NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/2359

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-09 | 8.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!infoserv!momad!siphon
From: [e-mail] (Stimpson J. Katz)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Middlebrow?
Keywords: Rand Middlebrow Objectivism Libertarian
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 17:03:08 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: talk.philosphy.misc
Organization: MoDeM MaDnEsS BBS   1-516/295-9435
Lines: 162

Gordon Fitch writes:

>Peter Nelson (I think):
>>  ...
>>   Having read Rand's political and ethical writings, I have found
>>   nothing of sufficient intellectual rigor to form the basis of
>>   anything relevant to the discussion.  Her work is incredibly flawed
>>   and empty for someone who has attracted so much attention.  (Although
>>   it should be noted that the attention she attracts is among "middle-
>>   brows", sophomore philosophy students and the like; she has little
>>   following among serious philsophers or political thinkers.) ...
>
>First of all, let's dispense with the notion, implicit in so
>much that I see written here, that one philsophical text can
>be determined in some objective or absolute way to be better
>or truer than another.  For instance, Peter asserts that
>Rand's work is bad because no academic philosophers take it
>seriously.  But that is not because there is something
>inherently wrong with Rand's work, it's because it doesn't
>serve their needs.

That is, it may be true, but it is strategically unwise for them
to agree with it.

This has been more than adequately addressed by the other responses.
I'm very glad that I don't have to deal with this total negation
of philosophy. But, I will take you at your word and assume you
mean what you say (not that it is any better than what anyone
else has said).

You have made a claim that is impossible to agree with. If I agree with
you I am asserting that what you have said is better than someone who
says its negation. Therefore, I am logically required to disagree with
you.

>This is because Rand's philosophy is, as noted,
>fundamentally middlebrow.  That is, it is more rationalized
>than vulgar philosophy, which is almost always characterized
>by simple assertions, and yet it requires almost no effort to
>understand beyond the initial reading.  It is ideally
>attuned, then, to persons whose formal intellectual training
>is at about a high-school or college freshman level, and who
>are not really interested in abstract thought.  The academic,
>on the other hand, needs heavier stuff both for aesthetic
>reasons and also because, to maintain the respect of her
>profession, she must prove she can manipulate and
>interpret difficult texts and complex ideas.

Let's get this middlebrow thing out of the way immediately!
Fitch equates formal intellectual training with interest in abstract
thought. I can assure you that there is nothing as effective as
most formal intellectual training to kill a person's taste for
abstract thought. Your assertion of the equivalence of all
philosophic works, in fact you personally, should be admitted
as exhibit 'A' to support this claim.

These 'middlebrows' are extremely interested in abstract thought.
So interested, in fact, that they are disgusted when they discover
how many of their high school teachers or college professors are
not. They are rational and think ideas matter; this bothers Mr. Fitch,
who claims that he does not.

By "maintain the respect of her profession" Gordon means going with
the flow and not standing out, writing highly technical nonsense and
getting tenure. This is the mentality of the person not interested in
abstract thought. This is the definition of mediocrity.

"Aesthetic reasons"? Do you find reason so unnatractive? Try it on
for once, it might look good on you.

>Now, middlebrowness itself would not explain the enduring
>popularity of Rand's writing; every year, hundreds, if not
>thousands, of resolutely middlebrow texts appear, telling
>their readers what to think and how to get through life,
>to be soon replaced by more of their kind.  Few of them,
>however, deal as well with guilt as Rand's.

Perhaps this is because your 'middlebrow' theory is just a way to
assert your supperiority over all Objectivists?

>The function which Rand's philosophy admirably serves is
>the extrusion of guilt.  I say this because of the prominent
>place given to the idea that selfishness is a good thing.
>Most people would not think in these terms because they
>would already regard selfishness as a necessary thing.  But
>many parents teach their children rather impractical ideas,
>including the idea that selfishness is evil, others
>(especially the parents, or a favored sibling) come first,
>and so forth.  There may also be some kind of biological
>programing towards altruism.  In any case, guilt about
>selfishness obviously is an important problem for many
>people.

"Most people ... already regard selfishness as a necessary thing"?
Maybe, but they will not admit it. They lie to themselves and say
that the world would be a better place if all the selfishness could be
somehow eliminated. Rand exposed this internal lie. How can the
necessary be evil?

>In order to extrude guilt, Rand sets up a logical engine
>which can operate only in a solid, mechanical universe with
>well-defined components.  Hence, Objectivism.  Once the
>premises (the worldview) are set up, the engine can be run
>and the guilt can be extruded -- can be shown to be not only
>irrelevant, but evil.  Thus, Rand's philosophy actually
>accomplishes something useful, which is more than can be
>said about a great many philosophers.  The fact that it is
>not of the highest quality from an academic or aesthetic
>point of view is unimportant.  The only thing I really see
>"wrong" with it -- from my point of view -- is that the
>deterministic performance of the logical engine, along
>with the strong emotional need for it, produce a kind of
>totalitarianism in many of its adherents.  For instance,
>this article may well draw _angry_ rebuttals because it will
>seem insufficiently reverent.

Your presumption that you would receive rebuttals becuase you are
"insufficiently reverent" shows how little you truly understand the
Objectivist position. Any Objectivist's main objection to your
prose would be that you do not care about truth, it has no value
to you. You are more concerned about getting and keeping the respect
of your peers and seeming interested in abstract thought.

Are you saying that if I convinced you that our universe is
solid, mechanical, and contains well-defined components, you would
become an Objectivist? What type of universe do _you_ think we live
in? What method of obtaining knowledge other than observation did you
use to obtain this knowledge? Please note that Fitch must claim that
any set of responses to these questions are as good as any other.

Are you saying that if we lived in an unknowable universe, selfishness
might be bad? The moral value of selfishness depends on whether the
universe is knowable or not? I admit that Objectivism does not work in
an unknowable universe, but what does the moral value of selfishness have
to do with that? What are you views about selfishness?

>On the whole, I think philosophies should be judged on how
>well they serve those who consume them, as judged by the
>consumer.  Not everyone can metabolize Wittgenstein or
>Heidegger, nor should they.

If you wish to judge that way, go ahead. It is completely consistant
with your view that our universe does not contain well-defined components,
and you are one such component. You do more to propagate your views by
showing what a non-well-defined component might be like than by attempting
to explain them. On the other hand, I put a high value on truth.

If you want to sell your ideas on this open idea market, you will need
a better line than, "my ideas are as good as anyone else's". In fact,
your line is a sneer.

I just want to point out one thing to every Objectivist and Libertarian out
there: Think back to a time that you attempted to explain your ideas to
friends or associates and were called an "elitist". Now re-read Gordon's
last sentence, "Not everyone can metabolize Wittgenstein or Heidegger,
nor should they."


The Siphon ([e-mail])

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, never to live for the
sake of another man, nor to ask another man to live for mine."