scouts' badges in Britain from 1911 to 1922

[and other examples]

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~~~

The wiki has a symbol that surprised me:

90px-Jain_Prateek_Chihna.svg.png

I don't know about you, however it got my attention.

I'm supposing that the swastika is what surprised you in the image.

The swastika has an old history and has appeared in multiple traditions. A brief history can be found on a site called "Reclaim The Swastika."

link

The swastika has held a place of great importance in India and Asia for thousands of years, and is widely used by Hindus, Jains and Buddhists.

[....] It may well be the most prevalent symbol one will see in India.

However, the swastika is not limited to India and Asia. Evidence suggests that the swastika was in use in many other cultures too.

[....]

The swastika was also used widely in the pre-Nazi twentieth century:

Dust-covers of books by Rudyard Kipling and other authors

Boy Scouts' badges in Britain from 1911 to 1922

[and other examples]

Ellen

Thanks.

Was completely unaware of that pre-Nazi uses of the symbol.

Do you see common themes between the two?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to disappoint, but at least in the opinion of the late George Walsh (a philosophy professor and a former associate of Peikoff, AR,I and later, David Kelley), in his book, The Role of Religion in History (N.J., Transaction Publishers, 1998), a transcribed series of lectures that he gave under the auspices of rhe predescessor to OCON, I think, Second Renaissance Lectures.). Jainism is discussed, briefly, on pages 33-35) in more of a descriptive than disapproving manner (actually, disapproval is implied, rather than directly stated. Remember, he was speaking to a group of ARIan Objectivists, who can pronounce their own judgment without Walsh's assistence) in terms of its philosophy and its recommended ethics. However, he concludes with a description of where, in actuality, many Jains end up in terms of work ethic, achievement, etc. (on or near the top in Indian society in terms of accomplishments and business acumen) Walsh notes the paradox, but then drops the ball and does not discuss its implications regarding Objectivism (which are in contradistinction, quite severe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Was completely unaware of that pre-Nazi uses of the symbol.

You're welcome.

The Nazi use of the swastika pretty much enshrouded the symbol in such a dark cloud, lots of people have no idea of its long history. A shame, since it was a very positive symbol in its pre-Nazi uses, a symbol of life, growth, the four quadrants of the sun's "wind," and other associations with the "wheel" of existence.

Do you see common themes between the two?

Between Jainism and Objectivism? Not really. In fact I was startled to see a thread asking about similarities. Although there might be similarities in the respect of work orientation, the Jains hold getting off the wheel of things as the goal. The philosophy is other-worldly. It doesn't share Objectivism's valuing of life here on this earth, although there's a valuing of life in the sense that the Jains have a strong aversion to killing other creatures - so much so, there's the witticism that carrying Jainism to its logical conclusion would require that a Jain stop breathing. The embargo on killing other creatures is because of a radical belief in reincarnation.

For a quick factoid list that will give you an idea of Jain beliefs, see this Quizlet card on Jainism and Sikhism.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a quick factoid list that will give you an idea of Jain beliefs, see this Quizlet card on Jainism and Sikhism.

Ellen

left home to be a wandering holy man, embraced ascetism;

overcoming bondage and attachment;

no intoxicants - can't see Galt with a glass of Chivas on the rocks;

steel bracelet - a stretch lol

Thks again.

A...

LOL - special underwear!! Is this where the Mormons got the idea to wear special underwear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam (in post #1): "India appears to have the most interest in Ayn's philosophy." On what do you base this assertion? A few books (or maybe, just one? "Ayn Rand at 100" edited by Tibor Machan, published in India about ten years ago.). I have seen some interest on Facebook (seems to be primarily a few college students), a few speakers at Atlas Society conferences; a few posters here or on other Objectivist-oriented sites. There is an "institute" that promotes laissez-faire and Objectivism, but the extent of irs influence or support seems rather modest. Any data available on the sales of Atlas Shrugged or Rand's other relevant non-fiction books in India?

Any interest shown in Objectivism (or libertarianism) in India is certainly better than none, but it seems rather minuscule in a country with a population now of around one billion. This hardly compares to the level of activity in the United States (which is, while not [yet] having much effect in Washington, it is more than enough to worry the Left, judging from their rather hysterical articles in liberal-oriented journals [The New Yorker, The New Republic, etc] and on the internet, and has spawned at least one book sounding the alarm or warning, from a iberal jounalist to this fellow liberals, that they had better wake up to the growth of interest in Objectivism, Ayn Rand Nation.by Gary Weiss (a book I recommend as an antidepressant to those of us who think that Objectivism is not a growing influence in America)..

By the way, you appear to be asserting/implying that Jainists in India might be ....what?.... closet Objectivists? :unsure::blush: In that they are often businessmen, entreprenuers, etc. So, Is there any evidence then that they are financially supporting or otherwise promoting, any of the libertarian/proto-Objectivist "think tanks?"

Just asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-wriiten for expansion and clarification on 9/4/2014. I just listened to the video lecture (link above, in post # 5), "Objectivism in India", by Jerry Johnson, from the 2014 Atlas Summer conference. Mr. Johnson is a very polished and articulate speaker, conveying such self-confidence in his delivery that listeners naturally assume that he knows what he is talking about.(which he may, but not enough detail is given to properly evaluate some of his assertions)..

Early in his talk, Mr. Johnson points to an article in the British The Economist (date not given) that did a Google check on from what country are people searching on specifically "Randian" terms, and India and America are in first and second place.. Interesting, but I'd want to read the article to see if its methodolgy and results were valid. While such a survey is interesting, it was not clear (from Mr. Johnson's brief reference) what that implies regarding the depth of interest in Rand's philosophy. He also points to another article claiming that Ayn Rand's books outsell Marx's, in India by a wide margin. Great, but Marxism is out of fashion and is not likely the major current of leftwing or socialist thought in India. Again, I'd like more details, so I'll have to look up the article.

The bulk of his talk are on what he sees as parallels between Objectivism and the values held by several of the gods in Hindu mythology. Johnson makes some rather fascinating claims that in essence, they are saying the same or similar things and hold similar values. Anyway, that is his claim and he presents a number of charts or tables to illustrate what he sees as the parallels. Unfortunately, not enough detail is given to adequately document these claims (not possible in a 60 minute talk).

But there are some serious problems with Johnson's presentation. The first, is that few American listeners are likely to be sufficiently up on their Hindu mythologies to be able to judge whether Johnson's descriptions are accurate. I certainly am not. It would be interesting to see what the reaction to this presentation would be if given in an Indian University where Hinduism is studied. Secondly, if there is as close a parallel between Rand's Roark and Galt on one hand, and the gods Ram, Shiva, and Vishnu on the other, then wouldn't this have been noticed and pointed out in Indian journals, media, etc? Make no mistake, Johnson, near the end of his presentation, claims that the Indian mythologies and Objectivist philosophy are not just simlar, but damn near identical in all the most important aspects (watch the video and look closely at his tables where he attempts to demonstrate this).

Thirdly, haven't we heard similar claims before, in another context? You know, that, really, "Objectivism and Christian theology and ethics are really advocating the same thing".. If that were true, you would have seen an entirely different reaction to Rand from Christian spokesmen than the animosity that did occur. The claim that Hinduism is promoting the same values as Objectivism requires a lot more evidence than was provided in this talk. The video did not record the follow-up Q&A session, so I have no idea as to how the talk was received.

Watch the video. What do you think?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-wriiten for expansion and clarification on 9/4/2014. I just listened to the video lecture (link above, in post # 5), "Objectivism in India", by Jerry Johnson, from the 2014 Atlas Summer conference. Mr. Johnson is a very polished and articulate speaker, conveying such self-confidence in his delivery that listeners naturally assume that he knows what he is talking about.(which he may, but not enough detail is given to properly evaluate some of his assertions)..

Early in his talk, Mr. Johnson points to an article in the British The Economist (date not given) that did a Google check on from what country are people searching on specifically "Randian" terms, and India and America are in first and second place.. Interesting, but I'd want to read the article to see if its methodolgy and results were valid. While such a survey is interesting, it was not clear (from Mr. Johnson's brief reference) what that implies regarding the depth of interest in Rand's philosophy. He also points to another article claiming that Ayn Rand's books outsell Marx's, in India by a wide margin. Great, but Marxism is out of fashion and is not likely the major current of leftwing or socialist thought in India. Again, I'd like more details, so I'll have to look up the article.

The bulk of his talk are on what he sees as parallels between Objectivism and the values held by several of the gods in Hindu mythology. Johnson makes some rather fascinating claims that in essence, they are saying the same or similar things and hold similar values. Anyway, that is his claim and he presents a number of charts or tables to illustrate what he sees as the parallels. Unfortunately, not enough detail is given to adequately document these claims (not possible in a 60 minute talk).

But there are some serious problems with Johnson's presentation. The first, is that few American listeners are likely to be sufficiently up on their Hindu mythologies to be able to judge whether Johnson's descriptions are accurate. I certainly am not. It would be interesting to see what the reaction to this presentation would be if given in an Indian University where Hinduism is studied. Secondly, if there is as close a parallel between Rand's Roark and Galt on one hand, and the gods Ram, Shiva, and Vishnu on the other, then wouldn't this have been noticed and pointed out in Indian journals, media, etc? Make no mistake, Johnson, near the end of his presentation, claims that the Indian mythologies and Objectivist philosophy are not just simlar, but damn near identical in all the most important aspects (watch the video and look closely at his tables where he attempts to demonstrate this).

Thirdly, haven't we heard similar claims before, in another context? You know, that, really, "Objectivism and Christian theology and ethics are really advocating the same thing".. If that were true, you would have seen an entirely different reaction to Rand from Christian spokesmen than the animosity that did occur. The claim that Hinduism is promoting the same values as Objectivism requires a lot more evidence than was provided in this talk. The video did not record the follow-up Q&A session, so I have no idea as to how the talk was received.

Watch the video. What do you think?

.

Thanks, Jerry, for watching the video I posted. I agree that the speaker goes too far in his comparisons of Indian mysticism and Objectivism, especially with his table near the end. I don't know enough about Hinduism, for example, to really judge, but the simple fact that it is a form of mysticism is red flag number one. On the other hand, if his point was to show why Objectivism might be appealing to Indians, then I think his thesis might have some merit. Indians might have a lot fewer issues transitioning from their ingrained beliefs to Objectivism than Christians have, for example. On the other other hand, however, I don't really know enough about India or Hinduism to judge whether that is a reasonable conclusion or not.

I will say that I've seen a number of Objectivist Indians on facebook. They are second only to Americans in requesting to be my facebook friend and other countries such as China, to pick on one, aren't even close. In fact, I don't think I've had a single person outside of North America, Europe, and India request to be my facebook friend after finding out that I am an Objectivist or that I am pro-freedom. However, I have had a fair number of Indians request a connection.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

Jainism precedes Hinduism.

I would prefer to stick to Jainism and Objectivism ... obviously, to the best of my knowledge, all philosophy 10,000 years ago had mystical roots.

A...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Added - the wiki on atheism...

Jainism[edit]

See also: Jainism and non-creationism

Jains see their tradition as eternal. Organized Jainism can be dated back to Parshva who lived in the ninth century BCE, and, more reliably, to Mahavira, a teacher of the sixth century BCE, and a contemporary of the Buddha. Jainism is a dualistic religion with the universe made up of matter and souls. The universe, and the matter and souls within it, is eternal and uncreated, and there is no omnipotent creator deity in Jainism. There are, however, "gods" and other spirits who exist within the universe and Jains believe that the soul can attain "godhood", however none of these supernatural beings exercise any sort of creative activity or have the capacity or ability to intervene in answers to prayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

Jainism precedes Hinduism.

I would prefer to stick to Jainism and Objectivism ... obviously, to the best of my knowledge, all philosophy 10,000 years ago had mystical roots.

A...

Sorry, to hijack the thread, but I don't see why we can't have an overall discussion of the similarities of Indian philosophies to Objectivism. Most of us don't know enough to distinguish between Jainism and Hinduism anyway.

According to the chart MSK posted above, Jainism might have preceded Hinduism chronologically, but both Jainism and Hinduism are offshoots of a Vedic root.

At any rate, I think we could learn something by comparing any Vedic religion with Objectivism.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At any rate, I think we could learn something by comparing any Vedic religion with Objectivism.

Darrell

You added to the scope of the thread which is great.

The reason I started it was coming across Jainism while doing some research on a new client whose firstname in Jainic. And I perceived the strong elements of a moral, ethical and practical economic theme that blended with Objectivism.

The key to me was the neo-atheistic dichotomy that made up their gestalt.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a religious forum that has a thread titled "Ayn Rand and Objectivism."

http://www.religionforums.org/Thread-Ayn-Rand-and-Objectivism

One poster mentioned that:

One thing I find interesting is that Ayn Rand has a significant following within the American Evangelical Christian community. This is a bit puzzling considering her worldview is both atheistic and explicitly promotes the virtue of selfishness as its central tenet.

This poster listened to the audio of Atlas which took "63 hours" to listen to!

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

... Jain traditions also rejected the notion of God, and hence any claim that the Vedas were words of God, and hence authoritative, was not acceptable to them. On the other hand, the Jain and the Buddhist ...

These ... Jain, and Buddhist thinkers turned away from traditional metaphysical questions about the nature of the external world and the self, and focused instead on the study of epistemology, logic, and language.

These were some of the references to Jain in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

This link is to the search page articles which are intriguing...

http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?page=1&query=jain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the entire Johnson talk and came away unconvinced. The parts about India's mercantile tradition are convincing (as Sowell and Freidman pointed out years ago), but the rest is labored and implausible. His talk, and the various attempts cited here to rationalize Rand as a Christian, merely go to show that if you make up your mind firmly enough and set your standards of plausibility low enough, you can find something in common between any two notions. What would a pair of ideas have to look like to have NOTHING in common?

The rationale for such attempts is often that it helps to sell ideas to people who would otherwise not have looked into them. I wonder what the evidence for this is. Time will tell about Hindu Objectivism, but Christian Objectivism goes back at least as far as E. Merrill Root in National Review in the late 50s, and it still hasn't gotten off the ground. I'm not optimistic about Johnson's synthesis. When I was in college during the Vietnam war / new left / hippie era, some Objectivists and Libertarians said that we could gain a following by aping these people's vocabulary ("liberation", "smash the state" etc.), mode of dress and musical tastes. It didn't happen. You'd go to a love-in and the Libertarians would be the ones wearing saddle shoes.

More recently a lot of people expressed, in varying degrees of explicitness, the hope that Sciabarra's "Ayn Rand the Russian Radical" would bring the Derrida / Foucault crowd under the tent. Still waiting.

Finally, Johnson's remarks about food preparation and service (everything at once in India vs. a fixed menu and order in the west - 31:15 ff) are dubious. Most main meals in the west follow a sequence of main course then dessert (primo, secondo and maybe dessert in Italian tradition), but it's hardly ever more elaborate than that. The practice of successive courses isn't as ancient as we might think. Everything at once, at even the most formal meals, was standard until the nineteenth century, when western Europe imported the separate-courses custom from Russia and called it "service Russe". Even today the west has a lively tradition of buffets, smorgasbords, potlucks, cafeterias, salad bars, hors d'oeuvre bars, dessert bars and food courts that don't bear out his strawman, and nearly all sit-down restaurants offer numerous options on their menus. To say that you are limited to what the cook has prepared is pretty much a tautology wherever you happen to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"More recently a lot of people expressed, in varying degrees of explicitness, the hope that Sciabarra's "Ayn Rand the Russian Radical" would bring the Derrida / Foucault crowd under the tent. Still waiting."

Where was this discussion? I guess I missed it! I do not see anything in common between Sciabarra and Derida/Foucault, nor why either side would be complementing the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember it mostly from ATL: ca. 1998. The conversation seems to have gone on elsewhere as well, spawning Eric Mack's immortal "even if you could, why would you want to?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now