The power, the leverage, the epistemological clarity, the strategic value, the style & dignity, the surprising truths, and the simple peace of mind that flow from knowing what you don't know.
I so enjoyed this essay, Robert! Such great stuff throughout the piece. One of many radical concepts Rand brought to light was the concept of spiritual enrichment minus religious dogma- so, secular spiritualism, as I've seen it called sometimes. To me, the spiritual aspects of her work, both her fiction and non fiction, are often overlooked. I'm glad to see Objectivists focusing on that aspect recently!
An interesting observation I have that is part anecdotal when it comes to me, and part anecdotal when it comes to society in general these days, is that those who claim to "know" something are demonized and attacked, while those who claim to "not know" are showered with praise or coddled (situations vary). I even see it in Objectivist communities, especially ones who unfortunately take a dogmatic approach to the philosophy and in turn deify Rand. If you break even at all from her exact words, you're going to get hit with heavy (metaphorical) fire. But when one does take this dogmatic view, all the conversation ends up being is a regurgitation of her work- nothing new comes from the conversation. I've experienced it a few times. But it's sad even this quasi-religious view of the concepts of knowing and not knowing seeps into even the most science-centered circles.
To me, my experience has been it is more dangerous to know, than not know. It is more advantageous to claim ignorance than to stand firm and unapologetically in one's principles and convictions.
I so enjoyed this essay, Robert! Such great stuff throughout the piece. One of many radical concepts Rand brought to light was the concept of spiritual enrichment minus religious dogma- so, secular spiritualism, as I've seen it called sometimes. To me, the spiritual aspects of her work, both her fiction and non fiction, are often overlooked. I'm glad to see Objectivists focusing on that aspect recently!
An interesting observation I have that is part anecdotal when it comes to me, and part anecdotal when it comes to society in general these days, is that those who claim to "know" something are demonized and attacked, while those who claim to "not know" are showered with praise or coddled (situations vary). I even see it in Objectivist communities, especially ones who unfortunately take a dogmatic approach to the philosophy and in turn deify Rand. If you break even at all from her exact words, you're going to get hit with heavy (metaphorical) fire. But when one does take this dogmatic view, all the conversation ends up being is a regurgitation of her work- nothing new comes from the conversation. I've experienced it a few times. But it's sad even this quasi-religious view of the concepts of knowing and not knowing seeps into even the most science-centered circles.
To me, my experience has been it is more dangerous to know, than not know. It is more advantageous to claim ignorance than to stand firm and unapologetically in one's principles and convictions.
Maybe it's my delivery. I'm a straight shooter ;)
You've given me a lot to ponder. I appreciate it!