How common are honest errors in Philosophy?

[Donovan A.]

"Since philosophy deals with the broadest abstractions, which subsume an incalculable number of concretes, the application of basic principles to specific issues is open to innumerable errors and to disagreements. I expect that I shall disagree, at times, with some of those applications. If the error is serious, I may, occasionally, write a letter to the editor - to indicate a correction. But I am not editing this magazine, and my association with it is only that of philosophical consultant." - Ayn Rand, To the Readers of The Objectivist Forum, p.1

"I urge the readers to use their own judgment as to whether a particular article is or is not consonant with Objectivist principles. Remember, it is a fundamental tenet of Objectivism that one must not accept ideas on faith." - Ayn Rand, To the Readers of The Objectivist Forum, p.1

"(Now we must note that falsehood does not necessarily imply vice; honest errors of knowledge are possible. But such errors are not nearly so common as some people wish to think, especially in the field of philosophy. In our century, there have been countless mass movements dedicated to inherently dishonest ideas—e.g., Nazism, Communism, non-objective art, non-Aristotelian logic, egalitarianism, nihilism, the pragmatist cult of compromise, the Shirley MacLaine types, who “channel” with ghosts and recount their previous lives; etc. In all such cases, the ideas are not merely false; in one form or

another, they represent an explicit rebellion against reason and reality (and, therefore, against man and values). If the conscientious attempt to perceive reality by the use of one’s mind is the essence of honesty, no such rebellion can qualify as “honest.”)" - Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Fact and Value

"(The originators, leaders and intellectual spokesmen of all such movements are necessarily evaders on a major scale; they are not merely mistaken, but are crusading irrationalists. The mass base of such movements are not evaders of the same kind; but most of the followers are dishonest in their own passive way. They are unthinking, intellectually irresponsible ballast, unconcerned with logic or truth. They go along with corrupt trend-setters because their neighbors demand it, and/or because a given notion satisfies some out-of-context desire they happen to feel. People of this kind are not the helplessly ignorant, but the willfully self-deluded.")" - Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Fact and Value

Edited February 22, 2009 by Donovan A.

[tjohnson]

What would Peikoff say if someone called him "willfully self-deluded"? I don't even know what that means, but it sounds nasty.

[Brant Gaede]

What would Peikoff say if someone called him "willfully self-deluded"? I don't even know what that means, but it sounds nasty.

He would understand it was out of love and hope for his speedy recovery to normal, moral, intelligent humanity free of thespianship..

--Brant