Capellini wrote:Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think a book can be good because it was good, and its quality had little to do with the accuracy of the facts that hold up the writer's personal life philosophy.
Unless the book was written with the intent of expounding on that philosophy.
Capellini wrote:Now I have to do research into the personal philosophies of ALL my favorite authors?
I haven't done any reasearch at all into Ayn Rand's philosophy. I haven't needed to... she wears it on her sleeve, and all of her books wear it on their jackets. Had her philosophy not been the motivation behind the books, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
johngalt wrote:Besides the fact that you are using Quantum theory to try to argue against a philosophy based on Newtonian systems. Any physicist will tell you that this doesn't work.
You have that backwards.
johngalt wrote:Until we figure out the theory of everything (M-Theory) you cannot try to apply them here.
That's coming dangerously close to becoming both a word salad and an appeal to ignorance. Knowing something is quite different from knowing everything. Attempting to say otherwise is tantamount to hard-line skepticism, as we can never know everything.
johngalt wrote:Philosophy is not concerned with quantum physics.
Ahh, but physics is concerned with philosophy in that, if your philosophy contradicts the science, then your philosophy is wrong. This would be the same thing as saying, "It's my personal philosophy that I can float around at will, and you can't use the theory of gravity to say otherwise, because philosphy isn't concerned with physics".
johngalt wrote:I am afraid the qualms you listed are based on a misinterpretation of Rand.
Strange that you, being of the "A is A" camp might mention that. My complaints, and you might run back there and actually read past the first 3 lines to verify this, come from the literal reading of her claims on epistemology and metaphysics.