3 ms·

> Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? They're not really that comple

> Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? They're not really that complex. And you kind find all sorts of apologetics for the viewpoint, but there's a reason it's not reading material in an academic setting. So no, there is absolutely no benefit to rehashing the conversation and giving the illusion that Ayn Rand's philosophy is intellectually significant enough to merit a forum debate. It's enough to call a spade a spade.

mistermann 7y ago
> They're not really that complex. Once again: is this an opinion, or a fact? As stated, it sounds like a fact. > And you kind find all sorts of apologetics for the viewpoint... "Apologetics" sounds like a rhetorical "proof" that any and all viewpoints presented in the book are wrong. Is this so? > but there's a reason it's not reading material in an academic setting. There are many reasons why many different pieces of literature are not reading material in an academic setting. Is this fact sufficient evidence to conclude (and tell others) that the ideas are wrong? Or would it be more proper to state an opinion that they are wrong, with some supporting evidence or other actually substantiated opinions (of which there is plenty on Rand). > So no, there is absolutely no benefit A confident declaration of victory while ignoring the actual point and content of your rhetorical adversary's argument is another effective (psychologically persuasive) debate tactic that is employed to great success in the modern world across a variety of communication mediums. Again, see the last presidential election in the United States.