In response to my references to Ayn Rand and the philosophy of Objectivism, Haggai 1 6 writes:

This is a most curiously senseless post (I quote its entirety above). This post makes no allusion to any prior post, nor does its author make any effort to explain himself. In fact, the author of this statement, who is obviously quite frustrated, admits his own utter ignorance on the two core branches of philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology, and then asks if this is "the best [someone] can do". After posing such a blatantly foolish question, this person then offers the imperative to "make personal attacks". Why this individual would exhort the participants of this forum to "make personal attacks" is beyond me, but apparently this is all this individual knows to do.

I really do not know what kind of statement this individual is trying to make, or what purpose motivates his asinine comments. This person has only managed to accomplish his own disqualification as a source of credible input to the debates. (He is not alone, however, as we have seen lately.)

Then this individual, who hides behind the identity of a so-called ‘minor prophet’, states his opinion that Ayn Rand is "a second rate thinker". That’s odd. Has this individual established any reasonable argument why one should take this opinion with any degree of certainty? Or, are we supposed to just accept his opinion "on faith"? I certainly do not. Tell me, what are the consequences, oh minor prophet, if the participants of this debate do not ‘heed’ your words?? Worldwide calamity? Earthquakes? Floods? Toilets overflowing? Will the waters in the local reservoirs turn into blood? Will a large fish suddenly swallow me up whole for three days and three nights? Will seven spirits more wicked inhabit my soul?

Neither does this individual explain why he calls Ayn Rand a "second rate thinker", nor does he define what he means by "second rate thinker". Also absent from the equation is an example of a ‘first-rate thinker’ - as if this person were even able to conceive of one, as well as any principles and qualities one would expect to find in someone he considers a first-rate thinker. Would this individual happen to consider Jesus a first-rate thinker? A teller of tales and issuer of threats? Is this ‘first-rate thinking’? (I only infer this from this individual’s moniker, which is a direct biblical reference, hence the Bible’s central character, Jesus of somewhere, would be the logical deduction as this individual’s example of a ‘first-rate thinker’. Please feel free to correct me if you like.)

The only rational thing to say in response to an individual who shows such an astonishing talent to make an utter fool of himself publicly, is: I consider the source. Directly to this individual, nothing more is warranted, in fact, nothing more would be moral.

May you get what you deserve,

Tindrbox

_________________________________