Ayn Rand

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This is why you need to carry your own gun, so you can make the robber 'choose' .

That's all very well but what kind of lame moral theory holds that sticking up someone isn't immoral?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Might makes Right?

[Narz]

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.

Maybe its just that I'm on 3 hours sleep (car alarm blaring all night, couldn't sleep, had to wake up early) but I'm not really understanding your point here.

I can admit to not having read extensively on philosophy, I'd be interested to read some of the liberatarian authors some of you recommended.

Also, I am aware that her personal life was a bit messy (I'm actually not "aware" of it but I have heard such things) but I don't think there's anyone in history who's ever lived up to his or her highest ideals, still doesn't hurt to have them though, don't you think?

So, not to veer too much off topic but how about using your posts to state which aspects of the Objectivist philosophy you like or dislike and what other philosophies/authors you would recommend (that are widespread enough for me to get for free at the library ).

Thanks!

- Narz

[Agathon]

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I don't say that I like or dislike Objectivism, but I do say that it is a confused doctrine for the reasons I gave. After all, I don't think choosing a philosophy is like choosing a new suit.

If you like Libertarianism then read "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Robert Nozick. It's a good read and a lot better than Rand. If you hate libertarianism read it anyway, since it's a good book and even if it is wrong, it is surely wrong in an interesting way.

Yours

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Might makes Right?

And Libertarianism apparently.

Hee hee.

[GePap]

Comparing Nietzche to Rand??!!!! Heresy!!! Burn them all!!!

Nothing Nietzsche wrote comes close to ever allowing for the drivel that is Objectivism! Heretics!

For me, the problems with Objectivism start form the beginning: how can you belive in an objective absolute morality without something beyond the physical world? What in the physical world would you possibly derive true meaning from?
I think Hanna Aendt did a far better job with Communism than Rand, and if you want an important female philosopher, look at Arendt, not Rand.

[Agathon]

That depends on whether meaning is reducible to physicalistically respectable statements, GePap.

Aristotle believes in an objective morality but unlike Rand he has an argument.

[Narz]

Hmm, I have yet to hear anyone actually state his or her "own" beliefs, everyone seems to just be randomly throwing names around.

GePap
For me, the problems with Objectivism start form the beginning: how can you belive in an objective absolute morality without something beyond the physical world? What in the physical world would you possibly derive true meaning from?

One can derive meaning from whatever one wants to. As soon as you start thinking about an "after-life" you stop thinking about the possibilites of this life (the only one that is proven to be real).

Also, no offense to Nietzche (he wrote me quote after all ) but why would you base your beliefs around that guy? All his pleasure seeking led him to was a lifetime case of syphilis.

By the way, I am open to new ideas (hence my title) thats why I put this thread out there. If I was 100% sold on any one philosophy why would I waste my time?

- Narz

[Az]

For me, the problems with Objectivism start form the beginning: how can you belive in an objective absolute morality without something beyond the physical world? What in the physical world would you possibly derive true meaning from?

do you mean that in a morality=ethics kind of a way?

[Narz]

Also, in response to GePap, isn't the supposed "afterlife" the subject of religion. I was under the assumption that philosophy was based around how to live this life. Therefore your question "What in the physical world would you possibly derive true meaning from? " shows you're not quite clear on your own philosophy.

If you think about it, life only means what you think it means. Thats why I like objectivism because it encourages you to base your beliefs in line with reality. This allows you to realistically pursue your dreams without getting caught up in the concept of a "spirtual realm".

I have a friend who's whole life is cosumed by his foolish ideals (which are quite out of whack with reality), he seems to feel God is punishing him or testing him but really he has only himself to blame. Any philosophy that embraces a way of being that ultimately leads to pain (even in promise of a nice reward after death) doesn't sound like much of a philosophy to me.

- Narz

[Wraith]

--"Philosophers because it just ignores the last 100 years worth of arguments in ethics"

If age were the primary requirement of an argument, we'd be living on a flat earth.

--"You prove to me why I ought to believe in Objectivism."

Why should I? I don't myself. That's why I rather specifically didn't call myself an Objectivist earlier. I just agree with most of it.
As for convincing you, it's not worth my time. The material's there, if you care. Either way it means nothing to me.

--" Does anyone but me think that this is a silly way to compare philosophers?"

No sillier than pointing out one similarity and saying "see, they're the same". It was just meant as an example, you can make of it what you will.

--"Would Ann Rand advocate making this decision or no?"

She addressed this sort of question specifically, actually. Yes, it is perfectly proper to sacrifice yourself to save someone you love. I won't go into her entire argument, but yes she certainly acknowledges such things.

As I said before, her definition of selfishness is not the one in common use.

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

Sorry, but Chomsky is incorrect there. Libertarians are opposed to initiation of force or threat of force. His example is a no-no to a Libertarian.

And is exactly the sort of blanket-condemnation-out-of-ignorance I was commenting on before.

Edit:
I should add that the whole Libertarian thing is a complete tangent to the main point of the thread. Rand refused to have anything to do with the Libertarian Party.

Wraith
"Some would sooner die than think. In fact, they often do."
-- Bertrand Russell

[Agathon]

I'm afraid Chomsky is very correct. If threats count as coercion then why restrict them to threats of force, why not threats of removing certain privileges? I know Libertarians say what you say they do, I want to know if they can say it and remain consistent.

Here's another case: in a Libertarian system a boss can threaten to fire his secretary unless she has sex with him. After all he doesn't owe her a job and she's free to seek employment elsewhere.

Oh dear - I know a great deal about Libertarianism - apparently more than you since you can't even see the point of Chomsky's counterexample.

[GePap]

Yes Narz, philosophy does concern itself with how we live our lives and not just the afterlife. at the same time, the key to our relations with other human beings is based on a set of pre-programmed responses that we have as animals, and then on top of that, a set of value and norms we, as sentient beings, have constructed. Now, we seek ways to try to discover the "best" of these sets of values and ethics, and we also argue about how we would come up with such ans answer. To me, Ayn Rand and her "philosophy" simply does not do a worthwhile job with this. I find many of her assumptions baseless. She ignores the fact that we are social beings, that we live within a web of relations and are not just atoms floating in an eather. I do not think that a working society could be built based on her and her deciple's notions.

[Narz]

GePap
I find many of her assumptions baseless. She ignores the fact that we are social beings, that we live within a web of relations and are not just atoms floating in an eather. I do not think that a working society could be built based on her and her deciple's notions.

How does she ignore the fact that we are social beings? Have you read any of her philosophy books? In "The Virtue of Selfishness" she goes into great details about peoples relations to each other.

In her view people should interact as traders, no one sacrificing for (or demanding sacrifice from) the other, each benifiting in the end. Kind of like a nice bout of sexual intercourse.

- Narz

[Agathon]

I wouldn't call the Virtue of Selfishness a "philosophy book". A book of vehemently held but unsupported opinions perhaps, but not a philosophy book.