[T]he question is not whether Kant's ethical doctrine is true or reasonably maintained; the question is simply whether Rand has fairly presented it. The answer to that is in the negative.
So I persist in my view that Rand is a hack, and that this is part of the explanation of why many professional philosophers accord her little respect.
This is the comment I intend to leave, if and when I get approval for commenting there:
It appears that she confused Kant with Compte. And didn't do any research to verify her position.
Although she does discuss Compte elsewhere, if I remember right, she still blames his errors as stemming logically from Kant's.
I also think that she's considering the fact that immediately after Kant the most influential philosophers were Compte, Hegel and Marx. Then, soon after, we get Stirner and Nietzsche.
The claim could be made that their failings were a failure to understand Kant. It seems to me that they pretty much ignored his more important points and took off in other, fanciful directions instead of building on his foundation. They rebelled against scientific thought.
Jakob Fries, on the other hand, made important revisions and original contributions to Kantian thought. See Friesian.com for elaboration.
No comments:
Post a Comment