What did I just read? Ayn Rand's Philosophy.

[Angst]

Not that I care, but I read that she was a 12-year-old schoolgirl and had a schoolgirl crush on him or something like that. Who knew that 12-year-old schoolgirls could have such dark crushes? Or maybe she was over-romanticising it and, I dunno, grew out of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_family_murders just fyi, doesn't have anything to do with discussion but is interest

None of which has anything to do with the validity of her ideas. These kind of questions you ask are simply a reflection of our current low intellectual culture, which diverts attention purely onto persons in order to divide and obscure real knowledge.

This, I agree with, though: it's always important to seperate the author from the work and take each thing seperately.

But dude, the deal is that her ideas aren't valid to begin with. Why won't you answer us? Look, I'll even make it easy for you:

1) Don't you think she overlooked 2000 years of philosophical development in her works?
2) Don't you think she completely misunderstood how economy worked?
3) Don't you think she were unaware or willfully ignorant of grand historical events she miscited for her essays?
4) Don't you think she completely misunderstood the nature of humanities?
5) Don't you think she based her moral system on a shallow worldview based on thin epistemology which, imo, was completely devoid of 2000 years of philosophical development?

All questions are in regards to her essays and thoughts.

I'm open here, awaiting a lot of "No, because"s. Come, throw it at me.

 

[asbestos]

Not that I care, but I read that she was a 12-year-old schoolgirl and had a schoolgirl crush on him or something like that. Who knew that 12-year-old schoolgirls could have such dark crushes? Or maybe she was over-romanticising it and, I dunno, grew out of it.

She was 23 when she first started writing the novel in question.

None of which has anything to do with the validity of her ideas. These kind of questions you ask are simply a reflection of our current low intellectual culture, which diverts attention purely onto persons in order to divide and obscure real knowledge.

I disagree. If Edward Hickman - or something like him - could be a reified representative of Rand's paragon of uncompromising individuality, then it removes some of the ambiguity from the abstract discussion of what that individuality probably entails.

 

[Ayn Rand]

1) Don't you think she overlooked 2000 years of philosophical development in her works?

I think the last 2,000 years of philosophical development have been largely an embarassment and a disgrace.

2) Don't you think she completely misunderstood how economy worked?

Maybe - I'm not an economist so I don't know the details.

3) Don't you think she were unaware or willfully ignorant of grand historical events she miscited for her essays?

I think she had a wilful interpretation, dunno if that counts as wilful ignorance though.

4) Don't you think she completely misunderstood the nature of humanities?

I agree that she had a narrow approach...

5) Don't you think she based her moral system on a shallow worldview based on thin epistemology which, imo, was completely devoid of 2000 years of philosophical development?

I don't know how "thin" is a critique of epistemology. I think her epistemology was fundamentally sound.


Edit:

I disagree. If Edward Hickman - or something like him - could be a reified representative of Rand's paragon of uncompromising individuality, then it removes some of the ambiguity from the abstract discussion of what that individuality probably entails.

Fair enough - I think she was probably just going through an ubermensch phase and that it's not worth lingering on.

 

[Angst]

I think the last 2,000 years of philosophical development have been largely an embarassment and a disgrace.

Well, how? Think epistemology (that she adores and utilizes) for example. I think both classical epistemology, rationalism, empirism and skepticalism have been plentily explained and represent a wide array of interesting thoughts of which to debate - especially as they are all intervened and answers to each other. (Therefore addressing each others' problems.) Rand didn't do that. She just ignored everything in the tradition and said a lot of things that had been disputed or disproved a few centuries earlier.

Maybe - I'm not an economist so I don't know the details.

Sure. Basically, she assumed the artisans and entrepreneurs are irreplacable innovators of business. They aren't. All businesses are social functions and act as great puzzles where each piece is replacable without the whole deal breaking down. Her whole economical argument relies on her belief that it all breaks down if a valid artisan is taken out of the picture. The bemythed Atlas isn't present in economy, and she expects to base an economy on him.

I think she had a wilful interpretation, dunno if that counts as wilful ignorance though.

It does.

I agree that she had a narrow approach...

Thank you; it was plain wrong though. Not just narrow. It's my biggest bug about her.

I don't know how "thin" is a critique of epistemology. I think her epistemology was fundamentally sound.

Thin can easily be a critique of an epistemological worldview, but not epistemology in general if that's what you mean, yeah.

Thanks for taking your time to answer though.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No on is completely self sufficient.

Oh, there certainly are people who have combined insanity and intelligence to quite effectively be entirely self-sufficient. Hiroo Onada is a personal favorite of mine.

I think the last 2,000 years of philosophical development have been largely an embarassment and a disgrace.

Okay, how come she ignored all philosophy before that too?

 

[G-Max]

I hope the people making criticisms have a.) read her books and b.) have studied her philosophy.

They haven't. A lot of them have played Bioshock, though.

 

[ParkCungHee]

This is a rather unique defense Objectivists pull.
As far as I know, no one on this board has read Tolstoy, but I grant people the credibility to disagree with me, and with him.
But the argument seems to be that objectivism is uniquely obscurist, that, like a mystery cult of old, their beliefs cannot be explained but only experienced. Indirect knowledge of the philosophy is impossible, which would be super neato except she's also commited to this idea that reality is real, and clearly intelligible, so she can't pull a Plato/Buddha/Bruce Lee and say that knowledge of the system is not the system.

 

[tonberry]

No, my only objection is those who criticise it without bothering to understand it, or who constantly try to portray Objectivists as some kind of cult members or something, when really we care about our ideology about as much as a bunch of hippies.

Very well then, I'm willing to learn. In a previous thread, I ask a question to objectivists and couldn't get an answer before the thread got locked so I ask again:

Based on that quote from Ayn Rand:

"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." * Source: "Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974"

Was it acceptable, according to objectivists, for the europeans to come into the new world, colonize it and, in the process, kill or forcibly move it’s native population?

 

[ParkCungHee]

She was 23 when she first started writing the novel in question.

12 years old when she wrote it, wrote about a guy dismembering a 12 year old girl, easy to mix up.

 

[JollyRoger]

They haven't.

Neither have many of those that somehow agree with her.

 

[Cutlass]

In all fairness, if you really cared that much you could look up some of the easily-available introductory texts and then go from there. (I suggest the TV Tropes "useful notes" page for a discussion that manages the feat of being both even-handed and readable.) If you're actually going to go out of your way to critique somebody's ideas, rather than just responding to any given claim, you really do need a grasp of what they actually are, and expecting them to give you the full run-down every time anybody asks is more than a little bit peevish.

Having read that link, the link makes a far better defense/explanation for Objectivism than I had previously seen. However it still left the core problem that it is internally inconsistent and self contradictory. In short, Objectivists simply are not objective.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, that TVTropes page is surprisingly good. Odd place, really.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Well, how? Think epistemology (that she adores and utilizes) for example. I think both classical epistemology, rationalism, empirism and skepticalism have been plentily explained and represent a wide array of interesting thoughts of which to debate - especially as they are all intervened and answers to each other. (Therefore addressing each others' problems.) Rand didn't do that. She just ignored everything in the tradition and said a lot of things that had been disputed or disproved a few centuries earlier.

You're mentioning the good parts of philosophy. Rand's aim was to counter the insidious influence of primarily theology-inspired dogma [whether that was Christian or mysticism]. So I agree that she didn't quite make the tour de force of worthwhile philosophical work, but she was alarmed [as many of us are] about the sheer damage and harm that philosophy has done. Confronting that harm, and leaving it without an excuse to hide behind, was without doubt her main aim.

Sure. Basically, she assumed the artisans and entrepreneurs are irreplacable innovators of business. They aren't. All businesses are social functions and act as great puzzles where each piece is replacable without the whole deal breaking down. Her whole economical argument relies on her belief that it all breaks down if a valid artisan is taken out of the picture. The bemythed Atlas isn't present in economy, and she expects to base an economy on him.

There have been many complex societies in history and most of them did not develop science or industry. The fact that the West developed science while Africa and India languished is owing to individuals of great ability who used their minds.


I agree to some extent with your assessment of her contribution to the humanities - her comments on art, for example, are something that I do not consider to be a well developed theory of art by any means. But her often controversial positions should be seen in the context of what they are - attempts to put a clear and strong position out there which is directly counter to the harmful effects of the morality of altruism.

Very well then, I'm willing to learn. In a previous thread, I ask a question to objectivists and couldn't get an answer before the thread got locked so I ask again:

Based on that quote from Ayn Rand:

"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." * Source: "Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974"

Was it acceptable, according to objectivists, for the europeans to come into the new world, colonize it and, in the process, kill or forcibly move it’s native population?

They didn't have any right to kill people except in self-defence. The answer you've quoted is a discussion on the nature of rights - Rand simply denies that anyone has a "right" to keep a large part of the World out of development. This is non-rational, according to Objectivism, and as such it is proper for the non-rtional to be countered by and replaced with the rational.

But this argument over the rationality of rights does not translate into a justification for the extermination of any individual or group of individuals.

 

[Leoreth]

So her argument was essentially "white man's burden"? Great.

 

[Ayn Rand]

So her argument was essentially "white man's burden"? Great.

There is no racial dimension to the argument.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

No, but the stipulation of the inherent and utter inferiority of the Indian culture and the white man's burden - who happens to be civilized - to put a stop to it. By force. That's a very troublesome way to reason, but was back in the age of colonization pretty much the standard line of thought from what I gather and is commonly summarized as the argument of the "white man's burden".

 

[Leoreth]

It still involves a notion of cultural superiority because she thought of their notion of "development" as superior to that of the Native Americans.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Yes, it's a clear claim to the superiority of one civilisational culture over another. I don't see anything wrong in making such a comparison and then upholding the superiority of one civilisation over another if there are good grounds to do so.

 

[Leoreth]

... because the Native Americans would've probably disagreed?

But I like your honesty here.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, it's a clear claim to the superiority of one civilisational culture over another. I don't see anything wrong in making such a comparison and then upholding the superiority of one civilisation over another if there are good grounds to do so.

The obvious criticism would be that it's an unusually idealist position for somebody who made such a god-awful song and dance about being a rigid materialist.