I just found this posting a few minutes ago on Deja. It really enraged the objectivists. It started with this..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Is there anyone, I don't care if you're an objectivist or a nazi, who agrees with David Brin's characterization of Ayn Rand's views in the September 2000 issue of Liberty: "For she [Rand] further holds that objective reality is readily accessible by solitary individuals using words and logic alone. This proposition -- reject by nearly all modern scientists -- is essentially a restatement of the Platonic worldview, a fundamental axiom of which is that the universe is made up of ideal essences or 'values' (the term Rand preferred) that can be discovered, dispassionately examined, and _objectively_ analyzed by those few bold minds who are able to finally free themselves from hoary assumptions of the past. Once freed, any truly rational individual must, by simply applying verbal reasoning, independently reach the same set of fundamental conclusions about life, justice and the universe. (Naturally, any mind that fails to do so must, by definition, not yet be free.)" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I have not read the article, these people went for the throat, criticizing Transparent Society, the Postman, and his Sci-Fi (to start with..). Frankly I tend to agree with what Brin says here. Perhaps my mind it not yet free "enough" to really understand. The general concensus was that Brin was ill-informed of what Objectivism _really_ is. This remind me of Brin's quiz, where he states that opponents tent to view their opponent as either inherently evil or just ignorant. I saw many references to Brin being either pure evil or just plain dumb (After all, he wrote the "Postman" movie). Here are some snippets: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ernest Brown wrote: > I'd have to see the whole context of Brin's article to make further > criticisms, Go right ahead, if you can stand it. It's the one promoted highest on the cover with the headline "Ayn Rand's Strange Subjectivism". I tried to read more of it, by my gag reflex got in the way. Cows can regurgitate at will, humans have to read _Liberty_. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>I find it hard to believe that >>the editors at _Liberty_ are so completely ignorant of Rand's ideas as to >>not realize that this is a misrepresentation. > >If this was an article by Brin, it expresses his views, not _Liberty_'s. Undoubtedly, but as several others have noted, they published it. While I do not expect them to agree with everything they publish, I would hope that they wouldn't *knowingly* publish something that was such an obvious misrepresentation. Hostility toward Rand is something I have come to expect from articles in _Liberty_, but there is a difference between disagreement and negative portrayal, on the one hand, and outright falsity on the other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know where Mr. Brin gets his information, but it is wrong, and he clearly has not done his homework. However far he has gotten in researching Objectivist epistemology, he apparently has yet to encounter, understand, and/or tell the truth about the notion of "context." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if there is anyone other than David Brin who agrees with that, but it appears from hence that David Brin is in the habit of delivering lectures about things he knows nothing about. A common failing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, This got me a little defensive. However, I am afraid I am also guilty of what I accuse them of, which is blind biasness. It appears that Brin did an article for this magazine. The URL to the Magazine is :http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/recent.html But they do not have the artice up yet. <sigh> Nerd From Hell (Come on Everyone... Lets go Kick their Asses!)
