[quote]666Rich wrote:
Anyways, I have read a good bit of philosophy, Plato, Nietzche, Hume, Hobbes, Rosseau…and felt that was one of the better works. Granted I am still a fledgling and have a lifetime of learning ahead of me, but at the moment Objectivism seems pretty logically sound.
[/quote]
Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Mill… those are real philosophers. Not disgtuntled, ugly, ugly cunts who influence only the weakest of mines and most selfish of souls.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Anyways, I have read a good bit of philosophy, Plato, Nietzche, Hume, Hobbes, Rosseau…and felt that was one of the better works. Granted I am still a fledgling and have a lifetime of learning ahead of me, but at the moment Objectivism seems pretty logically sound.
[/quote]
Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Mill… those are real philosophers. Not disgtuntled, ugly, ugly cunts who influence only the weakest of mines and most selfish of souls.[/quote]
Lol.
You really should do your reading regarding that philosophers.
I know you havent, or otherwise you would not have mentioned them as shining examples, especially not Hobbes and Rousseau.
Mill is simply painful as he tries to marry classic liberalism with utilitarianism, Hobbes was a fascist and Rousseau a utopian dreamer who could not understand why people expected him to actually live up to his ideals.
But I guess in a few hundred years people will have forgotten Rands flaws too.
We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and all giants have feet of clay.
Rand was imperfect, but she better classified and clarified the emergent objective/rationalist point of view better than anyone before her. Yes, she came off as an insufferable bitch. However, she still is, in my opinion one of the top 10 intellects of all time.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Anyways, I have read a good bit of philosophy, Plato, Nietzche, Hume, Hobbes, Rosseau…and felt that was one of the better works. Granted I am still a fledgling and have a lifetime of learning ahead of me, but at the moment Objectivism seems pretty logically sound.
[/quote]
Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Mill… those are real philosophers. Not disgtuntled, ugly, ugly cunts who influence only the weakest of mines and most selfish of souls.[/quote]
Hi Irish,
Now a member of N.O.W. might take your remarks to be offensive to women. Also your list includes no women. Are you being sexist?
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]jglickfield wrote:
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Whether or not you agree with Rand, Irish, She is relevant as her views impact a great multitude of people. I mean I could say Islam is not relevant, but alot of the world would care to say otherwise whether I agree or not. Cheers.[/quote]
What great multitude of people is that? Pseudo-intellectual high school juniors? Which of her books has anyone here read? Anthem and that’s it, right? Read her non-fiction, it is harder to swallow than Marx.[/quote]
According to a 1991 survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club, Atlas Shrugged was second to the Bible as the book that made most difference in American readers’ lives.[5] Modern Library’s 1998 three-month online poll of the 100 best novels of the 20th century[49][50] found Atlas rated #1 although it was not included on the list chosen by the Modern Library panel of authors and scholars.[51] The list was formed on 217,520 votes cast.[52]
In 1997, the libertarian Cato Institute held a joint conference with The Atlas Society, an Objectivist organization, to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged.[53] At this event, Howard Dickman of Reader’s Digest stated that the novel had “turned millions of readers on to the ideas of liberty” and said that the book had the important message of the readers’ “profound right to be happy.”[53]
The C-SPAN television series American Writers listed Rand as one of twenty-two surveyed figures of American literature, though primarily mentioning The Fountainhead rather than Atlas Shrugged.[54]
Rand’s impact on contemporary libertarian thought has been considerable, and it is noteworthy that the title of the leading libertarian magazine, Reason: Free Minds, Free Markets is taken directly from John Galt, the hero of Atlas Shrugged, who argues that “a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”
Conservative commentators Neal Boortz[55], Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh[56] have offered high praise of the book on their respective radio and television programs. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas cites Atlas Shrugged as among his favorite novels.[57]
The award-winning 2007 dystopian video game BioShock was heavily influenced by this book, with the in-game location Rapture being a version of Galt’s Gulch,[58] a character named Atlas,[59] and the name of another character, Andrew Ryan, being a play on Ayn Rand’s name.[60]
You might want to expose your ignorance a little at a time, rather than spring it on us with your second post.[/quote]
The implication of the claim that Rand “influences great multitudes of people” was directly compared to the way that Islam influences great multitudes of people. That claim is absurd. Where are the 1 billion people ready to give up their lives for her ideas? Also, I immediately pointed out the difference between her fiction and non-fiction. You bring examples from her fiction, which is easily accepted by almost anyone because of how unambiguously right they are in their time and place. The “objectivist” approach is the only logical solution to their problems, in an overly simplistic, preachy, propaganda type of way which repeatedly overstates the obvious. I will also point out the contradiction between using opinion polls to prove a point and accusing other people of being a part of the “ignorant masses” who “drink the kool aid”.
She thoroughly explains her ideas and how they would be implemented in her non-fiction essays. A short summary is that a morally correct civilization is one in which everyone does whatever they want, no one is taxed, there is no charity or altruism, and of course, no checks on the economy. While this may sound like anarchism, she despised anarchism, but was criticized for never being able to explain how her ideas were different from anarchism. She believed that if everyone looked out for what was good for them (and only them) society would be better off. Well to me, it looks like the banks did just that when they signed on to bad loans knowing the government would bail them out. They had a win-win situation of either the loans working out or the government paying them back, so if egoism is the primary social goal, they have succeeded. I bet that she would applaud Greenspan for his “selling out”- he certainly made enough money doing that, right? Rational self interest is the primary value, right?
A philosophy which encourages people to violate its fundamental principles seems to me immature, hotheaded and short sighted. I am not the only one, as her works are mostly ignored in the academic and literary communities. I once heard that her primary influence was Aristotle, which is funny because something they have in common is that what they present as “pure logic” is riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and untested hypotheses which undermine their entire claim of logical basis. At least Aristotle had the excuse of being one of the first and coming from a culture of chauvinism which existed before the scientific method.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and all giants have feet of clay.
Rand was imperfect, but she better classified and clarified the emergent objective/rationalist point of view better than anyone before her. Yes, she came off as an insufferable bitch. However, she still is, in my opinion one of the top 10 intellects of all time. [/quote]
Seriously? I mean, if you said “top 10 female intellects of the mid 20th century” then maybe… but of all time?! She barely has any original ideas! Adam Smith explains everything you need to know about free markets in the 18th century. Did she invent anarchism? She claims to approach everything “objectively” but so does everyone. How is she special enough to make it into a top 10 intellects of all time list?
Here are some better choices, in no particular order:
Albert Einstein
Aristotle
Confucius
Sigmund Freud
Plato
Thomas Aquinas
Maimonides
Benjamin Franklim
Pythagoras
John Locke
David Hume
Werner Heisenberg
John Nash
Sun Tzu
Saadia Gaon
Xun Zi
Alexander Bogdanov
This list could be much longer, I am sure, if not for my own education’s bias towards western ideas. These are the most glaring examples of “minds” which dwarf Rand, and make her seem silly and childish by comparison.
[quote]jglickfield wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]jglickfield wrote:
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Whether or not you agree with Rand, Irish, She is relevant as her views impact a great multitude of people. I mean I could say Islam is not relevant, but alot of the world would care to say otherwise whether I agree or not. Cheers.[/quote]
What great multitude of people is that? Pseudo-intellectual high school juniors? Which of her books has anyone here read? Anthem and that’s it, right? Read her non-fiction, it is harder to swallow than Marx.[/quote]
According to a 1991 survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club, Atlas Shrugged was second to the Bible as the book that made most difference in American readers’ lives.[5] Modern Library’s 1998 three-month online poll of the 100 best novels of the 20th century[49][50] found Atlas rated #1 although it was not included on the list chosen by the Modern Library panel of authors and scholars.[51] The list was formed on 217,520 votes cast.[52]
In 1997, the libertarian Cato Institute held a joint conference with The Atlas Society, an Objectivist organization, to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged.[53] At this event, Howard Dickman of Reader’s Digest stated that the novel had “turned millions of readers on to the ideas of liberty” and said that the book had the important message of the readers’ “profound right to be happy.”[53]
The C-SPAN television series American Writers listed Rand as one of twenty-two surveyed figures of American literature, though primarily mentioning The Fountainhead rather than Atlas Shrugged.[54]
Rand’s impact on contemporary libertarian thought has been considerable, and it is noteworthy that the title of the leading libertarian magazine, Reason: Free Minds, Free Markets is taken directly from John Galt, the hero of Atlas Shrugged, who argues that “a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”
Conservative commentators Neal Boortz[55], Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh[56] have offered high praise of the book on their respective radio and television programs. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas cites Atlas Shrugged as among his favorite novels.[57]
The award-winning 2007 dystopian video game BioShock was heavily influenced by this book, with the in-game location Rapture being a version of Galt’s Gulch,[58] a character named Atlas,[59] and the name of another character, Andrew Ryan, being a play on Ayn Rand’s name.[60]
You might want to expose your ignorance a little at a time, rather than spring it on us with your second post.[/quote]
The implication of the claim that Rand “influences great multitudes of people” was directly compared to the way that Islam influences great multitudes of people. That claim is absurd. Where are the 1 billion people ready to give up their lives for her ideas? Also, I immediately pointed out the difference between her fiction and non-fiction. You bring examples from her fiction, which is easily accepted by almost anyone because of how unambiguously right they are in their time and place. The “objectivist” approach is the only logical solution to their problems, in an overly simplistic, preachy, propaganda type of way which repeatedly overstates the obvious. I will also point out the contradiction between using opinion polls to prove a point and accusing other people of being a part of the “ignorant masses” who “drink the kool aid”.
She thoroughly explains her ideas and how they would be implemented in her non-fiction essays. A short summary is that a morally correct civilization is one in which everyone does whatever they want, no one is taxed, there is no charity or altruism, and of course, no checks on the economy. While this may sound like anarchism, she despised anarchism, but was criticized for never being able to explain how her ideas were different from anarchism. She believed that if everyone looked out for what was good for them (and only them) society would be better off. Well to me, it looks like the banks did just that when they signed on to bad loans knowing the government would bail them out. They had a win-win situation of either the loans working out or the government paying them back, so if egoism is the primary social goal, they have succeeded. I bet that she would applaud Greenspan for his “selling out”- he certainly made enough money doing that, right? Rational self interest is the primary value, right?
A philosophy which encourages people to violate its fundamental principles seems to me immature, hotheaded and short sighted. I am not the only one, as her works are mostly ignored in the academic and literary communities. I once heard that her primary influence was Aristotle, which is funny because something they have in common is that what they present as “pure logic” is riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and untested hypotheses which undermine their entire claim of logical basis. At least Aristotle had the excuse of being one of the first and coming from a culture of chauvinism which existed before the scientific method. [/quote]
Naaa…
This is what she really wrote and it took me all of 20 seconds to find it so I wonder how hard you tried?
But thanks for playing anyway, and you might want to look up Auguste Comtes altruism, who after all coined the term, before you claim that she somehow misrepresents “altruism”.
To quote another deep thinker:
I am sure you will figure out why I posted the second quote.
[quote]orion wrote:
Naaa…
This is what she really wrote and it took me all of 20 seconds to find it so I wonder how hard you tried?
[/quote]
What’s that got to do with anything? Thanks for a non-sequitor. Your little sign offs were cute though. I guess I’ll use your post as another way to deconstruct Ayn Rand’s ideas since you are bringing exact quotations.
This is typical Ayn Rand irony. Did you notice that nowhere does it say that people ought to help each other, but only that if they don’t they are in no way morally less than if they had? That makes not giving to others equal to giving to others, because it is all just something you do for yourself anyway. Helping others is permissible, almost as if the other option should be forbidden rather than obligatory. She has limited all goodness and kindness to one particular opinion (in which the act of helping others is more valuable than individual rights) to fit her needs (because in this context, it is easy kindness is easy to attack), ignoring the fact that if you read her books the first thing you will think is “why should I ever help anyone else again?”. This is a common debating strategy usually applied by a side with a weakness in their case. Similar to when a salesperson tells you that you can’t compare their product to a certain competitor’s product and you must compare it to who they want you to compare it to (the “apples to apples” trick). When she says “do not hide behind the issue of whether or not to give to a beggar” she distracts the reader from the fact that that is EXACTLY the issue at hand! Do humans have a responsibility to each other or not? Altruism: yes. Ayn Rand: no.
Besides, why does Rand feel a need to answer these allegations? Because her ideas so blatantly deride the idea of giving to others when there is no benefit to yourself. Rousseau and Bentham don’t have similar defenses, do they?
Tell me, when a soldier dies in defense of his country, was this a rational act of self interest in which he benefited in a physical way?
I will reiterate, Rand’s ideas are interesting to think about before a person has any real world experience and actually sees themselves as the center of the universe and truly believes that no one else matters. There are 100 other criticisms (and very little praise, her ideas aren’t up to snuff in intellectual circles). So like I said, high school stuff.
[quote]jglickfield wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Naaa…
This is what she really wrote and it took me all of 20 seconds to find it so I wonder how hard you tried?
[/quote]
What’s that got to do with anything? Thanks for a non-sequitor. Your little sign offs were cute though. I guess I’ll use your post as another way to deconstruct Ayn Rand’s ideas since you are bringing exact quotations.
This is typical Ayn Rand irony. Did you notice that nowhere does it say that people ought to help each other, but only that if they don’t they are in no way morally less than if they had? That makes not giving to others equal to giving to others, because it is all just something you do for yourself anyway. Helping others is permissible, almost as if the other option should be forbidden rather than obligatory. She has limited all goodness and kindness to one particular opinion (in which the act of helping others is more valuable than individual rights) to fit her needs (because in this context, it is easy kindness is easy to attack), ignoring the fact that if you read her books the first thing you will think is “why should I ever help anyone else again?”. This is a common debating strategy usually applied by a side with a weakness in their case. Similar to when a salesperson tells you that you can’t compare their product to a certain competitor’s product and you must compare it to who they want you to compare it to (the “apples to apples” trick). When she says “do not hide behind the issue of whether or not to give to a beggar” she distracts the reader from the fact that that is EXACTLY the issue at hand! Do humans have a responsibility to each other or not? Altruism: yes. Ayn Rand: no.
Besides, why does Rand feel a need to answer these allegations? Because her ideas so blatantly deride the idea of giving to others when there is no benefit to yourself. Rousseau and Bentham don’t have similar defenses, do they?
Tell me, when a soldier dies in defense of his country, was this a rational act of self interest in which he benefited in a physical way?
I will reiterate, Rand’s ideas are interesting to think about before a person has any real world experience and actually sees themselves as the center of the universe and truly believes that no one else matters. There are 100 other criticisms (and very little praise, her ideas aren’t up to snuff in intellectual circles). So like I said, high school stuff.[/quote]
So I take it from the horses mouth and you tell me what she really meant?
You are not making a case against Rand, you make a case against the voices in your head.
It is quite clear what she is arguing against, it is the notion that anyone else has the right to claim your life, your work or your property for his goals.
She argues against the principle behind slavery and servitude, and she would be the last person who could consistently argue gainst you being charitable or praisingh people that are.
So maybe she was a cold hearted bitch, who knows and who cares? Newton was pretty strange too, as was Einstein, Schumpeter, Wittgenstein…
That takes nothing away from her ideas.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
She has many relevant ideas but she arrives at them in a backwards manner.
Mostly I do not agree with her philosophy of objectivism because there is no solid ground to base it on – even axiomatically it is untenable.
She can offer no philosophical proof that even though we must accept existence, identity, and conscious as axiomatic concepts that are true by definition that they must naturally lead to “objectively based reality”.
Most likely reality is split in two: that which we can judge objectively via observation (quantitatively) or that which we can judge subjectively via our values (qualitatively). Most disagreements start with that knowledge that comes from subjective judgments.
If all knowledge were objectively based then we would have no cause to argue and if there wasn’t at least some knowledge that could be known objectively then we would have nothing to argue over.[/quote]
If existence, consciousness, and identity are axioms, then reality exists independently of man’s mind and is therefore objective. Man’s choice is whether to think objectively or not - if he choses not to do so, it is not a failure of reality to exist as it is.
[/quote]
And what of value judgements? By their very nature they must be subjective. Values are what cuases man to act and are no less a part of “reality” than obersevable facts.
Rand missed the bigger point: individual man will act in accordance with libertarian principles only if he values it as an end within himself. There is no objectively based reason why he would do so.
A Simple point of illustration: We can imagine a person who fully understands the priciples of natural rights in accordnce with economic law but we can also imagine why he may not fully act in accordance with them: because he values his own empowement over the natural rights of his peers and he understands how best to bring it about.
No amount of objectivity will lead a man to act one way or an other. Those values come from within individual man as a “subject of his own reality” and hence they must be subjective.
This does not mean that there are parts of reality that are not objectively known – simply put, we must find a philosphical method to distingusih which knowledge can be objectively rahter than subjectiely known.
I’ll remind you that your original post arguing with me still goes unjustified. I said that in Ayn Rand’s world there is no altruism. You post an essay in which Rand says she deplores altruism. Your only point must be that deploring altruism is a good thing. You are entitled to your opinion. The world that I, and most everyone else, live in views self-sacrifice and unselfish behavior as the highest goals. A world based on giving, not taking. Heroes die in battle, go down with the ship, help others before helping themselves. I think a good part of the world is right now celebrating a holiday devoted to a god who suffered to save his followers.
But like I said, this has nothing to do with anything. It only shows how different Ayn Rand’s moral views were from other people’s. You have helped me to do that.
[quote]orion wrote:
So I take it from the horses mouth and you tell me what she really meant?
You are not making a case against Rand, you make a case against the voices in your head.
[/quote]
Your insults are about as mature and well thought out as you philosophies, but I will humor you this one last time.
It isn’t a matter of what she really meant, it is a matter of analyzing what she says. What is the implication of a world devoid of social responsibility? Rand has many dystopic books about the horrors of socialism and collectivism, but where are the utopic works glorifying an objectivist world? I believe that not even she could reasonably imagine a world which was based on her ideas and didn’t write any. But maybe she has one? Please tell me its title if you know of one.
Rand’s ideas are so unrealistic that they cannot leave pure theory. That doesn’t make for a sound philosophy.
Yes she does argue against what you are saying, but so much more as well.
Many people argue against slavery and servitude, but did not need her ideas to do so. In what way is she valuable? What does she add to the discussion?
On what basis do you say that she would be the last one to argue against charity? Because I have a right to do what I want to? Ok… well if so, why praise me for doing so? There is no inherent value in doing this, as I have no responsibility to other people. So I am sure that she wouldn’t argue, but why would she praise me?
I suppose say the same for anyone. Ignore that Hitler was evil and look at the man’s ideas. Marx is full of beautiful ideas of everyone doing what they can to help the world and receiving what he needs. “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” So forget that communism (and most real attempts at socialism, central planning, etc) have failed. The idea sounds good, so let’s take it!
Rand was not “an eccentric genius”. She was an angry, bitter author who wrote overly dramatic prose to inspire other people to selfishness. Remember in “The Fountainhead” when she has a character destroy sculptures after looking at them so no one else can enjoy them? It is so perverse to imagine such behavior as heroic. It’s like being trapped in 11th grade forever.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
She has many relevant ideas but she arrives at them in a backwards manner.
Mostly I do not agree with her philosophy of objectivism because there is no solid ground to base it on – even axiomatically it is untenable.
She can offer no philosophical proof that even though we must accept existence, identity, and conscious as axiomatic concepts that are true by definition that they must naturally lead to “objectively based reality”.
Most likely reality is split in two: that which we can judge objectively via observation (quantitatively) or that which we can judge subjectively via our values (qualitatively). Most disagreements start with that knowledge that comes from subjective judgments.
If all knowledge were objectively based then we would have no cause to argue and if there wasn’t at least some knowledge that could be known objectively then we would have nothing to argue over.[/quote]
If existence, consciousness, and identity are axioms, then reality exists independently of man’s mind and is therefore objective. Man’s choice is whether to think objectively or not - if he choses not to do so, it is not a failure of reality to exist as it is.
[/quote]
And what of value judgements? By their very nature they must be subjective. Values are what cuases man to act and are no less a part of “reality” than obersevable facts.
Rand missed the bigger point: individual man will act in accordance with libertarian principles only if he values it as an end within himself. There is no objectively based reason why he would do so.
A Simple point of illustration: We can imagine a person who fully understands the priciples of natural rights in accordnce with economic law but we can also imagine why he may not fully act in accordance with them: because he values his own empowement over the natural rights of his peers and he understands how best to bring it about.
No amount of objectivity will lead a man to act one way or an other. Those values come from within individual man as a “subject of his own reality” and hence they must be subjective.
This does not mean that there are parts of reality that are not objectively known – simply put, we must find a philosphical method to distingusih which knowledge can be objectively rahter than subjectiely known.[/quote]
Bravo.
[quote]jglickfield wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and all giants have feet of clay.
Rand was imperfect, but she better classified and clarified the emergent objective/rationalist point of view better than anyone before her. Yes, she came off as an insufferable bitch. However, she still is, in my opinion one of the top 10 intellects of all time. [/quote]
Seriously? I mean, if you said “top 10 female intellects of the mid 20th century” then maybe… but of all time?! She barely has any original ideas! Adam Smith explains everything you need to know about free markets in the 18th century. Did she invent anarchism? She claims to approach everything “objectively” but so does everyone. How is she special enough to make it into a top 10 intellects of all time list?
Here are some better choices, in no particular order:
Albert Einstein
Aristotle
Confucius
Sigmund Freud
Plato
Thomas Aquinas
Maimonides
Benjamin Franklim
Pythagoras
John Locke
David Hume
Werner Heisenberg
John Nash
Sun Tzu
Saadia Gaon
Xun Zi
Alexander Bogdanov
This list could be much longer, I am sure, if not for my own education’s bias towards western ideas. These are the most glaring examples of “minds” which dwarf Rand, and make her seem silly and childish by comparison.[/quote]
Let me make sure I understand. In your introduction to this forum, in a post about Any Rand with several positive comments, you proceed to claim she has had little influence, an that limited to pseudo-intellectual high school juniors. You question who has read the books, when they seem to remain on bestseller lists. You obviously do not understand altruism as she defined it. You call her philosophy anarchism, again showing your lack of knowledge and understanding in her works. You describe her attitude as “do whatever it is that you wand to do.” You take the events that have happened over the last few years on Wall Street and you imply that they were the result of those actually following and applying her philosophy rather than what anyone who has truly read her works can easily identify it to be; the future that she so desperately tried to warn us about.
And then you put in a little overtime to insult me for having the audacity to list her as one of my top ten minds of all time. Guess what? I didn’t ask your opinion or input. After stating some obvious problems I had with her I still stated how much I admire her mind.
But maybe be should try it your way. Why don’t you PM me your cell phone number and the next time I want to have and express a thought, I buzz you up and run it by you. After all, you have done such a great job of making you case, whatever the hell it is.
Sorry this is going to be long, but since it challenges everything I wrote I guess there’s a lot to respond to.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Let me make sure I understand. In your introduction to this forum, in a post about Any Rand with several positive comments,
[/quote]
Also several negative, I thought maybe not to bother posting as it takes so little to uproot her ideas that the early comments of “people do not and cannot behave ‘rationally’ and ‘objectively’ all the time” were enough. But I thought that noting to the angry guys who “hate the federal gov’t” and accuse everyone who hasn’t bought into Rand’s ideas of “drinking the kool aid” that they will probably grow out of this might be sobering. When I was 16 and thought that I was the center of the world and no one mattered but me I also liked Ayn Rand. I really bought into it. A teacher pointed out some flaws (like how does one ‘ethical egoist’ deal with a conflict of interest he has with another ‘ethical egoist’) which led to unresolvable contradictions. My teacher pointed out that Rand is largely ignored for her philosophy by actual philosophers and logicians because of how inconsistent she is and her inability to answer direct criticism of her individual ideas.
Right, it certainly helps that high schools require students to buy and read her books. Nonetheless, you are quoting opinion polls that people say the average man on the street feels Atlas Shrugged was influential in his life. Well, so what? No one acts upon these ideas. Also, the books which people read are her fiction in which the protagonist is so surrounded by evil and oppression that the most logical and heroic thing to do is “the objectivist solution”. They are so black-and-white that I think propaganda is an appropriate term. There is no book (to my knowledge) describing the objectivist utopia she wanted. People (whoever they are, and indeed mostly in high school) liked these stories, not her philosophies.
On a side note, as far as bestseller lists go, Mein Kamph is up there too, and continues to be so. Maybe millions of Americans are secretly Nazis? Bad reasoning.
She does not get to offer a definition of altruism. The essay that was posted is CLEARLY a response. She redefines altruism to meaning very strictly “self sacrifice for no good reason” which was probably not what anyone challenged her on. She says that the issue is not whether or not to give to a beggar, when that is clearly what people challenge her on. Her philosophy will not lead anyone to give to anyone else unless it is part of some plan for the giver to benefit in the end, like an investment. Objectively speaking, what does taking your resources and transferring them to someone else do for you? So why should you do it? A beautiful world to imagine, isn’t it?
I never called her an anarchist, you are reading something else. I said that her philosophy is identical to anarchism, but she herself rejects anarchism with no clear explanation. She does the same with libertarianism. I am not the only one who has this problem with her. I hate to do this, but look on wikipedia. Here is a link to Roy Childs (philosopher and researcher for the CATO institute in his lifetime) open letter to Ayn Rand http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html but there is more on wikipedia.
Egoism is about doing what you want to do with no one (not even a state… hmm anarchy?) to compel you to do differently. They use the jargon of “an individual agent ought to do what is in his best interest as a moral end” but for people on a bodybuilding forum, I think that defining egoism (which Rand states is the foundation of her ideology) as doing whatever you want with no one to stop you as sufficient. This is obviously ridiculous as (get this) some people have different values than other people, thus creating contradictions in rational courses of action. Even if values are somehow reduced to an objective reality, only one person can be in a certain place at a certain time doing a certain thing, and if someone else wants it, how do we resolve these conflicts? As someone else stated it would take a supra human force beyond whose judgment there was no appeal. But even that would really be a state or other compulsory force construct which Rand would reject. So it looks like her ideas exist purely in theory and cannot be realized even with divine intervention.
The future she warned us about was a socialist takeover. I see this could be comparable to healthcare, though I think it’s unfounded. Not that I like the idea of socialized medicine, I have lived with it abroad and don’t think it works so well. But what has happened on Wall Street is egoism at its finest. A group of individuals saw that they could increase their money and power (their means of self expression) in a costless way because someone else would bail them out. So they stepped on a few million people to get there. So what? They achieved their perfectly rational goal. So there are jobless, depressed, perhaps hungry people because of it. Why should that concern the egoist? If the unemployed guy would be as clever and capable as the banker he could have done the same thing.
But I agree with you in the end, because I think Ayn Rand would deplore this. Perhaps more because the government bailed people out using tax money more than that the big businesses ripped people off, but she wouldn’t be happy. This is, I think, the final nail in Ayn Rand’s coffin because a result that she would deplore could be a natural consequence of following her advice. In their time and place, the banks did the objectively correct thing of ripping us all off. They strove to achieve what was in their rational self interest. Their individual realization is a contradiction to ours, we cannot all be happy. So much for one objective reality that guides us all to self fulfillment.
[quote]
And then you put in a little overtime to insult me for having the audacity to list her as one of my top ten minds of all time. [/quote]
You are right, it wasn’t nice of me to insult you. I should have found a better way to ask you how she could possibly be compared to these others. Had you said, “but she still had a great mind” I would have said nothing, because you wouldn’t be by definition comparing her to Einstein and Plato. Nonetheless, it came out very rudely and was uncalled for. So I apologize to you.
I know that you are being sarcastic, but I really have done an excellent job pointing out contradictions in objectivism, showing how its premises are untrue, and how it can only function in a vacuum (no real world applications). It may be long winded, but these are big issues and thoroughly explored. Other issues such as the juvenile nature of her ideas and who they tend to appeal to may still be contestable, but just look around yourself and see who gets into objectivism today. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this “The influence of Randâ??s ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. â?¦ Randâ??s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic.”
Thus, my original these that Ayn Rand is not now, nor was she ever, relevant is upheld.
[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Thus, my original these that Ayn Rand is not now, nor was she ever, relevant is upheld.
[/quote]
â??According to the US Debt Clock (http://www.usdebtclock.org take a look, its ugly), the current US population is 308 million. Of that total population, just over 35 percent (108.7 million) are taxpayers. The rest are those who pay no net tax, government employees, dependents and those who are unemployed and/or on welfare. These percentages would be similar in any nation with a mature welfare state.
If you subtract Americans under the age of 18 from the almost 200 million Americans who do not pay tax, the US is in a situation where many more people vote for a living than work for one. This too is an inevitable end result of any mature welfare state. The fact remains that in the US, 108 million productive people are supporting almost 200 million drones. Those same 108 million people are paying the ever increasing interest bill on the so-called â??public debtâ??. And finally, those same 108 million people are the only REAL source of the wherewithal to eventually repay the debtsâ?¦As long as more people vote for a living than work for one in the US, that simply is NOT going to happen. A productive minority CANNOT support a non productive majority.â??
[quote]jglickfield wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
She has many relevant ideas but she arrives at them in a backwards manner.
Mostly I do not agree with her philosophy of objectivism because there is no solid ground to base it on – even axiomatically it is untenable.
She can offer no philosophical proof that even though we must accept existence, identity, and conscious as axiomatic concepts that are true by definition that they must naturally lead to “objectively based reality”.
Most likely reality is split in two: that which we can judge objectively via observation (quantitatively) or that which we can judge subjectively via our values (qualitatively). Most disagreements start with that knowledge that comes from subjective judgments.
If all knowledge were objectively based then we would have no cause to argue and if there wasn’t at least some knowledge that could be known objectively then we would have nothing to argue over.[/quote]
If existence, consciousness, and identity are axioms, then reality exists independently of man’s mind and is therefore objective. Man’s choice is whether to think objectively or not - if he choses not to do so, it is not a failure of reality to exist as it is.
[/quote]
And what of value judgements? By their very nature they must be subjective. Values are what cuases man to act and are no less a part of “reality” than obersevable facts.
Rand missed the bigger point: individual man will act in accordance with libertarian principles only if he values it as an end within himself. There is no objectively based reason why he would do so.
A Simple point of illustration: We can imagine a person who fully understands the priciples of natural rights in accordnce with economic law but we can also imagine why he may not fully act in accordance with them: because he values his own empowement over the natural rights of his peers and he understands how best to bring it about.
No amount of objectivity will lead a man to act one way or an other. Those values come from within individual man as a “subject of his own reality” and hence they must be subjective.
This does not mean that there are parts of reality that are not objectively known – simply put, we must find a philosphical method to distingusih which knowledge can be objectively rahter than subjectiely known.[/quote]
Bravo.[/quote]
There is so much wrong here, it is beyond belief. Wow! So a rational man could possibly choose to empower himself ‘over the natural rights of his peers’. So a rational man would intentionally act…irrationally. WTF?
As Ms. Rand says: there is no conflict between men when both accept reason and objective reality. Someone MAY be wrong in their assessment OF reality, but that simply means that reality will show them the error of their ways…such as the notion that you can spend more than you earn FOREVER or that reality can be cheated and conned.
Lifty, I’m surprised you’d say such dumb things. I don’t know the FNG but he appears to be a can or 2 short of a six pack.
[quote]jglickfield wrote:
A short summary is that a morally correct civilization is one in which everyone does whatever they want, no one is taxed, there is no charity or altruism, and of course, no checks on the economy. [/quote]
Admit it. You’ve never read Rand and got this from some shiteater like Saul Alinsky. Rand says none of this.
THREE cans short of a six pack…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]jglickfield wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
She has many relevant ideas but she arrives at them in a backwards manner.
Mostly I do not agree with her philosophy of objectivism because there is no solid ground to base it on – even axiomatically it is untenable.
She can offer no philosophical proof that even though we must accept existence, identity, and conscious as axiomatic concepts that are true by definition that they must naturally lead to “objectively based reality”.
Most likely reality is split in two: that which we can judge objectively via observation (quantitatively) or that which we can judge subjectively via our values (qualitatively). Most disagreements start with that knowledge that comes from subjective judgments.
If all knowledge were objectively based then we would have no cause to argue and if there wasn’t at least some knowledge that could be known objectively then we would have nothing to argue over.[/quote]
If existence, consciousness, and identity are axioms, then reality exists independently of man’s mind and is therefore objective. Man’s choice is whether to think objectively or not - if he choses not to do so, it is not a failure of reality to exist as it is.
[/quote]
And what of value judgements? By their very nature they must be subjective. Values are what cuases man to act and are no less a part of “reality” than obersevable facts.
Rand missed the bigger point: individual man will act in accordance with libertarian principles only if he values it as an end within himself. There is no objectively based reason why he would do so.
A Simple point of illustration: We can imagine a person who fully understands the priciples of natural rights in accordnce with economic law but we can also imagine why he may not fully act in accordance with them: because he values his own empowement over the natural rights of his peers and he understands how best to bring it about.
No amount of objectivity will lead a man to act one way or an other. Those values come from within individual man as a “subject of his own reality” and hence they must be subjective.
This does not mean that there are parts of reality that are not objectively known – simply put, we must find a philosphical method to distingusih which knowledge can be objectively rahter than subjectiely known.[/quote]
Bravo.[/quote]
There is so much wrong here, it is beyond belief. Wow! So a rational man could possibly choose to empower himself ‘over the natural rights of his peers’. So a rational man would intentionally act…irrationally. WTF?
As Ms. Rand says: there is no conflict between men when both accept reason and objective reality. Someone MAY be wrong in their assessment OF reality, but that simply means that reality will show them the error of their ways…such as the notion that you can spend more than you earn FOREVER or that reality can be cheated and conned.
Lifty, I’m surprised you’d say such dumb things. I don’t know the FNG but he appears to be a can or 2 short of a six pack.
[/quote]
No, he would not act irrationally.
He would act very rational in disregarding the rights of his peers if his aim is to aggrandize himself.
You can act rationally when pursuing goals but you cannot have rational ultimate goals.
Those are highly subjective and the fact that lots of people share the same goals is indicating that the members of a species share lots of subjective goals, not that goals are, can or even should be objective.
[quote]jglickfield wrote:
I’ll remind you that your original post arguing with me still goes unjustified. I said that in Ayn Rand’s world there is no altruism. You post an essay in which Rand says she deplores altruism. Your only point must be that deploring altruism is a good thing. You are entitled to your opinion. The world that I, and most everyone else, live in views self-sacrifice and unselfish behavior as the highest goals. A world based on giving, not taking. Heroes die in battle, go down with the ship, help others before helping themselves. I think a good part of the world is right now celebrating a holiday devoted to a god who suffered to save his followers.
But like I said, this has nothing to do with anything. It only shows how different Ayn Rand’s moral views were from other people’s. You have helped me to do that.
[quote]orion wrote:
So I take it from the horses mouth and you tell me what she really meant?
You are not making a case against Rand, you make a case against the voices in your head.
[/quote]
Your insults are about as mature and well thought out as you philosophies, but I will humor you this one last time.
It isn’t a matter of what she really meant, it is a matter of analyzing what she says. What is the implication of a world devoid of social responsibility? Rand has many dystopic books about the horrors of socialism and collectivism, but where are the utopic works glorifying an objectivist world? I believe that not even she could reasonably imagine a world which was based on her ideas and didn’t write any. But maybe she has one? Please tell me its title if you know of one.
Rand’s ideas are so unrealistic that they cannot leave pure theory. That doesn’t make for a sound philosophy.
Yes she does argue against what you are saying, but so much more as well.
Many people argue against slavery and servitude, but did not need her ideas to do so. In what way is she valuable? What does she add to the discussion?
On what basis do you say that she would be the last one to argue against charity? Because I have a right to do what I want to? Ok… well if so, why praise me for doing so? There is no inherent value in doing this, as I have no responsibility to other people. So I am sure that she wouldn’t argue, but why would she praise me?
I suppose say the same for anyone. Ignore that Hitler was evil and look at the man’s ideas. Marx is full of beautiful ideas of everyone doing what they can to help the world and receiving what he needs. “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” So forget that communism (and most real attempts at socialism, central planning, etc) have failed. The idea sounds good, so let’s take it!
Rand was not “an eccentric genius”. She was an angry, bitter author who wrote overly dramatic prose to inspire other people to selfishness. Remember in “The Fountainhead” when she has a character destroy sculptures after looking at them so no one else can enjoy them? It is so perverse to imagine such behavior as heroic. It’s like being trapped in 11th grade forever.[/quote]
And again:
You have not even studied “altruism”.
Altruism is a very distinctive set of ideas put forward by Auguste Comte. It is the crede that you only live to serve others, that you have no right over your own body and property and that the government should invent a “religion of humanity” in order to indoctrinate people with those ideas.
Does that in any way, shape or form resemble a modern welfare state with a public school system?
Because it seems to me that it does.
The fact that you attack her attack on altruism is a telling sign that you have already been brainwashed as to have accepted a warped concept of “altruism” even though she herself claims that that is not what she is against.
So what is your point really?
That you have neither read Rand nor Comte but that you strongly dislike her?
Point taken.
[quote]orion wrote:
He would act very rational in disregarding the rights of his peers if his aim is to aggrandize himself.
You can act rationally when pursuing goals but you cannot have rational ultimate goals.
Those are highly subjective and the fact that lots of people share the same goals is indicating that the members of a species share lots of subjective goals, not that goals are, can or even should be objective.
[/quote]
What is your definition of a Man? To be a definition means that everyone can agree to the notion. For ex, Aristotle (as I am sure you know) defines Man as the animal that thinks via concept-formation, the rational animal. Man is the animal that abstracts from percepts to form concepts.