Jonathan Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Hell, who wouldn't allow her one self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason? She was a passionate woman, too - and this was a very human episode. It wasn't Rand's only "self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason." Like all other people, she had many "very human episodes" in which her passions thwarted her rationality.I can't figure how a person's life and career can be measured by the exceptions to their excellence.Why would you try to figure out such a thing? No one here is measuring anyone's life and career by the exceptions to their excellence.Take any great, historical figure and observe all details of his life as closely as Rand's commonly is, and you'll see him become...ordinary.This is fashionable skepticism, essentially stating "If you aren't perfect, then you must be like the rest of us."Hey, you're the one who allows Rand only "one self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason."It is a revealing indictment of the skeptics, hardly the person targeted.So, are you saying that if I disagree with your opinion that Rand had only one self-contradiction, and I recognize the reality that she had more, then I must be "targeting" Rand and therefore "indicting" myself?When some Objectivists, too, appear to fall into the dichotomy of Perfection - or nothing, then Rand is given a heavy responsibility, still.It appears that she's also given a heavy responsibility when allowed only one single mistake. There isn't a significant difference between adopting a "perfection or nothing" attitude and adopting an "I'll allow her one mistake and then nothing" attitude.They'll learn hopefully, that there is no instant gratification in merely learning the philosophy, as it's only then that the real thinking begins. But set Branden as 'demon', against Rand as 'saint'- or vice versa; or Rand as thinker, against Rand as woman; or set instant Revelation against "nothing can be known with certainty": and the false dichotomies pile up.Are you talking to me? If so, all that I said was that Rand had many very human episodes in which her passions thwarted her rationality. In doing so, I wasn't making anyone a demon or a saint. I wasn't asserting that "nothing can be known with certainty." I wasn't taking a philosophical position or making a philosophical statement, and I wasn't revealing anything about myself, indicting myself, or targeting anyone. I was simply pointing out that the observable facts of reality clash with your opinion that Rand had "one self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason."It's not an attack, so you really didn't need to start sharpening all of the psychologizing weapons.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now