Objectivism: Do you give a rat's arse?

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Er, I don't think you understand what sort of dualism I'm speaking about.

Mind/matter dualism is, at heart, the notion that mental phenomena cannot be reduced to matter and it's interactions (and that the material similarly cannot be reduced to the mental).

So the argument was over whether Rand states if the presence of the mind can influence matter. As in whether the non-physical mind can influence matter?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


I'd agree with #1 and #8, but the others just mean you haven't read enough of her stuff.

#2 - She's not the best, but through the long winded rants she starts to convey the underlying meaning.

#3 - Her books weren't a thesis for some college class. Should she have quoted Aristotle? Oh wait, she did.

#4 - Opinions, opinions.

#5 - Depends, what kind of art?

#6 - You must have glossed over a lot.

#7 is just silly. Her characters are either dirt poor or end up giving up their money and power. Her fascination with Capitalism is derived out of her love for the freedom of choice, something she didn't see in her native Soviet Russia.

She's a lame philosopher and not taken seriously by professionals. Her adherents claim this is because of a leftist conspiracy, when the truth is that she's crap.

Rand is to philosophy what "Men are from Mars..." is to psychology. Easily digested puerile crap for people who are easily led.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Agathon
She's a lame philosopher and not taken seriously by professionals. Her adherents claim this is because of a leftist conspiracy, when the truth is that she's crap.

Rand is to philosophy what "Men are from Mars..." is to psychology. Easily digested puerile crap for people who are easily led.

I could say the same for any philosopher. Big whoop.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle

I could say the same for any philosopher. Big whoop.

Yes, but your opinion is hardly informed, is it?

[Zkribbler]

Ohhh, that was nasty. I hope he takes that slam philosophically.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes, but your opinion is hardly informed, is it?

Sure bud. Right back atcha.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Her fascination with Capitalism is derived out of her love for the freedom of choice, something she didn't see in her native Soviet Russia.

The problem with that is the so called "freedom of choice" is simply not there for many, unless you count Hobson's choice as a choice.

Many capitalism advocates speak of "equality in opportunity," but that's largely an illusion as well.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The problem with that is the so called "freedom of choice" is simply not there for many, unless you count Hobson's choice as a choice.

Many capitalism advocates speak of "equality in opportunity," but that's largely an illusion as well.

That's true. To quote one of my favroite movies: "Everyone can buy OCP stock." Rand saw capitalism as an avenue to freedom. Rolled up with the modern Western state capitalism is a decent personifaction of freedom. Freedom, that is, for those who can buy/sell.

[Barnabas]

The way I see it they only want the state to defend their property, and nothing else.

I can picture poor peasants trying to sack their mansions and the police shooting them, nice, very latin american.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The way I see it they only want the state to defend their property, and nothing else.

I can picture poor peasants trying to sack their mansions and the police shooting them, nice, very latin american.

What exactly are you talking about? Some sort of terrible libertarian world?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle

Sure bud. Right back atcha.

You'll have to do better than that.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Agathon


You'll have to do better than that.

So will you! You haven't posted an argument!

[Asher]

The problem with Philosophers is even Aggie can be one.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle

So will you! You haven't posted an argument!

I pointed out that Ayn Rand is ignored by professional philosophers, and the main reason is that she writes as if no one had ever thought about these subjects before.

Here's my favourite Rand howler. She thinks that you are being irrational if you act altruistically. She has some **** and bull argument for it which boils down to a poor rip off from Aristotle (it is in our nature to act selfishly, our nature in the sense of our telos [otherwise she would have to deny freedom]).

It's OK for Aristotle, with his complicated teleological biology to write such a thing (and even he would disagree with each other, since he thinks we are naturally social animals), but anyone living after the 16th century who is not religious has no real business saying such things without a lot of argument. In any case, if one were to appeal to nature (and commit the naturalistic fallacy at the same time -- but let's leave that unkind suggestion behind out of charity), one would be stymied by the many examples of altruistic behaviour amongst human beings and other species. And to top it all, our friends in evolutionary psychology have a great deal of Rand bashing evidence to offer.

Dump the ridiculous teleology and you are left with the assertion "It's irrational to act unselfishly".

Why so? Kant would be surprised to hear this, since he spent a lot of time trying to demonstrate just the opposite... but never mind...

I can't quite see why acting unselfishy is supposed to be irrational. A person who does so is making no logical error, nor need they be under the spell of a false belief. Moreover, the vast majority of thinkers in the contemporary world do not believe that the formation of ends by agents is a matter of reason, but a matter of sentiment. But even those who think it is a matter of reason (or that the distinction between reason and sentiment is not a good one) would balk at identifying all rational goal formation with selfishness. In fact most contemporary philosophers would rather look at the goals we already have and see if some sort of reductionist account could be given of them, but even then, very few experienced philosophers would expect there to be a unitary goal of human action (and would point to the blatant fallacy at the beginning of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics as a common mistake which Rand seems to have fallen into.

So there you have a few of the hurdles that Rand would need to overcome to give her thesis some credibility. But instead of carefully arguing against these objections, she just ignores them or dismisses those who hold them as secret communists (as if this were a refutation).

That's why serious philosophers don't pay any attention to her. It's as if scientists would waste time on someone who argued that the earth was flat, or that intelligent design is an acceptable scientific theory.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
And to top it all, our friends in evolutionary psychology have a great deal of Rand bashing evidence to offer.

Aren't you lucky?