I also doubt that that Rand can defend her philosophical hierarchy in light of her other commitments (her attachment to a sense of life that she calls "Romantic").
She is going to keep on loving Victor Hugo, even though she "disagrees with virtually all of his explicit philosophy" (Just as I love Christian, Buddhist, Fascist, Egyptian, Hindu, and Aztec art -- without any particular attachment to any of the metaphysics or ideologies involved.) But still, she was willing to voice her philosophic concerns -- and her dissatisfaction with all the books that she liked was properly addressed by writing some of her own. Which gave her, as William might say, her vocation as an artist. Can we call her an elitist? She certainly priveleges her sense of life that " involves the exaltation of an Individual being and his or her striving, rather than anything else" , which seems to be a truth that she holds to be self evident ( though it may not be evident to you, I, or most of the world's population.) I consider that attitude to be dysfunctional, but it is rather democratic, is it not? Everyone, even slaves and peasants, can strive and exalt themselves. So if she is promoting elitism, it is only the kind which everyone can join. Obviously, I don't agree with Rand's philosophy of art or share much of her "sense of life", but I don't see how it's worse than anything else that's been presented to this listserv over the past decade. It works for her. >Yes I understand that Rand asserts this. My contention is rather that she cannot defend such an assertion in light of her other commitments. More modestly said, I have seen no evidence that she can defend such a hierarchy, and I doubt whether such an ordering is even coherent, given her psycho-epistemology. To reformulate my question (and objection), if each of us has a sense of life, then every action or argument, every work of art and ever word of philosophy can be traced back to it as an expression of that very sense of life. Were we Heideggerians, we might speak of a Stimmung (a mood, or an attunement to the world that envelopes us). If this is true, then placing philosophy is a dominant position simply expresses another sense of life. Hence, unlike the hermeneutical character of mood in Heidegger, Rands sense of life remains utterly subjective. To be sure, we may share a sense of life, but the grounds for our solidarity are not 'rational'. Now, should we accept my claim, then it further follows that the grounds or criteria for differentiating among 'senses of life' are neither objective nor open to further investigation. They are brute facts established by fiat. My charge of elitism thus arises from this petitio principii: other senses of life are worse because they are not mine, and mine involves the exaltation of an Individual being and his or her striving, rather than anything else. This is simply not an argument, let alone a sound or valid one. ____________________________________________________________ Easy-to-use, advanced features, flexible phone systems. Click here for more info. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxcAB5IjhaFqh5Njn3twlIcG6 5gdPeiWkR2MNOkqK4d4T1axL5oEDG/
