Ayn Rand's Legacy as a Philosopher

[Shadow Wolf]

Liu Junning is Chinese.

One of the 2 I saw.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting, because he was Marxist-Left.

Well, he was listed as "influenced".
Perhaps it was away from Rand's views. But he also
had that damn-convention-&-the-establishment
thing going on. More Randist than Marxist, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which, is in line with my claim that outside of America she doesn't really have a following outside of a scant following. Her fame and influence is pretty much regarded and acknowledged as an American thing.

I know.
I didn't intend to counter that claim.
It seems that's the only thing inferred.

I'd think that you wouldn't be 100% against all of Rand's views.
You don't see too inclined to conform to the "social contract"
in all its details, demands, & defects. If you had, you'd have
undergone some therapy to become an unhappy Christian
guy breathing corn fumes all day at the grain silo.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd think that you wouldn't be 100% against all of Rand's views.

I'm not. I'm just 100% against her being considered a philosopher because she did not engage with the field, did not make any sort of contributions to the field, and she didn't come up with anything original.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not. I'm just 100% against her being considered a philosopher because she did not engage with the field, did not make any sort of contributions to the field, and she didn't come up with anything original.

Originality is over-rated.
Philosophers who came up with bone-headed
original thought get no respect from me.
I'm more liberal in allowing philosophers into
the union. Kurt Vonnegut is my favorite
non-philosopher philosopher.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More Randist than Marxist, eh.

Not really. Marx's idea of Communism was basically an anarchist state, and Thompson was opposed to Capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not really. Marx's idea of Communism was basically an anarchist state, and Thompson was opposed to Capitalism.

But by Thompson's lifetime, the reality of Marxism
was oppression, conformance, the opposite of his
lifestyle & workstyle.
But really, I've not clue about how her writing
influenced him,

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But really, I've not clue about how her writing
influenced him,

I don't either. It's interesting.

 

[Valjean]

In Rand's view, any mutually beneficial, voluntary agreement is the basis for good business. Problem is, what might be mutually beneficial for two parties (coal miner and power plant for example) may be detrimental to third parties (environmental pollution.)

Problem is unequal power dynamics. One party may have no viable option but to accept exploitation or starve. This was traditionally addressed by government regulation and labor unions -- which Rand opposed.

 

[Shadow Link]

Can you give specific examples of where you believe the author of that piece was "bending the truth", please?

"In other words, me before you — first and always."

"Evolution clearly shows how altruism trumps selfishness"

The author clearly has an agenda that try's to level down Rand's understanding. She is implying that she knows what Rand is thinking, but a careful and thorough examination shows she doesn't. The real problem lacking here is the authors capacity to see into the future. Evolution is full of trial and error. What really makes altruism trump selfishness is the limited view of selfishness that has a conscienceless mind attached to it. There are a lot of selfless concerned people out there in the world that haven't a clue of the importance of reason. What is so great about the evolution of that.

 

[Augustus]

You realize Darwin was a biologist, right?

You realise humans are biological organisms, right?

Ideas don't exist in a vacuum free of consequences, intended or otherwise, and Darwin's ideas were very much applied to human society.

As quoted, Darwin held views that could be classified as 'social Darwinist' that derived from his scientific beliefs. He was influenced by 'Social Darwinists' like Malthus and Spencer and by using their language in his scientific theories helped (inadvertently or otherwise) spread social Darwinist ideas. His cousin, Francis Galton, who was very much influenced by Darwin, even invented the term eugenics.

It is not a great calumny against Darwin to note the link between Darwin's theories and the increasing popularisation of social Darwinism.

This is why it is better to look at the history of ideas in their social contexts rather than mouthing empty platitudes based on ideological convenience.

 

[LuisDantas]

You realise humans are biological organisms, right?

Ideas don't exist in a vacuum free of consequences, intended or otherwise, and Darwin's ideas were very much applied to human society.

As quoted, Darwin held views that could be classified as 'social Darwinist' that derived from his scientific beliefs. He was influenced by 'Social Darwinists' like Malthus and Spencer and by using their language in his scientific theories helped (inadvertently or otherwise) spread social Darwinist ideas. His cousin, Francis Galton, who was very much influenced by Darwin, even invented the term eugenics.

It is not a great calumny against Darwin to note the link between Darwin's theories and the increasing popularisation of social Darwinism.

This is why it is better to look at the history of ideas in their social contexts rather than mouthing empty platitudes based on ideological convenience.

I am sure that at some point you will realize how misguided these statement of yours are.

 

[Augustus]

I am sure that at some point you will realize how misguided these statement of yours are.

Shame you weren't around to inform Charlie that he was 'misguided' regarding the implications of his own ideas. Sure he would have been thankful for the unreasoned assertion he was so grievously slandering himself.

Strange that many people who criticise those who choose to remain wilfully ignorant by rejecting Darwin's ideas on evolution are so insistent on remaining wilfully ignorant of the influence and application of Darwin's ideas in broader society in the late19th and early 20th C.

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...

 

[Sunstone]

You don't see too inclined to conform to the "social contract"
in all its details, demands, & defects.

So, how well informed do you consider yourself to be on social contract theory and/or Rand's opinion/interpretation of social contract theory?

 

[Sunstone]

...since philosophy does not deal with 'truth.'

Given that it is obvious to nearly any informed person that there are many ways in which philosophy does in fact deal with "truth", what are the ways in which you believe it does not deal with truth?

 

[shunyadragon]

Given that it is obvious to nearly any informed person that there are many ways in which philosophy does in fact deal with "truth", what are the ways in which you believe it does not deal with truth?

Philosophy in history does not even deal with objective verifiable evidence. It deals with the subjective 'thinking' to be applied to our world from the human perspective. Even science dealing with consistent methods and objective verifiable evidence will not make claims of 'truth.' Philosophies may become more objective when applied to the eal world objective verifiable evidence as with Popper's philosophy of science, but even this does not lead to conclusions of 'truth.'


By the way if you are in the management I sent a notice that I believe the religious forums site has malicious virus the comes up sometimes when I use the site.

 

[shunyadragon]

You realise humans are biological organisms, right?

Ideas don't exist in a vacuum free of consequences, intended or otherwise, and Darwin's ideas were very much applied to human society.

As quoted, Darwin held views that could be classified as 'social Darwinist' that derived from his scientific beliefs. He was influenced by 'Social Darwinists' like Malthus and Spencer and by using their language in his scientific theories helped (inadvertently or otherwise) spread social Darwinist ideas. His cousin, Francis Galton, who was very much influenced by Darwin, even invented the term eugenics.

It is not a great calumny against Darwin to note the link between Darwin's theories and the increasing popularisation of social Darwinism.

This is why it is better to look at the history of ideas in their social contexts rather than mouthing empty platitudes based on ideological convenience.

This resembles strongly the unfortunate view of Charles Darwin and science of evolution by many misguided Creationists. You need to separate Darwin's limits of knowledge and mid nineteenth century philosophy with his science of evolution which was beyond any science of his time.

As far as 'Social Darwinism' this is simple an unfortunate misuse of the science of evolution and long ago fortunately discarded by science many years ago. It is only used today by Creationists trying to justify an anti-science agenda against evolution.

I believe you should no better than bringing up this moldy oldy ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, how well informed do you consider yourself to be on social contract theory and/or Rand's opinion/interpretation of social contract theory?

It's been over 40 years since I've read her.
So I claim only remote familiarity on the details.
But I think I have much of the spirit sussed.
How about you?

 

[Sunstone]

Philosophy in history does not even deal with objective verifiable evidence. It deals with the subjective 'thinking' to be applied to our world from the human perspective. Even science dealing with consistent methods and objective verifiable evidence will not make claims of 'truth.' Philosophies may become more objective when applied to the eal world objective verifiable evidence as with Popper's philosophy of science, but even this does not lead to conclusions of 'truth.'

Your words speak volumes about your grasp of philosophy.

 

[Sunstone]

It's been over 40 years since I've read her.
So I claim only remote familiarity on the details.
But I think I have much of the spirit sussed.
How about you?

On Rand's social contract theory, we both need to brush up. I'm vague on the details of her social contract theory.

By the way, social contract theory in general has often enough been used by both sides of the draft issue. When used to oppose the draft, social contract theorists have argued that the elites have broken the contract and thus have no right to levy a draft. Social contract theory is far from being a blanket endorsement of the "establishment" -- to borrow a term from the 60s.

Social contract theory originated over 400 years ago as an attempt to find a reasonable and rational grounds for believing the absolute, despotic power of the era's kings was naturally limited. You will recall that was back in the day when people quoted the Bible and spoke of the "divine right of kings" to rule any which way they saw fit. Social contract theory is basically a way to rationally argue that there are limits to the legitimate rights and powers of rulers and governments. That is why it was almost routinely employed to argue against the daft during the Viet Nam War.

I'm not a social contract theorist, by the way. Much more in line with Rawls.