Quote:
Originally posted by punkworld
You can't really read Rand as a serious philosopher. Her idea that reason is objective is quite obviously flawed.
What makes her interesting are her outspoken position and her passion for the subject, as well as the clear break she makes with traditional modernist humanism.
If you look at the philosophical side of her argument, though, I think replacing her objectivist framework with a Nietzschean, mainly aesthetical one would yield much better results. An evolutionary relativistic approach might also work, maybe.
Thepoint is, you shouldn't read her as a philosopher, but as someone with an interesting, different view on life.
|
The problem is intelligent women sooner or later discover that altruism (as it applies to them) is fundamentally mysoginistic. So I know all these smart girsl (and I LUV smart girls) who gain empowerment by reading Rand, acquire an anti-male posture and become bitches. Rand's is certainly a survivalist stance. I just wish more people could achieve a feeling of self-determination without having to lose faith in something more important than themselves.
j-