What's wrong with objectivism?

[pariah]

Hope this is the right forum...it _does_ say objectivism in the description! ;)

Anyway I remember a previous topic in the "media pop cultrue" forum about Rand...everyone seemed to hate her for some reason. While I certainly don't see her as an influential philosopher (I have heard people refer to her as a cold war relic and cant say I disagree), and agree that she is a terrible writer...what is so wrong with elitist capitalism?

That is, when the company rises to the top b/c of their product. I don't see that disliking microsoft for its buisiness practices disagrees with objectivist philosophy for example...M$ essentially held a gun to the head of its competitors in many cases, when they had an inferior product.

Anyways, what is so wrong with it? :confused:

[Dominus Paradoxum]

Hope this is the right forum...it _does_ say objectivism in the description!

That would be 'objectivism' with a small 'o', in paticular debates concerning the objectivity of moral values. This thread really belongs in the Philosophy forum.

See: http://home.att.net/~sandgryan/book_promotion.html for a book that deals with the problems of Objectivist epistemology and ethics.

[pariah]

Hmm I think you are right...a mod should move it soon.

Well, I wasn't really looking for a book; more like something I could talk about right now...it seems you have read it. Maybe you could tell me what some of its key points against Objectivism are?

[Blake]

It's overly reductionist & simplistic, and informed by an overdetermined bias against communism based on Rand's experienced dislikes as opposed to any systematic analysis of capitalism vs. communism's objective merits.

That's a short version, based on nothing more than my single readings of *The Fountainhead* & *We the Living*--and disturbing personal encounters with Objectivists. YMMV; nonetheless, if you have anything approaching a full experience of life, I think you'll find Objectivism singularly unsatisfying.

[pariah]

Originally posted by Blake
It's overly reductionist & simplistic, and informed by an overdetermined bias against communism based on Rand's experienced dislikes as opposed to any systematic analysis of capitalism vs. communism's objective merits.

That's a short version, based on nothing more than my single readings of *The Fountainhead* & *We the Living*--and disturbing personal encounters with Objectivists. YMMV; nonetheless, if you have anything approaching a full experience of life, I think you'll find Objectivism singularly unsatisfying.

It may be simplistic, like I said I do not find it to be a groundbreaking philosophy at all. In fact I agree with you about being reductionist. And it is true that she fails to make a systematic comparison of capitalism and socialism...

But I fail to see anything wrong with elitist capitalism, which seems to be the basis of Rands philosophy (based on my readings of Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged). So maybe this is not why people dislike Rand, but because they consider her a charlatan with no real philosophy?

Also, can you elaborate on the "disturbing personal encounters"? :eek:

[Clutch]

What's especially irksome about Rand and Randians is not the sophomoric doctrine itself. What gets up people's noses is the combination of ignorance and arrogance. Rand's uninformed, lame, but vitriolic critiques of great philosophers and other views tend to appeal to the ignorant, turning their lack of knowledge into a virtue: Hey, good thing I didn't read Kant or Hume or Marx, because look how stupid they are!

As I wrote on another thread: The message of very simple points (which the reader is delighted to find himself grasping with great clarity) plus the intimation that nobody else understands these points or has the moral courage to take them seriously, can combine to give the unread a feeling of vast enfranchaisement over the rest of so-called intellectuals.More than the anemic content of her positive views, this is what annoys people.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Let me start with what I see are the two basic foundational flaws in Ayn Rand's objectivism.

First, a violation of the "is/ought" distinction. "Man is a rational animal, therefore man ought to be rational." As philosophers have recognized since the 1700s, you can't get to ought from is as easily as this (and some say 'not at all').

Second, it confuses value-as-means with value-as-end. One of its most common arguments is that because life is useful no matter what else one might value, that life has intrinsic value (independent of whatever else one must value).

These are just the most significant.

And, by the way, I speak from somebody who was very much a part of the Ayn Rand culture when I was in high school and college. Then I asked one of my fellow Randians, "This is so obvious, but obviously a lot of people don't agree with it. Can you point me to something that explains, perhaps, why they do not?"

He pointed me to an article about the is/ought problem mentioned above. I read the article, went back to the Randian material, and saw the error sitting there as bold as can be with absolutely no attempt by Rand and her followers to address it.

For this and other reasons, I gave up on Objectivism and went, instead, for some form of utilitarianism.

[BDS]

Alonzo's "is/ought" point is well taken. For example Rand thinks man SHOULD follow the path of "enlightened self-interest" because it is natural for him to do so. Of course it is not. Like all mammals, humans (women in particular) routinely sacrifice self-interest and scarce resources to nurture others.

[JERDOG]

He pointed me to an article about the is/ought problem mentioned above. I read the article, went back to the Randian material, and saw the error sitting there as bold as can be with absolutely no attempt by Rand and her followers to address it.

OH I see.
Obviously you have never read, " The Objectivist Ethics" By Ayn Rand where she SPECIFICLY addresses Humes argument on is/ought.

So much for your credibility of being well read on Objectivism.

[JERDOG]

"Yea I read the back cover of Atlas Shrugged once and I say that Objectivism is bunk!" :rolleyes:

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by JERDOG
OH I see.
Obviously you have never read, " The Objectivist Ethics" By Ayn Rand where she SPECIFICLY addresses Humes argument on is/ought.

So much for your credibility of being well read on Objectivism.

Obviously?

It is from this that my 2nd objection comes -- Rand's 'derivation' of the intrinsic value of life from the instrumental value of life.

Where she discusses Hume, Rand's "refutation" begins by interpreting Hume as saying that 'is' statements are entirely irrelevant to 'ought' judgments. She shows this view to be an absurdity and, from this, claims to refute Hume.

But the view she is objecting to is a man constructed of pure home-spun straw.

Hume's argument that 'is' statements are not sufficient to prove any given ought conclusion. The view that Rand argues against is the view that 'is' statements are not necessary to prove any given ought conclusion. The view Rand refutes is not Hume's. The is/ought problem stands.

[xorbie]

You know why Rand sucks? Because I say so. Have I read any of hear philosophy? No, but that's ok. The reason I don't like her is because I hated reading "Anthem" - it was such an obvious and pathetic straw man. Moreover, anyone who needs to form some wierd cult and get all political with it seems to me to be a little light on the philosophy. Try Nietzsche for something that has actual philosophical merit.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by JERDOG
OH I see.
Obviously you have never read, " The Objectivist Ethics" By Ayn Rand where she SPECIFICLY addresses Humes argument on is/ought.

So much for your credibility of being well read on Objectivism. Right. And just what Hume have you read?
Rand's uninformed, lame, but vitriolic critiques of great philosophers and other views tend to appeal to the ignorant, turning their lack of knowledge into a virtue: Hey, good thing I didn't read Kant or Hume or Marx, because look how stupid they are!

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Actually, I see little sense in making a big deal out of who read what. Of course, we have all read different things and bring different backgrounds into the discussion.

What matters is whether the arguments are deductively sound or inductively strong.

If one of us has read an argument that he or she thinks another might have missed, the best thing to do is not to insult the other for failing to read it (we each only have so many hours to do such things) -- but to post the argument so that it can be critiqued.

If anybody wants more detail on the objections that I have posted, I would be happy to provide them.

[Clutch]

Quite right, Alonzo; I repent me of my fury, that I did kill him.

[JERDOG]

Alonzo tell me. Acording to you no one ever makes an argument unless in your mind that argument is sound?

Here's more of the argument against Hume that you said "Rands people" "never" talked about.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/events/advsem02/MachanRandHume.pdf

And I'm kind of had my feelings hurt that you never answered my question here. :(
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44791&perpage=25&pagenumber=3

In your last post you try the intimidation factor and try to shift the goal post.

Right. And just what Hume have you read?

I don't remember ever making the claim that I was well read in Hume. Nor did I ever make the claim that I was a Hume follower in high school.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by JERDOG
[B]Alonzo tell me. Acording to you no one ever makes an argument unless in your mind that argument is sound?

It is true that I sometimes use phrases like "did not attempt to address X" as a shortcut for "did not seriously attempt to address X". Particularly in the case of straw-man and other distorted interpretations of an argument, I will sometimes write that Agent did not attempt to address the objection but, instead, misinterpreted the objection and turned it into something she could handle."

It may be a lazy way of speaking or writing, and perhaps a habit best corrected. Yet, I can't help an intuitive sense that addressing a concern requires some sort of good-faith effort. Absent a good-faith effort, the concern is not really being addressed.

It's the same sense in which we may say to someone, "You didn't even try to get here on time," where the effort was so small that it demonstrated an overall lack of concern.

I do not believe that Ayn Rand gave a serious, intellectually honest attempt to understand Hume's is/ought argument.

Now, I should add, I am no great worshipper of Hume's distinction. I believe that there must be and is a bridge across the is/ought chasm. Otherwise, if 'ought' lives in one kind of universe and 'is' lives in another, we have a hard time explaining how properties in one universe can be known about and influence actions in the other.

Ultimately, the fact remains, Ayn Rand fails to adequately respond to Hume's is/ought problem.

Oh. I am sorry about the hurt feelings. With the number of different threads I paticipate in, I sometimes lose track of where I am in each one.

[JGL53]

I never read any of Rand's fictional works for the same reason I never read any Faulkner - after about ten pages or so I realized I was bored shitless.

The first Rand book I read was on Objectivist epistemology which I had stumbled across back around 1982. I was somewhat impressed, and read most of her other works that are in paperback. I became somewhat of a fan for a couple of years and debated in her favor against many people.

But the arguments of others gradually caused me to rethink my quasi-hero worship of her, and I began to seek out and read critiques of her work. And I read both the Branden's books.

My conclusion for many years now has been that most of her philosophy is useless crap, at least for me. Some people still think her philosophy is the greatest invention since sliced bread, but as long as I am not forced to listen to or read their yammerings, I'm happy if they're happy.:cool:

[xorbie]

Originally posted by JGL53
I never read any of Rand's fictional works for the same reason I never read any Faulkner - after about ten pages or so I realized I was bored shitless.

Finding myself shitless occurs often when I read philosophy, as I often do so while in the bathroom... kinda ironic no. I tend to have the problem of not being able to read more than 2 or 3 pages of any philsopher because I start to space out and think about my own little philosophy, often slightly inspired by some little nugget of wisdom covered up in pages of length nothingness that the philosopher has just given me.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Rather than turning this into a discussion of the reading habits of various participants -- as exciting as such a discussion may be -- I think I will focus instead on the original question.

I can restate the problems that I have with objectivism as follows.

First, there are no intrinsic values, no categorical imperatives. Every observation I have made in the real world, and every set of data that I have encountered, where 'value' is evident, it shows itself as individuals acting to bring about that which they desire, or to thwart the creation of that to which they have an aversion.

Whenever anybody uses a term like 'ought' or 'should' or 'best' (or even desire-laden terms such as healthy, dangerous, injury, harm, benefit, or any term where an evaluation is built into the meaning of the word), I look for the set of desires that the object of evaluation will fulfill -- or thwart, for those things called bad. A person speaking of something having a value-property, without relating it to some set of desires, is speaking about something that does not exist.

You cannot prove existence of entities (such as desire-independent value) merely by looking at the definition of a term. An example of such an argument is the ontological argument for the existence of God. God is perfect. If God did not exist, then God would not be perfect. Therefore, God exists. This argument fails because, as the philosophy cliche goes, 'existence is not a predicate'.

Ayn Rand's argument for her objectivist values is, basically, an ontological argument. However, instead of an argument depending on the definition of God, her ontological argument attempts to derive the existence of intrinsic (objective) values from the definition of man. 'Man is a rational animal.'

'Man is a rational animal' fails as a descriptive definition -- a theory that makes sense of the way people actually use the term. If we take it as a stipulative definition, then the best we can derive from such a definition is that, to the degree that one is irrational, one is not human. But one cannot infer from this that one ought to be rational, any more than one can infer from this that one ought to be a human being.

And, ultimately, one cannot prove the existence of a value that exists independent of desire by looking at the definition of terms. One has to look at the universe, make observations, and show that the best theory for explaining certain observations requires that we postulate desire-independent value.

[Note: I take their use of moral-ought to relate the object of evaluation to good desires, where good desires are desires that themselves tend to fulfill other desires, all consistent with the idea that nothing has value -- whether positive or negative -- independent of its capacity to fulfill or thwart desires.]

[Clutch]

Originally posted by JERDOG
In your last post you try the intimidation factor and try to shift the goal post. That was me, not Alonzo. It was neither intimidation nor a shift of the goalposts.

Alonzo claimed to have found a serious error in Rand's treatment of Hume. You replied, rather snippily, that he'd obviously not read the right stuff; according to you, Rand really does answer Hume's is-ought problem.

What I intended my (also rather snippy) question to convey was something like, "And just what do you take Hume's reasoning to be, given your claim that Rand has obviously refuted it?"

Your admission that you don't know what Hume actually said ought, I think, lead you to reconsider your confidence that Rand has actually engaged his view.

I hope that's clearer.

[AquaVita]

I also agree this thread should be moved to Philosophy.

[exnihilo]

Originally posted by pariahSS
what is so wrong with elitist capitalism?

That is, when the company rises to the top b/c of their product. I don't see that disliking microsoft for its buisiness practices disagrees with objectivist philosophy for example...M$ essentially held a gun to the head of its competitors in many cases, when they had an inferior product. [/B]

I think your example is a bit reductionistic and misleading. While Microsoft has been found guilty of serious violations of anti-trust law, they do have a superior product. The problem is that the idea of laissez-faire capitalism that Rand, objectivists, and many libertarians promote is that it is simply a self-serving facade. I am not denying that much hard work and effort goes into producing a useful and profitable product, but to ignore all the political favoritism, government subsidization, corporate crime, and outright graft inextractibly connected to the business process is both hypocritical and dishonest.
So while people like Rand throw up their self-righteous arms in disgust when it comes to social programs such as welfare and education grants, for instance, they convienently turn a blind eye when corporations take advantage of what is essentitally corporate welfare. A fine example of this double-standard is the airline bailout of 2002. Objectivists claim that if people can't succeed without handouts from the government, they are either lazy or just not talented enough. But when corporations file bankruptcy as a result of mismanagement or corporate malfeasence or a thousand other reasons, a government sponsored bailout--at taxpayer expense--is perfectly fine. Unfortunately this hypocritical behavior simply doesn't agree with objectivist rhetoric.
The make-believe form of capitalism celebrated by Rand has never existed and never will exist. Companies with powerful lobbyists attain billions in subsidies and special contracts that does nothing but subvert the tenets of competition that objectivists claim to support. The closest example of an laissez-faire economy can be found in the so-called era of the robber barons, which because of the lack of regulation and oversight, corporations ran roughshod over the rights of consumers, workers and other companies. Although these egregious behaviors aren't exactly celebrated, a return to the same conditions is exactly what would result if such reckless policies were ever revived.

That is what is wrong with objectivism.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by exnihilo
So while people like Rand throw up their self-righteous arms in disgust when it comes to social programs such as welfare and education grants, for instance, they convienently turn a blind eye when corporations take advantage of what is essentitally corporate welfare.

Actually, in my years of hanging around with Ayn Rand type objectivists, I found this not to be the case. They complained as much about corporate welfare as social welfare. Indeed, one of the major objectives of the Libertarian party in Montana while I was a member was eliminating the government subsidy of the state's milk industry.

Now, for every non-hypocritical Libertarian, there are perhaps a dozen "corporate feudalists" (as I call them) who simply exploit capitalist language when it serves their purpose, and twists its meaning to muster support for self-serving legislation that nobody who truly understands capitalism could support. They hire big PR companies to associate the word "capitalism" with all sorts of legislation that aims to do nothing but interfere in the free market for the benefit of their clients.

So, the type of people against which this post was directed certainly exist, it is a mistake to assert that this is true of all "people like Rand."

More relevant to the subject of this thread is the fact that it is not a legitimate objection against a particular view that somebody distorts it and exploits it for purposes that the view itself does not defend. To make this type of argument is to give weight to the straw man -- to say, "if a straw man interpretation of this view is possible, then the view itself is to be rejected." It is a standard that no view can live up to.

[exnihilo]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
Actually, in my years of hanging around with Ayn Rand type objectivists, I found this not to be the case. They complained as much about corporate welfare as social welfare. Indeed, one of the major objectives of the Libertarian party in Montana while I was a member was eliminating the government subsidy of the state's milk industry.
...
More relevant to the subject of this thread is the fact that it is not a legitimate objection against a particular view that somebody distorts it and exploits it for purposes that the view itself does not defend. To make this type of argument is to give weight to the straw man -- to say, "if a straw man interpretation of this view is possible, then the view itself is to be rejected." It is a standard that no view can live up to.

Er, isn't that exactly what Rand does in her exceeding facile critique of socialism? Build up a giant evil straw man and then through her cardboard cut-out mouthpieces tear that system apart, all the while celebrating the virtues of capitalistic individualism.

Just so I don't misinterpret your words are you saying that if it wasn't for all the government interference and regulation Corporations would operate in a safe and ethical manner. If so, such a belief is an example of naiveity par excellence. The critcal failure of objectivism that I was alluding to is the belief in the essential benevolence in the sytem of capitalism itself. That is absolutely absurd and in direct contradiction of the entire history of industrialzation and capitalism itself.

[JERDOG]

That was me, not Alonzo. It was neither intimidation nor a shift of the goalposts.

And if you will go back and look more carefully you will see that I was in fact speaking to Alonzo about the tread him and I were engaged in previously.
Which by the way had nothing to do with you.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by JERDOG
And if you will go back and look more carefully you will see that I was in fact speaking to Alonzo about the tread him and I were engaged in previously.
Which by the way had nothing to do with you. Actually, reading carefully is no help, since your post was simply ambiguous as to what bit was addressed to whom. Thank you for clarifying, though.

Am I right that what you wrote after the quote from me was in fact addressed to me? I replied to it, perhaps under a mistaken impression.

[XGuilt]

The arbitrary assertions about Ayn Rand in this post cannot be left unchallenged. And while the individual initiating this post clearly implies a lack of adequate personal knowledge and awareness of who Rand really was (apparently preferring the opinions of others) and of her extraordinary achievements in life on the world-wide stage, not only in the field of philosophy but in ethics and literary genius, referring to Ayn Rand as a "cold war relic" is not only WAY off the mark in TODAY'S field of philosophy, it is too offensive and foolishly dismissive for further comment. And as a point of FACT, Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", according to the Library of Congress, is "the book that most influenced people's lives - 2nd only to the bible." If that makes her "a terrible writer", then all other recognized authors throughout history fall somewhere below HER... which specifies the level of literary credibility and expertise of whomever posted this subject.

I have studied all of Rands writings intensively since 1985, challenging and comparing everything she ever wrote, recorded and videotaped, and with a view toward finding any contradiction I possibly could between and among her philosophy's stated values, morals, ethics and virtues - including indepth comparisons to all recognized historical philosophers' assertions in all major areas of the human experience. To this day, I still support the ranks of the numerous recognized world academicians who, themselves - to the last one, admit (publicly and in print) that Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism is the ONLY fully integrated, rational, logical and sensible SYSTEM of philosophy ever conceived. And further that, other than Aristotle himself, no other philosopher or philosophy in history has survived the intellectual challenges OF the entire philosophical community but Ayn Rand and her Philosophy of Objectivism. These are established and recognized facts, from someone who has invested the time necessary to state them from personal knowledge and awareness. For anyone to do less is intellectually reckless and irresponsible. And I don't have to qualify my statements with "for some reason", because I know why "everyone seemed to hate her" - and so did she. In fact she wrote about it, in considerable detail herself. Anyone who is sufficiently well-read already knows that every extraordinary and notable person throughout recorded history was the object of 'hate' by the seeming majority during their time... which is irrelevant to the person's actual value and credibility, given the general vacuousness of 'the public taste'.

I would strongly recommend, to everyone who has not spent time reading and understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy - through her remarkable fictional writings, if not her non-fiction philosophical writings, two things in their OWN best interests: 1) Read "The Fountainhead", and then "Atlas Shrugged" - the storylines and characterizations are wonderful in themselves - even aside from their fictional dramatization of Rand's philosophy; and 2) to recognize the wisdom of Ayn Rand herself when it comes to indulging promiscuous, uninformed commentary, "It is not advisable to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener."

[Clutch]

other than Aristotle himself, no other philosopher or philosophy in history has survived the intellectual challenges OF the entire philosophical community but Ayn Rand and her Philosophy of Objectivism. These are established and recognized facts, from someone who has invested the time necessary to state them from personal knowledge and awareness.It's difficult to know which is weirder: the delirious assertion about the history of philosophy, or the fervent and trembling paean to Rand's impoverished screeds.

The former, I suppose. What could you conceivably mean by this remark about Aristotle?

[JGL53]

XGuilt will probably dismiss me as a witch doctor (hee hee), but I can understand and appreciate the prevalence of fundamentalist christian belief more so than I can understand the mindset of the goose-stepping ranks of Randroids.

The former were brainwashed as children. The latter - what's their excuse? It's common knowledge that many were introverted, above average intelligent teen-agers looking for some way out of their ennui and cynicism who, when they came across the Rand cult, thought they had died and gone to heaven (so to speak).

I've met more than a few 'admirers' of the Great One (Rand, not god) in my life, and the deeper the person was into the cult, the more braindead - or the more an egotistical asshole- the person seemed to me.

However, like VERY liberal christians who may be basically decent people, I suppose there are plenty of A. R. admirers who are admirable people themselves, and even fun to be with on a rainy day. Xguilt may be one.

But, compared to Xguilt, am I stupid or what? As mentioned, I read nearly all of Rand's non-fiction works, and discussed, debated and, for many years, defended Rand's philosophy. However, eventually I came to the realization that much of Rand's seemingly brilliantly defended out-pourings were useless pontification and anti-empirical, anti-scientific claptrap. Anything that she said that was useful, someone else had said it before, and in more understandable terms.

As for Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, I never got more than a few pages into each without a feeling that my I.Q. was being slowly shrunken by the experience. Thankfully, I stopped before I lost the ability to feed myself. I can only stand in amazement at those who can wade through to the end of either book. In fact, I sort of 'admire' them for possession of an ability I will never be able to fully appreciate.

Though it might piss them off mightily, here's my psychological analysis of those who take Rand way too seriously, i.e., to the point of extreme hero worship: instead of a male spirit in the sky, their omniscient 'god' is a dead female human in a grave. In other words, they aren't atheists - not really.

But, for those who view Rand as an exceptional philosopher from whom we have much to learn (i.e., they can still maintain some semblance of devotion to actual objectivity), then no harm no foul - probably. (If they just stay the fuck away from Leonard Peikoff, they should be ok.) :)

[xorbie]

"the book that most influenced people's lives - 2nd only to the bible."

Oh yeah, that's some good company right there :rolleyes:

Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism is the ONLY fully integrated, rational, logical and sensible SYSTEM of philosophy ever conceived.

If by sensibile, you mean "without any grounding in reality" than sure, I totally agree. Objectivism requires that man, the "rational animal" act rationally in his own self interest. So of course free market capitalism is the best, right? Only free market capitalism inherently leads to flagrant corruption, degredation of workers and unfair pratices. You know, because man is also a "greedy animal." Moreover, Adam Smith's idea that competition leads to the most overall good has already been disproven by John Nash (A Beautiful Mind, if you saw it). So how is Randian Capitalism rational, logical and sensical, when it appears to actually be none of the three?

[JGL53]

Originally posted by xorbie
... Only free market capitalism inherently leads to flagrant corruption, degredation of workers and unfair pratices. You know, because man is also a "greedy animal."...

xorbie, I tend to be a pragmatist, i.e., whatever works in a particular area, rather than being an idealistic capitalist, socialist, anarchist, or whatever.

So, before a Randian jumps in here to denounce you as a filthy low life socialist, let me run something by you.

I see capitalism producing the horrors you relate at the corporation level way too often than is exceptable. But 'small' capitalism - e.g., businesses like mom and pop stores, wherein they borrow the initial capital, or small chains of only a half dozen stores or less, where there is far less chance of monopoly - aren't these examples, for the most part, of a 'good' type of capitalism, maybe even a necessary one? Just asking.

[JERDOG]

It realy all boils down to this. If you hate Rand you most likely are a bible humper or a socialist.

[Lysippus]

There can be many things wrong with holding a gun to a competitors head. Microsoft did more then point a gun, and if you have noticed Microsoft's products are inferior. I do own a XP machine, OS X, Linux, and I even have an old Unix machine. While learning to use all of these. I found that OS X, Unix, and Linux are all much better to use. There are no crashes, and you don't have to worry about something blowing away into the information highway, never to be seen again. Microsoft bought their competitors, or stole it, used some backward engineering and forced it on people. What I am mean by forced is that you can't do it but their way. I would agree with you if they actually had something that worked.

[xorbie]

My point was not that capitalism is not necessary, or even pragrmatic. My point was that even in the cases where it is good and effective, it has nothing to do with Rand's rational (no pun intended). Hate to belabor the point, but if man were totally controlled by reason and logic, and if man acted only by reason and logic, capitalism in its purest form would not be the best system.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by XGuilt
And as a point of FACT, Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", according to the Library of Congress, is "the book that most influenced people's lives - 2nd only to the bible."

I wasn't aware that the Library of Congress was in the business of rating books. You sound just like those christians who repeat whatever sound-bites the preacher gives them.

And further that, other than Aristotle himself, no other philosopher or philosophy in history has survived the intellectual challenges OF the entire philosophical community but Ayn Rand and her Philosophy of Objectivism.

Once again, christians say the same thing about the bible. What they mean is that they personally have managed to ignore objections to thier religious texts.

Why does objectivism have all the earmarks of a cult of personality?

[Adrian Selby]

Can we name these leading 'academicians'?

Can we name anyone working in the field of philosophy that has taken her seriously enough to mount a refutation of her works that are easily found and coherent anyway?

[pariah]

Originally posted by XGuilt
And as a point of FACT, Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", according to the Library of Congress, is "the book that most influenced people's lives - 2nd only to the bible." If that makes her "a terrible writer", then all other recognized authors throughout history fall somewhere below HER... which specifies the level of literary credibility and expertise of whomever posted this subject.



Just in my defense! :P

being good at writing literature has little to do with being a good philosophy...while i am undecided on the second, after reading atlas shrugged and the fountainhead, i can safely say, she IS a terrible writer.

youre right, the reason i said that she was a terrible writer is b/c the library of congreses statement...WTF?!? i said it b/c i have read the books and its true. she is dry and repetitive. its mind numbingly boring to read.

And I don't have to qualify my statements with "for some reason", because I know why "everyone seemed to hate her" - and so did she.

you dont have to qualify your statements....wtf? why wont you back them up?

[JGL53]

Originally posted by JERDOG
It realy all boils down to this. If you hate Rand you most likely are a bible humper or a socialist.

For the sake of argument, let's say your statement is true.

This brings up the question "So what?".

Most critics of Rand don't "hate" her - for example, me. And most of her critics aren't bible humpers or socialists - for example, me.

[xorbie]

Just a minor quickble here, but the phrase is "bible thumper" not "bible humper" :eek: :eek:

[Cretinist]

To this day, I still support the ranks of the numerous recognized world academicians who, themselves - to the last one, admit (publicly and in print) that Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism is the ONLY fully integrated, rational, logical and sensible SYSTEM of philosophy ever conceived.

Start naming these academicians. Start with philosophers.

[Cretinist]

bump

[Cretinist]

bump

[emphryio]

Don't like those Randiods do you Cret? :)

I have to shamefully admit that I've read pretty much all of Rand's fiction and at the time I read it I mostly liked it. I used to love her philosophy. (If I may even call it that.) It gave me strength. It helped me drag myself out of bed every morning for my mind numbingly boring college classes.

I think I grew out of it when I became happy enough to be able to afford to spend some time thinking about others and not just myself 24/7.

[JGL53]

Originally posted by emphryio
... I think I grew out of it when I became happy enough to be able to afford to spend some time thinking about others and not just myself 24/7.

Exactly. Randroidism seems to be an excellent philosophy - for those in the 14 -25 year old category. When one finds oneself having to get by in the REAL world, one soon discerns that one was not, is not, and never will be a Howard Roark, i.e., that there is pretty much no job openings for 'selfish idealist'. :D

[Tyre]

pariahSS: “…and agree that she is a terrible writer”
would you mind mentioning some noteworthy writers?

Blake: “…if you have anything approaching a full experience of life, I think you'll find Objectivism singularly unsatisfying.”
Please expand on what is considered a “full experience of life”

BDS: “…Like all mammals, humans (women in particular) routinely sacrifice self-interest and scarce resources to nurture others.”
As they also “routinely” use various methods to destroy one another… I do not see where this statement has significant impact.

Alonzo Fyfe: “…Hume's argument that 'is' statements are not sufficient to prove any given ought conclusion….”
Concrete is hard, therefore it ought to be hard tomorrow unless acted upon by an outside force. Of course that’s not sufficient enough…

Xorbie: “You know why Rand sucks? Because I say so….”
And I’m sure that the world revolves on its axis for the same reason…

Alonzo Fyfe: “….'Man is a rational animal' fails as a descriptive definition -- a theory that makes sense of the way people actually use the term. If we take it as a stipulative definition, then the best we can derive from such a definition is that, to the degree that one is irrational, one is not human. But one cannot infer from this that one ought to be rational, any more than one can infer from this that one ought to be a human being….”
Can you please give me an example of a irrational person? In my lack of experience, I have never met, or heard of one.

JGL53: “…As for Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, I never got more than a few pages into each without a feeling that my I.Q. was being slowly shrunken by the experience. Thankfully, I stopped before I lost the ability to feed myself. I can only stand in amazement at those who can wade through to the end of either book. In fact, I sort of 'admire' them for possession of an ability I will never be able to fully appreciate…”
Didn’t you just insult the books saying that it would take an idiot to read through them, then say that you ADMIRE the idiot for performing an action that you did not find worth your intelligence….

Xorbie: “…My point was not that capitalism is not necessary, or even pragrmatic. My point was that even in the cases where it is good and effective, it has nothing to do with Rand's rational (no pun intended). Hate to belabor the point, but if man were totally controlled by reason and logic, and if man acted only by reason and logic, capitalism in its purest form would not be the best system…”
And what would be? Dictatorship? Pure democracy? Socialism? Care to elaborate?

Pmurray: “…Once again, christians say the same thing about the bible. What they mean is that they personally have managed to ignore objections to thier religious texts.
Why does objectivism have all the earmarks of a cult of personality?…”
So then chistianity is a cult? What are the earmarks of a cult personality? And do these earmarks apply to any other examples besides objectivism? So does any strong belief in one direction earn the title of cult?

Adrian Selby: “…Can we name anyone working in the field of philosophy that has taken her seriously enough to mount a refutation of her works that are easily found and coherent anyway?…”
“Why I don’t think of you at all…”

pariahSS: “…you dont have to qualify your statements....wtf? why wont you back them up?…”
throwing stones are we?

emphryio: “…I think I grew out of it when I became happy enough to be able to afford to spend some time thinking about others and not just myself 24/7…”
ahh, and what did you think of these "others"

JGL53: ” …Exactly. Randroidism seems to be an excellent philosophy - for those in the 14 -25 year old category. When one finds oneself having to get by in the REAL world, one soon discerns that one was not, is not, and never will be a Howard Roark, i.e., that there is pretty much no job openings for 'selfish idealist'…
And what constitutes the REAL WORLD… every one always talks about it, and yet I’ve never met any one that will admit to what/where/when it is…

Thank you, for your time, please reply.

[xorbie]

Concrete is hard, therefore it ought to be hard tomorrow unless acted upon by an outside force. Of course that’s not sufficient enough…

Maybe you don't understand the is-ought problem, but fancy word tricks like this won't cut it to answer. The usage of ought here is not the same as in the is-ought problem, as should be obvious.

With regards to your two comments to me:

The first one you quoted was of me being obviously sarcastic.
With the second one, if you had taken the time to bother reading my previous post to which I was referring, you would see I was talking about the Nash Equilibrium. If everyone was totally logical and rational, they could reach the equilibrium with relative ease by working together. Competition and selfishness is not the logically superior thing to do. Adam Smith was wrong. Sorry.

[Tyre]

then what is? you continue to give answers that arent answers, and if i take something out of contex, be assured i do it intentionaly

[Tyre]

on another note, why doesnt the is/ought problem work? Is it limited only to the things that you wish it too? Or has Humes specified that it only works on philisophical debates, were in he can use it to countermine a is/ought without using a blatant is/ought to counter it? - i am not familiar with Humes or his is/ought contradictions past what was offered in this thread...
thanx for the patience.

[xorbie]

Ok, here is the Nash Equilibrium in a nutshell. Nash mathematically proved that in any situation, there would be an equilibrium in which nobody could better his or her position without worsening someone else's. Once this Equilibrium is found, it can easily be achieved by everyone working together, so I repeat again that laisez-faire capitalism is NOT the most rational or logical system out there.

Here is the is-ought problem in a nutshell. Just because I happent to have something in my nature, does not mean I ought to do it. "Man is a rational animal" (itself contested) does not translate directly into "man should behave rationally." This is not a moral argument, nor a logical one. If the first statement were actually try, I don't see how man would have any option but to behave rationally. Basically, the rule is that you cannot go from a generally descriptive statement ("is") to a moral mandate or command ("ought").

[Tyre]

so then in the Nash Equilibrium, every one is in the same state, none better or worse than any one else?

as for the is/ought your context was bad....
can you behave irrationally, try it.... i dont think, (have never observed any person act irrationally, well except in a altered conciounce...)that you can. This is not to say you would not behave in an absurd manner, but it is the basis of every person to have order, and since a part of order is logic, and being semi-rational at worst. Maybe her wording was bad, but i see no reason to attack it, if you can prove the idea.

[xorbie]

No, in the Nash Equilibrium everyone is not equal, that is not what it says. It is the one situation in which nobody can better themselves without harming someone else, which could potentially mean that everyone is on the same footing, but not per se.

And with regards to behaving irrationally, I think you and I differ greatly in what rational means, and I think my definition is a lot closer to what Rand was talking about. If it is impossible for people to behave irrationally, then a philosophy that said "act rationally" would be merely descriptive and would thus be more scientific than a philosophy of morality/ethics/whatever else.

Her definition would be more similiar to "it would be rational for me to acheive X and thus I will think hard about what course of action will help me acheive X." Then she fills in X with "self-interest" basically. So yes, people often behave irrationally. Fat people say "I want to be thin" but then they eat anyway and don't excercise. People procastinate when they want to work. I am not exactly sure what definition of rational you have, but this would not fall under mine.

[Tyre]

aahh... the you agree with Hunter S. Thompson when he said:
"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampeled."

So then, do you admit that the rational action is always the best one? Both your examples seem to say it is so....

[Keith Russell]

I believe that being rational means that one always acts on the basis of the most, and best, available evidence one has. The rational person accepts nothing on 'faith', where 'faith' is defined as 'belief without evidence'.

K

[xorbie]

Keith: I agree to some exent with what you said, but I believe it suffers in two ways. First of all, you do not specify what evidence you are talking about. Does anecdotal evidence count? What assuredness must you have in this evidence in order to remain rational? It is a tricky business, this evidence.

Moreover, evidence does not always show you what you should do. It might say "If you do A then X will happen, whereas if you do B then Y will happen." But this can not always tell you which of A or B you should do. Presumably, so long as you knew that A led to X and B to Y, doing either A or B would be rational. For instance, let us say my decision is: "Shall jump out this window?" If I know that is is very likely that my action will lead to my death, and do it with this knowledge, am I not being rational? If I shoot someone knowing fully that this will kill them, m I not being rational? Arguments that employ this definition of rationality and attempt to link rationality to morality will always fail, and for this reason.

[Keith Russell]

xorbie said:
First of all, you do not specify what evidence you are talking about. Does anecdotal evidence count?

Keith: I view anecdotal 'evidence' more as claims (which themselves need to be verified), than as independently verifiable, non-contradictory evidence.

xorbie: What assuredness must you have in this evidence in order to remain rational? It is a tricky business, this evidence.

Keith: How so? Reason provides its own assurances, as much as it can. (And, I don't believe there is any better system.)

xorbie: Moreover, evidence does not always show you what you should do. It might say "If you do A then X will happen, whereas if you do B then Y will happen." But this can not always tell you which of A or B you should do.

Keith: Evidence is not reason, it is merely a tool of reason--the raw material, if you will. Imagination enters into it, too--esepcially if one has to consider the future results of various present courses of action.

xorbie: Presumably, so long as you knew that A led to X and B to Y, doing either A or B would be rational. For instance, let us say my decision is: "Shall jump out this window?" If I know that is is very likely that my action will lead to my death, and do it with this knowledge, am I not being rational?

Keith: Principle must apply. If you value your life, then killing yourself by any means (including jumping out the window) is not rational. If living your life will be unbearable (due to the progress of a painful, fatal disease, for instance) then killing yourself might be a rational option. (Jumping out of a window still might not be the best way to end your life, though.)

xorbie: If I shoot someone knowing fully that this will kill them, m I not being rational?

Keith: Again, our actions should be chosen based on principles, not on whim, or dogmatic 'rules'. Is this person a threat to life and/or property (yours, or anyone else's?) If so, you (most likely) have a moral obligation to try to stop him or her, up to and including using deadly force against them, provided you can do so without undue risk to your own life. (What consititutes 'undue' risk is a decision you must weigh against the outcome of the person's actions, if left unchecked. I wouldn't risk my life for a few dollars, for example. But, I would certainly risk my life--without a second thought--if my wife was threatened.)

xorbie: Arguments that employ this definition of rationality and attempt to link rationality to morality will always fail, and for this reason.

Keith: I agree that trying to apply reason to out-of-context actions, cannot yield anything like a rational morality. However, if one always keeps the appropriate moral principles clearly in mind, I believe rational moral principles can be discovered.

K