lvc@cbscd5.UUCP (08/31/83)
In the June issue of Reason magazine a letter appeared claiming that Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemolgy" owed much to John Locke's "Essay Concerning Humane Understanding". I have received a letter from the author Daniel McKeirnan defending his thesis. It is reproduced below. Mr Cipriani: I apologize for my delay in writing to you. Before I defend my thesis, I will make clear its limitations. When I assert that "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology owes much to Locke's Essay", I mean just that; I most certainly *do not mean* that the "Introduction" is entirely derivative, or that Rand's contributions to epistemology are insignificant. At her peak, Rand was brilliant -- *dazzling*. She is remarkable for the work that she did in the areas in which she most excelled, and for the range of areas in which she made valuable contributions. It will be tragic if she is not eventually recognized as one of the great philosophers of the modern era. But: Virtues do not justify vices. Ironically, the failure of Rand's apostles to recognize her flaws, and to put these into proper perspective, permits some of her opponents to magnify these mistakes out of proportion. As I implied in my letter to Reason; that Rand borrowed from Locke is indicated by duplicated tenents, and confirmed by duplicated example. To see some of the duplication of tenents, compare the following (You should note that some of the passages cited in one work do not contain all of the tenents in the corresponding passages cited in the other; again: I do not claim that the Introduction is entirely derived from Locke): Introduction An Essay ------------ -------- Chap 1 to Bk II ch I & ch VII sec. 7 Chap 2 to Bk II ch XI sec. 9 Chap 3 ch XII Bk III ch III & ch V Chap 4 to Bk II ch VI ch XIX sec. 1 sec. 2 Chap 5 to Bk III ch III & Bk IV ch III Chap 6 to Bk II ch II ch VI & ch VII Chap 7 to Bk II ch XI sec. 9 Bk III ch III & ch V It could easily be thought the Rand had independetly arrived at the positions which she shares with Locke (especially given that they are much better developed by Rand), were it not for the ominous parallels in terminology and illustrative example. For instance, Rand uses the term "floating abstraction" where Locke uses "floating idea", and Locke repeatedly uses gold as an example of an epistemological (as opposed to metaphysical) essence. Allow me to highlight that Rand's work is not entirely derivative by pointing out *an overwhelming* difference: Locke had very little explicit understanding of logic (per se). He viewed logic as a construct, validated by intuition; thus, with Locke, the validity of *Reason is ultimately* dependent upon the benevolence of God (Locke failed to see that this would found Reason upon Faith. Bleh!). Rand, on the other hand, states is succinctly and powerfully: "Logic is the art of *non-contradictory identification*." Please feel free to pass this letter, or copies thereof, amongst interested parties. TNX, Daniel Kian McKiernan (614) 891-6604 So why am I bothering with this you ask. I think Objectivism has a lot of valuable things to say, but we should look at Objectivism objectively. When Objectivism is wrong, we should admit it and make the necessary changes in our thinking. Tom Craver has never to my recollection *pointed out* where his thinking differs from Rands. One who is familiar with Objectivism will have noticed the difference in the positions taken on patents, and government (very similar here) but these differences were not highlighted. I can tell when Craver and Objectivism differ, but Tom, other readers will think you are a "Randroid" if you don't point out the differences. You will turn a lot of readers away from Objectivism. One other comment, the sheer volume of what you write Tom makes it frustrating for people to comprehend what you are saying. It takes time to integrate all of it, if one can't keep up, one gets turned off to it and want to think about something else. If you would turn down the volume, and expand your explanations when they are asked for instead of repeating what you said before, you might find that readers are paying more attention to you. Still waiting for your comments on Libertarianism vs. Objectivism, Larry Cipriani cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc