My critique of Stefan Molyneux's theory of Universally Preferable Behaviour
has been cited on the message board operated by the Sense of Life Objectivists (SOLO), a group dedicated to providing an alternative to the "cultism, censorship, heresy-hunts, emotional repression and robotic "Randroidism"" which founder Lindsay Perigo sees as characteristic of other Objectivist groups. As someone who was introduced to philosophy through the work of Ayn Rand, and who has since moved away from Objectivism due in part to the refusal of members of that camp to critically evaluate their own views, I very much appreciate what Mr. Perigo is trying to do, and encourage anyone interested in the philosophy of Ayn Rand to check out his site. I can't vouch for the content, as I haven't read much of anything from the site, but
the site's "Credo" sounds like it's at least a lot closer to being on the right track than most of the other Objectivist writings I've come across. (Of course, I would be remiss not to also mention a fascinating counterpoint in Dr. Nathaniel Branden's
The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement, which every Objectivist simply must read.)
But that's all beside the point here.
My critique was cited by a fellow going by Gregster on the SOLO forum, who simply said in reference to Molyneux:
One person's critique of his "ideas" on morality.
What followed, care of a poster named Sharon, was one of the greatest marginalizations I have ever come across in my life:
LOL. You are too much, Gregster. Did you even bother to read his book on ethics—or this critique for that matter? Probably not, and yet you have "scare" quotes here. You know, Rand has her share of critics as well. So what?
If you don't see why that's a genius thing to say, then it probably wouldn't help if I explained. Suffice it to say that I'm very pleased with this statement, and wanted to share. Rock on, Sharon.
No comments:
Post a Comment