Ayn Rand's Legacy as a Philosopher

[shunyadragon]

Your words speak volumes about your grasp of philosophy.

Thank you for the compliment, even though it was not intended, Sarcasm noted.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

The problem I have with calling it a "contract"
is that it doesn't fit the definition of one.
Ref....
Elements of a Contract – Contracts
From the link are relevant elements....

• Offer
• Acceptance
• Consideration
• Mutuality of Obligation
• Competency and Capacity

The first 2 elements are entirely lacking.
The 3rd is there, although not well specified.
The 4th & 5th have complexities, but we can set those aside,
since the first 2 problems overwhelm.
With no offer & acceptance, the relationship is presumed
by society regardless of an individual's willingness.

Instead, I propose that it be called something
more accurate (& alas unwieldy), the....
Mandatory Obligations & Benefits In Society = MOBS
(At least it isn't the unfortunate "MOOBS".)
I favor the individual's right (with some limits)
to deem some elements unenforceable.

 

[lukethethird]

People think it doesn't matter. Turns out when people take the words of people who are experts in fields that aren't things like pathology, immunology, biology, and medicine get taken as experts in that field when they say vaccines cause autism. Rand gets credit and attention, people think she's a philosopher, and if she's any sort of philosopher she's a pee-wee t-ball league player. Bill Nye isn't a scientist, Dr. Phil isn't a psychologist, and Rand isn't a philosopher.

With all due respect, t-ball is not played at the pee-wee level, so Rand would be a strictly t-ball league player.

 

[Augustus]

This resembles strongly the unfortunate view of Charles Darwin and science of evolution by many misguided Creationists.

No, it resembles (i.e. is) peer-reviewed critical scholarship published in a secular journal.

That you think it is even remotely resembles creationist attempts to refute the science of evolution is telling.

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.

I don't need to separate anything when I am talking about what people, including Chucky D, believed in the 19th C with recourse to his verbatim words. I note you are unable to actually explain why any of the specific points are incorrect, just repeat platitudes.

The popularisation of Darwinism aided the popularisation of social Darwinism.
Darwin believed ToE had social implications for humans
Darwin held views that clearly could be considered 'Social Darwinist'
From a moral perspective, CD was not an ardent social Darwinist

These are facts whether you acknowledge them or not. They have zero implication regarding the validity of ToE, creationism or whatever agenda you like. It's just history.

Anyway, it's off topic for this thread so I'll stop derailing further.

 

[Augustus]

4) Does Rand have any significant influence beyond America's borders? Is she a world-class philosopher or is she merely a local American philosopher?

I'd never heard of her until maybe 5-10 years ago, and now I see her mentioned quite a lot.

Has she become more prominent in US political discourse in this time or not really?

 

[shunyadragon]

No, it resembles (i.e. is) peer-reviewed critical scholarship published in a secular journal.

That you think it is even remotely resembles creationist attempts to refute the science of evolution is telling.



I don't need to separate anything when I am talking about what people, including Chucky D, believed in the 19th C with recourse to his verbatim words. I note you are unable to actually explain why any of the specific points are incorrect, just repeat platitudes.

The popularisation of Darwinism aided the popularisation of social Darwinism.
Darwin believed ToE had social implications for humans
Darwin held views that clearly could be considered 'Social Darwinist'
From a moral perspective, CD was not an ardent social Darwinist

These are facts whether you acknowledge them or not. They have zero implication regarding the validity of ToE, creationism or whatever agenda you like. It's just history.

Anyway, it's off topic for this thread so I'll stop derailing further.

Then start a thread to support this meaningless nonsense. It is not supported by reputable contemporary scientific literature on evolution.

 

[Augustus]

Then start a thread to support this meaningless nonsense. It is not supported by reputable contemporary scientific literature on evolution.

Me, describing history (not contemporary science): This is what Darwin and others thought in the 19th C
You, missing the point: Nonsense! Contemporary scientific views on evolution have advanced

If your preconceived assumptions are making it difficult to work out why you are missing the point, think of it this way:

Me: Julius caesar fought with a sword as did many of his contemporaries.
You: Nonsense! Modern armies have stealth bombers

If you wish to start a thread making a rational, evidence based argument that Darwin's ideas made absolutely no historical contribution to 19th/20th C attitudes to Social Darwinism, I'll happily provide some counterpoints.

If not, you are discussing a completely different issue to me so there is no point.