Virtue and Morals and Ethics and Ayn Rand

[Willamena]

Stanford has an objective article on Ayn Rand's ideas.
Ayn Rand (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Alceste]

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.

Because of some of the criticisms I listed (she takes her foundational metaphysics to be self-evident and she can does effectively address valid criticism) I don't consider her opinion to be worth studying. Anybody can come up with an opinion. In order for my interest to be piqued it takes a well-constructed, preferably evidence-based, rational argument.

Her opinion - any opinion - can't be "correct" or "incorrect". Factual claims can be correct or incorrect (such as the claim that she is not accepted as a philosopher outside the US). Opinions can only be well-constructed, well-defended and evidence-based. Either that or they can be sloppy, defensive and fanciful. Rand's opinions fall into the latter category. I can't agree or disagree with them any more than I could agree or disagree with the fur colour of a child's invisible friend.

 

[Alceste]

I'll add that, regardless of how she reached them, I find her conclusions impractical and divorced from what evidence tells us about human cognition and psychology. It is not possible for humans to entirely suppress the aesthetic, creative, emotional and often deceptive antics of the human subconscious in order to ensure perception is accurate, every action and ethic is based purely on logic and every endeavour advances only the goal of human survival. If Rand thought she - or anyone - was able to do this, or that the "Perfect" Man should be able to do it, then she was not in her right mind.

 

[Willamena]

she takes her foundational metaphysics to be self-evident...

In what way?

 

[Alceste]

In what way?

Well, this is a criticism of her method of constructing ideas in general, but I can give you a specific example: She holds that there can be no experience or perception that is unrelated to an external reality. She doesn't give any reason, she just says so and proceeds to argue as if that point is self-evident. That sort of thing drives me bonkers, because there are obviously all kinds of things our consciousness gets up to that have nothing to do with the world of the objectively real (Ayn Rand's own massive tomes of pure fiction, for example.) An honest attempt at a philosophical dialogue where some contrary character raises the most obvious objections would really have helped her case here, but instead her fictional avatars address the weakest, most peripheral straw men Rand can think of, often delivered by a goggle-eyed, slack-jawed, unsympathetic character with terrible personal habits. So instead of getting to see how Rand addresses the most obvious, glaring holes in her reasoning, we get to see what Rand thinks of anybody who doesn't agree with her opinion - and it isn't pretty.

 

[Alceste]

Just thought I'd throw this in here for giggles:

 

[Willamena]

Well, this is a criticism of her method of constructing ideas in general, but I can give you a specific example: She holds that there can be no experience or perception that is unrelated to an external reality. She doesn't give any reason, she just says so and proceeds to argue as if that point is self-evident. That sort of thing drives me bonkers, because there are obviously all kinds of things our consciousness gets up to that have nothing to do with the world of the objectively real (Ayn Rand's own massive tomes of pure fiction, for example.) An honest attempt at a philosophical dialogue where some contrary character raises the most obvious objections would really have helped her case here, but instead her fictional avatars address the weakest, most peripheral straw men Rand can think of, often delivered by a goggle-eyed, slack-jawed, unsympathetic character with terrible personal habits. So instead of getting to see how Rand addresses the most obvious, glaring holes in her reasoning, we get to see what Rand thinks of anybody who doesn't agree with her opinion - and it isn't pretty.

But that seems, sufficiently so, to be a take on basic empiricism, though: the idea that we build from birth a "database" through interaction with sensory things, and then proceed to "compose" more things from that database (those things that "have nothing to do with the world of the objectively real"). Unicorn = Horse + Horn

So she reveals at least some of her ideas to be grounded in empiricism. (Perhaps that is what is "self-evident". )

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I don't consider her opinion to be worth studying.

So in other words you really don't have a clue what her ideas were and can't actually discuss them in any great detail. You mentioned several times that the few books you attempted to read you only skimmed, skipping large chunks. Nor does it appear that you have read any information about her ideas either. And yet you want us to accept your opinion that her work is bogus and unworthy of being called a philosophy. Wow.

 

[Sunstone]

Just thought I'd throw this in here for giggles:

I don't recall that Rand ever thought about common workers as enabling her heroes to accomplish what they accomplished. I think she had some kind of vague notion that her heroes did it all on their own, without significant inputs from anyone else --- much less those she called leeches. Am I wrong about that? And if so, where in Rand is the evidence I'm wrong about that?

 

[Sunstone]

So in other words you really don't have a clue what her ideas were and can't actually discuss them in any great detail. You mentioned several times that the few books you attempted to read you only skimmed, skipping large chunks. Nor does it appear that you have read any information about her ideas either. And yet you want us to accept your opinion that her work is bogus and unworthy of being called a philosophy. Wow.

Unlike you, Trey, Alceste has defended her views in detail with references to notions of Rand's that you have not challenged. So where do you get off stating in a general, breezy way that she doesn't know what's she's talking about? Give evidence or get out of the ball game, dude. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Alceste]

Unlike you, Trey, Alceste has defended her views in detail with references to notions of Rand's that you have not challenged. So where do you get off stating in a general, breezy way that she doesn't know what's she's talking about? Give evidence or get out of the ball game, dude. You're embarrassing yourself.

Aww, shucks, Sunstone. :flirt: Thanks. It's so much more dignified not to have to point this out for myself.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Unlike you, Trey, Alceste has defended her views in detail with references to notions of Rand's that you have not challenged. So where do you get off stating in a general, breezy way that she doesn't know what's she's talking about? Give evidence or get out of the ball game, dude. You're embarrassing yourself.

Well, since she stated that she hasn't study Rands work I kind of thought that was enough evidence. Would you prefer a signed confession?

 

[Alceste]

But that seems, sufficiently so, to be a take on basic empiricism, though: the idea that we build from birth a "database" through interaction with sensory things, and then proceed to "compose" more things from that database (those things that "have nothing to do with the world of the objectively real"). Unicorn = Horse + Horn

So she reveals at least some of her ideas to be grounded in empiricism. (Perhaps that is what is "self-evident". )

I have one decisive example of a nearly universal misapprehension with no basis in reality for you: God. Nobody can agree on any of the characteristics of their god or gods, and yet the vast majority of humans are utterly convinced such a supernatural being exists despite its total lack of relationship with any aspect of reality that is available to our perceptions.

You can't argue that God is based on the real world experience of "human-ness" because not only do many believers hold it to be the other way around, many don't believe god is at all anthropomorphic. In fact, most believers will eventually acknowledge that any effort to tidily encapsulate the concept of God in a human language or image is necessarily a fundamental failure to understand the greatness of God.

This is an obvious, glaring weakness in her position. Does Rand address it? Where, and how?

 

[Revoltingest]

Gorilla Monsoon calls the action in WWRF tag team wrestling
Sunstone body slams Trey of Diamonds, spilling his gems!
And now he tags in Alceste The Destroyer to finish him off (without reading the script)!
Raging Rand jumps off a ladder to elbow Alceste!
But wait, Dick the Bruiser & Spinoza The Spanker charge in......
See the rest of this match on Pay Per View tonite!

 

[Sunstone]

Well, since she stated that she hasn't study Rands work I kind of thought that was enough evidence. Would you prefer a signed confession?

I would prefer you get off your butt and demonstrate how anything she's said about Rand is wrong. Just saying she doesn't know what she's talking about -- who taught you that sort of BS was an excuse for doing your homework?

You like to throw out accusations, but you don't like to support them. Nice. It's called smear work.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I would prefer you get off your butt and demonstrate how anything she's said about Rand is wrong. Just saying she doesn't know what she's talking about -- who taught you that sort of BS was an excuse for doing your homework?

You like to throw out accusations, but you don't like to support them. Nice. It's called smear work.

What has she said about Rand other than she hates her work? Everything else has been about how Rand doesn't meet the criteria of philosophy of which we have argued till both of us were blue in the face. So how can I demonstrate that her views of Rands philosophy are incorrect when she hasn't presented any view? At this point, we only know that the two of us disagree on what makes something a philosophy. When asked to present a view of objectivism her response was she doesn't have to study objectivism to know it isn't a philosophy and she tried to read her books but had to skip large portions of it because she didn't like it. How am I supposed to counter an arguement like that?

 

[Alceste]

Well, since she stated that she hasn't study Rands work I kind of thought that was enough evidence. Would you prefer a signed confession?

Actually, I stated that I read both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I read enough of her dialogue to recognize that slogging through 20 pages of it at a stretch would be no more enlightening than simply reading the first paragraph or two and skimming the rest: in those scenes, she lays her cards on the table right from the get-go, then spends the rest of the scene repeating herself. I spotted the most obvious flaws in her reasoning and skimmed through the rest of the drudgery to see if they would be addressed, and they weren't. On top of that, she doesn't present anything in these tedious scenes that isn't already made crystal clear through the behavior and motivation of her characters, as expressed by the story itself and their relationships and attitudes toward one another and the world in general. IOW, the reader learns nothing new about her characters or their world view by enduring these unreadable scenes. From a narrative perspective, they're a total waste of the reader's time.

Can you explain to me why anyone would need to diligently read Ayn Rand repeating her claims over and over again for 20 boring pages at a stretch in order to have a good grasp of her argument? Why do you feel somebody can't get the gist of it after only reading it once?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I read enough of her dialogue to recognize that slogging through 20 pages of it at a stretch would be no more enlightening than simply reading the first paragraph or two and skimming the rest:

Can you explain to me why anyone would need to diligently read Ayn Rand repeating her claims over and over again for 20 boring pages at a stretch in order to have a good grasp of her argument? Why do you feel somebody can't get the gist of it after only reading it once?

This just amazes me. Its like asking why a student should have to read everything in the text book rather than just the first paragraph of each chapter. Sure, maybe you can gleam enough info to pass the test but do you really know the subject? Is there a difference in making a A on the test and a C?

 

[Alceste]

What has she said about Rand other than she hates her work? Everything else has been about how Rand doesn't meet the criteria of philosophy of which we have argued till both of us were blue in the face. So how can I demonstrate that her views of Rands philosophy are incorrect when she hasn't presented any view? At this point, we only know that the two of us disagree on what makes something a philosophy. When asked to present a view of objectivism her response was she doesn't have to study objectivism to know it isn't a philosophy and she tried to read her books but had to skip large portions of it because she didn't like it. How am I supposed to counter an arguement like that?

Oh for heaven's sake.

1) She didn't come up with any new ideas - her world view is a rehashing / rebranding of other philosophers' work.

2) Her criticism is very weak and relies on demonization of people with competing ideas as opposed to reasoned critique of the ideas themselves.

3) Objectivism shares more in common with religion than it does with philosophy, in that Rand and her followers believed themselves to be on the One True Path. Loyalty to the cause and proselytizing the message is more important than contemplation, critique or debate.

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.

Her opinion - any opinion - can't be "correct" or "incorrect". Factual claims can be correct or incorrect (such as the claim that she is not accepted as a philosopher outside the US). Opinions can only be well-constructed, well-defended and evidence-based. Either that or they can be sloppy, defensive and fanciful. Rand's opinions fall into the latter category. I can't agree or disagree with them any more than I could agree or disagree with the fur colour of a child's invisible friend.

I'll add that, regardless of how she reached them, I find her conclusions impractical and divorced from what evidence tells us about human cognition and psychology. It is not possible for humans to entirely suppress the aesthetic, creative, emotional and often deceptive antics of the human subconscious in order to ensure perception is accurate, every action and ethic is based purely on logic and every endeavour advances only the goal of human survival. If Rand thought she - or anyone - was able to do this, or that the "Perfect" Man should be able to do it, then she was not in her right mind.

Well, this is a criticism of her method of constructing ideas in general, but I can give you a specific example: She holds that there can be no experience or perception that is unrelated to an external reality. She doesn't give any reason, she just says so and proceeds to argue as if that point is self-evident. That sort of thing drives me bonkers, because there are obviously all kinds of things our consciousness gets up to that have nothing to do with the world of the objectively real (Ayn Rand's own massive tomes of pure fiction, for example.) An honest attempt at a philosophical dialogue where some contrary character raises the most obvious objections would really have helped her case here, but instead her fictional avatars address the weakest, most peripheral straw men Rand can think of, often delivered by a goggle-eyed, slack-jawed, unsympathetic character with terrible personal habits. So instead of getting to see how Rand addresses the most obvious, glaring holes in her reasoning, we get to see what Rand thinks of anybody who doesn't agree with her opinion - and it isn't pretty.

I have one decisive example of a nearly universal misapprehension with no basis in reality for you: God. Nobody can agree on any of the characteristics of their god or gods, and yet the vast majority of humans are utterly convinced such a supernatural being exists despite its total lack of relationship with any aspect of reality that is available to our perceptions.

You can't argue that God is based on the real world experience of "human-ness" because not only do many believers hold it to be the other way around, many don't believe god is at all anthropomorphic. In fact, most believers will eventually acknowledge that any effort to tidily encapsulate the concept of God in a human language or image is necessarily a fundamental failure to understand the greatness of God.

This is an obvious, glaring weakness in her position. Does Rand address it? Where, and how?

Perhaps if you stop taking my criticism of Ayn Rand so personally you'll have a clearer perception and better recall of what I am actually writing.

 

[Revoltingest]

This just amazes me. Its like asking why a student should have to read everything in the text book rather than just the first paragraph of each chapter. Sure, maybe you can gleam enough info to pass the test but do you really know the subject? Is there a difference in making a A on the test and a C?

To be fair, I think I grok Rand's work well enuf to not every word of it. (I vaguely recall her last book I tried to read was just too tedious to finish.)
It's just odd to fulminate about it with pretense of authority. But then I'm odd too....I absolutely hate every Adam Sandler movie I've never seen.