on 9/9/01 9:27 PM, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'd like to take as an example a system that I think both of us differ with:
> that of Ann Rand. For her selfishness is virtue, altruism is evil. In my
> discussions with objectivists, I know that showing that someone serving their
> own interests in a particular will cause significantly more harm to other
> people than benefit to him or her has nothing to do, for them, with whether it
> is an ethical action. If it fits their criterion, then it is ethical and the
> other people's loss, hurt, etc. is their problem, not a matter of ethical
> behavior.
>
> I differ with their fundamental postulates, but I cannot falsify them with
> experimental evidence. I would guess that you would differ with them also,
> and I'd be very curious to see if you think you could falsify them. I
> consider Rand a third rate philosopher, but you know that she is probably the
> world's best selling philosopher, sigh.
I know she was very popular in the USA, but she is little known in the UK. I
have never read any of her stuff. She is quite interesting as a second rate
sf author who invented a cult around herself and made a lot of money out of
it, like L Ron Hubbard with Dianetics and Scientology. I get the impression
Rand may have believed her rantings more than Hubbard ever did his. I
imagine the 'best selling philosopher' stuff is just hyperbole. Objectivism
sounds like a 'political philosophy' in which case there are surely a great
many more copies of Marx, Mao, or even Plato's Republic in circulation.
--
William T Goodall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
