Essays on Ideas

ABSTRACT

OVL: Objectivism v. Libertarianism: v.1.2.1: Replies to Responses

Reply is made to many responses to the original posting concerning "libertarianism & Objectivism," in which concerns about the IOS "subculture model" were expressed. The order of reply is from least important to more so. Summaries of responses are employed to minimize quotation.

Introduction

Eric Mack responds(in summary):

Rothering is a parochial thinker, with a fanatical, almost religious dedication to the works of Rand, which are regarded as an intrinsic, revealed corpus.

I reply: Eric Mack’s ad hominum attack on my studies/thought which he assumes to be parochial are particularly striking when posted to the list-group which heartily endorses the Kelly position. Shouldn’t he be "reaching out to me" as an "Enlightenment thinker" who has somehow "gone astray?" Although no reply is necessitated to this: the parochiality of my education is irrelvant to the epistemic veridicality of my arguments; I am picked! So I shall parenthetically note, for Mr. Mack’s benefit, that I did in fact pursue the solutions to the most demanding questions which I could find. I even went so far as to take a years worth of Greek so I could struggle through Plato, Aristotle, et al. in the original (which I was able partially to do). This is far astray for a math/computer science major. Am I up to the standards of a professional philosopher? Clearly not. This would require a full-time dedication to the subject. To conclude this reply, I will note that I neither advocated nor do I endorse a fanatical devotion to the works of Rand which I do *not* regard as a *revealed* corpus.

Mark Sulkowski responds(in summary) : with his his personal experience, to show how profitable outreach to Libertarians can be

.I reply:

Anecdotal evidence is inherently weak. One could no doubt find example of all kinds of tortuous routes to Objectivism. This is *not* intended to belittle or demean Mr. Sulkowski’s experience in any way. But, the argument must proceed from principles and induction based on more than one-case samples. Empathy is extended for the suffering of all who experienced terrible denunciation for their views. Again, this is irrelevant to the discussion. This author has not denounced!

Chris Cathcart responds (in summary): Chris answers in part in the post and points me to the web site refutation of Schwartz. It claims that Schwartz’ argument is incomprehensible. He states that: "So it should come as no surprise to someone like myself, who wades through"LTPOL" and tries to make objective sense out of Schwartz's argument, that an attempt to find a line of thought that is definite or coherent in its methods, criteria and argumentation, is almost impossible." Furthermore, bad citation practices on the part of Schwartz are denounced.

I reply:

Schwartz failures are irrelevant. I put forth an argument. That is the one that needs to be dealt with. However, in passing, I do not recall Kelly having any problem understanding the argument of Schwartz. I cannot revisit Schwartz LTPOL article, as I don’t have all my books unpacked at the moment. But I don’t recall it being so incomprehensible. If the purpose of this "highly scholarly" approach to Objectivism is to refute, at least the incomprehensibility of the essay should be proven by a systematic, line-by-line analysis. As I think many posters here would think should be done with Kant. (rather than merely denouncing with out reading him, as the Peikovian branch might advocate)

Eric Mack responded (in summary): The failure of Libertarians to accept Objectivism demonstrates one of two possibilities: that they are evaders; or that there are problems with it. As with any scientific theory, failure to accept is evidence of problems

I reply:

This is a far more thought-provoking argument. Where is the literature that explicates these "problems"? In a scientific endevor, when a promising theory is published, yet is seen to have problems, a vast literature investigating these problems is produced, e.g., indicating failure to reproduce exactly, etc. in order to refine the theory and further the truth. It seems more that the Libertarians regard these issues as irrelevant to their pursuit of liberty. So their failure to accept is not evidence of problems but evidence of their focus on non-fundamentals.