What is your view of Libertarianism and Ayn Rand?

[Ayn Rand]

But even that is a voluntary, spontaneous and finite sort of cooperation, there's no structural collectivism involved. Rand wasn't, fundamentally, an advocate for private property and free markets, she was an advocate of unfettered elitism-individualism, and conceived of laissez faire capitalism as a means to that end. The idea that laissez faire capitalism may not always constitute an emancipatory system, or that it might not produce an elite that corresponds to her Promethean ideal, is never really resolved, and instead the many examples which gnaw at the roots of her socio-economic ideals are dismissed as the conspiracy of statist "looters". For all her claims to objectivity, the cart of the Idea is placed firmly before the horse of external reality.

Rand herself said that capitalism is secondary to her and followed on from her philosophy of objective reality and individualist ethics. So you are correct to identify that the structure or order of her thinking is not what it is normally represented to be [at times, you can be very insightful].

So I agree with your first claim - that "unfettered elitism-individualism" as you call it was the first goal, with capitalism devised as a means to that end. But I disagree with your concluding claim, that objectivity goes out of the window in support of capitalism. Quite the contrary - objectivism is an evolving philosophy and the philosophical aspect [metaphysics, epistemology and ethics] are prior to the political aspect.


As for two of your other points [emancipatory system, prometheum elite] I would say that these are not the primary goals of a system based on individual ethics. They are desirable and may occur, but Rand herself said that capitalism should not be defended on its ability to create wealth or other desirable goods [as such ability may fail] but rather is to be defended on grounds of individual freedom. However, individual freedom is to be understood in the context of potentially crushing responsibilities or consequences [so in that sense it is not devised as an emancipation from reality or social reality - there are no guarantees or false promises].

 

[Cutlass]

But what is "objectivism"? Shouldn't it be conforming the worldview to objective reality? Because, you know, show me where an objectivist in the Randian tradition does that. Even Greenspan, the most influential student of Rand, finally had to admit that his "objectivist" worldview was entirely wrong.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Hey, I'm interested in discussing Randian epistemology and what makes Objectivism, well, Objectivism. I read Atlas Shrugged a couple of years back, but I find it difficult to extract the essence of the philosophy from all the storytelling devices and the rhetoric employed in the book. Maybe you'd like to start by enumerating some of its basic ontological and epistemological tenets?

The simplest outline was given by Rand in 1962:

1. Metaphysics - Objective Reality
2. Epistemology - Reason
3. Ethics - Self-interest
4. Politics - Capitalism

As for an ontology, Objectivism doesn't have one as such. It also tends to view metaphysics and epistemology as inextricably linked [at least as philosophical subject-matter] because one has to have forms of knowledge [episteme] in order to think about metaphysics.

If you're interested specifically in ontological categories, they will either be buried within the epistemology or left to other philosophers to speculate on. The epistemology deals with such things as the relation between cognition and measurement, concept-formation, abstraction, concepts of consciousness, definition, axioms, the cognitive role of concepts and the nature of identity.

But of course there is a mountain of work from other philosophers in these areas, and Objectivists do not consider objectivist knowledge to be complete or definitive in any way. What knowledge represents the best practise or most advanced knowledge is something that constantly evolves. Objectivism contains primarily a World-view towards this and all other knowledge, and the individual's relation to it.

I hope that made sense

 

[Traitorfish]

Rand herself said that capitalism is secondary to her and followed on from her philosophy of objective reality and individualist ethics. So you are correct to identify that the structure or order of her thinking is not what it is normally represented to be [at times, you can be very insightful].

So I agree with your first claim - that "unfettered elitism-individualism" as you call it was the first goal, with capitalism devised as a means to that end. But I disagree with your concluding claim, that objectivity goes out of the window in support of capitalism. Quite the contrary - objectivism is an evolving philosophy and the philosophical aspect [metaphysics, epistemology and ethics] are prior to the political aspect.

Potentially, perhaps, but Objectivists never actually seem to engage in any serious attempts at political reformulation, and Rand certainly didn't, despite the golden age of individualist capitalism being on its way out even as she started working on this stuff. Aside from criticism of the more overt collaborations between industry and state, it's always the same calls for less regulation and more private "entrepreneurship", never a general critique of capitalism. There's no Objectivist Bordiga, submitting "really existing capitalism" to a thorough and rigorous analysis, just a thousand Maos claims that the system itself is fine, and simply needs to be realigned to the correct path.

As for two of your other points [emancipatory system, prometheum elite] I would say that these are not the primary goals of a system based on individual ethics. They are desirable and may occur, but Rand herself said that capitalism should not be defended on its ability to create wealth or other desirable goods [as such ability may fail] but rather is to be defended on grounds of individual freedom. However, individual freedom is to be understood in the context of potentially crushing responsibilities or consequences [so in that sense it is not devised as an emancipation from reality or social reality - there are no guarantees or false promises].

Well, by "emancipatory" I meant in the sense of allowing individuals to freely constitute this "elite", which she seemed to regard as the proper outcome, rather than in any socialistic sense (another critique altogether). "Individual freedom" may describe her intention, but, like Aristotle, expresses a disbelief that any more than a small minority could ever exercise this freedom in a truly fulfilling way (the "1%" you mentioned previously), and so concludes that society is best constructed in such a manner as to allow the flourishing of this properly enabled minority, rather than to permit a far more modest flourishing of the insufficiently competent masses; in effect, that society be constructed around these individuals. That's why her individualism finds its expression not in any Proudhonian anarchy, in which all are as essentially capable of exercising rational ability as all, but in a form of individualistic capitalism, in which the many live out drab but contented lives to facilitate the truly rational and fulfilling endeavours of the few. Her individual freedom is thus freedom of a very specific sort, which means that any system asserted as enabling it needs to be submitted to a more substantial scrutiny that just counting the number of business regulations are in place.

Also, a question: I'm told that Rand claimed to draw on no philosopher other than Aristotle (and I suppose, by implication, those philosophers on which Aristotle himself drew). Was that the case, or was she perhaps just simplifying her philosophical genealogy for the unfamiliar, to make a point more straightforwardly? (I'm not aware of the context of the original claim.)

 

[aelf]

The simplest outline was given by Rand in 1962:

1. Metaphysics - Objective Reality
2. Epistemology - Reason
3. Ethics - Self-interest
4. Politics - Capitalism(

Let's go from this list. You may drop the fourth item as that is going into the specifics of the practical.

I'd like to know what you mean by "Objective Reality". To me, it seems like it might be reminiscent of Vienna Circle Positivism, but it's fine if you're not familiar with the latter. Just explain it in your own terms.

From there, it would be good to have a brief explanation of how Randian metaphysics relate to its epistemology and ethics.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Potentially, perhaps, but Objectivists never actually seem to engage in any serious attempts at political reformulation, and Rand certainly didn't, despite the golden age of individualist capitalism being on its way out even as she started working on this stuff. Aside from criticism of the more overt collaborations between industry and state, it's always the same calls for less regulation and more private "entrepreneurship", never a general critique of capitalism. There's no Objectivist Bordiga, submitting "really existing capitalism" to a thorough and rigorous analysis, just a thousand Maos claims that the system itself is fine, and simply needs to be realigned to the correct path.

I think your reasoning here is solid and I agree that the sophistication and evolution of Objectivism could do with a jump up. In philosophical terms however these ideas are practically brand new - so a thoroughly complete reformulation would be premature overkill at this stage. As for "really existing capitalism" then you are talking about a degree of analysis that would be extremely sophisticated - possibly well beyond the existing depth of resources [if you really mean a project on the scale of one of socialism's many reformulations]. There simply aren't as many objectivists as there are socialists, and nor do we have such a long history or [not taking a cheap-shot here ] as many failed experiments to draw inspiration and data from.

Well, by "emancipatory" I meant in the sense of allowing individuals to freely constitute this "elite", which she seemed to regard as the proper outcome, rather than in any socialistic sense (another critique altogether). "Individual freedom" may describe her intention, but, like Aristotle, expresses a disbelief that any more than a small minority could ever exercise this freedom in a truly fulfilling way (the "1%" you mentioned previously), and so concludes that society is best constructed in such a manner as to allow the flourishing of this properly enabled minority, rather than to permit a far more modest flourishing of the insufficiently competent masses; in effect, that society be constructed around these individuals. That's why her individualism finds its expression not in any Proudhonian anarchy, in which all are as essentially capable of exercising rational ability as all, but in a form of individualistic capitalism, in which the many live out drab but contented lives to facilitate the truly rational and fulfilling endeavours of the few. Her individual freedom is thus freedom of a very specific sort, which means that any system asserted as enabling it needs to be submitted to a more substantial scrutiny that just counting the number of business regulations are in place.

This is something very complex. I agree that her freedom is freedom of a very specific sort though, and I'm glad about that - because freedom is necessarilly limited by reality. A realistic political and philosophical theory must operate within these limits. Believing that we can break out of them if in fact we can't, could prove to be very dangerous and counter-productive. Although of course, if it is objectively possible to break out of our limits [as I know you are going to argue ] then that would be a good thing. However, the modalities by which this emancipation becomes "possible" revolve around positive and negative concepts of freedom.

Also, a question: I'm told that Rand claimed to draw on no philosopher other than Aristotle (and I suppose, by implication, those philosophers on which Aristotle himself drew). Was that the case, or was she perhaps just simplifying her philosophical genealogy for the unfamiliar, to make a point more straightforwardly? (I'm not aware of the context of the original claim.)

Those are Ayn Rand's words so only Ayn can know I'm almost certain there were several other philosophers Rand drew on - Nietszche in particular, but also Locke, the English empiricists and the American pragmatists. That is almost certain, judging by the content of her works, although I'm just being circumstantial here.

She also explicity rejected three philosophers - Plato, Kant and Hegel. She never mentions Schopenhauer which is a shame. So in that sense her work was influenced and defined by what she rejected as much as by Aristotle.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Let's go from this list. You may drop the fourth item as that is going into the specifics of the practical.

I'd like to know what you mean by "Objective Reality". To me, it seems like it might be reminiscent of Vienna Circle Positivism, but it's fine if you're not familiar with the latter. Just explain it in your own terms.

From there, it would be good to have a brief explanation of how Randian metaphysics relate to its epistemology and ethics.

I'll try

Rand opens her metaphysical onslaught by stating "existence exists" and deriving two corollaries from this - that something [existence] is there to be perceived, and someone [consciousness] is there to do the perceiving. Existence then is identity, and consciousness is identification.

So whatever has been identified, and the fact that you identify it, are two inescapable forms of existence that comprise the basis of objective reality. The fact that a consciousness is engaged in identification, is as much an objective fact as the entities that possess identity.

Rand made no attempt to offer a complex logical "proof" for reality's existence as I believe the positivists tried and failed to do - she just considered it axiomatic and that some axioms are secure. Note also that this is not an argument of the type "the World is out there and objects are real and solid etc". Although Rand does get to that as self-evident and thus true based on the best knowledge available.


To proceed to the epistemology, Rand identifies the nature of consciousness and the primary fact that it is an agent of identification, with specific properties. These properties are identified, measured and put into a concept system - which together form a mind. The episteomology is essentially one of identifying the primary properties of rational consciousness in reality.


Ethics transitions from epistemology to the mind's relation to reality, which it understands [through identification] to be one of it's own survival in the World [and the pursuit of other values necessary to survival and comfort].

Rand therefore embraces a form of Aristotelian virtue ethics as the ethical solution to the survival/prosperity situation - in which values [things worth having for survival and prosperity] are identified and acquired by the cultivation of virtues [abilities, such as rationality, justice, pride, productiveness].


Rand therefore embraces individualism, through which she means a productive, rational and independent mind living its own life without unjustly burdening or allowing itself to be a burden on other living beings. This is necessary because reality will "wipe us out" if we do not make the correct identifications and follow the course of action that its nature demands.

As for selfishness, Rand states that it was simply distorted by improper identification in earlier history and there is no need to maintain the idea that it is immoral. Selfishness is a virtue, provided it is exercised in the context of the other virtues of rationality, justice, productivity etc.

 

[Antilogic]

Aye aye aye, I'll try to comment on everything, but don't feel offended if I missed you.

I don't think that you can quite equate the two, given their somewhat... strained history. Apparently, Rand absolutely hated libertarians for messing up her ideas.

Apparently we're the weird ones that inverted it. Everyone else seems to be on the same page.

I'm not trying to equate the two, but rather observing how inextricably linked they appear to be in modern American political discourse. I can't recall the number of conservative politicians and commentators I have seen talking about how they are inspired by Ayn Rand. The pro-individual anti-government ideas (to use more neutral terms than I would ordinarily use), on the basic 10-second soundbite level, sound identical coming from Rand and from the talking heads on TV.

I read few books in which the characters are credible and realistic. Rand's characters are no more unrealistic than most authors. After AR's literary period we went into the anti-hero (Little Big Man) phase and have been locked-in ever since. I recall a few years ago Peter Jackson made LotRs into a movie and changed Tolkein's Aragorn - a Rand type character if there ever was one - into a whiny, "I don't want to be King" wuss.

Don't most authors create there own fantasy worlds? If it was the real world, nobody would read it. And yes, Rands' characters do get screwed - usually by jealous friends or superiors - before they rise above.

It is (in my opinion), about the welfare state. Today we expect help and handouts - literally - "entitlements". Food stamps, unemployment compensation, an extensive social net to help everybody. And I'm not neccessarily criticising the "...it takes a village" mentality. But certainly some novels and characters from other times don't fit well these days.

Besides Czerth et. al.'s critique, I would add that I read a tremendous amount of actual nonfiction, about the world the way it is (or was). People get screwed... and don't rise above. It is an impossibility for them to do so. People embrace some sort of all-explaining ideology... just to see it crash down before their very eyes. People who appear to be the supermen embraced by Rand... aren't. They never are.

More on entitlements later, I'll try to keep it organized.

Unfortunately there is a group of left-wing trolls on this forum so intelligent discussion about capitalism is quite difficult and it can sometimes be masochism to try and make headway on the subject.

Ayn Rand is interesting as a philosopher and lies firmly in the Aristotelean tradition, but you are best reading her yourself to get the to the truth and be able to make your own mind up.

While I don't know who this is directed at, most of the people here who are critical of Rand, objectivism, the right and even the left for that matter, aren't trolling. There is a fairly strong aversion to the "talking points" summary or the "great person quote" argument, and everything is likely to be scrutinized by somebody. Perfect example from a thread awhile ago: some guy quotes Reagan as his grand argument, saying government is always a problem. The forum's response: oh rly? Why is Reagan so great?

It's challenging, but I think it's ultimately more rewarding than your average TV-style debate where each side reads their prepared talking point statement past each other and doesn't dissect the arguments.

Check your premises, you might identify the contradiction - help below if you need it

Spoiler :

I've lost count of those who consider themselves informed enough to tell me what Ayn Rand's ideas are about, yet admit that they have not read her and don't intend to.

Ah, but now you're moving the goal posts. We have moved from "you must read dreadful books" to "you must have some knowledge and intellectual effort", things that do not require reading dreadful books. I would further add that this seems to be a sign of serious mental defect on the part of Randians if this were true, because it suggests that they cannot explain or articulate their views, like everyone else does. I don't expect others to read Tolstoy, Adi Shankara or Plato to be able to engage me in a discussion. If I believe something, and consider it intellectually valid, I am able to articulate it, something that you seem to be claiming Randians are incapable of.

Rand isn't the end of objectivism just as Darwin isn't the end of evolution. I've never read the Origin of Species through, but I am very familiar with the concept of natural selection and modern research in the area. As I mentioned before, I've tried and quit reading Rand's works several times, and probably won't try again. But I'm still familiar with the concepts, have read others' summaries and analysis, etc.

The expectation that contracts and agreements will be backed by an outside force is in and of itself an entitlement.

To take this further: isn't the expectation of voting for a government you desire entitlement? Why are you entitled to representation in government? Why are you entitled to free speech and a free press, to practice your religion? Why are you entitled to a trial by jury?

And to the opponents of 'entitlements', don't trot out some superficial argument like "but my interpretation of the US Constitution says so!" I'm looking for something deeper.

I'm sick of this word being tossed around, mostly due to its connotation. If you believe in the idea of social contracts between governments and peoples, and that the people should be superior to the government, wouldn't the existence of these programs be characterized more by people successfully changing their social contracts instead of getting free goodies?

It's easy to take that viewpoint based on the popular analysis of Rand's main characters [Dagny Taggart, Henry Rearden etc] but in fact, it's worth pointing out

i) These characters are not actually considered ubermensch but are all peers of one another. For people of high ability, these characters are just average - what counts as gifted is really a matter of perspective.

...

It was not Rand's intention to make people feel inferior when reading her book. She was really delivering her message to the maybe 1% of people who identify with the characters as roughly equal. Now, that gets a lot of people feeling inferior or aggravated but it is certainly not deliberately designed to provoke. Throughout her novel, Rand accurately describes many of the feelings, experiences and thought processes which some of her readers have been through. Others who have not been through those experiences, may struggle to identify with it.

What I was trying to get at earlier in this thread was this: people who identify with these Randian heroes aren't at all like them in real life because the heroes are impossibly perfect. I can believe a flawed hero exists, but not a flawless one.

I would argue that arrogance and an over-inflated ego cause a person to identify with a Randian hero more than any measurable super-entrepreneurial ability.

Meh. My biggest problem with Rand is that she lacks any ability for historical analysis. In Atlas Shrugged she has a railroad obsession and when she talks about it in her later essays, she holds it up as an example of the power of capitalism to make a country prosper. While completely ignoring the vast amounts of government fiscal support, land deeds, land-grant universities, and Credit Mobiler.
When some of your best examples relied completely on what you are ranting against, there is a problem.

Seems similar to the disconnect between reality and fantasy I mentioned earlier. If it's not obvious by now, I have a strong distaste for unrealistic fantasy worlds.

The simplest outline was given by Rand in 1962:

1. Metaphysics - Objective Reality
2. Epistemology - Reason
3. Ethics - Self-interest
4. Politics - Capitalism

My cue to stop posting and start watching.

 

[Crezth]

<snip>

On the question of perception and how this relates to Objective reality:

What provisos are there for certain scientific facts, like mental illness warping perception, or how two perfectly sane people are capable of remembering the same occurrence in different ways? It seems like an ideology that claims objective reality comes from perception would be hard-pressed to reconcile itself with the very definition of subjective perception.

To take this one step further, there is rarely, in the higher sciences, such a thing as objective, identifiable truth. Special relativity comes to mind, wherein reality itself is different between observers. Quantum mechanics too, the uncertainty principle arguing that the very act of perception changes reality, making the latter fluid and formally unknowable.

Rand does a lot of talking about how consistent her ideology is with reality, although the science of the matter would tend to disagree.

 

[Quackers]

Well they both have achieved more then I ever will. Trolling like heroes.

 

[Ayn Rand]

People who appear to be the supermen embraced by Rand... aren't. They never are.

What I was trying to get at earlier in this thread was this: people who identify with these Randian heroes aren't at all like them in real life because the heroes are impossibly perfect. I can believe a flawed hero exists, but not a flawless one.

I can see how you may have come to this interpretation of Rand's work [because a lot of people appear to have done the same], but I didn't make any of these interpretations when I read her works.

I never found her heroes to be "impossibly perfect" - they constantly fight against tiredness and are beset by problems, including naivete. They are subject to romantic impulses, fears and confusion. There is some element of unreality in Ragnar [the pirate] but that's it.

As for this:

I would argue that arrogance and an over-inflated ego cause a person to identify with a Randian hero more than any measurable super-entrepreneurial ability.

You are making a false dichotomy, saying that Rand readers either:

a) Have an over-inflated ego
b) Are super-entrepreneurs

and if a person is not b) then they must be a). Well, what about c)? In my case, I am a "c)" - I thought Rand's heroes were emotionally rich, ordinary people doing ordinary things. Building a railroad or designing a new type of steel is hardly "ubermensch" behaviour - it is what any capable person can do, if they try. The characters relate to each other socially in a normal way, because of the fact that their peer group has the expectation that such behaviour is normal.

I find it inexplicable that people consider a man running a steel mill to be "ubermensch". Also, Rand specifically mentioned artists, actors and musicians in her works, not just businesspeople. Are these people "impossible ubermensch" too? It's an unexpected angle - I think Rand was taken by surprise when people considered her characters to be "ubermensch" when she was clearly talking about a class of people who just view themselves as normal, if slightly privileged/gifted.

On the question of perception and how this relates to Objective reality:

What provisos are there for certain scientific facts, like mental illness warping perception, or how two perfectly sane people are capable of remembering the same occurrence in different ways?

The current provisos that we use for explaining these things are sufficient. We are aware that these problems exist, and aware of it in an objective way, so it presents no especial problem to Objectivist philosophy.

To take this one step further, there is rarely, in the higher sciences, such a thing as objective, identifiable truth. Special relativity comes to mind, wherein reality itself is different between observers. Quantum mechanics too, the uncertainty principle arguing that the very act of perception changes reality, making the latter fluid and formally unknowable.

Objectivism is not a claim to omniscience. If science reaches the boundaries of knowledge in some direction, then knowledge simply stays at that level - either permanently, or until we find some way to increase our knowledge.

And note also that you know about these elements of scientific enquiry - which means you trust that the data was acquired through reason, in a rational way. Why should this be a problem for a theory based on reason?

 

[Crezth]

What I'm saying is that the theory is not based on reason as it comes from a flawed premise: that objective reality is reality as it exists via its perception by a conscious mind.

All perception is skewed, and "objective" knowledge (as it were) comes through the employment of the scientific method to mitigate these biases. Even our understanding of this fact is skewed; and if it weren't, hand-waving it away with "oh, but we are objectively aware of our non-objectivity" does not reduce the importance of that non-objectivity vis-a-vis the philosophy in the slightest bit; it is still impossible to be a 100% rational actor, let alone privy to only objective perceptions and well-measured, reasonable reactions.

She also uses the allegedly "rational" roots of her philosophy as the basis for some decidedly non-Objective conclusions. "a is a" is a great example of that simply from being so utterly meaningless. I mean, a concerto - a piece of art - cannot be objectively called to be good. "The good concerto is good" (paraphrasing an example from Atlas Shrugged) is not an objective thought. It is purely subjective.

What I'm saying is Rand's philosophy is neither scientific nor objective but she claims that it is so that everything else that follows from her philosophy is therefore also scientific and objective, which is simply not the case.

 

[amadeus]

Rand had a very dim view of libertarians, did she not?

She had issues with people, particularly libertarians from the Austrian school of economics. Murray Rothbard had met Rand a few times, but Rand, according to Murray's wife Joey, Rand demanded that Murray divorce Joey as she was a practicing Christian. Nathaniel Branden, Rand's closest confidant at the time, told Murray he would help him secure a more "rational" mate. Of course, Murray rejected this outright and left. According to Walter Block, who was also one time part of the Rand circle, Rand was hostile to anyone that pointed out contradictions in her writing and questioned her too vigorously.

Of anarcho-capitalism, Rand had a very dim view, I think not just because of her falling out with Rothbard (Rand also accused Rothbard of plagiarism, a ridiculous charge) but also because she didn't believe a private law system could act justly. Now, this is where one of the contradictions of Rand comes in: she believed taxes are theft and that capitalism must be "totally" laissez-faire, yet supports government police, government courts, a government army. She was also in favor the U.S. government helping to prop up Israel and Taiwan, presumably using the money she believes was stolen in the form of taxation.

 

[Antilogic]

I can see how you may have come to this interpretation of Rand's work [because a lot of people appear to have done the same], but I didn't make any of these interpretations when I read her works.

I never found her heroes to be "impossibly perfect" - they constantly fight against tiredness and are beset by problems, including naivete. They are subject to romantic impulses, fears and confusion. There is some element of unreality in Ragnar [the pirate] but that's it.

So perfection means never having a romantic impulse? If I were a praying man, I would pray that I was never perfect. Maybe I didn't get to the confused part before I quit reading.

As for this:



You are making a false dichotomy, saying that Rand readers either:

a) Have an over-inflated ego
b) Are super-entrepreneurs

and if a person is not b) then they must be a). Well, what about c)? In my case, I am a "c)" - I thought Rand's heroes were emotionally rich, ordinary people doing ordinary things. Building a railroad or designing a new type of steel is hardly "ubermensch" behaviour - it is what any capable person can do, if they try. The characters relate to each other socially in a normal way, because of the fact that their peer group has the expectation that such behaviour is normal.

I find it inexplicable that people consider a man running a steel mill to be "ubermensch". Also, Rand specifically mentioned artists, actors and musicians in her works, not just businesspeople. Are these people "impossible ubermensch" too? It's an unexpected angle - I think Rand was taken by surprise when people considered her characters to be "ubermensch" when she was clearly talking about a class of people who just view themselves as normal, if slightly privileged/gifted.

No, that's not what I was saying (or at least it wasn't intended). I am saying that people with over-inflated egos have a greater probability of identifying with the Randian super-hero, and I don't think the other exists.

The men weren't just running the steel mills, or railroads, or anything. Hell, the "ordinary" railroad, if I recall, featured a perpetual motion machine, which is something unbelievable, unobtainable, and also 'perfect'. The people in this book were the CEOs, CFOs, CTOs, directors, inventors, investors, and on and on rolled into one. They ruled their companies like glorious kings crusading against the ignorant heathen moochers (and I do think that comparison is accurate). I don't remember the artists from the books or summaries, so saying that she mentioned them doesn't mean much to me. I'm pretty sure I mentioned Obama's name sometime in the last week, but that doesn't mean I think he's a super-hero (or "ubermensch" if you prefer Nietzsche's terms).

In any case, it has always been people thinking of themselves as "privileged/gifted" that has rankled me.

Finally, how you got emotional richness out of that overblown melodrama is beyond me. I think Rand's characters were about as rich as the Twilight characters. Fair warning: I have read more Rand than Twilight.

 

[Ayn Rand]

What I'm saying is that the theory is not based on reason as it comes from a flawed premise: that objective reality is reality as it exists via its perception by a conscious mind.

I don't think it's a flawed premise, although if it were then it would sink the whole theory of course. Also, this is only a foundation - the epistemology advances through multiple levels of reasoning after this.

However, the question is: what alternative sources of knowledge do you have other than consciousness and reality? I think that any answer you give will ultimately be some kind of construct of mind that is a product of consciousness working on its perceptions [perhaps at a remove, such as through abstraction, conceptualisation and measurement etc].

All perception is skewed

All? Are you sure, and how do you know?

and "objective" knowledge (as it were) comes through the employment of the scientific method to mitigate these biases.

Not all objective knowledge comes through the scientific method. But even allowing for the part that does, the philosophy of science is a complex and developing area. If at some point it becomes necessary to correct objectivist theory in light of new discoveries, it will be corrected. But as things currently stand, science and objectivism rather tend to support one another.

Even our understanding of this fact is skewed; and if it weren't, hand-waving it away with "oh, but we are objectively aware of our non-objectivity" does not reduce the importance of that non-objectivity vis-a-vis the philosophy in the slightest bit; it is still impossible to be a 100% rational actor, let alone privy to only objective perceptions and well-measured, reasonable reactions.

I would just repeat a very important distinction - objectivism is not a claim to omniscience. It does not claim to have absolutely certain knowledge of all facts. There are no complete theories of knowledge - so yes, it is impossible to be a 100% rational actor. That would require omniscience, not objectivity.

She also uses the allegedly "rational" roots of her philosophy as the basis for some decidedly non-Objective conclusions. "a is a" is a great example of that simply from being so utterly meaningless. I mean, a concerto - a piece of art - cannot be objectively called to be good. "The good concerto is good" (paraphrasing an example from Atlas Shrugged) is not an objective thought. It is purely subjective.

A is A - this is meant as an identity statement, not a truth statement. So you can make identifications which may be subjective or wrong - they are subject to truth analysis. However, you must make the identity before proceeding to test the truth of it.

What I'm saying is Rand's philosophy is neither scientific nor objective but she claims that it is so that everything else that follows from her philosophy is therefore also scientific and objective, which is simply not the case.

It doesn't claim to be scientific [it's not a scientific theory in the complex sense], and the degree of objectivity is one of ongoing development rather than a claim to omniscience. "Objectivism" arguably refers as much to a disposition than a scientific claim to an impossible degree of absolute knowledge.

 

[warpus]

"A = A" is a tautology, a statement that can not be used as a foundation for anything else.

 

[Ayn Rand]

"A = A" is a tautology, a statement that can not be used as a foundation for anything else.

That's partly correct - it's function is to act as a test of internal logical consistency, with the idea that logical contradictions can be rejected as unworthy of further consideration. If "A = A" is not accepted as true, then anyone is free to come along and say "A = non-A" ie that "A = B" or C, D etc.

If one also accepts a system of axioms as valid, then any breaking of the axioms will create the same outcome. Objectivist metaphysics begins with an axiom ["existence exists"] which is why the argument is used [to reject claims to non-existence, to unreality, to non-mind etc]. If the axiom of existence is A then any attempt to argue non-A can be rejected as logically flawed and inconsistent arguments unworthy of serious discussion.

 

[warpus]

That's partly correct - it's function is to act as a test of internal logical consistency, with the idea that logical contradictions can be rejected as unworthy of further consideration. If "A = A" is not accepted as true, then anyone is free to come along and say "A = non-A" ie that "A = B" or C, D etc.

If one also accepts a system of axioms as valid, then any breaking of the axioms will create the same outcome. Objectivist metaphysics begins with an axiom ["existence exists"] which is why the argument is used [to reject claims to non-existence, to unreality, to non-mind etc]. If the axiom of existence is A then any attempt to argue non-A can be rejected as logically flawed and inconsistent arguments unworthy of serious discussion.

A=A can't be used as an axiom though, as it doesn't add anything of value to any logical system.

Let me rephrase that.. It *could* be used as an axiom (you can use anything, if you want), but it'd be redundant, being a tautology.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This "Objectivity" seems very Orwellian. Isn't any view by definition subjective? Objectiveness should mean the state of things, period. Not the state of things looked at from a specific angle which than is called the objective angle. Such an angle doesn't exist. Objectivity means angle-less.

 

[Crezth]

I don't think it's a flawed premise, although if it were then it would sink the whole theory of course. Also, this is only a foundation - the epistemology advances through multiple levels of reasoning after this.

However, the question is: what alternative sources of knowledge do you have other than consciousness and reality? I think that any answer you give will ultimately be some kind of construct of mind that is a product of consciousness working on its perceptions [perhaps at a remove, such as through abstraction, conceptualisation and measurement etc].

I'll address this below as it's part of a bigger response.

All? Are you sure, and how do you know?

I'm pretty sure it's been observed to be the case that our perceptions are, in general, often flawed. There is a massive probability that you will misremember any particular event or fact in as much as a considerable way.

If you want I can dig up the exact study, but assuming that men are capable of perfect perception is assuming a bit much. I understand Rand was a firm believer in the hubris of men being justified, but history has not been kind to arrogant people.

Not all objective knowledge comes through the scientific method. But even allowing for the part that does, the philosophy of science is a complex and developing area. If at some point it becomes necessary to correct objectivist theory in light of new discoveries, it will be corrected. But as things currently stand, science and objectivism rather tend to support one another.

Science does not support objectivism. There is no part of objectivism that is based in solid fact and is not subject to conflicting statements of belief or personal opinion. It is also, being a philosophy, firmly un-testable. It is not scientific and Objectivists/Libertarians are rarely scientific, either. Otherwise the right wing would be all on board with trying to stop global warming.

I would just repeat a very important distinction - objectivism is not a claim to omniscience. It does not claim to have absolutely certain knowledge of all facts. There are no complete theories of knowledge - so yes, it is impossible to be a 100% rational actor. That would require omniscience, not objectivity.

Does this not sort of undercut her novel, Atlas Shrugged, wherein the Great Men virtually never do anything poorly/incompletely/incorrectly?

A is A - this is meant as an identity statement, not a truth statement. So you can make identifications which may be subjective or wrong - they are subject to truth analysis. However, you must make the identity before proceeding to test the truth of it.

That seems a little pointless to me - why even start with "a is a?" Few would argue that a is not a, I mean, it's a fundamental mathematical principle.

At any rate, how do you defend Ayn Rand's belief in objectively good art, then? What would constitute testing the truth of something? How do you test the truth of a statement like "man is an end unto himself?"

It doesn't claim to be scientific [it's not a scientific theory in the complex sense], and the degree of objectivity is one of ongoing development rather than a claim to omniscience. "Objectivism" arguably refers as much to a disposition than a scientific claim to an impossible degree of absolute knowledge.

Errmmm 'kay, then this directly conflicts with what you said earlier about Objectivism being supported by science. Either it is, and its tenets are provable and demonstrably true, or it isn't, and it's just another philosophy where the truth of the matter lies in the eye of the beholder.

You see, from a human perspective, reality is largely subjective. To a cripple, the pain of a phantom limb is as real to him as rain is to you or I. To the paranoid, the FBI agents that hound his every step are also very real. We break down these barriers to our insight by agreeing that anything we can prove logically and consistently between many different individuals should be accepted as truth. If there were such a thing as perfect objective perception in man, there would be no need for the scientific method as all that you would perceive would be as it is, and you would know it to be true objectively.

Now you do qualify this a bit by admitting that science can change its laws with the passage of time, and you would be correct; however, this still does not establish a strong link between Objectivism and science (rationalism would be a better way to describe this) and still does not address my original point, which is that science itself shows that perception is not objective: all the forces of psychology, special relativity, and quantum mechanics conspire against it.

This "Objectivity" seems very Orwellian. Isn't any view by definition subjective? Objectiveness should mean the state of things, period. Not the state of things looked at from a specific angle which than is called the objective angle. Such an angle doesn't exist. Objectivity means angle-less.

Pretty much what I am saying. All human knowledge is derived, ultimately, from perception, and is therefore subject to biases. It is fundamentally subjective. Scientific knowledge is as close as humans can get to objective knowledge, and itself is an aggregate of the subjective perceptions of many - albeit carefully considered and subjected to the rigors of scientific enquiry.