Your article resonates deeply with me, particularly your evocation of C.S. Lewis’s “men without chests”—intellectuals endowed with cleverness yet devoid of the moral courage required to defend objective values.
I have observed this phenomenon acutely within segments of the Objectivist movement, which one might expect to be a bastion of uncompromising reason. Regrettably, some self-identified Objectivists employ the philosophy as a mere stencil—an intellectual template for posturing—rather than a living tool for objective judgment. They demonstrate remarkable acuity in abstract philosophical debate yet fail to apply reason consistently to concrete realities, especially in evaluating human character and the high stakes of politics.
A striking example is their inability (or unwillingness) to assess Donald Trump rationally. Many appear to know little of the actual facts about the man or his actions, as if their perceptions have been shaped not by independent observation and integration but by the conditioning of prevailing opinions within their social or intellectual circles. In this, they betray the supremacy of reason: they fail to integrate evident facts of reality with principled moral judgment.
When emotions override or distort objective evaluation in this way—emotions that do not correspond to the truth of the facts—one must conclude that some external influence has supplanted the individual’s own rational faculty and benevolent disposition.
Your piece illuminates precisely this kind of moral and intellectual evasion. Thank you for articulating it so clearly.
Made me google the Christian definition of Tao(Dao). Very, very interesting, and much closer to the Chinese concept than the AI would have you believe.
Interesting, but flawed argument, religious in nature (Lewis). Moral relativism has its drawbacks but moral absolutism was much more about conditioning and exercising the will of the few over the many than the doubt that came after. Celebrate not being certain
Your article resonates deeply with me, particularly your evocation of C.S. Lewis’s “men without chests”—intellectuals endowed with cleverness yet devoid of the moral courage required to defend objective values.
I have observed this phenomenon acutely within segments of the Objectivist movement, which one might expect to be a bastion of uncompromising reason. Regrettably, some self-identified Objectivists employ the philosophy as a mere stencil—an intellectual template for posturing—rather than a living tool for objective judgment. They demonstrate remarkable acuity in abstract philosophical debate yet fail to apply reason consistently to concrete realities, especially in evaluating human character and the high stakes of politics.
A striking example is their inability (or unwillingness) to assess Donald Trump rationally. Many appear to know little of the actual facts about the man or his actions, as if their perceptions have been shaped not by independent observation and integration but by the conditioning of prevailing opinions within their social or intellectual circles. In this, they betray the supremacy of reason: they fail to integrate evident facts of reality with principled moral judgment.
When emotions override or distort objective evaluation in this way—emotions that do not correspond to the truth of the facts—one must conclude that some external influence has supplanted the individual’s own rational faculty and benevolent disposition.
Your piece illuminates precisely this kind of moral and intellectual evasion. Thank you for articulating it so clearly.
Made me google the Christian definition of Tao(Dao). Very, very interesting, and much closer to the Chinese concept than the AI would have you believe.
If you haven’t read “Christ the Eternal Tao,” by Eastern Orthodox Hieromonk Damascene, you’re in for a treat.
This reminded me of a poem I wrote a while ago. https://open.substack.com/pub/otiliajones/p/the-battle-of-the-blind?r=1sjuyz&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
Interesting, but flawed argument, religious in nature (Lewis). Moral relativism has its drawbacks but moral absolutism was much more about conditioning and exercising the will of the few over the many than the doubt that came after. Celebrate not being certain