For people who are passionate about what seems to me to be an unrealistic view of radical individualism, she makes the strongest possible case.What she lacked was empathy and a sense that there’s a social contract.
The interviewer betrays her view in the question, "Don’t Rand’s views seem incredibly naive?" Without reading the book, I think the interview is unfairly slanted against Rand and her philosophy. I'm guessing that's the point. Still, "Don’t Rand’s views seem incredibly naive?" is not an argument. It's simple, inflamatory propaganda.
2 comments:
In my humble opinion, this is just a continuation of the propaganda we see everywhere right now, demonizing anything that doesn't fit the progressive agenda. I haven't read this particular book, so I can't comment about it specifically. But what I see in "journalism" much more than ever before is opinion with no real support, but lots of inflammatory narrative. Its a sad sign of the times. I just hope that most people are intelligent enough to do research and discover the truth for themselves since what we're being fed is largely propaganda.
Karen, freshly home from DC...
Laus Deo!
Actually, this looks like a pretty good example of "The Argument from Intimidation" (and a confession of intellectual impotence; see the article by the same name); it implies "only someone who's naive would agree with Rand's views", exerting psychological pressured to take an anti-Rand position.
Post a Comment