topcat
Posts: 1675
Joined: 1/31/2004 From: Tidewater, VA Status: offline
|
M. Galt- Before anything else, I do want to admit that on first seeing your 'handle' I thought- 'Damn- I should have thought of that!'. This despite my opinions of Rand both as an author and a human being. On that subject: I confess that my first asumptions when you pulled objectivism out of your quiver was that you were either young or not terribly bright. Your writing skills belie the second, and your profile seems to oppose the first option, so I must think that you simply have not examined the system espoused by that woman in any depth. I am not aware of any serious attempts to revive objectism since the Reagan adminstration, and I am fairly sure, having been a staff member of what was considered to be a leading objectivist journal from '82-'89, that there were no successful attempts to validate it at that time. I was initally attracted to objectivism, but found that it only worked if you agreed with the subjective values that other objectivists held forth as absolutes. At best, it is a shortcut to fascism, at worst, a sort of a whiney version of exisentalism. Of course, this is only my opion, and certainly subjective<g>. I have enjoyed your interactions here on the board, and hope to see more in the future. Stay warm, Lawrence PS- as to your list, I think it made many uneasy because that often, when someone seems to be over-stating the obvious, it is often a false representation. I thought it was a bit simplistic, but basiclly valid.
_____________________________
-there is no remission without blood-
|