Of Objectivist Advocates and Apologists

Let me see if I have this correct! Person A is operating under the pretense of being an intellectual activist though she really wants to be a media mogul; meanwhile she’s still laying claim to the title of “philosopher.” On the other hand, Person B has been more of a media mogul by dint of day-to-day operations than Person A ever will be. Likewise, Person B has a more substantial track record of being an intellectual activist than that of Person A, and Person B’s activism is still only a comparative sideline to his philosophical work. Further, that philosophical work spans decades, and it substantially stems from first-hand information which Person A could never hope to have access to. To top it off, Person B is arguably the foremost philosopher of our age. (No need to invoke Person A by way of comparison in this respect!)

Now, Person A continues to allow for the idea that Person B has been undercutting an intellectual movement which he in no small part helped manage and broaden, and he’s arguably done more than anyone to propagate that movement today. Likewise, without that movement which he spear-headed, it could be argued that Person A’s involvement in the related philosophical work could not even exist. In turn, Person B’s credibility is to somehow be questioned while Person A’s credibility is to go largely unscathed even while withstanding the aforementioned considerations. Likewise, this credibility differential is to be considered without reference to the very epistemology that’s both required for credibility evaluation and is also among one of Person B’s specialties. At the same time, this epistemology has largely gone misunderstood by Person A who leveled charges against Person B’s credibility to begin with!

How’s that for irony?!?!