Objectivish


Guest Anya

Recommended Posts

This is primarily an intellectual biography

For much of my childhood I was unsatisfied with the values and answers I received from schools. When I was in my earlier teens three philosophers exerted a great deal of influence on me: Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and Ayn Rand.

Before this point, I had already become an atheist because of discussions I’d had with friends and the generally unconvincing arguments adduced in support of Dutch Reformed Theology (my grandmother's religion) and the basically non-religious quality of Daoism (my mother's vestigal religion). I came to see it all as having a kind of spooky or superstitious nature. I have since become more sympathetic to elements of religion, appreciating in gnosticism, Buddhism and Daoism great theoretical and world-view trends that have much to offer.

By middle school and early high school, I had become familiar with the elementary principles of physics and astronomy, developing into a materialist and even a hard determinist fairly young. I was uncomfortable with the wishy-washy quasi-Christian values of Humanism (which, at the time, I did not identify as such).

Nietzsche had the first and most lasting impact on my thinking. His analysis of the psychology of morality and loyalty are fascinating, some of the best that have ever been written, and Nietzsche is in many ways a precursor to modern evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. His strident and unique individualism were appealing to me, as was his emphasis on self-seeking in every sense to be a life calling, the meaning of life itself. Though I later came to question some of his conclusions and analysis, I still think that Nietzschean Libertarianism makes a lot more sense than Enlightenment liberalism or Christianity as a value-basis. Nietzsche’s opposition to socialism (on the basis of it’s Christian character of decadence, really) struck me as interesting some years later, I find it compelling despite being a rather different sort of objection than the type Mises would pose (Mises has a joke about Nietzsche in Human Action, too).

Russell has faded dramatically with time, and I now find him shallow yet verbose. His formal logic and normative views are so saccharine and mealy-mouthed upon deeper reflection, he became my imprint for ‘bad English empiricist philosophy’, and shares many annoying elements with Locke and Hayek (who was not English). I enjoyed parts of his essay Why I Am Not a Christian but now find that he misunderstands religion in the general and specific case (I am still not a Christian.)

Rand's influence on my philosophy has been weaker in direct impact, but had a dramatic influence on my overall orientation. Aristotilian metaphysics and logic still seem largely convincing to me, and an interest in the various brands of philosophical egoism (particularly that of Max Stirner) has been enduring. While Rand's eudamonist/liberal approach to ethics and rights are obviously in contrast to Stirner's nihilistic egoism, I think that there is some grounds for integration as Rand's moral views are not deontological or intrinsicist. The focus on purposiveness, valuing, individual responsibility (in the most literal sense) and the integration of facts out of which one creates a purpose and takes into control his environment is to be found in Stirner, Mises and Rand; and like Rand, Stirner often suffers from poor reading comprehension on the part of his critics: he is neither a solipicist nor a cultural nihilist in the ordinary sense. Like Nietzsche, and Rand, he sees no need to either deny his bodily existence nor to sever it from his spiritual or mind.

George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God makes what I believe to be the best philosophical critique of Western theological deities I've read, but I usually recommend it as a primer in metaphysics, logic and epistemology. Smith's arguments against skepticism and supernaturalism, his emphasis on ontological consistency, etc. are really killer and have remained with me ever since.

Roderick T. Long's work, particularly on Wittgenstein, Aristotle and Mises, are really excellent. I can't always agree with his leftish orientation/heuristics, but as a philosopher he is top notch and deserves to be recognized with people like Jaako Hintikka as modern contributors to Aristotilian analysis.

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