Nicholas Provenzo's contribution to the debate is a relevant reminder that for all the internet's many virtues, its one flaw is perhaps that too many expect too much from it. The rise, for example, of what might be called 'internet Objectivists' is just one example -- people who 'know' their Objectivism only from what they've gleaned from blogs and forums like this one, wherein (by the nature of these blogs and forums) only short and pithy tasters for the main course can really be offered. Without the main course, they're really lost without a guide. As Provenzo points out,
the Internet is great for meeting similar-interested people, sharing camaraderie, and exchanging the occasional deep thought or two, but an Internet bull session is absolutely no substitute for formal instruction in any field. The Internet must not be viewed as the poor man's way to learn philosophy--it's simply too ad hoc and there is too much noise to signal for it to serve as a good substitute for formal learning.To true. And just for the record, for those who want an introduction to the issues being debated around both serious and unserious Objectivism at present:
- The debate over the mid-term elections is capsulised in this post at Not PC: US Elections: A House Divided? - Peter Cresswell
- The first salvo in the recent Objectivist debate over philosophy's role in history can be found here: What Went Right? The Collapse of the Collapse of Civilisation - Robert Tracinski
- Replying to Tracinski is Robert Mayhew, a professor of philosophy at Seton Hall specializing in ancient philosophy: What Went Wrong with Robert Tracinski's Account of the Ancient Greeks? - Robert Mayhew
RELATED: Philosophy, Objectivism, History
1 comment:
Heh, I would say that the internet and philosophy very rarely mix! :D.. Although I think maybe the advantage of the internet is that particular people have the skill and motivation to sift through the noise and garner some gems that are not available to traditionalists.
My 2c.
Post a Comment