|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Special Feature |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Posted April 1, 2006 We received an e-mail through our Feedback feature from P. G. of Alberta, Canada, regarding our alleged favoritism toward Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. This deserved a reply and here it is. P. G: I have always found your site a great boon to those investigating the Moderate Realism of Aristotle, Aquinas, Maritain and Gilson. Dr. Dolhenty: Thank you for saying that; it makes our efforts worthwhile. P. G.: However, I have recently become increasingly annoyed with the attempt to foster inquiry into Randianism (better known by within their cultic movement as "Objectivism"). Your site has gone so far as to endorse and even offer for sale Randian material. Dr. Dolhenty: Since our beginning in 1998 we have always fostered inquiry into a wide variety of philosophies, even though we promote Classical Realism as the most empirical and rational philosophy ever developed. We do, indeed, "endorse" the reading of Ayn Rand's works, although I personally reject much of her thought. We also "endorse" the reading of Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Marx, and a host of other philosophical thinkers. This does not mean that we "endorse" their philosophical or political positions. It simply that these thinkers have made a mark on Western thought and you ignore them at your own peril. Rand has been especially influential during the past five or so decades and virtually every one of her books has continually been in print. While wrong on many issues, she is right on some. I am not an "objectivist" and have written essays criticizing her views. But I have read all of her important works and thought dutifully about what she says. P. G.: Her metaphysics has absolutely nothing to do with Moderate Realism. As far as her metaphysics is concerned, she merely chooses an axiom from Aristotle and Aquinas and then enforces these by fiat and nothing else. Her rejection of Universals, Being, and Essence reduces it to nothing more than a from of Conceptual Materialism. Her own writings are Manichean, often consisting of attacks against non-existent strawmen. Even her knowledge of philosophy was extremely limited. Dr. Dolhenty: I would tend to agree with you here for the most part, although I am not sure she "rejects" universals, being, and essence. I do agree that Objectivism appears to be a "disguised metaphysical materialism" as I call it. I also agree that her knowledge of the history of philosophy seems to be limited and she also ignores some of philosophy's sub-disciplines. Her knowledge of rational psychology (and empirical psychology, for that matter) is very shallow, in my opinion. Her defense of capitalism, however, is something to reckon with. P. G.: Moderate Realism is a living philosophy. It is what gave eventual birth to International Law (de Vitoria & Saurez) and organic capitalism (the Spanish School). If you feel that there is little or no inquiry in the Moderate Realism you are greatly mistaken. Perhaps you should investigate the writings of Grisez, Finnis and Boyle. Moderate Realism is hardly a dead philosophy. Dr. Dolhenty: I don't understand why you may think that we (or I) are critical of Moderate Realism. "Moderate realism" is the epistemological stance of Classical Realism, the very philosophical tradition which we (or I) are in concordance with. Our position has always been that Classical Realism is the "perennial philosophy" and never died, is still alive and kicking, and, while other philosophical "fads" come and go, Classical Realism remains. So here you have me perplexed. P. G.: Perhaps instead of devoting paper attempting to Aristotelianize Rand your site should if anything distance yourselves from that crone. In fact she had the audacity to once claim that she was one of the three "A" of philosophy: Aristotle, Aquinas and Ayn (???). Dr. Dolhenty: Sorry, under no circumstances are we attempting to "Aristotleianize" as you call it. And, to refer to her as a "crone" is to engage in an argumentum ad hominem, something we try to avoid as we prefer to argue against a position, not engage in personal attacks on the thinker himself or herself (although I admit we are not always perfect in this regard).
Posted January 17, 2006 Is it considered a companion to reason or its antithesis? This is in response to the questions above sent in via our submission form by Roger C. of Alaska. Thanks for your question, Roger. Here is my response. Classical Realism is a philosophical tradition and approaches questions from a philosophical viewpoint using philosophical methods. It is a study of "reality" using the natural "light" of human reason grounded on the data of experience, using "objective evidence" as its criterion of truth. As a philosophy, it does not appeal to religious "faith" or to any form of religious "revelation." This does not mean, however, that it is necessarily antithetical to either religious faith or religious revelation. It simply does not use them as sources of knowledge in philosophical investigations. Now, some Classical Realists are theists; they may believe in a personal God or in Deism (or some form thereof), while others are strictly secular in their orientation and non-theistic. Regardless, philosophy and religion (or theology) are intellectually kept in separate cages and are not mixed together because of their different methods of attaining knowledge or data. That being said, it is, of course, not the whole story. St. Thomas Aquinas and modern-day Thomists do tend to consider philosophy (and reason) to be a "companion" of theology and religion. But they still maintain a strict distinction between the two subjects and the sources of knowledge involved. On the other hand, secular or non-theistic Classical Realists reject theology and religion as companions to philosophy and stay with a strictly rational approach to philosophical investigations (religious revelation is considered a "non-rational" approach -- note, not "irrational, "but simply "non-rational" -- that is, not through the use of human reason). So, to answer your question specifically, "faith" per se, in the sense of religious faith, does not play a part in Classical Realism when it is considered strictly as philosophy. For more information about Classical Realism and sources of knowledge, you might want to consult the following resources in The Radical Academy:
Best regards, Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
|||||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2004-05, & 2006 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.