Ayn Rand

[Agathon]

Rand is a joke; a sort of illiterate and illegtimate dumbed down version of Nietzsche (who would have hated her).

They say that complete selfishness is rational and altruistic behaviour is irrational. How are we supposed to understand this assertion?

If it pertains to the rationality of means rather than ends then it is clearly false since we may need to use altruistic means to achieve selfish ends.

If it pertains to ends, then it isn't clear what it means. Wanting to have your cake and eat it too is an irrational end (because it is contradictory) but being altruistic doesn't suffer from this contradiction [the pseudo argument about me always acting in my own interests notwithstanding, for the fact that I act according to the interests I have does not logically entail that these interests are selfish - I can have unselfish interests].

I don't think intelligent Randians make the foregoing logical errors, but they base their doctrine on unsubstantiated claims about human nature.

What the Randians say is that selfishness is acting in accord with our true nature, which is intrinsically selfish. If you ask for some proof of this claim (metaphysical or scientific) none is forthcoming, Thus if we disagree, we have no reason to believe them.

[Wraith]

--" Those who disagree with it or interpret it differently are often simply dismissed as irrational or just not smart enough to understand its inherent correctness. "

I'm accusing him of ignorance, not idiocy. The most superficial reading of her writings will show the error. The problem is that Objectivism is not now (and never has been) a popular philosophy. University philosophers in particular have a hatred for it. Most of what people think they know about it is incorrect, thanks the willful misinterpretations these people spew.
I will admit that Rand didn't always help the matter. She liked to use words whose meanings had drifted over time, but she pretty much always spurned the changed meanings. This confuses a lot of people.
Note that selfishness is probably the prime example of this. Rand acknowledged that the popular meaning of the word (irrational egoism) was not what she meant by it.

--"What's her opinion of the christmas spirit?"

Depends what your motives are. If it makes you happy, then go for it. If you feel under some sort of obligation to others, well, you're not.
And it isn't about selflessness, as I've mentioned. Do things for yourself, for your own reasons, that please you. Don't do things because you think other people expect it of you.

--"a sort of illiterate and illegtimate dumbed down version of Nietzsche"

Actually, she quite hated Nietzsche and would be extremely offended to be compared to him. Her entire philosophy is pretty much a refutation to Nietzsche and those who came after him. They don't agree on much outside of there not being a god and that Plato and Kant are both idiots.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/obj-studies/cyber/SH4intro.asp

Wraith
"The moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another. "
-- Ayn Rand

[Agathon]

Objectivism is not a popular doctrine with University Philosophers because it just ignores the last 100 years worth of arguments in ethics. It doesn't matter whether or not Rand liked Nietzsche, I severely doubt she understood him anyway.

Anyway, enough of all this rubbish. You prove to me why I ought to believe in Objectivism.



Oh God! I just looked at your link. I recommend that everyone go and have a good laugh. Anyone who has ever read Nietzsche knows that of all philosophers he is probably the least suitable for a point by point analysis. To merely say that N thinks that war is good is about the most ham fisted simplifcation of his views on the matter.

And wow, they have a 3 to 1 "disagreement ratio". Does anyone but me think that this is a silly way to compare philosophers?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, it is kinda silly to call Rand anti-Nietszchean. She follows him greatly (especially which her Great Man that makes the New Morality kick).

[Buck Birdseed]

Objectivism is to Philosophy a bit like Pseudoscience is to science- it occasionally borrows some of the vocabulary to create some sort of ad hoc, muddled mess of a philosophy apparently without any arguments presented for it other than random blind assertions. There's no real critique of anything, no attempts to move forward, just repeated, unfounded dogma that's so divergent from actual human experience it seems entirely meaningless, a thought-excercise about a potential world with creatures so different from us we can barely comprehend them.

The tragic thing is that there are thoroughly readable and intelligent libertarian philosophers like Hayek and Nozick that provide insightful critiques of communitarianism and liberalism. Why stick to Rand?

[monolith94]

"Don't do things because you think other people expect it of you."

GEE REALLY? Wow I never knew that Ayn Rand could be so enlightening on topics adressed in Saved by the Bell and other after-school specials!

Say I have the opportunity to sacrifice myself to save the person I love the most. It will not make me happy, as I will die, but yet it will at another. Would Ann Rand advocate making this decision or no?

BTW I was discussing philosophy with my roomate and he said I hold some views similar to Hume... what's this guy about then?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed

The tragic thing is that there are thoroughly readable and intelligent libertarian philosophers like Hayek and Nozick that provide insightful critiques of communitarianism and liberalism. Why stick to Rand?

My thoughts exactly, even though I dislike Hayek's "it is so" method of argument. I've always been an admirer of Nozick's even though I disagree with his politics. Do you know that he was immensely rich?

Anyway, Noam Chomsky came up with a wonderful one line refutation of Libertarianism.

"If someone tells me he will shoot me unless I give him all my money, according to Libertarians he has not violated my right to choose."



[This is a considerably more damaging objection than it looks].

[Agathon]

Originally posted by monolith94

BTW I was discussing philosophy with my roomate and he said I hold some views similar to Hume... what's this guy about then?

Hume thinks that our general views about the world and science cannot be justified by rational argument. In other words our belief in things like induction and the continuity of time and space is a product of a human propensity rather than engagement with facts. In even simpler terms - to be human is to be to a large degree inescapably irrational.

In ethics Hume has a similar view: our moral principles are based on a natural "sympathy" we have with other people, which again is not provable or disprovable by reason.

Then along comes Kant who attempts to refute Hume, rather in the manner of one who attempts to kill a housefly with a field howitzer.

[monolith94]

that's hysterical!

[Agathon]

Actually, in defence of Rand she did write one good paper called something like "The Monument Builders". It's about the propensity of public officials to waste funds by building monuments to themselves. I think she's onto a powerful truth about the psychology of local politicians here.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by monolith94
that's hysterical!

You try finding anything funny in Kant's monolithic "Critique of Pure Reason".

[monolith94]

agathon - it was a cross-post - I meant to point out that Chomsky's refutation of liberterianism was hysterical. I ended up REALLY cracking up the way you described Kant trying to take out Hume!
The more I hear about this Hume guy, the more I like him. The idea of irrationality is one that OBSESSES me.

My roomate and I were discussing Hume as relevant to Meno and Socrates. Basically talking about what the intelligble place was, and how I personally believe an 'intelligible place' is not really sensible.
It's all quite complicated. Apart from what I perceive to be his argument of nature over nurture, I quite like Socrates, though. I'm more of a nurture over nature guy, myself.

[Agathon]

Yeah, the Chomsky thing is pretty funny. It's even funnier if you sit down with a Libertarian book and try to work out some way for them to get out of it because there doesn't seem to be one.

I mean, they can say it's wrong if someone beats you over the head and takes your wallet, but they can't if he gives you the choice because it isn't coercive (as libertarians define it).

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is why you need to carry your own gun, so you can make the robber 'choose' .

[monolith94]

yeah - basically the impression I'm getting is that Randism is a purely hypothetical idea, and can only exist in a hypothetical world. I want REAL solutions!