What is your view of Libertarianism and Ayn Rand?

[Ayn Rand]

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.

I agree, I think it's use is primarily as an "excluding principle" that any arguments of the form A=B will be rejected. As to whether it can be used as an axiom, I think you're right [but I don't know enough about logic - axiom systems can get very complicated and breakdown at a high level in formal logic, humans are far from sorting logic out as a subject].

I think Rand's point was as follows, in order to prevent duplicitious arguments of these forms:


MIND

mind = mind
non-mind = non-mind
A = A

mind = non-mind
A = B [edit: more correctly, A = non-A]

The first two arguments are ok - they are of the form A = A, but Rand really hated arguments of the third form, where it switches without warning to A = B
Same thing with arguments about reality:


REALITY

reality = reality
non-reality = non-reality
A = A


reality = non-reality
A = B [edit: more correctly, A = non-A]

First two arguments are okay - it makes sense to try to argue for reality or non-reality, but as non-reality can't be argued for successfully, people switch to A = B of the third form. These type of arguments should simply be rejected.

So the function of A = A is an excluding mechanism - don't accept arguments that use your mind to tell you that you have no mind, is the basic principle.

 

[Crezth]

I agree, I think it's use is primarily as an "excluding principle" that any arguments of the form A=B will be rejected. <snip>

Sort of flawed on the face of it. It's all how you define them.

For reality and the perceptions thereof:

A = perception of reality
B = reality

A = A
B = B

A =? B (It is unknown if A equals B; it must be proven)

Which is not to say that A cannot equal B, as in the following example:

A = 2
B = x - 1
x = 3

A = A ; B = B ; x = x

x = 3 (Given)
x - 1 = 3 - 1 (Subtraction)
B = 2 (Substitution
A = B (Substitution)

And so on.

Ayn Rand has always seemed to me to have a very tenuous grasp of what a logical, let alone mathematical, proof is (sorry for ending my sentence this way, I will flog myself). At least, that's what I get from her writings.

 

[Ayn Rand]

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.

Now you're talking about viewpoints, which I've not raised.

Perhaps it was when I talked about consciousness and its identifications serving as part of the metaphysical basis of reality?

If that is what threw you, then it is just a fact that all known knowledge comes to us through consciousness, in one form or another. It would be a poor philosophy that pretended otherwise.

Thus, any theory of objectivity [ie in the sense of objective knowledge], whether it is Objectivist or any other, must begin from the initial fact that consciousness is the "place" where identification of knowledge occurs.

I'm pretty sure it's been observed to be the case that our perceptions are, in general, often flawed

Yes, I agree. I took issue only with your statement that they are ALL flawed.

If you want I can dig up the exact study, but assuming that men are capable of perfect perception is assuming a bit much.

No need - I simply assert that SOME of our perceptions are accurate, not all of them.

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.

A philosophy can be tested. If it is my philosophy that the World is flat, this can be tested. Likewise:

"existence exists" - can be tested
"objective knowledge exists" - can be tested
"2+2 = 4" - can be tested

and so on. I reject your claim that philosophy is completely untestable.

A = A ; B = B ; x = x

x = 3 (Given)
x - 1 = 3 - 1 (Subtraction)
B = 2 (Substitution
A = B (Substitution)

And so on.

Ayn Rand has always seemed to me to have a very tenuous grasp of what a logical, let alone mathematical, proof is (sorry for ending my sentence this way, I will flog myself). At least, that's what I get from her writings.

You are just making a confused mis-use of a mathematical convention. As you point out, when A = B in this [mathematical] way they are simply substitute symbols that represent the same thing in different ways. Even in mathematics, if A and B are different values then they cannot be substituted:

A = 4
B = 5
A = B?

Nope

 

[warpus]

I agree, I think it's use is primarily as an "excluding principle" that any arguments of the form A=B will be rejected. As to whether it can be used as an axiom, I think you're right [but I don't know enough about logic - axiom systems can get very complicated and breakdown at a high level in formal logic, humans are far from sorting logic out as a subject].

I think Rand's point was as follows, in order to prevent duplicitious arguments of these forms:


MIND

mind = mind
non-mind = non-mind
A = A

mind = non-mind
A = B

The first two arguments are ok - they are of the form A = A, but Rand really hated arguments of the third form, where it switches without warning to A = B
Same thing with arguments about reality:


REALITY

reality = reality
non-reality = non-reality
A = A


reality = non-reality
A = B

First two arguments are okay - it makes sense to try to argue for reality or non-reality, but as non-reality can't be argued for successfully, people switch to A = B of the third form. These type of arguments should simply be rejected.

So the function of A = A is an excluding mechanism - don't accept arguments that use your mind to tell you that you have no mind, is the basic principle.

I gotta admit, I don't really understand any of this.

As a statement "A=A" should be pretty much useless as far as adding any substance to .. well, anything.

Maybe if you gave some better examples it would become more apparent to me how this statement is used in this case

 

[Crezth]

Yes, I agree. I took issue only with your statement that they are ALL flawed.

I should clarify by saying that an insufficient amount of perceptions are accurate to base an entire philosophy around their being the sole font of objective knowledge.

A philosophy can be tested. If it is my philosophy that the World is flat, this can be tested. Likewise:

"existence exists" - can be tested
"objective knowledge exists" - can be tested
"2+2 = 4" - can be tested

and so on. I reject your claim that philosophy is completely untestable.

Can you prove that existence exists? Just curious how you would do it. It's all about definitions and perceptions. If existence is defined as existing, then yes, it does exist, inasmuch as existing is a defined quality of existence. But you cannot define your entire way to objective truth (for example: my definition of the only moral action for you to do is to give me all your money, so if being moral is doing moral actions and you want to be moral, by my definition, you must give me all your money).

How about proving that objective knowledge exists? You will find this literally impossible to prove for as long as you're human.

2+2=4 is only provable in a mathematical context (which happens to be one of the few contexts that "matter," and rightfully so), and comparing the base language of the universe (math) to the musings of a mid-20th century philosopher as far as "provable" and "objective" goes is sort of hilarious. You can prove 2+2=4, because you're using a mathematical system with laws and rules. The further you stray from math, however, the less tight all of your provable conjectures become.

EDIT: Some philosophies are testable, some are not: you are right on that point.

You are just making a confused mis-use of a mathematical convention. As you point out, when A = B in this [mathematical] way they are simply substitute symbols that represent the same thing in different ways. Even in mathematics, if A and B are different values then they cannot be substituted:

A = 4
B = 5
A = B?

Nope

That's why I said that it's all in how you define the variables, something Ayn Rand failed to grasp. Beyond that, the rest is left to proofs.

In your example, where:

A = Reality
B = Non-Reality

With your proposed equation

A = B (Eq. 1)

being false, all that's left is to prove why Equation 1 is false (via proof). If you go in assuming A is the literal inverse of B, then this is easy. It's not so easy when you're trying to equate more abstract concepts, however, without concrete values and definitions. I mean, A may be 5 and B may be 4, and they are therefore unequal, but the values ascribed to A and B in this way are quantifiable in a way that A = reality and B = non-reality is not.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

2 + 2 = 0 (mod 4)

2 + 2 = 2 (in the ring with 1 element, the trivial ring).

a R a (where R is a binary relation (operator) and a is the operand on both sides) is just a statement of the axiom of symmetry. It's not even sufficient to define an equivalence relation, which isn't even the definition of equality.

If we have

a R a
a R b => b R a
and
a R b, b R c => a R c

then we have defined an equivalence relation, but then <= (less than or equal to) defines an equivalence relation too. An equivalence relation simply partitions a set into disjoint subsets.

EDIT: Much like the way we can define a tuple (a,b) and an operator ~ with the following rules

(a,b) ~ (c,d) => ad = bc

and then we have defined ~ as the equivalence relation for forming a field of fractions (where a, b, c, d are elements of an arbitrary ring).

Are the tuples (2,1) and (4,2) then equivalent under this scheme? Are they different objects, or the same?

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

It's true that Objectivism hasn't had as much time to develop as Marxism has, and has neither the membership or the supporting infrastructure, to so to expect the divergences which the Marxist movement was able to support, especially in the post-war period, would be unreasonable. But even within those terms, there seems a lack of scepticism towards "really existing capitalism" from within the Objectivist movement, and so a lack of inclination to submit it- and therefore Rand's political work- to any real criticism. Capitalism and the free market are presented as the necessary means by which "individual freedom" is realised, and the divergence between reality and ideal regarded as a challenge for Objectivism to overcome, rather than as a challenge to Objectivist political thought itself.
If anything, I'd say that it demonstrates not so much the novelty of Objectivism, but the insulation of Objectivists from the need to formulate concrete programs, and so the need to seriously think about what they're arguing for, which means that, people being people, few ever really do. (And that isn't an attempt to be derisive. This is quite the same problem that the left-beyond-the-CP has faced for the last eighty years, and why the vast majority of what they/we produce is complete garbage.)

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.

I see your point, but I don't think the (real or percieved) limits of feasible political change imply that criticism must be similarly limited. Any effective body of social criticism begins at the very bottom, so that even if it accepts the vast majority of what it finds, it knows why its accepting them, and not simply making assumptions. Even if you find out that you can't get the changes you'd like, and instead settle for what you can get (á la Eurocommunism), you have to show your working, and I don't think that Objectivist can simply resort to more mainstream libertarian arguments in this regard, because they begin with different ethical premises and so aren't measuring socio-economic models by the same metric.

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.

Interesting, thank you.

 

[tonberry]

On libertarianism: The big problem I have with that ideology is that I always beleive that a libertarian society will be alot less free than the one we have now. For example, let say Ron Paul win the presidency and put an end to medicare and medicaid. Now, what happen to the people who were relying on those programs to live a decent life? They probably pay little to no taxes so the drastic taxes cuts that would be implemented would not affect them. When asked this question, Ron Paul say that, in the past, poor people who were sick will be able to ask help from charity organisation. Sorry but that's false. Even if charity would increase if taxes would be abolish (a very debatable affirmation), there would still be alot of people without any access to healthcare and what happen in the past was that these people would die. Now you can hold the view that this is how things are supposed to be. Fine, I don't agree with the view but I refuse the claim that a libertarian society would be a winning scenario to everyone.

On libertarians: This point is a bit more controversial and not based on any scientific toughs. I'm also aware that I should not judge an entire group from my own experience but that said, here it is: every single libertarians I've met, either in real life or on the internet are, at best, jerks. At the very best, a libertarian would label my views as totalitarian statist and suggest that I read Rand or Hayek. If pressed, he will explain, in an increasingly rude way, that since I'm an economic illiterate he can't waste his time educating me.

Remember, this is the best I can come up with. I've yet to talk about all the racists, hateful and downright disturbing comments I've heard by so-called libertarian. I can beleive that there are decent libertarian people in this world but I've yet to met any.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Now you're talking about viewpoints, which I've not raised.

It wasn't directly directed at you. I just felt like throwing that thought of mine out there. Maybe I it's BS or a strawman, I don't actually know this Randian objectivism.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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.

It's not a matter of probability, it's a matter of certainty.
Your brain does not work like a computer, which stores data, with the only issue being potential corruption.
Memory has more to do with imagination then data storage. The process by which you remember an even is very much the same as the process by which you imagine that same event.

This is in addition to the fact that most of what you're perceiving at any given time is actually filled in by your brain based on what it thinks you should be seeing.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Indeed, see the famous experiment where they give people specs which flip everything upside down. You soon get used to that... the problem is when you take the specs away... it's much harder to readjust.

 

[Crezth]

It's not a matter of probability, it's a matter of certainty.
Your brain does not work like a computer, which stores data, with the only issue being potential corruption.
Memory has more to do with imagination then data storage. The process by which you remember an even is very much the same as the process by which you imagine that same event.

This is in addition to the fact that most of what you're perceiving at any given time is actually filled in by your brain based on what it thinks you should be seeing.

OK, thanks! I haven't taken psychology since high school but one of the things I took away from it was never to be self-righteous about remembering something differently than another person because I'm just as likely to be wrong as they are.

Would you agree with my conclusion that all perception is, by its nature, non-Objective?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm in the camp that says all perception is, by it's nature, impossible, illusory and deceptive, so probably.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I gotta admit, I don't really understand any of this.

As a statement "A=A" should be pretty much useless as far as adding any substance to .. well, anything.

Maybe if you gave some better examples it would become more apparent to me how this statement is used in this case

That was my best attempt at explanation. Apologies if I didn't get over the bar with it.

I should clarify by saying that an insufficient amount of perceptions are accurate to base an entire philosophy around their being the sole font of objective knowledge.

Consciousness and its identifications are the source of all the knowledge that we have, objective or non-objective. So whether we like it or not, that's it. It may or may not be sufficient, but there is no known alternative.

If you consider it improper to use this as the sole font of knowledge, please tell me which other font of knowledge exists, other than consciousness.

Can you prove that existence exists? Just curious how you would do it.

Sceptical questions like that can only occur if existence exists. Without existence, we would not be able to question existence. This is the A=A part - it is simply pointless trying to question whether existence exists. It really is self-evident, and the fact that you are here and asking questions about it is proof.

It's all about definitions and perceptions. If existence is defined as existing, then yes, it does exist, inasmuch as existing is a defined quality of existence. But you cannot define your entire way to objective truth

I don't remember saying that I could define my entire way to objective truth, in any sense of the meaning. But also, what do you mean by the statement "you cannot define your entire way to objective truth"? Do you mean to a total knowledge of objective reality? If so, I have already stated that objectivism makes no claim to omniscience.

How about proving that objective knowledge exists? You will find this literally impossible to prove for as long as you're human.

"Existence exists" - there is objective knowledge. It exists. And that kills your claim [which incidentally, looks like a claim to objective knowledge] that "You will find this literally impossible to prove for as long as you're human"

That's why I said that it's all in how you define the variables, something Ayn Rand failed to grasp.

Please stop telling me what Ayn Rand failed to grasp if you haven't read her theories Rand has a theory of definition and of concept formation. Relations between naming conventions or other forms of logical word-games are interesting but irrelevant [to date] to the principle of non-contradiction in its true sense.

In your example, where:

A = Reality
B = Non-Reality

With your proposed equation

A = B (Eq. 1)

being false, all that's left is to prove why Equation 1 is false (via proof). If you go in assuming A is the literal inverse of B, then this is easy. It's not so easy when you're trying to equate more abstract concepts, however, without concrete values and definitions. I mean, A may be 5 and B may be 4, and they are therefore unequal, but the values ascribed to A and B in this way are quantifiable in a way that A = reality and B = non-reality is not.

Because we already stated that "existence exists". So it must exist in some form, which means it cannot simultaneously be that form and not be that form. This applies to all different types of existence, as we move from the general "existence as a whole exists" to the specific "this leaf exists".

We may or may not recognise the leaf and its properties in an accurate way. We may mis-identify them, but we know that things don't "exist and not exist", at the same time.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Because we already stated that "existence exists". So it must exist in some form,

Circular argument. This invalidates the proof.

We may or may not recognise the leaf and its properties in an accurate way. We may mis-identify them, but we know that things don't "exist and not exist", at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

 

[JonBonham]

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.

Thanks for the discussion everyone, and amadeus redralph said you were the most consistent liberterian on the boards so i wondering if you yourself find her works somewhat contributing towards liberterianism, not at all contributing, very contributing, somewhat sensible, not at all or very sensible, (does the laissez-faire with government policing/court/defense make sense along the lines of liberterianism?)

 

[LordRahl]

Civfanatics is the last place you want to be asking about Ayn Rand. You'll find that the vast majority of posters lean heavily towards the left, both socially and economically. I'd recommend http://www.objectivismonline.net/ forums for a more mature discussion, with people that actually read her works, and understand her philosophy.

But if you want to read some funny, uninformed comments - by all means, stick around here - plenty of them in this thread already...

 

[Antilogic]

Civfanatics is the last place you want to be asking about Ayn Rand. You'll find that the vast majority of posters lean heavily towards the left, both socially and economically. I'd recommend http://www.objectivismonline.net/ forums for a more mature discussion, with people that actually read her works, and understand her philosophy.

But if you want to read some funny, uninformed comments - by all means, stick around here - plenty of them in this thread already...

So, to have an "informed" discussion, you should avoid people who disagree with you?

And as we have discussed before, reading her book does not equate to understanding her philosophy.

 

[JollyRoger]

But if you want to read some funny, uninformed comments - by all means, stick around here - plenty of them in this thread already...

I agree that most Rand threads here end up with that - it's the nature of the beast - though many of there is a lot of the funny and uninformed that is not intentional.

 

[Berzerker]

I bought a couple of her books but never read them

as for libertarianism, or my take on it, a just govt operates with the consent of the governed. As one of the governed, my "consent" limits what I can ask the govt to do on my behalf. So on any issue I'll consider if its even my business, if it is I'll generally lean toward less govt intrusion.