As a professional philosopher, I'm responding to the charge that Objectivism is "simplistic." That term exemplifies what Ayn Rand termed an "anti-concept": "an unnecessary[sp] and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept."Polemically, I'll add this observation: if you grant the premise of a notion like "simplistic", you open yourself up to the same charge. For example, those who dismiss Ayn Rand's philosophy as "simplistic" are, themselves, being "simplistic".
"Simplistic" obliterates the concepts of "clarity" and "fundamentality." Ayn Rand is remarkably clear and deals in fundamentals. E.g., her basic axiom is "Existence exists." Simple, but clear and absolutely fundamental.
Or, take her definition of reason: "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." It's simple, but eliminates the pervasive false alternative of empiricism vs. rationalism.
In ethics, she holds that one's life is one's ultimate value. Again, it is clear and fundamental--also revolutionary.
For more technical issues, e.g., her new theory of concepts, see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Those who smear Objectivism, as "simplistic" should consult it.
Note: This also echoes a point I made earlier about the fallacy of self-exclusion.
This is one of the things I don't like about polemics—it's too easy for it to devolve into "I'm rubber you're glue..." nonsense. I prefer HBinswanger response above. It elevates the entire dialogue, keeping the focus on ideas and fundamentals.
3 comments:
Perhaps the word that should have been used was "simple"
Good to see you back from your trip, M!
Regarding simple vs simplistic, I must assume that academia means what it says, that it's careful about its choices of words. If a layman tossed out simplistic when he really meant simple, that's a different story, a different standard of judgment in a casual setting.
Since it is academia in this case, simplistic means something specific, specifically pejorative. Wiktionary's definition of the term is on target.
If a layman called Ayn Rand's philosophy simple, there's no negative connotation implied against the philosophy. What it would call into question, though, is how he came to that conclusion, especially in light of the complex integrations needed to grasp its theory of concepts in epistemology, its theory of the relationship between reason and emotions, and the nature of its aesthetics let alone its radical views in ethics...to name just a few examples.
Yes, back from eating lots of cows, lambs, eel, king crab, smoked deer, smoked wild boar, kobe beef, empanadas. it was hell if you were a vegetarian; luckily just when i thought i was going to be a vegetarian, a trip to south america saved me. oh yeah and drinking lots of wine.
as for words, they have subtle differences, even simple can have its pejorative connotation.
Post a Comment