From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 02 2005 - 23:16:41 GMT
Hi Erin,
With Rand, I do understand the cultural perspective that led her to her
thesis. Someone else mentioned this at one point, and I think its
worthwhile to consider. Rand had seen the power of the state dismantle
individual rights, and so was ultimately concerned with developing a
philosophy dealing with what she saw as a great evil. Marx, too, wrote from
a specific cultural stance in opposition to what he perceived to be a great
evil, namely the enslavement of labor by wealth and the loss of individual
value in said labor. These are the cultural contexts that always must be
considered.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic in response to what I had said, or
towards Rand, or just interjecting some humor (or a little of each). If
you're implying that I am dullwitted, I'm sure Platt would agree, as would
I on many days. As for her level of writing, I've read many, many academic
treatises that were so laboriously inflated with language that only three
people on the earth could possible understand that I found them ridiculous
and of little value. I respect the clear mind that can write in such a way
as to illuminate the darkness for all, not just those with several PhDs. On
the other hand, there are topics that are not reducible to the language of
children, and require some effort on the reader to "rise up to the work"
(there is no subtle implication there, just a general observation).
Arlo
At 09:17 AM 12/2/2005, you wrote:
>Arlo,
>I heard that Rand really understood all the better
>ideas you are talking about but she just didn't think
>her readers were up to that level of understanding yet
>and thought only the dullwitted would be interested in
>any higher level of understanding.
>Just kidding..who would buy that!!
>Erin
>
>->
> > [Arlo previously]
> > To be honest, if in 50 years it is as ignored as
> > Rand, then, yes, Platt,
> > I'd say the MOQ failed to develop anything
> > worthwhile. Although I know
> > there is a need there to "blame" some vast "liberal
> > conspiracy" for why
> > your (and Rand's) ideas are ignored at the Academy,
> > but many ideas fail in
> > the Academy, and your "left-right" dichotomy is not
> > the scale. James and
> > Peirce are taught everywhere and held in high
> > esteem, are they part of
> > "liberalism"? We read Kant, and Plato and Sarte and
> > Wittgenstein. Not to
> > mention Saussere, Searle, Nietzsche and Aquinas.
> > I've had philosophy
> > courses where we read Jefferson, Locke and Mill. All
> > these all part of the
> > "vast liberal conspiracy in the curriculum"? No.
> > Just people with much
> > better ideas, ideas worth reading and voices worth
> > appropriating.
> >
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 03 2005 - 03:02:12 GMT