Virtue and Morals and Ethics and Ayn Rand

[Willamena]

What unreal things? I probably agree with you but I want to make sure we are thinking of the same things.

Rand was a Jewish refugee from the early Communist government of Russia and a lot of her ideas are in direct response to that. Her idea of an Ideal Human was interesting and had a certian merit but unfortunately isn't the natural state of humanity. I see no problem with her followers attempting to become Rand's version of the Heroic Man, the more of them the better. But to expect humanity to naturally become such is delusional.

Any unreal things.

I thought the idea of the Ideal Human was borrowed from Neizsche.

 

[Willamena]

According to what I read (Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy article) she considers existence to be secondary to reality, which is "extramental" (no, Sunstone, not excremental). The existence of entities is described as "belonging to the relation between the mind and extramental reality, and not to the mind alone." This specification alone sets the mind apart from reality.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Any unreal things.

I thought the idea of the Ideal Human was borrowed from Neizsche.

Hasn't that particular concept been borrowed, and borrowed, and borrowed. I thought most, if not all, philosophies dealt with ideals that weren't necessarily real things.

 

[Willamena]

I thought most, if not all, philosophies dealt with ideals that weren't necessarily real things.

Perhaps; but "real things" is one of the main ideas they deal with.

 

[Alceste]

Yes but you have used the excuse that her writings have no merit as the reasoning behind her not being a philosopher. It is obvious that you have a very deep seated emotional reaction to Rand and her work, this makes it hard for me to take your arguements seriously as they appear to be based on your emotional reactions to her work rather than any objective analysis. Appearances might be deceiving but they're still hard to ignore.

Excuse me? Lol. I faithfully repeated exactly the reasons my betrothed, who studied Philosophy in University, gave me for why Rand is not considered a philosopher by experts in the field. And I checked my personal encyclopaedia of philosophers - a book that contains everybody from Pythagoras to Noam Chomsky - and dispassionately reported that Rand is not listed. This, to you, is an "emotional" response?

The fact that I hate her fiction with the fury of a thousand burning suns - on purely literary grounds - is quite separate from the fact that she is not considered a "philosopher" by experts in the field. I am equally certain that many writers whose work I absolutely adore are not considered philosophers by experts in the field. It's also quite separate from the fact that I find "Objectivism" as a world view objectionable. As I said, the endless diatribes where her terribly constructed, one-dimensional characters explain her world view at length, again and again, were completely unreadable. I didn't even know "Objectivism" was an ideology one could find objectionable until years after I had already read and despised Rand's terrible books.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The fact that I hate her fiction with the fury of a thousand burning suns - on purely literary grounds - is quite separate from the fact that she is not considered a "philosopher" by experts in the field.

I understand, but from where I sit, it appears that your emotional responses are coloring your arguements against her being a legitimate philosopher. As I said earlier, appearances may be deceiving but they're hard to ignore.

 

[Alceste]

I understand, but from where I sit, it appears that your emotional responses are coloring your arguements against her being a legitimate philosopher. As I said earlier, appearances may be deceiving but they're hard to ignore.

Trey, she is not a legitimate philosopher. That's a plain, unadorned fact: my perception of her as a legitimate philosopher is colored only by the fact that she isn't one (for the boring reasons I previously described, which you have not addressed).

Maybe one day the field of philosophy will lower the bar and let her into the club despite her shortcomings, but until then it is simply accurate to state that she is not considered a philosopher by the vast majority of professionals in the field. Only in the US does anybody at all take her to be a "philosopher", and even there her acceptance in the field is patchy and controversial at best.

Now, this is simply a factual claim: it is either true or false. Emotions don't enter into it. You are free to provide counter-evidence, for example a university outside the US that teaches Objectivism as an important contribution to the field of philosophy, or an encyclopedia of philosophy published outside the US that contains a summary of her work.

My loathing of her work as a writer of fiction is aesthetic and subjective. It is a separate issue altogether and has no bearing at all on whether or not I accept the fact that she is not considered a philosopher. I find the work Confucious, Machiavelli, Plato and Nietsche objectionable and yet I have no problem acknowledging that they are considered to be "philosophers" by experts in the field.

Claiming that my awareness of a fairly straightforward fact (IOW, Rand is not respected as a philosopher outside the US) is based purely on emotion is lazy. It's a factual claim. Prove it wrong. However well Rand has taught you to shoot the messenger rather than rebut the message, why not give debate a try?

 

[Willamena]

Trey, she is not a legitimate philosopher. That's a plain, unadorned fact: my perception of her as a legitimate philosopher is colored only by the fact that she isn't one (for the boring reasons I previously described, which you have not addressed).

Maybe one day the field of philosophy will lower the bar and let her into the club despite her shortcomings...

If they do, then will she be a "legitimate philosopher"?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Trey, she is not a legitimate philosopher. That's a plain, unadorned fact: my perception of her as a legitimate philosopher is colored only by the fact that she isn't one (for the boring reasons I previously described, which you have not addressed).

So, because Objectivism isn't in a book of philosophies it isn't a philosophy. Because a philosophy student hasn't seen mention of her in a class she isn't a philosopher. I'm sorry but those arguements aren't enough for me. Philosophy and religion can't be regulated by the critics. When a new philosophy or religion arises it is always met with derision from its peers, always. Right now Objectivism is a new philosophy, its in a trial period in which quite a few people are giving it a try. The fact that maintream society rejects it, calls it names and even spits on it, doesn't change what it is. The true test is time. If Objectivism outlives you and me, then its a philosophy.

Sorry but I really don't like it when people tell other people what they can and can't be. Objectivist have a right to their beliefs no matter what a bunch of stuffy college professors claim. I've studied Objectivism and rejected its overall teachings but I will still fight for their right to be who they want to be.

 

[Willamena]

It's not really "new," though. It messed up most of my childhood and young-adult life.

 

[Alceste]

If they do, then will she be a "legitimate philosopher"?

I don't know but I certainly wouldn't be able to claim that she isn't one if that were the case.

 

[Alceste]

So, because Objectivism isn't in a book of philosophies it isn't a philosophy. Because a philosophy student hasn't seen mention of her in a class she isn't a philosopher. I'm sorry but those arguements aren't enough for me. Philosophy and religion can't be regulated by the critics. When a new philosophy or religion arises it is always met with derision from its peers, always. Right now Objectivism is a new philosophy, its in a trial period in which quite a few people are giving it a try. The fact that maintream society rejects it, calls it names and even spits on it, doesn't change what it is. The true test is time. If Objectivism outlives you and me, then its a philosophy.

Sorry but I really don't like it when people tell other people what they can and can't be. Objectivist have a right to their beliefs no matter what a bunch of stuffy college professors claim. I've studied Objectivism and rejected its overall teachings but I will still fight for their right to be who they want to be.

Not true. Bertrand Russell, a contemporary of Rand's, is considered a philosopher in University level philosophy studies outside the US. John Ralston Saul is considered a philosopher and he is still publishing controversial arguments with low public acceptance.

Also, the bold is a terrible misrepresentation of the reasons I gave, from an English Philosophy major, that Rand's ideology is not taught as a philosophy in universities outside the US.

To summarize those again for you:

a) she does not offer a reasoned critique of the work of other philosophers
b) she did not contribute any new ideas to the field of philosophy
c) her ideology has far more in common with a religious ideology than a philosophical argument, as she argues from the position that the underlying metaphysical truths upon which she constructs her world view are self-evident.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

It's not really "new," though. It messed up most of my childhood and young-adult life.

Sure it is. Ayn Rand was born barely more than 100 years ago. 1905 to be exact. Objectivism is less than 100 as the Fountainhead came out in 1943 and that was kind of the birth of the philosophy, although it would be many more years before it had much of a following. As philosophies go, that's pretty new. It's quite possible that it will die out and be barely remembered as a footnote in a chapter of bizzare philosophical wannabees. I just think its a bit to early to know for sure.

Sorry if you got pulled into the Objectivism and it didn't go well. I found it at a very young age as well, in my mid teens, and it was facinating to me. But there were aspects that just never made sense to me and struggle as I might, I never was able to just put those parts aside like others I knew had. To me, Rand was brilliant of mind but without soul.

When I was still flirting with Objectivism I was more of a Nathaniel Branden type instead of a Leonid Peikoff's fundamentalist version. But even Branden's more flexible version is without heart really and still falls flat.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

To summarize those again for you:

a) she does not offer a reasoned critique of the work of other philosophers
b) she did not contribute any new ideas to the field of philosophy
c) her ideology has far more in common with a religious ideology than a philosophical argument, as she argues from the position that the underlying metaphysical truths upon which she constructs her world view are self-evident.

A - why is this a requirement?
B - I disagree.
C - A platypus has things in common with birds and reptiles but its still a mammal.

 

[Alceste]

A - why is this a requirement?
B - I disagree.
C - A platypus has things in common with birds and reptiles but its still a mammal.

A: Demonstrating the ability to effectively write a reasoned critique of ideas is required of a philosopher in much the same way it is necessary for a scientist to be able to effectively critique the research methods of other scientists. An academic can not operate in a vacuum if she expects her work to be accepted by others in the field. Nor can she substitute ad hominem for critique, which is all Rand was ever capable of doing.

B: What did Rand contribute to the world of ideas that somebody else did not come up with first? I asked you this before, but you haven't responded.

C: Your analogy does not address the problem that Rand held the metaphysical truths upon which she constructed her world view to be self-evident and was either unwilling or unable to justify them using reasoned rhetoric.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

A: Demonstrating the ability to effectively write a reasoned critique of ideas is required of a philosopher in much the same way it is necessary for a scientist to be able to effectively critique the research methods of other scientists. An academic can not operate in a vacuum if she expects her work to be accepted by others in the field. Nor can she substitute ad hominem for critique, which is all Rand was ever capable of doing.

Really? And all philosophers have followed this rule? I find that a bit hard to believe. Sounds like academia making up reasons to keep people out of their private club to me.

B: What did Rand contribute to the world of ideas that somebody else did not come up with first? I asked you this before, but you haven't responded.

You really want to get into a full on discussion on what Rands philosophy is? I don't have the time at the moment but I can tell you that a lot of it was in all those pages you skipped in your reading.

C: Your analogy does not address the problem that Rand held the metaphysical truths upon which she constructed her world view to be self-evident and was either unwilling or unable to justify them using reasoned rhetoric.

The biggest problem is that I don't see that as a problem. Rand saw no reason to respond to her hecklers and you say that makes her not a philosopher.

 

[Alceste]

Really? And all philosophers have followed this rule? I find that a bit hard to believe. Sounds like academia making up reasons to keep people out of their private club to me.

Am I correct in thinking you don't believe qualified academics in the field of philosophy bear the responsibility for determining what is or isn't a "philosophy" in much the same way scientists determine what is or isn't "science"?

You really want to get into a full on discussion on what Rands philosophy is? I don't have the time at the moment but I can tell you that a lot of it was in all those pages you skipped in your reading.

You don't need to "delve". Just give me ONE new idea Rand brought to the table. Enlightened selfishness? Adam Smith. That existence exists? Descartes. That reality exists separately from consciousness and can be discovered through deductive reasoning? Aristotle.

The biggest problem is that I don't see that as a problem. Rand saw no reason to respond to her hecklers and you say that makes her not a philosopher.

You misunderstand - a philosopher must show her work. It's nothing to do with responding to "hecklers". When you take your a priori assumptions to be self-evident, you lose.

 

[Revoltingest]

A argument about who is a philosopher & who isn't.....the fighting is so vicious when the stakes are so low.
Tis all speculation & deduction about unverifiable premises.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

A argument about who is a philosopher & who isn't.....the fighting is so vicious when the stakes are so low.
Tis all speculation & deduction about unverifiable premises.

So true, like the old story of the farmer wrestling the pig. I think I'm the pig this time.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Am I correct in thinking you don't believe qualified academics in the field of philosophy bear the responsibility for determining what is or isn't a "philosophy" in much the same way scientists determine what is or isn't "science"?

Philosophy is not science.

You don't need to "delve". Just give me ONE new idea Rand brought to the table. Enlightened selfishness? Adam Smith. That existence exists? Descartes. That reality exists separately from consciousness and can be discovered through deductive reasoning? Aristotle.

The total package is what is new. Picking out small parts and pointing to what influenced them is pointless. Using that thought process there is nothing new. Rand freely admited to being influenced by Aristotle and Nietzsche.

You misunderstand - a philosopher must show her work. It's nothing to do with responding to "hecklers". When you take your a priori assumptions to be self-evident, you lose.

If you say so. I suppose this rule has never been broken by a philosopher? For that matter, all these rules. Every philosopher through out time has adhered your these rules 100% without exception. Are you willing to make that statement?