COLLOQUY

THE QUESTION

RESPONSES

BACKGROUND

Actually, my statement quite clearly included Rand herself and Peikoff among those whom promise great amounts of philosophy, logic, reason and rationality, but deliver in extremely small quantities. You seem intent upon pushing a point of your own, rather than responding in a rational manner to mine.

'Having an MS in philosophy, [M.R.M. Parrott] should talk to...Philosophy professors...who advocate Rand's ideas...'

First of all, I seem to be talking to an assistant professor, in a forum in which anyone is invited, not merely professors. Second, you are approaching an ad vericundiam fallacy, which purports to boast that only "educated people" can effectively understand a given topic. I must stress that for logical, and other, reasons, Rand's philosophy is not a topic which requires deep intuition to understand, nor deep insight to refute.

Once again, you have not addressed the scope and application of my post directly, but have only taken the opportunity to move quite outside of that scope and application. I find little reason to continue responding to someone who is not practicing the philosophical skill for which he preaches. You may retort that I am backing away, but I believe it is obvious that you are not intending to have a philosophical discussion. If you decide to actually argue the issues and points of Rand's thought and my post, then I suggest you get your cow over your bucket.

-- M.R.M. Parrott, author of The Empiricism of Subjectivity (posted 5/10, 4 p.m., E.D.T.)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name:

Your title & institution:

Your phone:

Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments (required)

STEP 3: Submit!

Check this box if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.