- #1
avant-garde
- 196
- 0
Anticitizen said:Knowing Rand's heritage and past, her writings and philosophies - a direct rebuttal of authoritarianism/socialism - make perfect sense, in context. In describing a sort of fundamental reality of human nature it is lacking, but still useful.
Loved The Fountainhead. I read it as a novel of fiction, knowing nothing beforehand of her philosophies or history. It's just a darn good yarn. Never made it through Atlas Shrugged despite several attempts.
celebrei said:I consider Rand's work to be pseudophilosophy, and quite frankly, her system of morals is destructive and flawed, it is only one step behind from the power fantasies of an invalid
Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.
Could you rephrase this so as to be more clear as to what exactly it is you are saying?celebrei said:Objectivism begs the question "Is one's life the ultimate value of ethics?
I think that the point is to say that the concept of 'self-less-ness' is flawed. That in normal human interaction, self-ish-ness is unavoidable. That self-sacrificial acts are indeed self-ish.what of altruism then? Is selfless concern for the welfare of others truly "unethical" or "less ethical" in Objectivism's view? what of giving one's life for the lives of others
I... don't... think... that it does... Why do you feel as if it should?Also the implications of Objectivism's view that reality is independent of consciousness, how then does this answer the hard problems of consciousness?
Again, awareness is a property of brains. Gushy jiggly organs. Any meaningful progress on this question can only be expected to come from scientific investigation.why awareness of sensory information exist at all?
What we have managed to discern about the workings of reality, demands that we accept it's independence of conciousness. It is awareness that is dependent upon consciousness; which is itself an emergent property of biology, which is actually highly complex chemistry, which is of course really complicated physics, which is our attempt at a detailed description of reality. Not the other way round. The entire enterprise of science works on the fact that observation and experimentation are relative only in the Einsteinian sense of the word.Objectivism's implications on the philosophy of mind does not in any way address this sort of problems, it just assumes the existence of reality independent of consciousness as true, that's why I consider Rand's philosophy as both half-baked and confusing.
robertm said:Not that I am one to jump on the Rand 'wagon, but I do think she made some noteworthy observations on the human condition.
JoeDawg said:She stated what she considered obvious, in a very shallow and unreflective way, then called her beliefs: self-evident to any rational person; and then labelled anyone who questioned or disagreed with her, as dishonest, irrational and ignorant.
That's not philosophy, anymore than Scientology is science.
.I think that the point is to say that the concept of 'self-less-ness' is flawed. That in normal human interaction, self-ish-ness is unavoidable. That self-sacrificial acts are indeed self-ish
Objectivism is a philosophy, ultimately just a silly game we play. In serious discourse the difficult and worthwhile questions are left to science.
Do you know of a philosophy that does satisfactorily answer the hard problems of consciousness?
What we have managed to discern about the workings of reality, demands that we accept it's independence of conciousness. It is awareness that is dependent upon consciousness; which is itself an emergent property of biology, which is actually highly complex chemistry, which is of course really complicated physics, which is our attempt at a detailed description of reality. Not the other way round. The entire enterprise of science works on the fact that observation and experimentation are relative only in the Einsteinian sense of the word.
robertm said:You are sounding awfully solipsistic here.
I don't think she was virulent against the act of altriusm as many people have claimed on this forum. I think that she had a big issue with altruism when it involved the person perpuatating the act of charity to make large sacrifices from himself as indicated by these two quotes here:celebrei said:egoism is exactly the problem of Rand's philosophy, much like Heidegger's ontolo
gy on the superimposition of the power of man, not only that, Objectivism begs the question "Is one's life the ultimate value of ethics? what of altruism then? Is selfless concern for the welfare of others truly "unethical" or "less ethical" in Objectivism's view?
,. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.
source: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html. So she definitely did not completely abhor charity giving, she believe that it should be applied in certain circumstances and that that people should not be naturally obligated to be charitable simply because of their large source of wealth.My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.
If there is a large risk that you could lose your life, I think it would be unethical to sacrifice your own life for the lives of strangers that you do not place large value on. why would it be moral to risked your own life for others but in every other circumstance in your life, you don't make big sacrifices . You don't sacrifice your want for wanting to buy a house in order to buy houses for people who could not afford to buy a house . Hear is a scenario you should considered : If you were in a situation where you could stop two planes with terrorists who took thirty total strangers hostage and a second plane consisted of your wife and kid being held hostage by terrorists, it is pretty obvious that you would choose to save the people that you value more and that would for most people be the plane with the wife and kid and Objectivism permits this sort of behavior . Also, if their were minimal self-sacrifice involved , ayn rand would not object to saving the hostage on the plane. More quotes on self sacrifice by ayn rand.what of giving one's life for the lives of others? is it truly irrational and unethical then?
To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)
JoeDawg said:Understanding the problems inherent in subjective experience, which Rand either didn't understand or chose to ignore, is not the same as advocating for the non-existense of external reality.
In philosophy, dealing with solipsism is very important to any epistemology.
It has only very rarely been claimed to be a valid ontological theory.
Attacking the former, as being equivalent to the latter, is purely a strawman argument.
And Rand's books are full of strawmen, with regards to politics, economics and philosophy.
Teen angst issues? I don't think you read any her novels because all of the characters were well beyond their teen years and none of themes presented in her books are about teen angst issues at all. She had to write a novel because she was not accepted by the philoshophers community and therefore could not get her work published in philosopher journals just like the anarcho capitalist philosopher murray rothbard had to send his philosophy writings to think tanks because his ideas were not accepted by economists at most universities. Those not mean he was an incompetent economist or that his ideas were rooted in crackpottery.She wrote pulp novels for a juvenile audience, full of standard teen angst issues about individuality and identity. On that level, she was a success.
I gave you reasons why she is not considered a philosopher. I want to ask you who is considered a serious writer and who is not. Her books one of the most influential books of the 20th century and they are today. She was a serious writer to somebody.There are very good reasons she is not considered a serious writer or philosopher.
Yes. Compare Dagney Taggart from Atlas Shrugged... and Bella from Twilight. Same issues.noblegas said:Teen angst issues?
If you can make it through her awful prose, I'm guessing it would have an influence on you.Her books one of the most influential books of the 20th century and they are today.
So is Stephanie Meyer, that doesn't say much.She was a serious writer to somebody.
Please. Bella is about as comparable to Dagney Taggart in the realm of character and personality as is a fresh apple and a piece of iron are comparable in taste. Dagney and Bella are not even in the same ballpark.Yes. Compare Dagney Taggart from Atlas Shrugged... and Bella from Twilight. Same issues.
who or what self-elected literary officials defines who work serious writing? Many so called literary critics gave praise Catcher in the rye and called it "critically acclaimed" . But when I read the book, it look like I was reading some thirteen year old kid's journal. The journal of some angsty teen should not be considerec critically acclaimed . Sure both Stephanie Meyer and Ayn rand are influential writers, but Stephanie's meyer's books were popular for the same reason Justin Bieber is popular as a "musician". Because they were "entertaining" to their broad fanbase of teens and tweenr. But ayn rand, inspired many entrepreneurs, philosopher thinkers and how much value you place on individualism versus the collective. I would say she is just as influential in the same way that US civil rights leaders convinced americans, mainly white americans, that jim crow and racism were immoral . Thats how much effect I think she had on americans.So is Stephanie Meyer, that doesn't say much.
That's the saddest thing I've heard in a while. Sorry for your loss.noblegas said:Many so called literary critics gave praise Catcher in the rye and called it "critically acclaimed" . But when I read the book, it look like I was reading some thirteen year old kid's journal.
JoeDawg said:She stated what she considered obvious, in a very shallow and unreflective way, then called her beliefs: self-evident to any rational person; and then labelled anyone who questioned or disagreed with her, as dishonest, irrational and ignorant.
That's not philosophy, anymore than Scientology is science.
JoeDawg said:She wrote pulp novels for a juvenile audience, full of standard teen angst issues about individuality and identity. On that level, she was a success.
Now here's a tough poll to answer!
I wouldn't know whom to vote for myself. Think of this as asking: which of these folks brings the most disrepute on to our discipline by being associated with it?
...
A FINAL UPDATE (MARCH 14): So, with some 1500 votes cast, it's Ayn Rand by a landslide (75% of the vote), following by Derrida (21%), and then Strauss (4%). Of course, it would be nice if the media just stopped referring to any of them as philosophers. For Rand: "novelist" or perhaps "libertarian crank." For Derrida: "literary theorist." For Strauss: "political science professor" or "well-known academic cult leader."
Max Faust said:Indeed.
My personal opinion about Ayn Rand is that she's the most toxic waste-product to come out of Russia since Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. What the latter did for Germany, the former did for America. Neither of them in any direct way, however, but both of them by influencing the "personal convictions" of people who would later come into positions of power.
Sorry for the bluntness, but you have to be a moron to consider Ayn Rand a philosopher.
Agent M27 said:What exactly is "toxic" about Ayn Rands writings and philosophy?
Actually, it really does. Since her 'opinions' were completely subjective and unsupported.Anticitizen said:I'd just like to point out that none of the above makes her wrong.
Speak for yourself.We all behave that way.
Anticitizen said:...which any person can and usually does do, whether they are right or wrong.
Anticitizen said:The level of emotionalism her opinons raise in others rather boggles me.
Max Faust said:If for instance you consider just one simple fact of consequence, which is that Alan Greenspan deregulated the finance markets because he was a believer in Ayn Rand "philosophy" of laissez-fare capitalism, you will see how her ideas have manifested as toxic principles of "evil" (in the sense that they have quite directly lead to tangible misery for millions of people). Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had been wrong for 40 years, however, which is quite remarkable - but it doesn't change the facts of consequence that his Rand-based irresponsibility had lead to.
Max Faust said:Earlier in this thread, I compared Mrs. Rand to H.P. Blavatsky, which I believe is appropriate. Mrs. Blavatsky's writings on "the origin of races" were to inspire a young Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels whose magazine "Ostara" was avidly collected by a young Adolf Hitler. The torch was passed on. The toxic ideas moved up within the abstract food-chain. Later, of course, they manifested as industrial scale mass-murder. And it's relatively easy to trace the "philosophical" foundations of that back to Mrs. Blavatsky's ideas.
calculusrocks said:you don't deny your ad hominems
Max Faust said:I find it a little difficult to formulate my thoughts on Ayn Rand (as is the title of the thread) without actually stating what they are (as stated, that she's the most toxic waste-product to come out of Russia since Helena Petrovna Blavatsky). In this context, "ad hominem" would be something more akin to what *you* are doing, which is to evaluate my opinions against a comparative standard of political correctness. The OP explicitly asks for my thoughts on Ayn Rand. Not my thoughts on the other participants in this debate, which I prefer to keep to myself.
calculusrocks said:Fair enough, so long as it's your opinion.