PBS: Blank on Blank

Thank you Mongrel! Very cool! I would love to see/hear an interview of Bertrand Russell, Gilles Deleuze, or even Alfred Whitehead (to name but a small few!)

Me too. I'd like to get Russell, Whitehead, and Carnap together and put a few questions to them. Maybe put Quine in there too.

Aristotle. Now I know why Rand was so screwed up.

Aristotle and Rand were both realists. Would Rand's views be undermined by a rejection of metaphysics? Maybe a little. It would take the claws out of the Darwinian aspects of it.

Yeah well, "haunting" is the operative word for the old hag.

Reply to Mongrel What Darwinian aspects? Her ethics is based on teleological biology from Aristotle. Paraphrased, the main rule in her ethics is that every function of a living organism should be its own survival.

Reply to Benkei
Yes and no. Rand didn't think the form of an organism brings its material organization into existence as Aristotle did. Her ethics starts with recognizing that a living thing either exists or it doesn't. If it does exist, it's because it is acting to maintain its life. Morality is something peculiar to organisms that can perceive their own existence and reflect on pleasure, pain, and choices.

So in a vague way you're right. She's saying that a human has the potential to discover through reason the basis for all values, a basis which exists for all creatures including plants.

As presented here, I think her assertions are entirely unremarkable, and even trite. I'm not sure what old Mike thought was so revolutionary about her responses. She was on her best behavior in this interview.

I don't understand why she's thought of as malignant, but I haven't studied her views in depth. In some ways, her views are in keeping with liberalism. Chomsky and Robert Reich point out that it's a mark of success for rightism that people accept that some people are going to be poor and struggling, so they don't have an appropriate reaction to it and fight against a system that diminishes the middle class and enhances the power of the wealthy. It's along the lines of sanctioning the victim.

Anyway... if you think Rand is a hag, there are other good Blank on Blank interviews. The one with Ray Bradbury is cool.

Reply to Mongrel Well, she was a rather nasty piece of work as a person; intolerant, humorless, wildly egotistical. She was a kind of cult leader, and even old friends who came to disagree with her were banished. It's possible she did herself no favors by being prone to exaggeration, perhaps for publicity. She was an operatic character. Her worshipful followers today are generally pricks, and no doubt this impacts her reputation. Her exceedingly silly, hectoring books of fiction are an embarrassment if read after adolescence. As a thinker, she was derivative at best. Jon Oliver's show did an amusing little bit about her in one of it's "Why is this still a thing?" segments.

I think what you're saying is that she didn't have an appealing personality, she had nothing original or even interesting to say, and her books were shit. The notion that there's any more to it is a myth created by deluded people.

Still... the phrase "sanction the victim" caught my attention. For me, exposure to Rand illuminated some features of Nietzsche for me.

It would be cool to dispense with the personalities associated with the ideas and explore the ideas themselves... which I have done on my lonesome, drawing in personal experiences and my ever evolving thoughts about the world. I would actually be pretty eager to discuss that kind of thing with you in particular. Maybe another thread? Maybe not?

Reply to Mongrel I'm game for most anything, but I think you'll find that any thread relating to Ayn Rand will be spurned by most members of the forum.

Reply to Ciceronianus the White
So again, I said I wanted to discuss the ideas... not philosophers associated with them. I think you're suggesting that this isn't possible.

Reply to Mongrel Ah. I misunderstood. It's possible, certainly.

Oh cool. I'll call it "Crimes and Misdemeanors"

I discovered that series a few months ago. My favorites are:

Kurt Vonnegut on Man-Eating Lampreys
Robert Ebert on Ego
Ray Bradbury on Madmen
John Lennon and Yoko Ono on Love

Ayn Rand may be the only "philosopher". I'm not so negative on her once I realized that she is the archetypal "fool" -- meaning she takes an idea to such an absurd extreme to ridicule it and illustrate the tragedy of taking conservative values seriously. She may have been the Stephen Colbert of her generation, (in his mock conservative role -- which many conservatives took really seriously too).

Good god, the older I get the more I hate John Lennon and Yoko Ono.

Reply to discoii Everybody dreads Yoko. John... yea... he's dead.

Reply to swstephe Somebody made a little documentary about Roger Ebert. He was a really cool guy.