After the avowedly mediocre philosopher Steve Gimbel launched an envious attack on human excellence in general and Ayn Rand in particular—in which he pricelessly attempts to intimidate those who revere excellence into revering mediocrity instead—he and some mediocre followers found themselves engaged with a few Objectivists whereupon they further demonstrated the difference between themselves and their tall targets. I won’t comment further on Gimbel’s confessional tirade, as it speaks clearly for itself, but this comment from an observer of the ensuing discussion is too perfect to pass up:
What assessment and conclusion would a neutral party make after reading this thread.
Assessment #1: Objectivists are intellectually serious and make philosophic arguments in defense of their position.
Assessment #2: Academic philosophers don’t and apparently can’t make philosophic arguments and engage almost entirely in snide, anti-intellectual ad hominem drivel.
(Note to irresolute mediocrities: You can choose to be something more, but the clock is ticking.)
Anyone interested in Ayn Rand’s actual ideas—as against the straw men asserted by Gimbel and his ilk—should read her works. Relying on the assertions of alleged authorities is mere Peter Keating-type second-handedness; relying on the assertions of self-acknowledged mediocrities is, well, let’s just hope there’s no need to form a concept for that.