Is Ayn Rand a Philosopher?
Is Ayn Rand a Philosopher? I searched and didnt see an equivalent post so I thought I'd ask. IMO She doesnt seem to understand anything about the subject . I find this odd because in the 60's her followers believed that she was the greatest philosopher whoever lived and the only question was whether her boyfriend Nathaniel Branden or Aristotle was number 2.
Comments (90)
Was Ayn Rand a philosopher? If she was, she was a terrible one, and the work she produced was no more unique or profound than what can be found on a typical internet forum.
The only mitigating circumstance I can think is that was a reaction to the communist terror.
The irony is, is that Ayn Rand actually personally benefited from Bolshevik rule. She attended University for free (and as a Jewish woman she wouldn't have been able to attend at all). She was also able to attend subsidized Russian operettas, which influenced her play-writing and appreciation for theater.
That's my impression too. The only positive thing I can say about her is that she wasn't a bad stylist. She could actually write decent sounding sentences, which probably more explains the success of some of her novels (at least) than their "philosophical" substance.
Undergrads who are really into Rand are interesting, because once they get it into their head that her exclusion from respectable discussion is a mix of left-wing conspiracy and petty academic stupidity there's little anyone can do to explain convincingly why that's not the case.
At least from an institutional perspective, I think that Rand's philosophy is largely ignored for the same reason that L. Ron Hubbard's philosophy is ignored: both wrote a bunch of novels and expressed a bunch of philosophical musings, both did so in a way that convinced a few folks that they're super geniuses with the keys to life answers, but ultimately there's nothing valuable, profound, or interesting to it -- and how the hell do you explain to all the various cult members why they don't earn more respect?
For example Stephen Hawking was kept alive by the NHS in Britain. In America someone said this and this absolute lie went around.
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
In reality social services and wealth creating infrastructure, paid for by taxes have given opportunities to a lot of talented and productive people including universal education and access to health care. It is the most wealthy countries that have highest levels of social care.
It is easy to win the battle of survival of the fittest and just go round and kill your competition. The reason we don't all just fight to the death is because cooperation is better for ourselves.
People love to hate Ms. Rand, poor thing.
Quoting Baden
Right. Well, so can I. So why am I not more famous? My lack of fame, compared to Miss Rand's, leaves me peckish; even peevish.
It's true that her understanding of philosophy and the history of philosophy isn't what's standard these days, but again, that's down to the context of her education - IOW, her understanding of philosophy and its history is what was current at the turn of the century in pre-revolutionary Russia. (e.g. consider that one of her tutors was a minor Russian Idealist philosopher.) One might say, in a trope, that her understanding of philosophy is frozen in amber, from a past time and another culture, and that's why it looks a bit strange to people who have been weaned on either the post-Frege/Russell analytic tradition or the post-Lukacs continental tradition.
The problem with most criticisms of Rand (apart from the ad homs and strawmen, which are obviously irrelevant) is that they miss the point that she has the classical understanding of identity, and most of her philosophy is built on that foundation. For example, criticisms of her ethics on the basis of the standard analytic is/ought distinction (such as Nozick's), completely miss the point that she really does take seriously the Aristotelian view that things have specific natures, which bypasses the Humean problematic entirely.
I do quibble with her stance on Kant somewhat - but again, she's reacting to one particular standard late 19th century view of Kant that she was taught, which is that Kant was a species of idealist.
In sum, once one understands her context and limitations better, one tends to cut her some slack, and within those limitations, she's actually quite an interesting philosopher. But of course many people will be unwilling to cut her that slack, for the obvious reason that she was vehemently anti-Communist and pro-Capitalist.
Obviously it isn't so easy to win the battle of survival of the fittest. The competition, after all, is as capable of coming round to kill their competition (i.e., us) as we are them. We cooperate because we are less likely to be stabbed in the back, just when we are busy thinking about something else.
Cooperation is better, and competition needs to be kept to the useful minimum (which still leaves room for sorting out the best without killing off the rest).
Competition stifles innovation. Collaboration strengthens contemplation.
It sounds pretty, but if someone could break down that first sentence a little bit I would be grateful. It feels like it is not completely correct.
The risk is when two collaborate, and one takes the credit. This happens very often as well and is the story of many wealth giants.
Quoting Lif3r
You will need to explain how competition stifles innovation. My theory is that when a research group knows that others are seeking the same goal, they work harder so that they can claim the prize of success first. Collaboration is just as critical as competition.
I'm not sure that it follows logically that collaboration strengthens contemplation. The two terms seem to belong to different spheres. (In a monastery, collaboration might very well strengthen contemplation, but that would be a rather out-of-the-way example.)
It's one of the great mysteries of life, which even I have never managed to work out. :chin: We all have our limits...
"Competition stifles innovation"
Competing with someone to the degree that one is willing to hide information that has been gathered from another person who is also working towards the same goal limits the amount of information that each person is capable of evaluating, and thus limits their ability to produce their desired results.
"Collaboration strengthens contemplation."
Collaborating with another person with transparency of the information being processed by two minds yeilds more information available for the two minds to evaluate, and thus strengthens their ability to produce their desired result.
In other words, "Two minds are better than one."
Yes 2 minds are better than one. Unless it's me, then the other mind is redundant. (joke)
:brow:
Even were we to grant this rather dubious claim, is this not true of hundreds if not thousands of Assistant Professors around the world? Not to mention people like my Harvard/Oxford educated friend who can't even find a job in this market. And these people don't even generate enough interest for anyone to so much as bother to discount them as thinkers. Her being discounted is itself a sort of achievement that seems to fit with her level of qualification and accomplishments.
Quoting gurugeorge
Well, this is the reason why there are so many hyper-educated, very brilliant philosophers who virtually nobody bothers with any more, like Roy Wood Sellars or Leonard Linsky. But even then you're certainly inflating her qualifications and accomplishments within her own era.
Quoting gurugeorge
Sure, or perhaps their interests and ways of looking at things won out because they were a million times more interesting and intellectually sophisticated and are still worth engaging with. Hence, few still bother with Rand, just as few bother with Roy Wood or Linsky. As is the case with a lot of decent but ultimately unremarkable thinkers. Isn't this how every discipline works?
Quoting gurugeorge
There are plenty of brilliant Aristotelian female philosophers of the same era who continue to attract enormous attention, such as Anscombe and Arendt.
Quoting gurugeorge
Are you sure? I have no doubt that you are sincere in finding her semi-interesting when you simply discount all her flaws and contextualize her as a heavily limited thinker of her era. But then, for the rest of us, why bother with her over the thousands of similar people for to whom we might extend the same courtesy?
Moreover, given the prevalence of anti-Communists and pro-Capitalists throughout the canon -- including literal Nazis -- doesn't it make a lot more sense to conclude that people are genuine in their belief that she is simply not a particularly remarkable thinker?
The problem with defending her through a mix of "people are ignorant of context" and "people don't like her nasty views" is that the same reasons for dismissal would seemingly apply to any of the myriad example of people who are taken very, very seriously in intellectual circles.
Well one obvious reason would be because she was a tremendously influential novelist as well. I mean, I like Anscombe as much as the next guy, but she didn't write best-selling philosophical novels that kick-started a sizeable political movement that still exist to this day.
So, it might be interesting to, you know, try and figure out why, what her message was, etc.- not just if you find her political position broadly congenial, but especially if you're against it.
Another reason she's interesting is because very few philosophers in recent times have tried their hand at a complete, systematic "big picture" philosophy with many levels, from synoptic overview to ethical, even aesthetic advice for everyday life. One might say that's because it's been demonstrated to be a fruitless or hubristic endeavour, but really it hasn't; the twee tone of faux humility that's characterized much of academic philosophy in the 20th century, especially in the analytic tradition, has really just been more of a fashion statement and "house style." It's how you write to get published and be clubbable among other academic philosophers. It's actually refreshing to read someone who isn't constrained in that way and is unafraid to have a go at trying to understand how "things, in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term."
Here, I just don't see a good philosophical reason, though you're right that there is perhaps a good sociological reason. The problem with this 'sociological' reason, however, is that few want to spend the amount of time and energy it takes to master and respond to a thinker if they feel that time is not well spent -- who wishes to spend a year researching and writing an article (let alone a dissertation) on Rand instead of other folks who articulate their vision in a more cogent and rigorous way? Ultimately, her thought is not of high enough value to justify the personal expenditure for most individuals and so there's only a limited market for her intellectual services.
Well that's why I referenced him - like, come on guys, get off your arses, it's not totally alien to your own tradition. So what if you get it wrong and other philosophers laugh and point? Try.
Quoting John Doe
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Sure, we can respectfully disagree. I'm still not sure how any of this relates to Rand and the entirely empirical matter of how utterly uninteresting her attempts at philosophizing seem to be to the majority of educated people who nonetheless flock to the grand political visions of Marx, Nietzsche, Arendt, Delueze, Foucault, etc. etc., or how Rand stands as some sort of testament to the failings of analytic philosophy over-against any of those far more worthwhile figures, but I promise to leave off obnoxiously prodding your position.
Maybe it a just me - but given you mentioned it I assume this is a fairly common view - but it seems clear that philosophers in general do think such an effort is fruitless (I'll ignore the hubris point, aside from saying that Rand was very directly hubristic in some of her comments about her own work).
The 20th century was rather a disaster for these big picture projects. Not only is it borderline impossible to have the breadth and depth of knowledge to adequately do such a thing, there are inherent issues with even trying. Like take a relatively simple example. So there was a fun idea at one point that logic was a metaphysically neutral discipline. The idea was that whatever we may disagree about philosophically or whatever, logic is the mediator no party involved can decry (when used validly).
But this is just an obviously false idea, especially once alternate logics started getting real development (starting with Intuintionistic Logic Heyting made based on Brouwer's intuitionism about math). Different logics make different metaphysical assumptions; intuitionistic logic is anti-realist (it was juxtaposed against math platonism for a reason).
We could even get into the Relativistic and Quantum mechanical stuff, where we couldn't even baldly assume Euclidean Geometry mapped onto the world and where issues of identity crop up (not to mention the interpretation issue). But that's not necessary, it's a fairly continuous widening that happened across many branches of philosophy. Starting from axioms and working out from there doesn't end up being particularly insightful because even that starting place has difficult issues. And that difficult bubbles outward to everything else.
Just look at the situation in ethics. Even among professionals, it's a nearly three way tie between deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics (though that latter one is a little less popular). If even that is so contentious, why would I want her read an attempt at a systematic regimentation which will necessarily leave out important bits of every discipline? As a discipline of learning increases in complexity (and thus the need of more and more specializiation) this sort of thing pretty much has to go. This is probably the source of stigma of philosophy not making progress. It continuously drills down, making issues clearer while creating ever more positions people can hold on every issue.
That's just one issue with Rand at the level of her approach. The actual quality (or lack thereof) is another matter (doesn't interest me, and from the general panning of her work in academia, it seems common a response).
Generally a good guide, but not always.
(Also, I'd be careful about that sort of appeal to authority - libertarians have the highest IQ of all the political persuasions ;) )
Sure there are alternative logics, but the question of interest is which form of logic does the world happen to behave in accordance with? At the level of the middle-sized furniture of the world, at least, it seems to be good old-fashioned binary logic.
Quoting MindForged
And that's something philosophers can do, but the question is whether it's worth doing - or whether philosophers doing that has been simply an artifact of the academic system.
Thinking about the big picture is also something philosophers can do - and in fact, in the eyes of most ordinary folks, they're paying a portion of their taxes in the hope that philosophers will do that dirty job that they don't have time to do, because they're so busy living ordinary lives. That philosopher are failing to take up their proper obligation and public responsibility, is part of Rand's complaint about philosophy as practiced.
A good guide when discussing someone's intellectual status.
Quoting gurugeorge
I'd be careful defending any political position that fails to adequately account for the views expressed by a large community of intelligent and hard working individuals from across the political spectrum. I'd also advise against equating IQ with any sort of insight or wisdom regarding politics.
Well if you put it that way, then Rand isn't "ignored," but a modestly popular taste on the Right. (Lots of books sold, remember?)
And if you want to use "intelligence," as a criterion, what better measure of general intelligence do we have than IQ tests?
Sure, I guess. She has one philosophical work that cracks 500 citations and a philosophically-themed novel.
Quoting gurugeorge
I don't want to use it as a criterion. That's why I did not mention it except in response to your quote. I am simply responding to the question "Is Ayn Rand a philosopher?" with "How do the many hard-working and smart people who comprise the community of people who evaluate and discuss philosophy treat her work?" And I take it the clear answer is that the majority of this community does not hold her work in very high esteem.
Presumably the way the world "behaves" matters at all levels and in all disciplines as opposed to just being restricted to the everyday world. I mean, I assume this sight has SQL as it's database language and that uses a non-classical logic. Or take quantum mechanics, where quantum logic might be needed (seems like an open question, unclear to me). Or where we surely need logic, mathematics, where constructive mathematics (e.g. intuitionistic logic) is very well liked (it's computationally useful too). That's to say nothing of issues in semantics and ontology.
But really, my point there wasn't about logic specifically. Just that even at nearly the most fundamental level, the approach you mentioned isn't viable in some terminating way. We just know too much about the possible ways to articulate these different views that making the assumption that it's impossible to do otherwise that some specific base assumptions isn't true.
Quoting gurugeorge
Well if we want to do things that will make us informed on those issues the yes, it's worth it. I've mentioned some examples as to why it needs to be done this way (specialization basically, just as in other fields). It's not simply an artifact of academia, trying a systematic approach just isn't going to yield new developments in specific areas. At best you'll get an attempt at unifying other people's work. Which... is fine but everyone can't be doing that otherwise the entire discipline stagnates.
I doubt the average taxpayer actually cares about what exactly philosophers are doing. We accept the government funds things we might not specifically want or care about. I mean, I've never cared about the issue on that level at least.
Sure, that's always been obvious. But there are many possible reasons for that other than "She's a moron and her philosophy is shit."
But how the ordinary world behaves is of concern to the vast majority of people in their everyday lives, and part of philosophy's job is (or Rand and I would say ought to be) to give ordinary people in their everyday lives some sense of the big picture - otherwise, in lieu of a rational big picture, they'll accept an irrational big picture, or flounder around in a state of permanent anxiety.
Quoting MindForged
I don't say every philosopher should work on big picture stuff, or that philosophers should stop specializing. Surely it's possible for philosophers to walk and chew gum. All I'm saying is that the discipline is skewed too much to specialization, has been for a hundred years or so, and that it's just an artifact of an academic system that brings with it politics, turf wars, status seeking, etc.
There has to be specialization, but as people like Dennett demonstrate, the most interesting things often go in in interdisciplinary studies. (And that's another thing philosophers can do as part of their big picture job - help specialists co-ordinate and work together.)
Egg on my face for holding that position you randomly made up. :rofl:
Anyway, glad we agree it's "obvious" Rand is not a philosopher in any practical sense of the word. The second-order concern -- "should this be the case?" -- is surely up to everyone to judge for herself.
Number of points here. In the first point, if that's the role of logic, well, I don't see what binary logics will be doing here. People don't inherently think everything is either true or false. They're apt to treat some things more fuzzily.
On the second point, I'm afraid I just don't see it. Ordinary people in their ordinary lives don't care about the big picture that philosophers paint. Outside of what they get from religious activities and social networking, ontology, logic and the rest are mostly regarded as boring and unnecessary by most people. And those have been staple of philosophy for forever.
And as it happens, even coherent big pictures can leave one anxious. Most people, even the non-anxious ones, probably have an inconsistent big picture and they get along fairly well despite it. We just don't hardly ever need to think about that wide range of things at once in ordinary life.
Quoting gurugeorge
That's true of basically every field though. I'm not going to hit up any random physicist for, say, particle physics questions. This seems like an issue with it any real resolution. If we want to curb specializiation we will have to stop drilling down on the very debates that drive the numerous parts of philosophy. And that seems unlikely to produce novel developments in those areas. Interdisciplinary work is all well and good.
Some yes, but mostly it's binary. Planes either fly or they don't, etc.
Quoting MindForged
That's my point - what they get from those things isn't very good, it would be better if they got things from clever people who had actually spent a lot of time thinking about them. It's really just division of labour - somebody has to think about the big picture, otherwise there's a gaping hole in our everyday understanding of the world (which can be filled with any old haphazard rubbish). Social networking, yes, but informed social networking is better than uninformed.
Quoting MindForged
That's begging the question - we may not, but do we need to? Maybe we need to. Maybe a consistent, structured picture is better than an inconsistent, haphazard one. A topic for big picture philosophy! :) Also, I think you underestimate people's curiosity and interest in the world, especially when they're younger.
Quoting MindForged
Why not? Who would be a better person to ask so that you, as a philosopher, could be more informed about the topic and be able to incorporate it into your big picture?
But "mostly" is by definition not exclusive. So sometimes we do reason differently and don't usually see the fuss in it.
Well we can think that but what I'm saying is they don't care and in general aren't interested in being "better" at it., they're perfectly content to stay with their folk understandings of these things And for what it's worth, like most philosophers (Rand included) they would in all likelihood simply gravitate towards whatever was closest to their prior views anyway.
Quoting gurugeorge
It's not question begging, I'm saying that to get through the vast majority (if not all) of the things we need to get done most days, these issues just aren't relevant.
You've misunderstood me (my fault). I was saying that specialization is necessary. The point there was that for, say, particle physics questions you should got to the particle physicist, not just any physicist, because the former has the best and truest grasp of the topics in that part of the discipline.
I Wonder what Nietzsche would make of being an official philosopher?
There is nothing to dislike about Rand, she did nothing wrong.
People generally people of the official variety like to make themselves feel important with criticism, and the criticism itself has less substance than whatever its object is supposed to. Rand was a good philosopher with a great idea. She was a writer first and was no less a philosopher than Kafka.
If you have some criticism then back it up... Rather than the usual self serving 'criticism'
What was she wrong about and why?
Sure, if you stick your head in the sand. If you genuinely believe that, then I seriously doubt whether you can be reasoned with. I wouldn't even say that about those philosophers I regard most highly, let alone Ayn Rand. There's no shortage of criticism out there from intelligent, knowledgeable people.
My point exactly ..... You offer nothing concrete just whinning for the joy of whinning
Something to say about Rand? Then say it?
M
Nietzsche did nothing wrong? Ludicrous. Nothing to dislike about Plato? Ludicrous. Wittgenstein? Kierkegaard? Russell? Hume? Spinoza? Ludicrous.
Your judgement on this matter is clearly compromised. If you want people to listen to what you have to say, you should rein it in a bit. Accept that Ayn Rand has her flaws, just like the others. It's just a question of [i]what they are[/I].
Bizarre, the thread is about Rand but you'd rather have an irrelevant rant instead...???
Rand would be heartily amused I'm sure.
Yes, how bizarre! I quoted what you yourself claimed and then I disputed it with a reasonable argument. Unheard of! I don't know what I was thinking.
Of course, you could climb down from that high horse upon which you sit and concede the point, or, you know, actually respond to it instead of deflecting. But I suppose that that's asking too much?
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Heartily amused, turning in her grave, jumping up and down with joy, pulling her hair out, dancing to the birdie song, smoking crack... I don't really care, to be honest. It has no bearing on anything.
"I quoted what you yourself claimed and then I disputed it with a reasonable argument. Unheard of! I don't know what I was thinking.
"Nietzsche did nothing wrong? Ludicrous. Nothing to dislike about Plato? Ludicrous. Wittgenstein? Kierkegaard? Russell? Hume? Spinoza? Ludicrous"
Are you really asserting that you are arguing whether or not 'Rand did something wrong', the reference to 'wrong doing' is little more than a figure of speech. On balance, given her enormous contribution to both literature and to Philosophy... Rand did nothing wrong (like Nietzsche et al). I have little doubt that she told a lie, farted at the dinner table or lost her temper like any human being. That occasionally she was misunderstood and occasionally deemed 'wrong'.. and in this sense... she may have done wrong. But this is a rather infantile basis to construct a philosophical criticism upon.
As yet you offer no criticism of Rand... just a rant at me (which is fine)
When you've chilled a bit (smoke a joint maybe.. it works for some) Do please have a go at formulating a Rand criticism that extends a little further than the average inappropriate flatlulism.
I'm a big fan of hers and would love to be educated on her 'wrongs'.
So please share
M
The philosophical conflict between Hoard Roark's ideology and that of Keating and Ellsworth Touhey, is a profound personal and social philosophy, one that is as relevant and real today as it was when The Fountainhead was first published.
Kafka's 'K'
Joyces 'Bloom'
Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.. are all as richly philosophical as Rand's Howard Roark.
These authors may not have been "official" Philosophers. however Greek Philosophy owes much of its depth to Greek Tragedy.
M
M
Yeah, that paints an accurate picture.
You know, it's not too late to simply retract your remarks as hyperbolic and ill considered, spoken like a disciple, rather than an impartial commentator. Let's be realistic, not only does she have flaws, as do the others (and no, I mean [i]real[/I] flaws, in the [i]relevant sense[/I], not flatulence and the like or perceived shortcomings which are actually just misunderstandings of her writing), it is widely accepted that she doesn't even come close to the likes of Nietzsche and others.
She advocates selfishness as a virtue and then ignores and dismisses what most people actually desire.
If someone really wants to pay a high rate of tax and have a national health service etc that is them asserting their own desires and fulfilling themselves.
She dismisses this evidence and assumes with no reason that anyone that doesn't act under her definition of selfishness and desires things like social justice and redistribution of wealth has wrong motives or is brainwashed etc.
As I said near the beginning, cooperation helps personal well being being.
She only wants her viewpoint to triumph but that contradicts her own values because why should anyone else sacrifice their viewpoint and values for her if they are entitled to be self centered?
So when people judge her views to be psychopathic and unworkable they can happily reject them for selfish reasons of self preservation in the presence of her dark dystopian sphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0n_9CaImJk
"She dismisses this evidence and assumes with no reason that anyone that doesn't act under her definition of selfishness and desires things like social justice and redistribution of wealth has wrong motives or is brainwashed etc."
What evidence have you for this egregious interpretation of Rand?
Interesting that there has yet to be a single quote here from Rand. merely a collection of; we the angry nobodies throwing stones at someone who is unquestionably guilty of being a somebody. The process is not philosophical it is simply intellectual onanism. The bane of discourse on this forum.
“The crowd would have forgiven anything, except a man [or woman] who could remain normal under the vibrations of its enormous collective sneer.”
The Fountainhead.
I see little here but sneering and in this sense the sneering is at the self rather than Rand herself.
As yet still not one actual evidence based criticism of Rand's ideas.
Very entertaining at least.
M
[ My highlighting. ] I would agree, but what about Pirsig, a novelist and philosopher, who had some worthwhile things to say? Not everyone agrees with his approach, of course, but that's par for the course, for just about everyone, including philosophers. :wink:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y&t=1087s
Ayn Rand: The way everybody feels, except more consciously. I feel that it is terrible, that you see destruction all around you, and that you are moving toward disaster until, and unless, all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected. It is precisely these trends which are bringing the world to disaster, because we are now moving towards complete collectivism, or socialism. A system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody, and we are moving that way only because of our altruist morality.
Mike Wallace: Ah...Yes, but you say everybody is enslaved to everybody, yet this came about democratically, Ayn. A free people in a free country voted for this kind of government, wanted this kind of legislation. Do you object to the democratic process?
Ayn Rand: I object to the idea that the people have the right to vote on everything.
........
So essentially if people volitionally do not vote how Ayn wants them to vote they should not be allowed you vote on that issue. This indicates also the only type of selfishness she endorses which does not include a welfare state.
That's an interesting analogy. Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" introduced me as a teenager to philosophy and of all the books I've read, has probably been the most formative. So, I'm a big fan of his. But if someone were to complain he wasn't a very good philosopher, I don't know how I'd go about defending (or even want to defend) the idea he was. Considering he hasn't been recognized as such, it would be a fairly pointless uphill battle. I'd only want to say, his ideas resonated with me especially at that time in my life, and have had a lasting influence. And if he's not to the taste of the mainstream, fine. He was never a typical academic philosopher. Anyway, picking through a philosophy you're a fan of from a supposed objective point of view and trying to convince others of its merits on that basis seems a bit of a fool's errand.
Read Lila too and liked it. He did present his own philosophy more comprehensively there. Preferred the story and rhythm of the original book though. But yes, I got something positive philisophically out of him and I don't feel the need to make any great claims beyond that on his behalf to those who don't consider him worthy. And I'd be suspicious of anyone wanting to do that for anyone recognized or not they admire.
For example in "The Virtue Ethics" she says:
"The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action"
For a start this, is causally implausible it is unlikely that what is good for us and what is pleasurable would be the same thing because that would be bizarre coincidence.
We know this isn't the case, because of cases of addiction and obesity and excess leading to ill health which are pleasure seeking activities.
There are lots of actions that are good for us that are not pleasurable.It is rather displeasure that causes us to improve our condition pleasure can lead to complacency and sloth or obesity. Painful physical exertion or surgeries can lead to improved health.
People who don't experience any pain are in more physical danger than people who don't experience pleasure as is recorded in cases of people with congenital pain defect. So it is pain avoidance rather than pleasure seeking that aids survival and flourishing.
"CIP is an extremely dangerous condition.[1] It is common for people with the condition to die in childhood due to injuries or illnesses going unnoticed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain
Then there are Depressive Realism findings where depressed people on average make more realistic judgements than happy people.
We just disagree on this. My experience of people is that they are generally very interested in philosophical topics and engage with them with enthusiasm - if they're presented to them.
Quoting MindForged
As I said, I'm not arguing against specialization, but for more of a balance of specialization and general thinking among philosophers.
That's great! If I had a nephew who was an undergraduate and he came to me and said that he wanted to explore philosophy because of Pirsig I would think that's fantastic. If, later in life, he told me that he had aspired to become a philosopher because of Pirsig's influence - an influence which marked his whole way of looking at the world - also great. Or if he told me that he eschewed worrying too much about philosophy because he felt like he had got all that he needed from Pirsig - that reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle liberated him to live the life he wanted - also, I think, perfectly reasonable.
I would be pretty concerned, however, if he were suddenly in charge of the Fed and felt inspired to make decisions about monetary policy based on his exclusive dedication to Pirsig's philosophy.
For the same reason, if he told me that he wanted to get a PhD in philosophy writing a dissertation on Pirsig, I would almost certainly advise that this would be a really bad idea. The problems are: (a) dedicating three years of your life exclusively to studying Pirsig likely doesn't offer enough, on his own, to merit significant rewards; (b) society -- both at large and within the micro-society of academia -- won't recognize the topic as contributing much to the conversation of mankind.
It's worth noting the difference here with other non-philosophers like Tolstoy or Gandhi. Someone might reasonably earn a PhD in political philosophy from a great university with a dissertation that focused on, for example, Gandhi's views on nonviolence or Tolstoy's asceticism. And it would not be nearly as troubling for the Speaker of the House to live a life dedicated to the philosophy of Gandhi or Tolstoy.
Ayn Rand: The way everybody feels, except more consciously. I feel that it is terrible, that you see destruction all around you, and that you are moving toward disaster until, and unless, all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected. It is precisely these trends which are bringing the world to disaster, because we are now moving towards complete collectivism, or socialism. A system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody, and we are moving that way only because of our altruist morality.
Rand is entirely correct here.
You have offered no counter argument to her point (if indeed you get her point).
Ayn Rand: I object to the idea that the people have the right to vote on everything.
Rand is completely correct here. Democracy is not perfect. Democracy gave America and the world Donald Trump.
What exactly are you trying to criticize? Are you merely wheeling out the usual cry from the herd that Democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and any criticism of socialism necessitates social cruelty or gas chambers and such.
WHERE OR WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM? I hear only the usual grunting of from the herd!
Thoreau would have said the same as what Rand has asserted here. Nietzsche has said the same thing over and over again..... Are you suggesting that she has some secret sinister cruel intent for humanity?
Rand is calling for independence and subsequently FREEDOM, as opposed to the continued manufacture of social dependence and personal paralysis.
M
That was not Ayn Rand's point in her interview with Mike Wallace.
He pointed out to her that people voted for progressive socialist ideals and she objects to that. Voting for Trump is the complete reverse of that trend.
As far as I am aware there was no way to prevent people for voting for Trump. If people should be allowed to vote there is no limit to what they should be allowed to vote on. Political parties tend to outline their policies in a manifesto and you vote for a package.
If you oppose a political parties ideals and conduct you have the chance to vote them out next election.
In the same interview Ayn said: "The whole people elects. There is nothing wrong with the democratic process in politics
There is no alternative to democracy she just wants to prevent people from using it when the will of the people goes against her selfish desires and dogmas even if that means she frustrates the will of the majority. Indeed that is extremely selfish.
A political decision is always going to upset someone or negatively effect someone and that is unavoidable it is not cause for military intervention.
Based on what evidence? What was she referring to?
How does she know that reversing and rejecting welfare state conceptions would prevent whatever disaster she was referring to.
The countries with the most comprehensive welfare states are among the most wealthy in the world.
I pointed out early on in the thread how Stephen Hawking was kept alive by the NHS but some Americans believed that he was treated in America and would have been left to die by our welfare state. That is typical of the level of debate I see in America.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
The counter-argument is every advanced social democratic welfare state. Is Denmark a disaster? Is Norway a disaster? Seeing as they are richer with higher indicators in life quality on just about every measure than the much more Randian U.S., I would say not only is she wrong, but she's wildly, hopelessly, wrong.
So, Altruism: 1, Social Darwinism: 0
Anyway, I suggest you Google some information on the advanced welfare states as you seem to be completely unaware not only of their wealth, and high quality of life, but of their very existence (absent any other explanation for your support of Rand's obviously absurd claim above).
Is this a discussion of Rand or Social welfare states? I happen to live in one and am very fond of socialism. Rand's criticism of socialism runs a little deeper and is deserving of a little thought.
She is on the one hand being accused of not being an "official" philosopher and in the same breath being accused of being a Political Philosopher which she is certainly not.
Rand is respect worthy because she offers philosophical guidance in the interaction between the individual and society, not inverse, vis the role of society in regulating the individual and cultivating his/her dependence upon the state.
She points to the failure of socialism to foster intellectual independence and personal freedom. Freedom in the truly American or Thoreauian sense is her objective, not the end of socialism. She is perfectly correct to call for the revision of socialism when it impinges upon freedom of the Howard Roark variety.
The new socialism and collectivism is the internet, fashion, fad and collective thought EG the usual Rand bashing that goes on among all the official philosophers.
M
I did an extensive criticism here of her claim that "The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action"
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Well, it's a conversation about the worth about her ideas, I suppose. And I'm restricting myself here to criticizing this one. Anyway, your response above is much more qualified than she's "entirely correct".
Quoting Marcus de Brun
And that's much more qualified than what she said. I can only go on the quote given.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Sounds good to me but I suspect Rand is doing somersaults in her... tomb? :)
In a general sense she is entirely true and this is the cornerstone of Epicurean philosophy.
M
If one reads the Fountainhead, Rand's notional construct of what freedom means is typified in the persona of the protagonist (Roark) Who lives for pleasure in the intellectual or deeper Epicurean sense.
This is the type of approach that validates much of Thoreau's thought, and much of Nietzsche's thought.
M
That is just a bald statement. I gave evidence why she is not true.
What is your counter argument or counter evidence.
Here is another dubious statement from Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness"
She says"An organisms life depends on two factors: The material or fuel which it needs from the outside,and the action of it's own body, the action of using that fuel properly"
What she fails to mention is that humans equally rely on cooperation and depend on others. At the very least for the first 7+ years of childhood and I doubt many children around this age could survive unaided without learning some survival techniques from the humans. Humans need to learn how to talk, how to hunt and make a shelter. They don't just come out of the womb fending for themselves.
Parents cannot just be selfish and focus on their own survival if they want their genes to be carried on to another generation. Self sacrifice to some extent is written into the human mode of survival.
There are many different ways that organisms survive not just one mode of survival and some organisms die soon after reproduction or eat their mate, other species are highly cooperative. There are parasitic relationships and symbiotic relationships. Nevertheless following any one model like a law is making the Naturalistic Fallacy. If you use nature to justify a course of action you can justify anything because everything happens in nature.
More concerned than you are about the people who currently make such decisions? :fear: :smile: :wink:
I'm just alluding to the influence Rand has had on certain people who have run the Fed. Just look what happened when the last Rand-inspired Fed chair took over (worst financial collapse since the Great Depression) versus, say, Janet Yellen, who was inspired by a serious thinker like Keynes. I mean, we can debate the relative merits of Keynes in the context of a conversation about great economic thinkers, but even if you disagree with him you ought to recognize that someone can manage things competently and intelligently if they're engaging with his thought. Things get pretty scary pretty fast if someone is making decisions on economic policy based on a lifetime spent engaging with e.g. L. Ron Hubbard's philosophy.
I've not read Rand, but if this quotation is a representative example of the kind of thing she takes as given:
then she is no philosopher. A philosopher would examine the assumptions that lie behind this kind of remark, including, but not limited to, what "life" and specifically "human life" actually is. A philosopher would not just assume that it is true. Perhaps in the work you quoted she goes on to unpack the premise (rather than its consequences)? If not, she appears to have in mind a definition of life as "automotive energy consumption with self-replication" but even if that is a definition it's the kind of limited definition that makes sense only when you are trying to research into the strictly biochemical/biophysical (i.e. not philosophical) question "How might life on Earth have begun?" not when you are trying to answer the question "How should a human being live?"
Oh, my mistake. Everyone who doesn't [i]entirely agree with her[/I] on that one is obviously mistaken.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Unlike Rand, in the eyes of her disciple. :starstruck:
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Sorry, can you speak up a little? I didn't quite catch that.
quote="S;210179"]Rand is entirely correct here. — Marcus de Brun
Oh, my mistake. Everyone who doesn't entirely agree with her on that one is obviously mistaken.
Rand is completely correct here. Democracy is not perfect. — Marcus de Brun
Unlike Rand, in the eyes of her disciple. :starstruck:
WHERE OR WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM? — Marcus de Brun
Sorry, can you speak up a little? I didn't quite catch that.[/quote]
S
What exactly are you trying to say with all of this 'poo poo'
Have you a point to make .....or are you working out some issues?
Would be great to know where all the anti-Rand sentiment is REALLY coming from?? I notice that the latest erudite critique of her work comes from a philosopher who has never even read Rand, but is wise enough to assume that she is no philosopher ??????
Are we here for philosophy or therapy or Kindergarten?
M
An extension of Rand's thinking would lead to a rejection of fashion and fad, a rejection of the collective thought that is promulgated via social media and the internet, and a move towards a more independent intellectual social and cultural self reliance.
I suspect that the catastrophic end point of 'collectivization' that Rand warned of is certainly upon us in that Capitalism is 'collective' in its function and the dissemination of material 'branded' products, its dependence upon 'fashion' and other collective-thought modalities. Self reliance and intellectual independence is the antithesis of Capitalism and indeed Capitalism is the primary evil that confronts both the individual, and the species.
I doubt if Rand is considered as an architect and yet her philosophy has had a profound and lasting affect upon architecture, not many philosophers can claim as extensive an influence upon another field of human endeavor.
Whether one likes it or not 'objectivism' (old or new) is a Philosophy in its own right, and Rand may be found at it's contemporary 'fountainhead'. It is not surprising that the collective view here should be anti-Rand, and it is perhaps equally unsurprising that Rand's views are in essence anti-collective.
I love her... and when I go to heaven, if the Muslims are right and polygamy is the moral order of the day.... then I will ask her to be one of my many wives.
XXX to Ayn.
She was wrong about pleasure equaling right course of action and you have failed to refute my criticism of her nor attempted to do so.
If pleasure equalled right course of actions that would validate any action as long as any pleasure was involved.
See Laughing at Auschwitz for pictures of happy Nazis. https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/laughing-at-auschwitz-1942/
So not helping others, being nice,caring for the sick, dying and needy or caring for ones own children then.
Do you really think Kant and Marx predominantly wrote "gibberish"?
Take into consideration that Ayn said, "The achievements of his own happiness is mans highest moral purpose."
As with most philosophical assertions this is one that you actually agree with yourself. Your apparent disagreement arises out of your apparent interpretation of the assertion.
If we take the view that ones own happiness is entirely dependent upon ones own degree of self understanding ... in Philosophical parlance knowing oneself is the primary motive for an intellectual and even an intelligently led life.
If you read the pamphlet 'The soul of man Under Socialism' by Oscar Wilde,
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
Here you will encounter the view (often referenced by Zizek) that : 'Charity degrades and demoralizes 'It is immoral to treat the ills caused by private property by private property itself'
https://youtu.be/hpAMbpQ8J7g
The sentiment and idea here is inherent to Rand's justified rejection of extreme Socialism.
Independence in the sense that Rand speaks of, is a pure essential independence that includes a rejection of dependence upon the accumulation of material wealth and superfluity as a means of self expression, success or self identity. Rand's protagonists place no real value upon the accumulation of private property; they are independent of it. Rand's genius is that she creates the uncompromising alternative of a celebration of the self, as a counter argument to the success that is associated with material wealth.
This rejection of the material, is far purer and more philosophically sound that the current notion that there is no moral consequence to the accumulation of personal wealth, and that one can then do 'good things' with ones wealth in spite of the evil that is con-sequenced by the generation of that private wealth.
Instead Rand offers the real wealth that arises out of an uncompromising worship of the self... this entails a rejection of wealth and the evil that it entails. A worship of the self in the Rand sense would rid the world of much of the medical (lifestyle) and psychological (depressive) pathologies that socialism must sustains and ultimately foster.
It is the worship of wealth as opposed to the self, that creates both the need and space for the type of socialism that Rand rightly criticizes. The biggest killers in the western world are lifestyle related diseases that are a consequence of depression and unhappiness, and a sense of failure; that are themselves a consequence of a deficiency of self knowledge and self love in the deeper philosophical and or intellectual sense. These feelings and destructive tendencies are the antithesis of self worship and self understanding as Rand depicts these ideals in her characters.
To assert that Rand is against the notion that society should provide wheel chairs for the handicapped and food for the starving... simply represents a fundamental misunderstanding of her work.
Independent people in the Rand sense are not necessarily wealthy (at the expense of others) but rather are independent of the mass psychogenic lure of wealth that most of us are enamored by.
Her's is an example of the type of Philosophy that Nietzsche pleads for... a philosophy of the future,..... it is before its time.
Hopefully she has met the master in the nether world and the two of them are making sweet love and lots of intelligent objectivist babies together.
M
How? I would prefer to have a sad life but see poverty end in my lifetime. I don't value my own happiness above all other moral concerns by any other stretch of the imagination.
I don't see the value you of happiness with no source or justification that could be induced by medication or recreational drugs.
I value equality as more moral than individual happiness. There is nothing wrong with individual happiness but I don't see it as a coherent measure for ethics.
In fact I think collective happiness is more mark of the moral.
Where is your evidence of this? The pursuit of wealth is based on self love.
Your are just giving propaganda for her over what she actually says and not quoting her or any of her own arguments.
Self worship is isolating when you have to live in societies and cooperate and rely on others and be concerned about their ethical treatment as well as your own. Caring about yourself and others is not mutually exclusive.
I see no natural reason for self love or justification for any teleological account of nature in which nature can guide our values or is benevolent towards us. She fails to justify going from "is to ought" coherently and just makes brief statements about it that we are just supposed to accept.
The fundamental feature of life is reproduction which is not selfish in terms of caring about oneself alone. You have to expend energy to create a new generation and rear young or you will just be the last human standing making life go extinct and lose any value. You have to be willing to endanger yourself for your vulnerable offspring or risk them dying prematurely.
Even if a parent has a child as a self indulgence (which maybe the majority case) they don't know what will happen and what they might have to sacrifice for the child to survive.
Self centeredness and excess self love is the anathema to healthy parenting.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I am assumng from this question that you have not read much Rand. Another poster here on this forum has offered an opinion on Rand and never read anything written by her!
If (as it seems) you are unfamiliar with her work then you might start with The Fountainhead. The protagonist Roark elucidates Rands notion of selfishness quite succinctly with the addition of many all too human personal flaws.
Roark in Rands portrayal is not a materialist and indeed has little interest in money or material wealth. His antagonists in the form of Touhey or Keating are devoted to material and populist 'wealth'.
You assert that the pursuit of wealth is based upon self love, this statement declares that you have missed Rands meaning entirely. Even outside of objectivism the pursuit of wealth is NOT based upon self love, it is based upon self loathing and an amelioration to that self loathing through a worship of wealth in that it can afford the creation of an alternative wealthy fashionable self.
The love of wealth is the veil of self loathing.. It is not self love which requires only; love and a self.... and perhaps a few modest philosophically valid possessions... nothing more.
I think you need to read Rand or at least read her more thoroughly.
M
If Ayn didn't love wealth why did she characterise people as looters and parasites if they tried to redistribute wealth from the wealthy?
She associates people having control over their wealth with person integrity.
Here is more from "The virtue of Selfishness"
[i]"If a man who is passionately in love with his wife, spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a "sacrifice" for her sake, not his, and that it makes no difference to him personally whether she lives or dies."
"But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money saving the lives of ten other women, none of who meant anything to him-as the ethics of altruism would require. That would be a sacrifice."[/i]
There is lots that could be said about this and her pathology and chronic lack of empathy. But what is interesting is her absurd concern with the man spending his money exactly how he wants, even to the point of letting ten women die over one woman. In reality he could pay for cancer research that would aid his wife and others as opposed to the strawmen Rand likes to present.
She also claims later in this passage that the man is only keeping his wife alive because of his desire for her which is suggesting she has no intrinsic value and that she is at his mercy, if he fell out of love with her he could let her die. So essentially the mans ego and wealth is more important the objective suffering of anyone else. Frightening stuff.
Only a psychopath would think it a sacrifice to take excess money off a wealthy person to save many lives. She has gone from opposing the idea of dying for someone else ( a true sacrifice) to considering any loss of personal wealth as a sacrifice.
Nope. Not at all. Thoreau wanted an empowered individual through the means of democratic rule. The idea that altruism was antithetical to progress would never have been accepted by an admirer of Hinduism and Bhouddism.
Thoreau would have said the same as what Rand has asserted here. — Marcus de Brun
"Nope. Not at all. Thoreau wanted an empowered individual through the means of democratic rule. The idea that altruism was antithetical to progress would never have been accepted by an admirer of Hinduism and Bhouddism."
OK lets examine the facts here and see if your 'nope' has any basis.
Firstly what is it that Rand has stated that Thoreau would or would not agree with:
RAND:
"It is precisely these trends which are bringing the world to disaster, because we are now moving towards complete collectivism, or socialism. A system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody, and we are moving that way only because of our altruist morality."
Now as we are speaking in General terms of Rand and Thoreau we should ascertain what is the sentiment or meaning behind Rand's words HERE.
Rand is talking about COMPLETE socialism and complete COLLECTIVISM , by this she means extreme socialism and NOT ALL socialist values or political socialist exigencies such as caring for the sick, clean water, policing education... none of these institutions can survive outside of some form of socialism where the majority are compelled to contribute towards the maintenance of the state and the welfare of all citizens.
Rand is talking about COMPLETE socialism. Nowhere in Rand's philosophy will you find her asserting the belief that handicapped people should be deprived of wheelchairs and the sick should be left to die in pain etc. In not denying this reality, Rand has LIMITED socialist leanings like any moral human being.
When socialism becomes extreme and provides for ALL of mans needs, man has little to do himself and little to live for himself, and as such has a very limited potential for self actualization and or the identity-construction that are essential to personal happiness and mental health.
Socialism in giving a man a fish, rather than teaching him how to fish.. dis-empowers and fosters individulal dependence which is the opposite to the self effective independence that is at the core of Rand's philosophy AND Thoreau's Philosophy. In this sense complete socialism results in near complete paralysis of the individual, which is akin to stating that Complete Socialism is completely destructive and is part of the reason that mega socialist projects often result in mega failures, and actually deprive the recipients of freedom.
NOW what does Thoreau say about freedom. Here is an example:
“I see young men, my townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of. Better if they had been born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf, that they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were called to labor in. Who made them serfs of the soil? Why should they eat their sixty acres, when man is condemned to eat only his peck of dirt? Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?”
Here Thoreau is talking about enslavement to the Capitalist social system, yet the concept of slavery to the established system is complete in both ideologies (but for slightly different reasoning's). Complete capitalism and complete socialism effect the same form of individual paralysis and enslavement.
Both Rand and Thoreau's antidote to this enslavement or paralysis is INDEPENDENCE. Thoreau offers the beauty of nature and self reliance as the counter compensation to Capitalism (the alternative non money reward)
Rand offers the release of individual potential and the joy of self expression as her counter to both Capitalism and COMPLETE socialism. She identifies BOTH as the enemy, but her focus is upon the collective, as the immediate threat to the individual.
Both capitalism and socialism/collectivism have corrupted and destroyed the American Dream, because each in their own way have destroyed individual freedom.
M
You can find one here:
http://www.owl232.net/papers/rand5.htm
"Who is a philosopher?"