Ayn Rand Is A Legend
Until Atheist Media Blog posted this video of Ayn Rand, I’d never heard of her, but she makes so much sense about the nature of reason, reality, and order. She has mentioned ideas I haven’t even considered before. A truly amazing individual.
[RAW][/RAW]
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Follow me on Twitter!
“The Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand might be a book that we consider for the book club. But I warn you, that book would take me three months to finish!
Oliver
9 Jul 08 at 4:31 am (GMT)
Oh no! Stay away, stay Awayyyyyy!
Seriously I don’t want to see another mind ruined by that bullshit.
If you are going to read Rand, please do it out of curiosity and don’t join her cult.
Quick! I must inoculate you:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/
db0
9 Jul 08 at 6:02 am (GMT)
Ayn Rand is a friggin’ nutbag. She may have some OK things to say about reason and atheism and stuff but, when you really get in to “objectivism” it turns out to be a bunch of nihilistic, self-serving bullshit…I was impressed by her once up a time as well, no more…she’s Ann Coulter’s Counterpoint.
Parker
9 Jul 08 at 6:06 am (GMT)
Well I must say I am surprised. Will look out for her books.
fabrulana
9 Jul 08 at 11:03 am (GMT)
Ayn Rand is just Nietzche with a heaping help of asshole, arrogance, and selfishness thrown in. Do yourself a favor; skip Rand, read Nietzche.
Greg
9 Jul 08 at 4:07 pm (GMT)
[...] Quoth Greg [...]
Quote of the Day » A Division by Zer0
9 Jul 08 at 4:11 pm (GMT)
I still liked the video, and she does come across as quite Dawkinsish in a way. I’m not intending to read any of her work unless something actually interests me though. When I called her a legend, it was for this video and the views espoused in it.
Adrian Hayter
9 Jul 08 at 4:15 pm (GMT)
@ Greg Nietzche is better but, he’s still a misogynist…If you guys want to read something of value and substance, I suggest my blog! heh…j/k seriously, Nietzche is better than Rand but, always remember when you read anything to hold it up to the light of skepticism…it’s more fun that way.
Parker
9 Jul 08 at 4:38 pm (GMT)
I suggest you honor the judgment of your own mind about Ayn Rand. Yes, you will find many people who vilify her, as several have just done here. The links they provided also attempt to excoriate her. Alternately you will find many millions more people who hold Miss Rand (or her fictional heros) as a hero. I do NOT suggest you take that majority opinion, either. I suggest you make up your own mind.
Notice that the comments above do NOT suggest you investigate her and make your own rational evaluation of her thought, but rather attempt to slam a predigested negative down your throat or to inoculate you (how insulting) against your own judgment. I wonder why they do that? Don’t you wonder?
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
John Donohue
9 Jul 08 at 9:57 pm (GMT)
*Cough* what?! how many?
No, I am only attempting to “inoculate” him against your cult, the same way that I would do for Scientology or any other dangerous belief system. I only show the negative views up front because I know how “logical” or positive it seems before you get sucked into it, and then the groupthink takes over.
If he still wishes to look into it at least he’ll be aware of the antilogue.
Zionist Conspiracy?
Evil Atheist Alliance?
Communism?
No?
I don’t know, I’m bummed.
db0
9 Jul 08 at 10:05 pm (GMT)
I’ll make my own opinion up about her as a person. As I said in the article, I’ve never heard of her before now, and my judgement of her is based solely on her arguments used in this video (which I found very convincing).
Adrian Hayter
10 Jul 08 at 12:02 am (GMT)
Rand and her Objectivists are infamous for switching the meanings of words mid-argument (I wish I could remember the term for this), which makes the conclusions appear fine until you actually look at the argument carefully. One such word is “life”. They go from defining it in a fairly standard way to defining it as that definition plus “how a human should live”–and no note is made of this switch. And they also don’t have great justification for the way they think humans should live. And one of the greatest weaknesses of the philosophy, by far, is that it dumps on emotion as a motivating force, while at the same time emphasizing happiness.
They also practically deify reason/rationality, though this is actually just a veil for assuming answers to controversial issues, but they probably can’t see this. With Objectivism, a person can rationalize just about anything. If I remember correctly, this is one of the primary reasons why I left Objectivism, though I had only been into it for about a year.
From what I’ve read, Rand was a dogmatic cult leader who had some serious mental issues. Videos of her show her nicer side. She left Russia with a decidedly anti-socialist, pro-capitalist stance. This by itself isn’t a problem. However, one can find a quote of hers stating that her novels were an attempt to explicate on “the ideal man” and that she had to come up with a philosophy to do so. In other words, the philosophy was constructed for the sake of telling the stories of men she considered ideal from the outset. I think the elements of her ideal man were assumed away, or at most poorly justified.
She also didn’t seem to be capable of consistency in other areas. If I remember correctly, Objectivism is supposed to be rooted partially in non-coercion, yet she finds room for government. In other words–again, if I’m remembering correctly–there was a contradiction in her theorizing in favor of practicality. Quite a concession for such a demanding philosophy and person.
I’ll post some links about her and her philosophy if you’re interested. I do happen to endorse the ARCHN blog that db0 linked to, but there are also better arguments to be found elsewhere. He, EbonMuse, Martino, myself, and others can attest to what conversations with Objectivists are like, BTW.
And I have to make this caveat: I haven’t been researching Objectivist stuff or conversing with people related to it recently, so take everything I’ve said above, especially about the Rand quote, as nearly certain at the most.
Mark C.
10 Jul 08 at 1:12 am (GMT)
You could also talk to the Barefoot Bum and Alonzo Fyfe about Objectivists and the philosophy.
Mark C.
10 Jul 08 at 1:13 am (GMT)
Ayn Rand Pinup Art
As an opponent of feminism and encourager of the dominant male hero-model, I’m sure Ayn herself wouldn’t mind the depiction.
Timothy A. Bear
10 Jul 08 at 3:36 am (GMT)
“switching the meanings of words mid-argument”. This fallacy, which Rand identified, is called The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept; it is the most grievous error corrected by her epistemology. Unfortunately for him, the examples of this error given by Mark C attributed to Objectivism are either incomprehensible, imagined or inaccurate.
Deify rationality? Sorry, that is faint unintended praise. Objectivism holds reason (facts plus logic) as an absolute. No human has ever given an explanation to the contrary; billions deny the truth of reason as an absolute, but their groundless beliefs are the real accommodation, not your phantom ‘rationalization’ which no Objectivist supports. I would be curious to listen to arguments on an atheist blog for an epistemology that does NOT hold reason as an absolute.
As to the remainder of your post, I won’t take it apart bit by bit. As stated previously, my position for someone interested is: read the philosopher, not listen to the attacks of her enemies or the confidence of her fans.
John Donohue
John Donohue
10 Jul 08 at 4:07 am (GMT)
“Equivocation” is the word I was looking for. I was not talking about “the stolen concept fallacy” at all. Rand equivocated on “life” as well as other things, and these equivocations make her arguments appear more reasonable than they are.
By “deify rationality” I meant that Rand and Objectivists make rationality into pretty much a thing to be worshiped. Giving it such a supremely high status often masks the term’s use as a fudge to dismiss opposing ideas. For clarity, Rand calls many things irrational that one may be able to perfectly well reason to. It depends on one’s prior knowledge, the truth values of the input statements, and how much stock one puts into mental functions that aren’t directly logical, as well as possibly other things that I’m forgetting at the moment. Reasoning is not just “facts plus logic” (i.e. logic, or using logic)–otherwise “reason” and “logic” would be synonymous. They aren’t. “Reasoning by analogy” is a meaningful phrase even if the justification for using the analogy goes unstated. Anyway, the fudging I’m speaking of takes advantage of human psychology and, in Rand’s and Objectivists’ hands, often tars and demonizes the opponent, which I think is intellectually dishonest.
Adrian can either go with your suggestion or not even bother investigating Rand and her philosophy. His reasoning could be either similar to yours or he could trust the other commenters to know what they’re talking about, given enough trust in them. Either way there is reasoning involved at some level. But if your child were wanting to read Mein Kampf because he’d heard of Hitler, and you knew Hitler’s writing was very persuasive, wouldn’t you try to inoculate your child? I’m not analogizing Rand to Hitler (honestly), but it’s the same principle. One of the “facts of reality” is that humans are a little too eager to believe things if stated one way–things which wouldn’t be believed when stated more clearly or just in some other way.
Adrian, for my part, here are a couple links:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2178/oism.html
http://impartialism.blogspot.com/2008/05/randy-objectivists.html
The first is to criticism of the philosophy. Note that the first essay does not seek to criticize the philosophy, but is the author’s musing. All the other essays have direct relevance to the philosophy.
The second link will lead you, with some hyperlink-clicking, to discussions about Objectivism.
Mark C.
10 Jul 08 at 5:39 am (GMT)
She defined equivocation? A quick search shows that knowledge of this fallacy goes as far back as Ockham but I’m certain that ancient philosophers know of it as well.
Anyway, I think you’re confusing “identified” with “used in every other sentence”
Epistemology is about knowledge, not a life system as Objectivism tries to be. Modern epistemology is Science, not Objectivism. On not-so-epistemological issues, like morality, Objectivism falls flat on its face.
I do suggest you try to argue with some of her fans however. If I seem negative about it, it’s because I, as well as Mark C, did just that. It’s all on my blog.
db0
10 Jul 08 at 6:19 am (GMT)
Now, now, that’s not in the spirit of freethinking is it?
If I do choose to form an opinion on Ayn Rand (calling her a legend was only due to her comments in this video), I will form my own opinion based on reading her work and the criticisms.
If I formed opinions based on what others told me…well, I’d still be a Christian.
Adrian Hayter
10 Jul 08 at 7:45 am (GMT)
Wow I scarcely heard of her and already there is a hell of contention. I’ll read one of her books to make up my own mind as I enjoyed the video. If I was not able to make up my own mind about stuff, I doubt I would be reading this site.
fabrulana
10 Jul 08 at 8:18 am (GMT)
You’ve never heard of Ayn Rand before? What are you, 14? Maybe you should read about religion and philosophy before starting a blog about it.
Fry
10 Jul 08 at 1:45 pm (GMT)
Fry,
I’m from England, and she is evidently not as popular over here as she was in America. She also died 6 years before I was born, so apologies if I had better things to do in the last 20 years than read up on every single philosopher I come across.
Philosophy isn’t dictated by one woman, neither is religion. I have read many articles about both, they just never happened to mention her (probably because her ideas were so discredited, I have no idea).
Adrian Hayter
10 Jul 08 at 2:03 pm (GMT)
Don’t be a dolt. I’d never heard of her before last year and I’m 27. She’s not as popular as the Objectivists would like to think and she’s practically unknown outside of the U.S.
It’s not necessary for people to explore every obscure little philosophy related to (ir)religion before starting a blog. Where do you get off?
db0
10 Jul 08 at 2:03 pm (GMT)
Rand is schmuck, but if you are going to actually discuss atheist philosophy then she is required reading. If you would rather be the next Rational Response squad and try and ad-hominem christians to death then don’t expect to be taken seriously. Of course what should I expect when your article have been little more than rote repetition of atheist fodder.
Maybe this is a good site for new atheists but there is little here for someone who takes the subject seriously. Oh, and I get off at seeing a pip squeek start a cooky cutter blog to take up more space on the internet and give christians easy targets. That’s where I get off and find a better ride.
Fry (Andrew)
10 Jul 08 at 2:13 pm (GMT)
No. She’s not.You know why? Because atheism is not a philosophy. Also because there’s no reason to read her unless you’re looking for examples to avoid.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. He’s not being original? Well I don’t think he signed a contract requiring that.
Each Atheist blogger adds his voice to the chorus and we all improve our opinions as well as put more content out there from various perspectives. There’s no reason for one person/blog to become the ultimate nexus of atheistm and no-one will ever be.
Just because he’s not up to YOUR standards he’s a pip squeek? Can you be any more condescending?
db0
10 Jul 08 at 2:21 pm (GMT)
Fry,
What the fuck is with your attitude???
Firstly I have no intentions of lowering myself to the level of the RRS. Secondly, my “article” was barely a paragraph in which I stated that I didn’t know Ayn Rand but the video of her was awesome. You can’t deny that she answered all the questions logically and rationally. If I’d known before that she was so hated by a load of people in the atheist community I probably wouldn’t have used the word “legend”, although technically it is the correct word since she did do a lot whether you agree with it or not.
I’ll let you know that I do take the subject seriously, if by “subject” you mean atheism, philosophy, religion etc.
You form an opinion of me from one article that is a video with a single comment. I don’t care what you think, and if this is where you get off, good riddance.
Adrian Hayter
10 Jul 08 at 2:23 pm (GMT)
While I can’t get the video through my job’s network I think Ayn Rand is a great example of the diversity of atheism. Rand comes to the conclusion of atheism but through means that are vastly different from the “new” atheists (like the four horsemen).
I see I chose a bad time to comment though…Trolls Gone Wild!
Friar-Zero
10 Jul 08 at 2:36 pm (GMT)
But Atheism is not a conclusion of her philosophy. She just happens to have that philosophy and be an atheist. She could just as well have been a deist and nothing would have changed.
She is, however, the antithesis of Stalinism. Liberal and Right instead of Authoritarian and ledt.
db0
10 Jul 08 at 2:45 pm (GMT)
I’m used to it Friar-Zero.
In hindsight if I’d known this was a hazy issue I wouldn’t have made a comment like the one I did, but it’s done now, and I’ve explained myself in the comments.
Ayn Rand is still a legend in the sense that she had some interesting ideas and she probably influenced a number of people. Judging by the reactions shown here not everyone was influenced the way she wanted :P
Adrian Hayter
10 Jul 08 at 2:50 pm (GMT)
I don’t agree that atheism is only incidental to objectivism, as her epistemology specifically rules out theism. Atheism also plays a part in some of her ethical theories, though I suppose we could debate how important a part that is.
Friar-Zero
10 Jul 08 at 2:57 pm (GMT)
Mmm yes I wouldn’t be too worried about it Adrian. Usually if someone gets upset about something it means there is something to investigate. As far as I can discern she has made quite an impact on the community and if you check out the biography on her site - that’s not bad for a chick from Russia. She has done a hell of a lot more than other people, rather thank sitting round and throwing comments at people while picking their nose. Even as an athiest I can still respect another’s thinking and are always willing to take an objective view on things. One doesn’t have to read everybodies books to know everything. After all the books I have read there is a lot of thoughts that correlate. Take for example the above video. Nothing what she said was knew to my own line of thought - but she sure stated her self very well. One has to appreciate that.
fabrulana
10 Jul 08 at 3:00 pm (GMT)
What I don’t agree with you on is that her Atheism is as a result of her philosophy. I think that she happened to be an Atheist and that, along with the rest of her (negative) experiences in USSR was what she wrapped her philosophy around.
Thus I don’t think that her Atheism is a result of her philosophy or that her Philosophy is a result of Atheism (no more than communism is).
db0
10 Jul 08 at 3:07 pm (GMT)
I don’t believer he philosophy is a necessary result of atheism, but you must admit that her rationalist epistemology and unique system of metaphysics precludes theism.
I’m not not very experienced in her philosophy so I won’t argue a fine point. However I’m sure an objectivist would agree that you cannot accept Rand’s conclusions and be a theist.
Friar-Zero
10 Jul 08 at 3:17 pm (GMT)
Problably, however I only objected to your phrase that “Rand comes to the conclusion of atheism because of Objectivism”. I think she was an Atheist before she conceived Objectivism and that most people who eventually embrace Objectivism are atheists before that.
db0
10 Jul 08 at 3:32 pm (GMT)
Oh, I see. That was imprecision on my part. I just meant that her philosophy was another path to atheism.
Friar-Zero
10 Jul 08 at 3:36 pm (GMT)
You’re still saying basically the same thing :P
Do you perhaps mean to say that Objectivism is an Atheist-only philosophy?
db0
10 Jul 08 at 3:40 pm (GMT)
All of this is directed at Db0
Ayn rand philosophy:
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
?Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary edition[4]
Religion:————–
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; “he lost his faith but not his morality”
an institution to express belief in a divine power; “he was raised in the Baptist religion”; “a member of his own faith contradicted him”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Nope. Dont see it there….lets try cult.
———————-
CULT:
followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices
fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; “he always follows the latest fads”; “it was all the rage that season”
followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader
a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false; “it was a satanic cult”
a system of religious beliefs and rituals; “devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Hmmmmm, i guess it could be a “sect”, but that would be by virtue of teh fact that it is in opposition to exstablished systems. If thats teh case i can live with that fact, I enjoy living in reality, whether you seem to think it doesnt exist or not.
———————-
You say that ATHEISM is not a philosophy:
philosophy
doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation; “self-indulgence was his only philosophy”; “my father’s philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Whoa, I guess it is. Maybe you want to back peddle a bit? That might be prudent at this time.
————————–
Dbo. As Rand has stated and reality dictates, WORDS HAVE A SPECIFIC MEANING. Just because you choose to make them mean something else doesnt mean that reality follows. I guess, you could petition webster, britannica and numerous other private companies to add in there:
“Any system by which men come to conclusions using reason and choose to live life according to reality.”
Your angry because you cant have your OWN system without contradictions and be allowed to go about your business. Thats fine i guess, until those contradictions are imposed on other people. That is all Rand would argue, besides obviously, you being an irrational person.
Although I would argue that your in that wagon, since i assume your an atheist and since you reject the idea of a supreme being are therefore living according to reality using a rational system to determine if the claim has any Epitomological value…are you?
Your problem is that you use reason (which is the means to knowledge) to say that epistomology has nothing to do with reason and i quote
——————-
“Epistemology is about knowledge, not a life system as Objectivism tries to be. Modern epistemology is Science, not Objectivism. On not-so-epistemological issues, like morality, Objectivism falls flat on its face.”
MODERN EPISTOMOLOGY: What an unnessesary addition. Epistomology was the pursuit of knowledge 8000 years ago exactly like it is today. Just because our understanding of things changed doesnt mean that our means of doing it has also. IE reason.
As for objectivism not being science? LOL
science:
systematically acquired knowledge that is verifiable.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html
Ill gladly state positions held by objectivists and
verify them for you. heres one.
Reality exists. Simple to prove, I need you to hold your breath and under no cirrcumstances try and breath. Reality will shortly exert itself over you.
if you dont like that please walk to the nearest mountain and attempt to deny that gravity will yank you to the ground at (9.8 m/s/s (please see newtons law of gravity, which by your standard doesnt exist since knowldge changes day to day I guess, or its just not “modern”).
Morality is not based on EPISTOMOLOGY?!
Next time you goto a store try and walk out with not paying the groceries instead, since your morality doesnt require knowledge you should be fine.
Although i warn you, try and remember that you, at one time, were probably told or show that if you do this you will be punished….
Go kill a man: Im sure since you have no knowledge that this is a terrible thing you will be fine. And the knowledge of this has changed since yestarday apparently
Do not feed your child: Since morailty isnt based on knowledge this is fine, how could you know that your child would die?
————-
Here ill help you out once agian. Here is something no other philosopher ever told me and you probably need to hear.
1.)Check your premise. A=A
2.)Reality exists. (You can’t eat your cake and have it to)
I also remember feeling like a jack ass when her philosophy made me reject a good portion of another woman I respected prior to her Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the specific book i speak of was called “All the questions you ever wanted to ask an American atheist, with all the answers.”
I vaguely remember trying to go back and read that after aquainting myself with Rands philosophy and realizesing that Mrs.O’hair only had one thing right:
A god doesnt exist. Or at the very least is not within our capablity of Knowing, and further speculation is irellevant, its like looking for unicorns on mars, why assume first when we should go and see then determine it? Any ways, what did she use to determine this? The exact same thing Rand uses to build her understanding of the world, and her system, that you use 1/2 the time, and every person I would hope in this forum uses to formulate answers:
Reason.
Jongalt
10 Jul 08 at 7:22 pm (GMT)
If I remember correctly (and I think I do), atheism was Rand’s conclusion because theism elevated another being higher than humanity. Not exactly a good reason for lacking belief in gods if you ask me. To conclude that X doesn’t exist because it damages the dignity of Y indicates a horribly flawed epistemology, at least at the time she came to the conclusion or tried to justify it this way. It’s definitely not the kind of epistemology she advocated in Objectivism.
If she didn’t come to the conclusion that way–which I find more likely–she probably just used that justification for rhetorical purposes, to spice things up for listeners/readers. But if that was the case, then she is guilty of lying.
My hypothesis: People get sucked into Objectivism either because they find its statements appealing, with or without examining the reasoning behind them, or they are not very good at critical thought from the outset, go into the fold because of agreement with simple statements in Objectivism, and stay due to both lack of good critical thinking skills and due to emotional attachment.
Consider how one could get past the following error (which uses their own definitions; sorry for the length of exposition, though):
D1: life = the opposite of death, the condition of being alive; “living” = “staying alive”
D2: value = that which one acts to gain and/or keep
D3: ultimate value = that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means
They claim that life is the ultimate value under these definitions. Now when we try to classify something as an ultimate value here, we have to be clear on what “that which one acts to gain and/or keep” means. Does it imply intentionality or not? I’ve tried to see life as the ultimate value under both ways of thinking, and in neither case is a significant result obtained.
Before life can be an ultimate value, it must first be a value. So let’s examine that issue. If life is not a value, then it is not an ultimate value, so I hope to show that where it is a value, the concept of value is trivialized or life is not necessarily always a value to someone, and where life is not a value, then it definitely can’t be an ultimate value.
Formulation 1: The condition of being alive is something that one unintentionally acts to gain and/or keep. Well, this conclusion is obvious, but under this definition, dog shit is also a value when I step on it unawares.
Analysis: This is trivial and insignificant. Furthermore, this definition of value clashes with any reasonable or common definition.
Formulation 2: The condition of being alive is something that one subconsciously, but intentionally, acts to gain and/or keep (i.e. a biologically programmed action, so to speak, but done without knowledge of what’s going on).
Analysis: I’m not a psychologist, but this is probably true. However, it may not be true for the entirety of one’s life. If they want to say that life is, for one’s entire life, a value, then they have to conclude somehow that if a value occurs at any point during one’s life, then that thing is a value for the entirety of that person’s life. But if I subconsciously and intentionally act to gain and/or keep X at time Y (and thus it is a value at time Y), it is, for the moment, a non sequitur to say that X is also a value at time Z, some time when I’m not acting to gain and/or keep it. Is baby food still a value to this 21-year-old with no offspring? If they’re claiming that one’s life is always a value under this definition of the latter, they’re just plain wrong.
Formulation 3: The condition of staying alive is something that one consciously and intentionally acts to gain and/or keep.
Analysis: Again, this is only true at specific points in time and falls prey to the latter objection in Formulation 2.
So we have one trivial case and two cases in which life is at times a value, but not necessarily (or in practice, even possibly) all the time. These latter two cases make the issue of ultimate value (without even considering its definition) moot, since values are motivators for action, and no sensible notion of “ultimate value” (by common standards) lasts for only a second, say. And because of Objectivism’s own definition of value, the issue is even moot when life is a possible future value, since acting in pursuit of a future value makes that thing a value at present (because you’re acting to gain it).
Now, it very well could be that “ultimate value”, by their definition, does not actually correspond to a value that is an ultimate one, but that discussion is for another time. They also claim that there is only one ultimate value, but the definitions themselves do not preclude other ultimate values, in my opinion. That is another issue for another day, as well.
Anyway, the definition-based reasoning I did above was rather simple. If I’m missing some relevant formulation in which life is always a value to oneself, it’s not obvious to me.
So to conclude this book-length post, I think that Objectivists don’t know what they’re actually saying when it comes to moral philosophy.
Mark C.
10 Jul 08 at 8:00 pm (GMT)
Jongalt:
By the definitions you have provided, atheism, in the sense of “lacking the belief that some god exists” is indeed not a philosophy. Check YOUR premises, because the one that says “I know how these people define ‘atheism’” is incorrect in general.
“WORDS HAVE A SPECIFIC MEANING. Just because you choose to make them mean something else doesnt mean that reality follows.”
I’m not db0, but I have to say “back at’cha, bud”. Not everyone defines words the same way. Words serve a utilitarian function and it’s most useful to use ones that have the meaning your conversation partners associate with them. “Gay” didn’t used to have anything to do with homosexuality. People MADE it mean “homosexual”… and it still also means “happy”. If you’re so adamant about your capitalized statement, try arguing that 0 or imaginary numbers aren’t numbers and that mathematical sets, defined as collections of things, preclude there being such a thing as an empty set. The simple fact is that you’re wrong–words can mean whatever ideas people associate with them, and we often broaden the scope of our terms to unify and simplify our knowledge and speech. That’s the way it’s always been.
“Your angry because you cant have your OWN system without contradictions and be allowed to go about your business.”
Excuse me? Do I smell actual ad hominem? This is like what Scientologists do: if you try to criticize their system, they ask you what bad things you’ve done. “Have you stopped beating your wife? I don’t think so. Oh, and you look like a child molester.” You’re claiming that db0 is the equivalent of Scientology-branded “suppressive persons”. Rather irrational and uncivil of you.
Regarding science, try this on for size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Objectivism and philosophy in general do not fit with this description.
“Here is something no other philosopher ever told me and you probably need to hear.
1.)Check your premise. A=A
2.)Reality exists. (You can?t eat your cake and have it to)”
Someone actually had to TELL you that?! No one disagrees, at least under common understandings of the words “reality” and “exists”! The problem is that “A = A” does not tell you what “A” is in terms of other things. Disputes arise not because people believe “not A = A”, but because some believe that A is a B and others believe that A is a C; that A has X properties or A has Y properties. Objectivists telling people that A = A and that reality exists is just plain dumb. Such obviously true statements don’t get anyone anywhere.
“The exact same thing Rand uses to build her understanding of the world, and her system, that you use 1/2 the time, and every person I would hope in this forum uses to formulate answers:
Reason.”
Upon what justifiable grounds (justifiable enough to subject to our scrutiny) do you allege that db0 only uses reason 1/2 the time, implying that he’s less intelligent than, say, yourself?
Everyone here both uses and endorses the use of reason. But we don’t tend to use the word as a fudge to mean more than it actually means to people, unlike Rand and her followers.
I’m grateful to you for coming along and demonstrating to Adrian what dialogue with a typical Objectivist is like. Thank you, sir.
Mark C.
10 Jul 08 at 8:35 pm (GMT)
So comments are now getting towards essay length…
Anytime you guys want to write an article for the blog be my guest :P I’m going to have to read through all the comments from the start again…this is way too much to take in at once!
Adrian Hayter
10 Jul 08 at 8:44 pm (GMT)
[...] episode, started in a post of the Atheist Blogger who had just discovered Ayn Rand from one video where she had a chance to skewer some theistic [...]
Yay! More Randians come out of the woodwork. » A Division by Zer0
10 Jul 08 at 8:49 pm (GMT)
@Marc C
your only 1/2 right on how she came to be an atheist at age 13. Its well documented.
1.) Your right on why for 1 reason.
2.) you forgot to add that she also thought that religous belief was irrational and had no reasonable basis (as she said “check your premises”)
I see no contradiction. She had a well formulated, refined idea on it. Whats so wrong about thinking individual men are capable of being heroic, the highest state of being? i feel sorry that you must have a low opinion of yourself.
http://solohq.org/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand,_Objectivism,_and_Religion_(Part_1_of_4).shtml
————-
Value:
the quality (positive or negative) that renders something desirable or valuable; “the Shakespearean Shylock is of dubious value in the modern world”
Now lets start with your “formuli”
1.) You cant “unintentionally” keep your life. Either you EAT, BREATH & DEFICATE or you DIE and cease to be. Do you fall in water everytime you require a drink? Do you happen upon apples when you need food? Does air spontaneously appear when you need to breath?
—I seriously hope you belive all of this. its hilarious.
2.)Do you honestly not believe that your desire to live is not of your conscious free will? Please tell that to the 1.7 out of 100,000 suicides every year. Since suicide is an intentional act and not an accidental occurence. And as far as your analysis? Wow, where do I start? How about here:
Your formula states this…
Life = X and x = value
death = Y and y = value
therefore, x=y
lol, Its awesome how you can eat your cake and have it too, ON PAPER!
Having FUN with reality!:
Now lets take this to reality, please appropriately value both of those, we will start with life…do what you enjoy most for however long you want. Then go and “enjoy” death by whatever means you want…then come back and tell me that you still make sence, it may be a little hard.
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
Ayn Rand
3.)I assume by “depends on time” you mean by our degree of consciousness at a certain age? Big deal, no objectivist I ever heard of ever stated anything so irrational as “ITS A FACT THAT BABIES CAN FEND FOR THEMSELVES RATIONALLY”. On the contrary, an objectivist would say to a person that asks that question:
Ok, now that you have made this decision, try and follow through with it. Where upon when you attempted to try it they would promptly (im hoping anyways) take the baby away from you.
Reality is the final arbiter in all your conclusions, if the objectivist didnt intervene, what would have happened? Need I say?.
Some required reading before you go about making assertion about things you know very little about. Which in my opinion is everything you wrote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_theory_of_value
Jongalt
10 Jul 08 at 9:16 pm (GMT)
So, Objectivism is ridiculous, it’s a complete fallacy. It’s a bunch of word-games, involving stolen concepts and equivocations. Fine, ok.
So what’s so dangerous about it? Why does db0 feel the need to warn people of a system so ridiculous? If she’s ‘Ann Coulter’s Counter-point’, then the kind of person who accepts her philosophy is obviously just a loony and is too far gone.
So what exactly are you worried about? According to you any idiot can see what’s wrong with it, so why do you get so aggressive about making sure everyone understands just how bad it is?
Rory
10 Jul 08 at 11:14 pm (GMT)
Rory, I didn’t say that it easy to see how bad it is. Quite the opposite. Mark C said it best
I would only add that it is appealing because Ayn Rand was apparently a very charismatic person and this is seeped into her writings. As a result it makes it very difficult to see the problems of the theory until it is too late. Otoh, people who do drink the Objectivism Kool-aid seem to undergo a personality change towards the less tolerant and more arrogant (at least that is my personal experience) which makes it then much harder to show the errors of the philosophy to them.
db0
10 Jul 08 at 11:23 pm (GMT)
PS: I don’t say that either. People who embrace Objectivism tend to be quite smart. I mostly get annoyed at their attitude.
db0
10 Jul 08 at 11:26 pm (GMT)
Um… ok, you didn’t seem to comprehend my posts.
“Whats so wrong about thinking individual men are capable of being heroic, the highest state of being?”
Nothing’s wrong with being heroic, but that does not imply that some other being can’t best us. Nor does it imply that there is no such other being. And I don’t agree that being heroic is the “highest state of being”. I don’t have one in mind, but I’m not going to take your claim for granted.
“i feel sorry that you must have a low opinion of yourself.”
Have you stopped beating your wife? Seriously, what I said has no bearing on issues related to my opinion of myself. Stop putting premises in my mouth that I don’t agree to use in the argument.
Regarding value, I used a definition from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, but I had known the definition previously, having been somewhat of an Objectivist for about a year or so, myself.
“Value:
the quality (positive or negative) that renders something desirable or valuable”
First of all, the definition I provided seems to be the most widespread one in Objectivism. I don’t recall ever hearing the one you gave–maybe it was in a book I haven’t read. But how, exactly, is “valuable” defined? Is it in terms of “value”? If so, there’s a problem.
“1.) You cant ‘unintentionally’ keep your life. Either you EAT, BREATH & DEFICATE or you DIE and cease to be.”
Acts which are unintentional, yet result in prolonging the condition of being alive, are engaged in all the time. I don’t think about breathing most of the time… I just do it. It’s practically automatic. Hence, most of the time, breathing is unintentional. Please read and interpret more carefully, unless you’re arguing that bacteria are conscious of what they’re doing.
“2.)Do you honestly not believe that your desire to live is not of your conscious free will?”
Don’t bring the issue of free will into this. Leave it to theology and the determinism debate.
Here’s the deal, with the scenarios simplified (these are not mutually exclusive, but each can occur by itself):
1. We can gain or keep something without that act being the result of intent or subconscious biological urges.
2. We can gain or keep something with “subconscious intentionality”, i.e. we have subconscious biological drives that drive us to gain or keep something.
3. We can gain or keep something with conscious intentionality, i.e. we know we’re gaining or keeping something, we know we want to do so, and we’ve done so through a conscious decision.
Now apply “the condition of being alive” and think about time as it applies to the definition of value that I posted. Reread the post you were responding to, because I’m not going to clarify further in this post, though I will go through this in a more systematic manner in my next post.
“Your formula states this…
Life = X and x = value
death = Y and y = value
therefore, x=y”
Give me the specific statements I made that apply here.
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
Funny. A contradiction is a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions, according to Wikipedia. So apparently there is no such thing as irrationality in your and Rand’s world, since contradictions do not exist! Wait… that’s not right! I think what she meant is that contradictions do not represent reality, since some of the statements uttered are false. That is true. Remember what you, yourself, said: WORDS HAVE A SPECIFIC MEANING. You should be ashamed of Rand, then.
“3.)I assume by ‘depends on time’ you mean by our degree of consciousness at a certain age?”
No, I mean nothing of the sort, although it would throw a monkey wrench into your claim in your item 1.
Reread the part of my post where I use the variables X, Y, and Z. I seriously can’t make it much simpler or more general than that.
“Reality is the final arbiter in all your conclusions”
That’s a given. What is NOT a given is what elements constitute the set we call “reality” and what relationships they have with each other.
(BTW, how do I quote in this blog without doing it the way I’ve been doing?)
Mark C.
10 Jul 08 at 11:27 pm (GMT)
As with anywhere other than blogger, just use the blockquote tag. ;)
db0
10 Jul 08 at 11:46 pm (GMT)
Ok, forget a follow-up. I think what I’ve said in this blog is slightly better than what I wrote on paper previously.
Mark C.
10 Jul 08 at 11:47 pm (GMT)
Hi Adrian, nice blog. Looks like you had no idea you were poking at a live ant hill :P I only ever ran into Rand because I had a classmate who was into her. The foundation also sponsors a college scholarship where you write and essay about the book Atlas Shrugged. I got around to reading one of her books later in life, Fountainhead, and found it distasteful so I don’t know that I’ll ever subject myself to her magnum opus. The world felt contrived to me, unrealistic, and then characters were placed in that I didn’t find like-able. I couldn’t put my finger on it at the time, but I think its due to the selfishness of the characters that embody Rand’s system and the way other characters/people are looked down upon. She derides altruism; something I find to be one of humanity’s most noble features.
barnetto
11 Jul 08 at 1:09 am (GMT)
Well, she says that altruism is a type of philosophy (I guess the opposite of egoism), defines it with the original definition, and then labels people as altruists who are altruists by the modern usage of the word and not by the original usage. Yet another instance of equivocation, or something very similar.
You can read more about that here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2178/misuse.html
Mark C.
11 Jul 08 at 1:42 am (GMT)
I meant to say that she said altruism is a type of ethical theory, not a type of philosophy.
Mark C.
11 Jul 08 at 1:42 am (GMT)
I pretty much agree with db0 (maybe I can convince him to use Opera someday!). I first heard of Rand when I started participating in online atheist forums in 2001. Then I read George H. Smith’s classic book Atheism: The Case Against God. I was tempted by her “philosophy”, so much so that I bought and read most of her books, except Atlas Shrugged. But after reading works by real philosophers (Russell, Mackie, Flew), I found flaws in her system, in her thought processes.
After discussing my concerns with some Randians, I was attacked and called as a subjectivist, a collectivist, a bolshevik, even an “ignorant buffoon” for not seeing clearly the inherent truth in her philosphy. Wow, I can see why Shermer called it the unlikeliest cult of all.
Oh, and one time, when I attended a local atheist gathering, they had a Philosophy instructor speaking. He started out ok when he was talking about how wrong religion was, but then he got sidetracked and started discussing how he discovered Rand, and then he began ranting out some really ignorant garbage, eventually alienating some of the attendees. To top it off, he credits Randian philosophy to justify his misogyny (how his sexual and abusive treatment of women was both good for him and good for the women). Maybe he was taking cues from The Fountainhead (the rape/sex scene).
Danny
11 Jul 08 at 1:58 am (GMT)
@marc Referencing (10 jun, 08 @ 8:35pm gmt)
——
Atheist:
as the word philosophy would apply:
the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
Barely…
——
“Not everyone defines words the same way.”
Then it doesn’t have the same meaning. And its not the same “word”, big huge quotes there. And im sorry for not adding this into what I said earlier, I guess I just
assume its a fact and take it for granted:
Context: It’s real. Ill not dwell further on this and write it up to a misunderstanding between us.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&q=define%3A+context&btnG=Search
Lets take gay for instance. Lets say your working on a car and you have a mechanic assisting you. You are talking about its power output and you say, “Man! This car has alot of GAY!” The mechanic looks at you and says “Gay?” You would next look at him and say, “yah, you know. The force required to turn a shaft multiplied by the radius at which the force is applied.” He would then look at you for a moment, question whether or not your mentally ill and answer, “You mean torque…right?”.
And if you would like to get VERY VERY technical. Every uttered sound we have ever associated with physical reality and abstract principles was created by humans, and definitions are applied to them, big deal…why would I deny that. But do you actually mean to tell me that “torque” and “gay” can mean the same thing because I WANT it to? I guess they could be used in the same sentence like if i said,
“Wow that GAY man twisted his shaft in the other GAY mans ass with alot of TORQUE!”
But that doesnt mean im not making it up…
Wow, the last thing i need to or want to discuss is Wittenstein.
———————————-
Ad Hominem? LOL…
I tore apart what you said and laid out the contradictions bare before you. And then you expect me to say something NICE about it? Sorry, I guess im supposed to respect someone that says things like..
“Seriously I don’t want to see another mind ruined by that bullshit.” (apparently my mind is ruined, no reasons given…)
or
“People get sucked into Objectivism either because they find its statements appealing, with or without examining the reasoning behind them, or they are not very good at critical thought from the outset.” (here you basically call me a fool…thats fine. can you please give some examples or retract this?)
or
““inoculate” him against your cult, the same way that I would do for Scientology or any other dangerous belief system.” (apparently im dangerous…and a cultist.)
or
“If you are going to read Rand, please do it out of curiosity and don’t join her cult.
Quick! I must inoculate you:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/
”
LOL…what the fuck…seriously. If your honestly scared someones to weak to resist joining a cult then you obviously have a very LOW opinion of a person. Heres the problem Teachers, philosophers and amatuer whatever have with her:
Her philosophy strips previous political and social thoughts bare and beats it vicously with reason. Some people dont like this. Also I see alot of this as just over exagerated indirect bullying…not in a overtly aggressive way. But still…sad. I dont even pull that shit when talking about religion let alone philosphy.
———————————-
Try what on for size?
Objectivism ABSOLUTELY makes assertions about physical reality.
I made them in the post above…how did any of those NOT apply to that definition of science?
—————————————–
“Someone actually had to TELL you that?! No one disagrees, at least under common understandings of the words “reality” and “exists”!”
Apparently you haven’t been aquainted with the US education system. I vaguely remember taking ritilan in high school…thats about it.
Did someone have to tell you that gravity is the force that pulls objects “down”? Ya, basically the same principle. I never stated that all knowldge we have is not just a continuance of things other people determined or discovered..
But I can honestly say without shame that I was not taught the law of Identity until like 3 years into college…a sad but true fact. And as a matter of fact I was more interested at first in political philosophers than those dealing with this type of subject.
—————————————–
Reason: Its probably the most important word in human laugnuage and you expect me to not throw it around like a wrecking ball? Ill pass on that suggestion.
———–
“By “deify rationality” I meant that Rand and Objectivists make rationality into pretty much a thing to be worshiped. ”
-10 jul 08 @ 5:39am
Worship? If you mean:
idolize: love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol; “Many teenagers idolized the Beatles”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
You sure better believe I worship rational thought. Thats one thing I didnt need Ayn Rand to tell me to do. Just like any other human, I may stumble on my emotions from time to time, but I understand what I may have done/said/thought was irrational afterwards and kick myself for it.
So you do not think that rational thought is paramount, then to what is it paramount to? Irrational thought? Your emotions?
“Giving it such a supremely high status often masks the term’s use as a fudge to dismiss opposing ideas. For clarity, Rand calls many things irrational that one may be able to perfectly well reason to.”
-same as first
Picture or it didnt happen.
If you use rational discourse to prove a person wrong, purposefully, with almost ‘religous fervor’. Id thank you. Reasoning with the use of reality is the only arguement ill be persuaded by. Id hope you also.
But I could go further….Dismiss rational thought from your life for as long as you want and attempt to go about your nomal business(please make a book about this, ill gaurentte it will be the most entertaining thing to be written since the dicrovery of LSD). Kill people if they get in your way, take a shit while sitting at your desk at work because you didnt want to get up, eat tree bark because it looked tastey, throw your mail out the window because itll make it to the recipient sooner or later, then sleep in a tiny cupboard or something. Tell me how that works out.
@fry
“You’ve never heard of Ayn Rand before? What are you, 14? Maybe you should read about religion and philosophy before starting a blog about it.”
Seriously dude…are you like hitler or something? I didnt hear about her until I was 24. Its not exactly something popular to talk about if you can’t tell. Her philosophy gets more hate than the jews from muslims!
@fabrulana
I highly reccomend “Anthem.” and if you want a very good (but very LOOONG story) read Atlas Shrugged. If you can get past the part where wyatt leaves the scene youll not want to stop…not giving anything away.
I “found” Ayn rand because my first philosophy teacher said:
“If you ever want to read stories by an inhuman bitch who has no emotions and hates humanity, read Ayn Rand, no wait, in fact dont read Ayn Rand, shes just a bitch.” Then went on to teach us neitchze, all fine and dandy I guess….But thank you Dr.vince.
The next day i went to the library and read anthem from front to finish…best spent three hours of my life. All i remember afterwards is thinking…what the fuck have I been told, and realizing I had a LOT to think about.
I dont worship Ayn Rand. But I do find her philosophy enlightening and respect her greatly. I find her stories FULL of emotion, truth and strong words and beliefs that are well articulated. Shes an Atheist, which is a plus, and she valued reason as much as myself, Thomas Paine, David Hume, Jhon Staurt Mill and many many other philosophers I could write down. Call me a ‘Randroid’ if you wish or say im brainwashed. I can live with that, how her philosphy came to be and could come to be is entirely different from a cult or religion…but thats another giant post at another time.
By the time I was done writing this I recieved about 2 more responses..I cant get back tonight. I need to relax a bit, my brain hurts. TTYL.
Also, Marc, if i misunderstood something you said as is stated in one of your replies I apologize, I attempted to read your links on ” An Inconsistent Triad” and the other site, but i was to tired to concentrate. Ill try again in the morning…
hopefully the spelling/grammar errors arent to terible. Its late, im tired.
Jongalt
11 Jul 08 at 3:12 am (GMT)
Well, to start this post off, my name is spelled with a “k”. The spelling isn’t the French version.
“Atheist:
as the word philosophy would apply:
the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics”
Atheism itself implies none of that, though it may be a common occurrence among atheists. But if theism is the belief in a god, then its negation, atheism, is “not ‘the belief in a god’”–i.e. the absence of belief in a deity. As I said, atheism correlates with rational investigation, but the latter is not an element or prerequisite of the former.
“Then it doesn’t have the same meaning. And its not the same ‘word’, big huge quotes there. And im sorry for not adding this into what I said earlier, I guess I just
assume its a fact and take it for granted:
Context: It’s real. Ill not dwell further on this and write it up to a misunderstanding between us.”
A word is, according to dictionary.com, “a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning.”
The words in your post were “cult” and “religion”, the meanings are their definitions. “Gay” was my example word, and it has at least two meanings. Which meaning is intended depends on context. Words have specific meanings determined by the context, yes, but without that context qualifier, the statement is false.
Rand’s equivocations indicate that she forgot that words have specific meanings depending on the context. And the context includes her previous usage of the word.
“But do you actually mean to tell me that ‘torque’ and ‘gay’ can mean the same thing because I WANT it to?”
Meaning is subjective. What a word means to you may be different than what it means to someone else. Maybe you did grow up in a place where “gay” meant “torque”, but the words mean different things to others. That is, the uttered sounds make other people have different ideas than they make you have. If you want to be understood by others, which is one of the primary functions of language, then you’re going to have to use words that have the meanings you intend to convey. Dictionaries just record what is supposedly common usage. What something means is an empirically determinable fact that can be ascertained by studying people’s usage, it’s not something eternal and “out there” like Platonic forms.
Ad hominem? Yeah, that’s what it looked like, unless I’m forgetting parts of the conversation that came before. My interpretation was that you were trying to dismiss allegations that Objectivism is a cult or religion by accusing db0 of something that was logically unrelated to the supposed cult- or religion-like aspects of the philosophy, movement, and/or practitioners. Is this assessment incorrect?
“If your honestly scared someones to weak to resist joining a cult then you obviously have a very LOW opinion of a person.”
Non sequitur. Pointing out the human mind’s susceptibility to certain things is not necessarily claiming that whoever has those susceptibilities is a weak person or whatever. It is not necessarily indicative of having a low opinion of that person. As long as it’s not a necessary implication, your charge is a non sequitur.
“Heres the problem Teachers, philosophers and amatuer whatever have with her:
Her philosophy strips previous political and social thoughts bare and beats it vicously with reason.”
Have you interviewed those people? I’ve read plenty of critiques of Objectivism and Rand that don’t have that problem. Or at least, if they do have that problem, they think that the fact that the idea is bare is the entire problem. Theory is often limited due to our brain’s capacity–limited in ways that reality isn’t.
“Try what on for size?
Objectivism ABSOLUTELY makes assertions about physical reality.
I made them in the post above…how did any of those NOT apply to that definition of science?”
Again, here’s what Wikipedia says:
“Science is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of existing phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate phenomena under controlled conditions. Knowledge in science is gained through research.”
Objectivism is not an effort to discover, understand, or understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It certainly makes assertions about the world, but that in no way constitutes an effort to discover or understand how the world works.
“Apparently you haven’t been aquainted with the US education system. I vaguely remember taking ritilan in high school…thats about it.
Did someone have to tell you that gravity is the force that pulls objects ‘down’? Ya, basically the same principle. I never stated that all knowldge we have is not just a continuance of things other people determined or discovered..
But I can honestly say without shame that I was not taught the law of Identity until like 3 years into college…a sad but true fact. And as a matter of fact I was more interested at first in political philosophers than those dealing with this type of subject.”
The U.S. educational system does not need to tell people that A=A and that reality exists because everyone knows that already. You and Rand lump too many assumptions into those two statements. All they say is that if X, then X, and if something exists, then it exists. Well, heck, that’s being generous, since there are narrower definitions of “reality” and “exists” that may make “reality exists” meaningless or incorrect (e.g. if the verb “exist” is used only for individual objects, making “reality exists” nonsensical).
“Reason: Its probably the most important word in human laugnuage and you expect me to not throw it around like a wrecking ball? Ill pass on that suggestion.”
It’s hardly the most important word in language. What it is is one of the most important uses of language. Using reason does not require that you use the word “reason”, so no, you don’t have to throw the word around like a wrecking ball. If anything, throwing it around like that makes it easy to abuse, just like Rand did: bludgeoning people with fudge words instead of reasonably taking on their arguments.
“So you do not think that rational thought is paramount, then to what is it paramount to? Irrational thought? Your emotions?”
What I’m talking about is mainly the abuse of “reason” that I mentioned above. Believe me, I’m no advocate of faith.
“Reasoning with the use of reality is the only arguement ill be persuaded by. Id hope you also.”
Yeah, sure. The problem is that the word “reality” is one that Rand abused about as heavily and in the same ways as “reason”. What’s important is what constitutes reality and what goes on in one’s reasoning, because using the words themselves is nigh futile when you’re actually trying to reach a conclusion. If I say that X is correct and you say that it isn’t, do more than just throw the words “reason” and “reality” at me. Give me something substantial that has a bearing on the actual situation at hand.
“Also, Marc, if i misunderstood something you said as is stated in one of your replies I apologize, I attempted to read your links on ‘ An Inconsistent Triad’ and the other site, but i was to tired to concentrate. Ill try again in the morning…”
Just be sure to read more than that essay. What I’ve found with one Objectivist blogger I know is that he only attempted to rebut the first essay, which isn’t even a critique of the philosophy, and then ignored the rest. “An Inconsistent Triad” is by FAR not the most important essay, and I don’t base any of my own objections to the philosophy on the content of that essay. So if you want to rebut it, you have no beef with me.
Mark C.
11 Jul 08 at 6:37 pm (GMT)