To Mike Huben, the previous poster: Mr. Huben, what on earth are you talking about? Are you reading the same philosophy that I and many people on this forum are reading (Objectivism)? It is obvious from your comments, which are nothing more than random arbitrary assertions and floating abstractions--which painfully beg the question--that you have no idea what Objectivism is, or, if you do, this is much worse because then you are guilty of deliberately distorting and attacking a philosopher and her thought without providing any evidence to the contrary--which only reveals the nature of your character and soul. I literally fell on the floor laughing when I read your comment "Objectivism is based on little more than a fine Russian/European tradition of obscurantist philosophy and a number of patently false axioms." Patently false axioms? Existence, identity and consciousness--the axioms at the base of Objectivism--this is what you consider obscurantist and false? Compared to what? What do YOU consider as being non-obscurantist philosophy and patently TRUE axioms? Would you care to indulge me and others on this forum with your non-obscurantist, patently true axioms? Are they that far removed from the rest of us that only a genius like yourself is only capable of knowing? Please enlighten us with your brilliance. I and many others, I'm sure, are dying to know.
JOIN THE DEBATE Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity.
| ||||||||
previous response
Copyright © 1999 by The Chronicle of Higher Education