Virtue and Morals and Ethics and Ayn Rand

[Alceste]

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.

Au contraire, it is completely verifiable whether or not Ayn Rand's writing is considered to be a "philosophy" outside of right wing American politics.

Trey's objection ("who decides who gets to be a philosopher anyway?") does not address this basic factual question at all.

 

[Alceste]

Philosophy is not science.

So you don't accept the proposition that there should any such thing as an "expert" or a "Doctor" of philosophy, or that anybody should defer to any of their opinions regarding the subject?

I know quite a few burger flippers who will be heart-broken to hear that.

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.

OK, so you are finally willing to accept that she was not an originator of ideas, but a re-packager and a re-brander of ideas. Now we are getting somewhere!

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?

No, like science, philosophy evolves. At least it does when people come up with new ideas, rather than repackaging old ones in a sexier package for mass consumption.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So you don't accept the proposition that there should any such thing as an "expert" or a "Doctor" of philosophy, or that anybody should defer to any of their opinions regarding the subject?

Not at all, I just don't think its a subject that has hard science behind it. I guess its what they call one of the soft sciences. I also know that academia can be very snooty about who it allows into its private clubs. It is a fact that a large number of people believe Objectivism to be a philosophy. The follow it like a philosophy and allow it to guide their lives like a philosophy. A few professors in a university can look down their nose all they want, it doesn't change things for those people.

OK, so you are finally willing to accept that she was not an originator of ideas, but a re-packager and a re-brander of ideas. Now we are getting somewhere!

Always was willing, most everything today is a repackaging. I fail to see why this is such a victory for you. Its like saying novelists today aren't really novelists because they're just presenting stories that someone else has already writen.

No, like science, philosophy evolves. At least it does when people come up with new ideas, rather than repackaging old ones in a sexier package for mass consumption.

So, today's philosophers have to follow different rules than yesterday's philosophers? Well I guess if the US public school can reinvent math every few years you can reinvent philosophy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Au contraire, it is completely verifiable whether or not Ayn Rand's writing is considered to be a "philosophy" outside of right wing American politics.
Trey's objection ("who decides who gets to be a philosopher anyway?") does not address this basic factual question at all.

As if mere opinions about mere opinions deserve such attention & gnashing of teeth.
We all just read whom we like.

 

[Alceste]

Not at all, I just don't think its a subject that has hard science behind it. I guess its what they call one of the soft sciences. I also know that academia can be very snooty about who it allows into its private clubs. It is a fact that a large number of people believe Objectivism to be a philosophy. The follow it like a philosophy and allow it to guide their lives like a philosophy. A few professors in a university can look down their nose all they want, it doesn't change things for those people.

I didn't claim philosophy is a hard science. I said that people who wish to be respected in the academic field of philosophy must demonstrate the ability to critique ideas in much the same way professional scientists are expected to be able to critique research.

As to the question of snooty academics pooh-poohing ideas treasured by millions of laymen, millions of Americans believe creationism is science. That doesn't make it science.

Always was willing, most everything today is a repackaging. I fail to see why this is such a victory for you. Its like saying novelists today aren't really novelists because they're just presenting stories that someone else has already writen.

There is always a special place in the study of literature for interesting or unique work. If you're looking for a slot to stick Ayn Rand, maybe that would be a better one.

So, today's philosophers have to follow different rules than yesterday's philosophers? Well I guess if the US public school can reinvent math every few years you can reinvent philosophy.

Again, you misunderstand. Philosophy, like science, evolves: each new idea builds upon the ideas before it and adds something new. During the process, old ways of thinking (and of thinking about thinking) become obsolete and discredited. While early scientists could get away with sneezing all over the laboratory and leaving the windows open, modern scientists can not. While early philosophers may have been able to get away with failing to address criticism and taking their metaphysical claims to be self-evident, modern philosophers can not.

 

[Alceste]

As if mere opinions about mere opinions deserve such attention & gnashing of teeth.
We all just read whom we like.

It's a factual claim, not an opinion. All you need to do if it is an incorrect factual claim is present counter-evidence and the conversation is over.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a factual claim, not an opinion. All you need to do if it is an incorrect factual claim is present counter-evidence and the conversation is over.

Philosophy is navel gazing with really big words & complicated sentences.
We all get that you loathe Rand, & revel in supporting opinions.
Some like her. Some don't.
Big deal.

 

[Alceste]

Philosophy is navel gazing with really big words & complicated sentences.
We all get that you loathe Rand, & revel in supporting opinions.
Some like her. Some don't.
Big deal.

Changing the subject, are we? What does your personal opinion of the philosophy have to do with whether or not Ayn Rand is considered a "philosopher" by the majority of those who devote their lives to the study of the subject?

We all get that you loathe thinking & revel in attacking anybody who enjoys it.

Some like it. Some don't.

Big Deal.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

We all get that you loathe thinking & revel in attacking anybody who enjoys it.

Are you claiming that we don't think because we disagree with you? I don't remember anyone attacking your views, just asking that you respect ours. It seems as though you are doing the attacking. Just saying...

 

[Revoltingest]

We all get that you loathe thinking & revel in attacking anybody who enjoys it.

That must be it.

 

[beenie]

**Staff Advisory**

Please refrain from making personal attacks and stick to the topic. Keep Rule 1 in mind when posting, please.​

1. Off-topic personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks are strictly prohibited either on the forums or by private messaging, frubal comments, signature lines and visitor messages. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Ayn Rand, I totally dislike her and her philosophy even more. Not only do I disagree with it, but it stresses so much narcissism, or so it seems, even though it does not admit it.

1) She thinks there are 'Absolute Morals' that we have to follow. Hell, I doubt it so much, but I guess it is possible. But when she listed them out, I was thinking, "Who is she to give out the morals? Certainly not God."

First on what she done is flat said out, in different words, that reason isn't the best way to go for ethics and morals, which I don't think is wrong. But then she goes and says what we should and should not do, and gives her reason on it!

2) Thanks to Debater Slater for telling me a quote from her today, "Altruism is the greatest evil." It proves she is selfish completely.

So, have the pages of heated discussion given you what you wanted or not? I'm curious as to what your thoughts on the discussion are.

 

[Alceste]

Are you claiming that we don't think because we disagree with you? I don't remember anyone attacking your views, just asking that you respect ours. It seems as though you are doing the attacking. Just saying...

Jeez. Did you even read the post I was responding to, or are you just cherry picking things to complain about?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Jeez. Did you even read the post I was responding to, or are you just cherry picking things to complain about?

Since I agreed with what he said 100%, I figured your response to him would have been for me too.

 

[Alceste]

Since I agreed with what he said 100%, I figured your response to him would have been for me too.

Sure, if you have the same ailment as Revoltingest I imagine you could benefit equally from a taste of his own medicine.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Sure, if you have the same ailment as Revoltingest I imagine you could benefit equally from a taste of his own medicine.

We do have some similar life experiences though from different perspectives so you could be right.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's interesting how philosophy, religion & economics inspire such venom.
It seems so pointless.
For example, I find no merit in Thomas Aquinas' work, yet I'm not inspired to disparage him personally.
Some are so peeved by Rand that they must seek out or invent personal peccadilloes to disqualify her views.
Why not simply argue against her work?
Philosophy is about values, which are hard to argue against since they aren't absolute.
We have what we have, & reason gets little traction on such slippery ground.

What I like about Rand is the supremacy of the individual relative to the state, with recognition of the rights of other individuals.
Some are threatened by this. I can understand that. No animosity needed.
Was she a less than great author? Meh....ain't none of us perfect.

 

[Alceste]

It's interesting how philosophy, religion & economics inspire such venom.
It seems so pointless.
For example, I find no merit in Thomas Aquinas' work, yet I'm not inspired to disparage him personally.
Some are so peeved by Rand that they must seek out or invent personal peccadilloes to disqualify her views.
Why not simply argue against her work?
Philosophy is about values, which are hard to argue against since they aren't absolute.
We have what we have, & reason gets little traction on such slippery ground.

What I like about Rand is the supremacy of the individual relative to the state, with recognition of the rights of other individuals.
Some are threatened by this. I can understand that. No animosity needed.
Was she a less than great author? Meh....ain't none of us perfect.

Sorry Revoltingest but this is a pretty ridiculous but of evasion and disingenuousness. I have criticized Rand's ideas throughout the thread and given clear and unambiguous reasons why I don't think they warrant serious reflection. (Remember? She resorts to as hominem in place of critique - much like yourself- she takes her a priori assumptions to be self-evident and she brings nothing new to the table? Sound familiar at all?)

You like that it gives you a bit of an ego boost via a vis your personal significance. OK, I get that. In truth, I like that feeling too. We all do - that's just the sort of monkey we are. But, when it comes to the world of ideas and abstractions, I am very particular. Ideas that are poorly constructed and poorly defended turn me off no matter what they are. Likewise, I can appreciate a well-constructed or well defended idea even when I daughter with it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry Revoltingest but this is a pretty ridiculous but of evasion and disingenuousness.

So you say. But after reading your & Sunstone's posts, I suggest not throwing such stones.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I have criticized Rand's ideas throughout the thread and given clear and unambiguous reasons why I don't think they warrant serious reflection. (Remember? She resorts to as hominem in place of critique - much like yourself- she takes her a priori assumptions to be self-evident and she brings nothing new to the table? Sound familiar at all?)

No, these are not critiques of Rands work or ideas, they are examples of why you think she breaks the rules required to be a philosopher. I have yet to hear you say anything about why her views of the Heroic Man or her views on the Self are incorrect. I believe they are BS but I haven't seen any evidence that you've made a study of them.