Ayn Rand ? [Archive]

Foster Zygote

27th October 2006, 12:09 PM

Have her writings helped others here to come to be rationalists and atheists?

I was exposed to the writings of Carl Sagan and Issac Asimov before ever reading Ayn Rand. Because of that I personally didn't find her writings about rationality to be all that eye opening. As for her economic views I've never been convinced that they have any merit, let alone that they are the only rational choice. The more I learned about her the less I cared for her. Too many contradictions and hypocrisies.

In Judgement Day Nathaniel Branden wrote:

There were implicit premises in our world to which everyone in our circle subscribed, and which we transmitted to our students at NBI.

Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who ever lived.

Atlas Shrugged is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world.

Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man's life on
Earth.

Once one is acquainted with Ayn Rand and/or her work, the measure of one's virtue is intrinsically tied to the position one takes on her and/or it.

No one can be a good Objectivist who does not admire what Ayn Rand admires and condemn what Ayn Rand condemns.

No one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees with Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue.

Since Ayn Rand has designated Nathaniel Branden as her "intellectual heir" and has repeatedly proclaimed him to be an ideal exponent of her philosophy, he is to be accorded only marginally less reverence than Ayn Rand herself.

But it is best not to say these things explicitly (excepting, perhaps, the first two items). One must always maintain that one arrives at one's beliefs solely by reason. (1989,pp.255-256)

Steven

Elizabeth I

27th October 2006, 06:03 PM

I read Anthem first, when I was in high school, and was pretty impressed by the anti-totalitarian theme. Then I read one (can't remember the title) about a Russian girl who ended up being shot to death by border guards trying to escape the Soviet Union over the border into Finland, which I also liked pretty well.

I tried Atlas Shrugged several times but always found it too boring.

CLD

27th October 2006, 06:52 PM

I read The Fountainhead many years ago but saw nothing in it to start a cult about.

Foolmewunz

27th October 2006, 07:19 PM

Point 1 - this probably belongs in either Politics or Philosophy. The "cult" aspect of AR is probably minor. (New poster forgiven!)

Point 2 - If the various Rand supporters/believers on these boards find this, thread, this will go to a minimum of 10 pages.

As to the OP, no.... I had other sources as the origins of my rationalism and skepticism. Any philosophy-light is going to have elements you can agree with and disagree with. There are liberal and conservative atheists, as the membership on this forum would surely prove. The problem you may be expressing is that their are devotees of Rand who insist on what Foster Zygote lists - the NBI protocol. Rand herself was rather intransigent on people agreeing with her on all subjects, also.

@Foster Zygote - it's important to emphasize that Branden's list is from his biography, and thus hindsight. I've seen people post this as the "Rules" or "Charter" of the NBI.
I concur with his later estimation of the mindset of the organization, so file this under "clarification for sake of accuracy".

whitefork

15th November 2006, 06:43 AM

Ayn Rand: philosophy = Claus Larsen: skepticism

Katana

15th November 2006, 06:47 AM

I was exposed to the writings of Carl Sagan and Issac Asimov before ever reading Ayn Rand. Because of that I personally didn't find her writings about rationality to be all that eye opening. As for her economic views I've never been convinced that they have any merit, let alone that they are the only rational choice. The more I learned about her the less I cared for her. Too many contradictions and hypocrisies.

In Judgement Day Nathaniel Branden wrote:

Steven

Could you elaborate on what you see as contractions and hypocrisies in her teachings?

whitefork

15th November 2006, 07:07 AM

Start here (John Galt's radio address).
If you can parse "existence exists" in such a way that the rest of what she's laying out is entailed by it, please do so.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_ExistenceExists.html

Start with this

Existence exists.
To exist, an existent (an entity that exists) must have a particular identity.

(Conclusion - Existence is a thing that exists - huh?).

And she takes guys like Heidegger and Sartre to task for reducing philosophy and metaphysics to verbal games.

Deathshead

15th November 2006, 07:38 AM

Ayn Rand: philosophy = Claus Larsen: skepticism

Oh I get it. Anything you disagree with (or don't understand) is made fun of? Please define philosophy as you see it. Then we can all make fun of you. That will be too easy.... Instead Tell us why you disagree with this part of her philosophy. Thanks.

"There is a dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an "open mind." This is a very ambiguous term. That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skeptisism, for holding up no firm convictions and granting plausability to anything. What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an "open mind" but an active mind - a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An acitve mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood: it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of nuetrality and uncertainty: by assuming the responsibility of judgement, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants - a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, and fear.

From Philosophy: Who Needs It Ayn Rand

I'd say that partial quote taken from PWNI is quite appropriate for JREF. It is also a part of her philosophy.
I am not surprised that liberals disagree with people being resonsible for their own actions. Where would all the government programs be without all of those hands stuck out waiting for their "free" money and services?

fuelair

15th November 2006, 08:03 AM

Oh I get it. Anything you disagree with (or don't understand) is made fun of? Please define philosophy as you see it. Then we can all make fun of you. That will be too easy.... Instead Tell us why you disagree with this part of her philosophy. Thanks.

"There is a dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an "open mind." This is a very ambiguous term. That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skeptisism, for holding up no firm convictions and granting plausability to anything. What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an "open mind" but an active mind - a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An acitve mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood: it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of nuetrality and uncertainty: by assuming the responsibility of judgement, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants - a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, and fear.

From Philosophy: Who Needs It Ayn Rand

I'd say that partial quote taken from PWNI is quite appropriate for JREF. It is also a part of her philosophy.
I am not surprised that liberals disagree with people being resonsible for their own actions. Where would all the government programs be without all of those hands stuck out waiting for their "free" money and services?

Just to point out one little problem with Ayn (not even getting into her personal life): she has done the little trick of several of our "philosopher" posters (look up light for an example) : she sets up a straw definition of skeptical mind and co-opts the real meaning of skeptical to define her term "active mind" . Nothing wrong with that since philosophy is fun mental exercise but ultimately without real meaning, but it is intellectually pointless.....Oh no, my interest in this is fadin..................

Tricky

15th November 2006, 08:06 AM

Hey RandFan (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=311). Somebody's calling you.

drkitten

15th November 2006, 08:13 AM

"There is a dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an "open mind." This is a very ambiguous term. That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skeptisism, for holding up no firm convictions and granting plausability to anything. What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an "open mind" but an active mind - a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An acitve mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood: it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of nuetrality and uncertainty: by assuming the responsibility of judgement, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants - a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, and fear.

Great example. I reject it -- and Rand's pseudo-philosophy utterly.

Because what the paragraph above describes is not "an active mind," but dogmatism.

She talks, for example, about "grant[ing] equal status to truth and falsehood," ignoring the problem that a properly skeptic mind cannot with certainty identify either (except in the most limited of contexts such as tautologies). She supports a mind that "by assuming the responsibility of judgement, [...]reaches firm convictions and holds to them," and "achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants" regardless of whether or not those convictions are correct.

In the Randian epistemology, wrong but certain is better than provisionally right.

In particular, she rejects the epistemology of science, since science is "tainted" by "spots of ... approximation," since no empirical fact can ever be free from approximation. She derives from inherently uncertain and approximate observations complete and utter certainty, based solely on the "blind faith" that she decries.

whitefork

15th November 2006, 08:16 AM

Oh I get it. Anything you disagree with (or don't understand) is made fun of? Please define philosophy as you see it. Then we can all make fun of you. That will be too easy.... Instead Tell us why you disagree with this part of her philosophy. Thanks.
Fascinating - you assume that I am making fun of Ayn Rand and Claus Larsen?
Evidences?

Ayn Rand wrote (specific cite not available) that she considered herself a novelist rather than a philosopher. Her only stab at hard philosophy is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. It is pretty thin.
Her characterizations of academic philosophers bear very little resemblence to their actual positions.
Now, Peikoff actually has some credentials, but he serves more as St. Thomas to Ayn's Jesus, fleshing out semi-formed concepts and putting them into something like traditional form (The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy for instance).
I read pretty much everything she wrote up through 1975. There's very little there there.
Please trace the logic from "existence exists" to laissez-faire capitalism and show your work.
I can agree with the premisses and conclusion and reject the arguments in between as invalid.
True premises, true conclusion, does not entail valid argument.

That's my big issue with her. She argues by assertion and doesn't show her work.

RandFan

15th November 2006, 08:29 AM

Existence exists.
To exist, an existent (an entity that exists) must have a particular identity.

(Conclusion - Existence is a thing that exists - huh?). It's called a tautology.

RandFan

15th November 2006, 08:30 AM

Hey RandFan (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=311). Somebody's calling you. Damn! :)

whitefork

15th November 2006, 08:46 AM

It's called a tautology.
A is A is a tautology. It tells us nothing about A. From a tautology only tautologies can be logically inferred.

"Existence exists" is treated as an axiom, from which non-tautological truths are to be derived. I contend that the logic producing such conclusions is mere handwaving and assertion.

I post this only because it was suggested that I have no good reasons for finding Ayn Rand quite lacking in philosophical rigor, a position that I think she is on record as agreeing to. (thus my jocular characterization of the two personalities above)

(but we can discuss whether existence is a thing rather than an abstraction or universal attribute - if it exists it has a strange sort of existence)

Horatius

15th November 2006, 08:51 AM

Tell us why you disagree with this part of her philosophy. Thanks.

"There is a dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an "open mind." This is a very ambiguous term. That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skeptisism, for holding up no firm convictions and granting plausability to anything. What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an "open mind" but an active mind - a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An acitve mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood: it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of nuetrality and uncertainty: by assuming the responsibility of judgement, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants - a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, and fear.

From Philosophy: Who Needs It Ayn Rand

I'd say that partial quote taken from PWNI is quite appropriate for JREF. It is also a part of her philosophy.

I'd say that the problem with the bolded part, at least, is that it doesn't allow for the possibility of new knowledge, which can cast your "firm convictions" in a new light.

Ancient people observed the sun coming up and going down each day, and came to the conclusion that the sun revolves around the Earth. Later, more accurate observations contradicted this conclusion, but we wouldn't have figured that out if we weren't open to the possibility that our firm convictions were wrong. It's fine to have firm convictions, and actively defend them, so long as you remain open to new data, which would contradict the part about "a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, and fear".

Also, she only allows two sorts of informaton: Truth and Falsehoods. In real life, there are a lot of things that are uncertain. Anything dealing with psychology, economics, and quite a bit of medicine and biology, involves statistics, which necessarily involves approximations and uncertainties, and can never be said to apply to every single case.

RandFan

15th November 2006, 08:56 AM

That's my big issue with her. She argues by assertion and doesn't show her work.It's largely true. I agree with your critisicm.

I think Rand's importance is not as a philosopher who has rigidly set up arguments but who has in the spirit of Dostoevsky and Orwell (admittidly not philosophers) explored the human condition and the effects of society and government on the individual and the reverse. She's important, IMO, because she causes us to consider human nature in a different light than we perhaps have before. Namely that humans are capable of so much if left unfettered by government intervention and regulation. That humans create jobs and wealth and not government. That we are better off as a society to elevate the individual above that of an ant who is simply part of a larger society.

RandFan

15th November 2006, 09:00 AM

A is A is a tautology. It tells us nothing about A. From a tautology only tautologies can be logically inferred.

"Existence exists" is treated as an axiom, from which non-tautological truths are to be derived. I contend that the logic producing such conclusions is mere handwaving and assertion. I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. A tautology is A.) Use of redundant language that adds no information or B.) An assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a discussion.

I post this only because it was suggested that I have no good reasons for finding Ayn Rand quite lacking in philosophical rigor, a position that I think she is on record as agreeing to. (thus my jocular characterization of the two personalities above) I agree as is evidenced in my above post.

(but we can discuss whether existence is a thing rather than an abstraction or universal attribute - if it exists it has a strange sort of existence) Yes, and this is not a tautology. I think we just need to be careful of our wording. "Existence exists" tells us nothing.

Beerina

15th November 2006, 10:30 AM

Damn! :)

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/customavatars/avatar311_6.gif

Fall out of love with Janeane? For this?!?

Gurdur

15th November 2006, 10:40 AM

Since Ayn Rand never could even deal with Hume's destruction of her main tenet, and he wrote around 250 years before her, then Rand's lack of competent dealing there rather disqualifies her at the start.

In fact, the fallacies of special pleading, ad hoc, affirming the consequent
and so on so liberally scattered throughout her works is what disqualify it all from being considered serious philosophy.

whitefork

15th November 2006, 10:46 AM

RF, I think we're probably not so far apart. For someone who holds approximately the same position on these matters as I do, check this link:

http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/05/is-ayn-rand-good-philosopher.html

I'll give it a rest now.

Sherman Bay

15th November 2006, 10:53 AM

I am a big fan of Ayn Rand, but that doesn't prevent me from criticizing her.

I think she was great as a philosopher, as long as you didn't ask her to elaborate, but sucked as a novelist. Her best works were short essays written for the newsletter, collected in The Virtue of Selfishness and other compilations.

I find her lengthy speaches, like the 5,693,509 page John Galt one, obscure to the point of MEGO. Somewhere in there is a poignant, two-sentence wrapup struggling to get out.

And I took issue with her "bow down to the nearest smokestack" quote, not to mention her vitrolic essay comparing the campers who came to watch the NASA rockets take off with Woodstock. To her, the RVers were celebrating technology but Woodstockers were just idiot potheads who consumed but did not contribute to society. A bit too simplistic for my taste.

That said, I think her anti-altruisic, pro-selfish concepts have considerable merit and are too often ignored when new legislation and taxation is up for consideration.

Spindrift

15th November 2006, 10:55 AM

...Namely that humans are capable of so much if left unfettered by government intervention and regulation. That humans create jobs and wealth and not government. That we are better off as a society to elevate the individual above that of an ant who is simply part of a larger society.

That was always my problem with her, she comes across to me as thinking that humans are more naturally altruistic than selfish.

Unfortunately history shows time and again when humans are left unfettered by government intervention and regulation they tend towards trying to get away with whatever they can to maximize their own personal situation usually at the expense of others.

Examples: Food inspection, pollution, drug safety, workplace standards.

If left to themselves corporations would not have voluntarily adopted such standards and the great mass of humanity would be worse off for it.

Pipirr

15th November 2006, 11:28 AM

RandFan = Fan of Ayn Rand.

Did not get that until this thread.

Had not heard of Ayn Rand until this thread...

Looks like she has some fans.

firecoins

15th November 2006, 01:11 PM

That was always my problem with her, she comes across to me as thinking that humans are more naturally altruistic than selfish.

Doesn't she argue that selfishness is good until it hurts other people?

Steven Howard

15th November 2006, 04:16 PM

Doesn't she argue that selfishness is good until it hurts other people?

s/until/even though/

or sometimes

s/until it hurts/because it doesn't really hurt/

Actually, the whole dependent clause can go. "Selfishness is good." Period. If it hurts other people, that's their concern, not yours.

firecoins

15th November 2006, 05:33 PM

s/until/even though/

or sometimes

s/until it hurts/because it doesn't really hurt/

Actually, the whole dependent clause can go. "Selfishness is good." Period. If it hurts other people, that's their concern, not yours.
My understanding of it that hurting other people contradicts her own philiosophy.

RandFan

16th November 2006, 12:26 AM

My understanding of it that hurting other people contradicts her own philiosophy. My understanding also.

RandFan

16th November 2006, 12:28 AM

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/customavatars/avatar311_6.gif

Fall out of love with Janeane? For this?!? I have no problem with saying that I loved the man and I love his memory. I got some complaints about the avatar and wanted to give it a break.

I still love Janeane.

RandFan

16th November 2006, 12:30 AM

luchog

16th November 2006, 10:22 AM

My understanding of it that hurting other people contradicts her own philiosophy.

Yes, effectively, with some gray area.

The problem with Rand's philosophizing is that she tended to use a lot of idiosyncratic language. Although she did usually define her terms, her definitions were generally lost in the somewhat excessive and convoluted verbiage of her essays and novels. What she termed the "virtue of selfishness" is probably better described as "enlightened self-interest", doing what is in one's own long-term best interests, regardless of the desires or fears of the moment.

firecoins

16th November 2006, 10:24 AM

everything has grey areas. I suppose that is where gov't comes in?

skeptic griggsy

18th November 2006, 12:29 PM

luchog

19th November 2006, 12:18 PM

I find mutual altruism in my self-interest: we scratch each other's backs. If I get pleasure out helping someone else, that is fine ,but the point is to help the other person for her sake .Government is society's way of our being mutually altruistic in social services.:) Any other Randian logical flaws?

Mutual altruism is something of an oxymoron. Enlightened self-interest can mandate that one assist another person for a number of reasons, in exchange for a future return, as an investment in a person who may make a valuable contribution to one's own benefit, or to encourage an environment where one may receive such assistance at a future time if needed. Some examples may be a business donating to a school, which would help ensure a supply of well-educated potential employees, or to boost a local market (by increasing potential income for the region through education and training), or to increase the businesses good PR and therefore brand marketability, or simply to receive a signifcant tax write-off. This is apparently altruistic on it's surface, but at base it is actually enlightened self-interest motivating the action.

There is no such thing as government altruism. This is one of those areas where Rand's idiosyncratic language causes problems. Altruism is the voluntary rendering of material or non-material assistance to another without expectation of profit or reciprocation. When you include government force in that, it ceases to be voluntary, and therefore truly altruistic. It is the use of threat of violence to compel others to contribute to a collectivist conception of support and assistance. It is motivated in most cases by what appears to be enlightened self-interest; but is at base simply fear or laziness. Fear that one will not have a "safety net" should one fail to adequately support one's self, or laziness in not wanting to work too hard to support one's self when on can rely on someone else's support and assistance.

The problem with Rand's exposition of her theories is that she used one word, altruism, for two completely different circumstances. One, that of forced, collectivist contribution to a supposedly universal safety-net support system; with the tacit assumption that those receiving said support had a right to it simply for the fact of their existence, and their demands by nature took precedence over the desires of those who actually produced the means of support. This is primarily what Rand was fulminating against.

However, she also uses the term to refer to a different sort of altruism, that which is truly voluntary and free; but which was motivated, not by any sense of fellow-feeling, but by the same priority of demand by the supported/consumer over the desire of the supporter/consumer, which resulted in an abnegation of self. This is, I think, where she went wrong, since she mistakenly equates the two, when they are clearly two completely different phenomena. She also denies the existence of true altruism, or even the appearence of such as enlightened self-interest; instead believing that all altruism was false, and either of the first kind or the second.

This latter is also where her primary objection to, and rejection of, relgion originates; seeing it as simply another form of forced collectivism, using emotional blackmail instead of outright force, to achieve it's goal.

But in both cases, it's the putting the value and primacy of the group over that of the individual, and the non-productive consumer over the producer, that forms the basis of her objections to both.

The biggest objection that I can see is not her opposition to government-mandated charity, which I tend to agree with; but her denial of the validity of private and personal charity as well. It is in the case of those who are disabled and unable to achieve full self-sufficiency where the flaw in her philosophy shows itself most prominently. She draws no line between those who are still able to produce and contribute to their own support, albeit in a limited manner, but instead choose not to, and demand that others bear the entire burden of their support; and those who are disabled and unable to support themselves to any substantial degree, and would not survive without outside assistance.

skeptic griggsy

19th November 2006, 04:25 PM

I remain the same. Yes, she was so wrong on those points. I find that with government doing the charity work, force is justified as our social compact requires it and democratically done without violating our rights . So,here is the nub of our disagreement . You equate all force as the same . . Private charity is not enough! Does anyone differ from her on epistemology or metaphysics?

Squishua

19th November 2006, 06:31 PM

Have her writings helped others here to come to be rationalists and atheists ?

Being raised in a home (until I was 9, that is) where religious beliefs were rarely demonstrated or reinforced, I was fortunate enough to never have any deep-seated belief of that nature to overcome.

When I was a child, my belief in Santa Claus was much greater that my belief in God. When I found out the truth about Santa Claus, thie idea of God was grandfathered into my internal philosophical wastebasket along with him with no aplomb.

As it happens, I had the correct idea: no God.

Personally, I have not read a great deal of Ayn Rand. I tend to like and agree with what little of her I have read, but I think her need for absolute certainty dooms the workability of her philosophy of objectivism. At least for me.

-Squish

Chris Haynes

19th November 2006, 06:40 PM

... Have her writings helped others here to come to be rationalists and atheists ?There are the Peikoff- her choice - and the Kelly schools of thought. Might one add to all this?

No...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52566&

Posted for your amusement.

luchog

20th November 2006, 11:03 AM

I remain the same. Yes, she was so wrong on those points. I find that with government doing the charity work, force is justified as our social compact requires it and democratically done without violating our rights .
Of course it violates rights. That is the entire nature of force. It is impossible to use force without violating rights. The key issue is whether the rights of some individuals sufficiently override the rights of others that they are justified in the use of government power to enforce their claims.

I have a right to the product of my labour, to benefit myself from the work I do with my own two hands and my own brain. Others have the right to life, and the resources to support their life. At what point does their right to life and support override my right to to support myself with and enjoy the fruits of my labour. Or, to put it more simply, when does their support become more important than my support? What is the line?

And I'm getting tired of people throwing out "social contract" as if it's some all-abidingly holy unassailable principle, without even bothering to define what they mean by it? What is the "social contract"? Why should I necessarily be bound by it? How is it better than any other worldview?

As for being done "democratically", the "tyrrany of the majority" is just as much a tyrrany as any other. "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner".

So,here is the nub of our disagreement . You equate all force as the same .

No, that's your assertion, not mine. There are multiple degrees of force, and multiple justifications for it's use which vary in degree of legitimacy.

There's a study, discussed in another thread, that purports to show that those who favour government distribution of wealth -- redistributionists -- are less generous than than those who oppose it. Non-intuitive, certainly, but charity donation patterns tend to support that assertion, even when corrected for income levels. Both are taxed the same, but anti-redistributionists contribute over and above considerably more (I believe the assertion was 9 times) what redistributionists do.

Redistributionists are far more free with other people's money, via taxation, than they are with their own. I've never known one who said "I'd gladly pay more taxes" who wasn't flat-out lying -- the very next moment complaining bitterly about their own tax burden. When it comes time to support or vote on taxes, it's never taxes on themselves they advocate, but taxes on "the wealthy", which translates to anyone who has more money than they do, since they never consider themselves part of "the wealthy".

skeptic griggsy

25th November 2006, 03:16 AM

Gates, Turner, Buffett, Soros, donate more and love to pay their taxes! I doubt if we liberals are as donation shy as all that. Thankfully the voters just reaffirmed the social contract!It is not big or small government but smart government that we need. Gault's Gulch would be a distopia :confused: :mad: :rolleyes: . We have the workfare state ,because charity is not enough . :covereyes :covereyes Selfishness is a vice,not a virtue. Altruism is our natural moral sense.:D

luchog

26th November 2006, 11:01 AM

T'ai Chi

27th November 2006, 06:23 AM

Ayn Rand: philosophy = Claus Larsen: skepticism

That's being much too generous.

skeptic griggsy

23rd November 2007, 05:36 PM

I stand affirmed! Google Michael Huemer's " Critique of the Objectivist Ethics@ home.ssprynet.com/owll/rand5htm. She was hardly an exponent of logic!
Altruism is mutual help for all. She used the all or nothing fallacy in her description of altruism.
Go to grave yard of dead gods to see virulent Randism and anachism.[lamberthml]

rsaavedra

23rd November 2007, 06:22 PM

Jeff Corey

23rd November 2007, 07:18 PM

Anthem is a good start.

-Fran-

23rd November 2007, 07:44 PM

In the end, she became a cult. I never felt that inspired by her writings myself.

I couldn't get through it. I tried to listen to 'Atlas Shrugged' on audio book, while tidying up and such boring things... I found it more boring than scrubbing the bathroom, so I never finished it. Don't know if it would have become better later on, maybe I missed something, but it sure didn't engage me from the start.

Denver

23rd November 2007, 09:34 PM

So for those that are well read on Rand's books, what should I tackle first: "Atlas Shrugged", or "Fountainhead"? I have had them for years, but haven't read one single page from each. Read only part of another much smaller book by Rand: "For The New Intellectual," which I think wasn't bad, but wasn't great either.

I think Atlas Shrugged is as good as anything.

But be warned: I thought it was endlessly self-aggrandizing, rather drawn-out, and a pretty good shot at defining a religion of self-ishness.

Jekyll

24th November 2007, 01:52 PM

So for those that are well read on Rand's books, what should I tackle first: "Atlas Shrugged", or "Fountainhead"? I have had them for years, but haven't read one single page from each. Read only part of another much smaller book by Rand: "For The New Intellectual," which I think wasn't bad, but wasn't great either.

Haven't read any of the others, but I read the first 900ish pages of Atlas Shrugged. I would try one of the other books instead.

luchog

24th November 2007, 06:28 PM

Haven't read any of the others, but I read the first 900ish pages of Atlas Shrugged. I would try one of the other books instead.

Having just re-read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead; I'd strongly recommend avoiding the former as a first Ayn Rand novel. It's simply too unweildy, since it wasn't intended as a novel as much as a vehicle for her philosophy and social modelling. I'd recommend starting with Anthem, then reading The Fountainhead.

rsaavedra

24th November 2007, 06:35 PM

Thanks to all, I will follow your suggestions. Don't have Anthem in my library though, but will get it and read it before any of the others.

Bluefire

25th November 2007, 01:04 AM

Bluefire

25th November 2007, 01:08 AM

So for those that are well read on Rand's books, what should I tackle first: "Atlas Shrugged", or "Fountainhead"? I have had them for years, but haven't read one single page from each. Read only part of another much smaller book by Rand: "For The New Intellectual," which I think wasn't bad, but wasn't great either.

IMO, The Fountainhead is better as a book, if you look to have a good read. Atlas Shrugged is more comprehensive in its philosophical content.

So if you primarily want a good read, with ideas read Fountainhead, If you primarily want dramatized ideas, with the "good book" qualiy coming second, read Atlas Shrugged.

Apology

25th November 2007, 03:00 AM

I couldn't help but think that she was just mad about the development of the Social Security system.

I still pretty much think that.

Apology

25th November 2007, 03:10 AM

I should probably add that I won a small grant from the Ayn Rand Foundation for an essay I wrote comparing and contrasting Rand's messages in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. It was a really great essay.

I still think she was just mad about Social Security.

PenguinWarrior

25th November 2007, 03:19 AM

There's a study, discussed in another thread, that purports to show that those who favour government distribution of wealth -- redistributionists -- are less generous than than those who oppose it. Non-intuitive, certainly, but charity donation patterns tend to support that assertion, even when corrected for income levels. Both are taxed the same, but anti-redistributionists contribute over and above considerably more (I believe the assertion was 9 times) what redistributionists do.

Redistributionists are far more free with other people's money, via taxation, than they are with their own. I've never known one who said "I'd gladly pay more taxes" who wasn't flat-out lying -- the very next moment complaining bitterly about their own tax burden. When it comes time to support or vote on taxes, it's never taxes on themselves they advocate, but taxes on "the wealthy", which translates to anyone who has more money than they do, since they never consider themselves part of "the wealthy".

Ad Hominem. Whether or not those who support redistribution are themselves generous beings has no effect on whether their arguments are correct or not. Religious people give more to charity, too (and I suspect this, as well as demographics, are the primary reasons for relative generosity of American conservatives - I haven't seen studies looking at other parts of the world, so I do not know of the picture there) but that does not prove that God exists. (PS: From the same study I read, anti-redistributionists are also much more likely to be racist, homophobic, anti-science and against stopping climate change, so bear that in mind before trumpeting the huge benefits).

Personally, I think that looking around the developed world, I'd much rather live in a more heavily redistributionist country than in a less heavily redistributionist one, although there is a balance to strike (vested interests in the form of unions can really hurt an economy for example - although looking at those areas where no union has formed, you can see why they are considered necessary). The fact that my fellow liberals and atheists are less generous is somewhat disappointing (and if you don't give to charity because you never get round to it, I'd encourage you to do so), but it doesn't mean that they aren't fighting the right battles, politically. (Mostly, anyway, pick any particular left-wing government and I suspect I can find policies I disagree with harshly). And I earn a decent wage (especially for a recent graduate) and can expect to enter the top band of tax (I.e. more than £33k after allowances) if my career goes reasonably well, and whilst "Happy" doesn't particularly describe my feelings about it, I think it is absolutely fair and would oppose any flat tax across all bands or similar. The NHS is the best thing we've ever achieved as a country, and an example of humanity taking a positive step forward together rather than merely erasing the damage we've already done (which a lot of lawmaking is sadly about).

I've not read Ayn Rand (although any philosophy that claims to be objective has immediately failed in my book. I have many other criticiams of what I've heard, though without reading her books, I don't really feel I can fairly air them here). What I have read about her and her writing has made me disposed to beat her to death with a shovel in the company of objectivists to see if they are altruistic enough to intervene, but it's possible that that is unfair.

Bluefire

25th November 2007, 03:23 AM

I couldn't help but think that she was just mad about the development of the Social Security system.

I still pretty much think that.

Obviously I disagree that it was "just" that. But of course, having fled the soviet communist revolution she was sensitive to anything she saw as leading in that direction.

Apology

25th November 2007, 03:53 AM

Obviously I disagree that it was "just" that. But of course, having fled the soviet communist revolution she was sensitive to anything she saw as leading in that direction.

Just sort of a general impression. I always felt it fueled her obvious hatred of "altruism". Forced "altruism" should be considered a negative thing, but if "altruism" is actually forced, it's no longer "altruism", it's taxation.

It also seemed to me that to embrace Objectivism, you must assume that you will be the donor, not the donee. There's a certain assumption by people that embrace Ayn Rand that there would be a special place for them in Gault's valley, not outside with all the incompetent leeches that the gifted folk left behind to die. The Objectivist can object to Altruism, because they don't really see themselves as ever needing altruism from others. I object to this objectivist objection.

Apology

25th November 2007, 03:56 AM

I didn't object to taking her $500 though. Since it came from the Ayn Rand Foundation, it wasn't altruism. I earned it or won it or something but it wasn't considered a "gift". I wonder if they'd be mad if they knew it was taxed as a "gift".

Bluefire

25th November 2007, 04:37 AM

Just sort of a general impression. I always felt it fueled her obvious hatred of "altruism". Forced "altruism" should be considered a negative thing, but if "altruism" is actually forced, it's no longer "altruism", it's taxation.

She was not only against "forced" altruism. She was against self-sacrifice as a general principle.

It also seemed to me that to embrace Objectivism, you must assume that you will be the donor, not the donee.

Not really, Ayn Rand herself both received and gave charity.

There's a certain assumption by people that embrace Ayn Rand that there would be a special place for them in Gault's valley, not outside with all the incompetent leeches that the gifted folk left behind to die.

No such assumption. The valley of Galt is only for those of supreeme ability. One of the lessons of Atlas Shrugged, is that in that kind of society that the ones in the valley fled from, the competent, and good people, suffer as well.
Not all can be saved to a secret underground society, but that is all the more reason to have the "normal" world be a good one.

The Objectivist can object to Altruism, because they don't really see themselves as ever needing altruism from others. I object to this objectivist objection.

One needs to be specific here and say, I don't need (or see myself needing) other peoples self sacrifice. Of course one needs friends, family etc. And one can give substantial help (or receive it) to/from people that matter to us.

The second point is that, no one should be a slave under my needs. Eg. even if I was the donee here, this would not change the logic.

Apology

25th November 2007, 05:19 AM

No such assumption. The valley of Galt is only for those of supreeme ability. One of the lessons of Atlas Shrugged, is that in that kind of society that the ones in the valley fled from, the competent, and good people, suffer as well.
Not all can be saved to a secret underground society, but that is all the more reason to have the "normal" world be a good one.

I think that a lot of people who are extremely fond of Ayn Rand's work believe that they are people of supreme ability and that her work is a special message to them, as persons of supreme ability. I've even heard it said that the relative dullness of her first 100 pages in both "Fountainhead" and "Shrugged" was a calculated "intelligence test" to keep less-than-superior people from getting to the heart of the plot, so you're implicitly intelligent by the mere fact that you've finished the book. These types of attitudes aren't uncommon when discussing Rand, in particular if you make an intensive study of her work (as I did in order to win the scholarship money) and make a point of discussing her works with as many people as possible. I think that people are getting her all wrong when they think this. Most of us would be left outside Gault's valley to suffer for the mere crime of being mediocre rather than for being actual drains on society.

I'm not sure that the Rand Foundation accurately represents Objectivism, but I assume that they do. They made a point to say that the scholarship that they gave me was not charity, it was earned. Since I basically didn't give them anything of value in exchange, and scholarships are usually funded by philanthropy and altruism, I feel it was a charitable donation. After all, all I did was repeat back the tenets of Objectivism as described in the books. If I'd have disagreed with them strongly, I would not have gotten the money. My essay was a well-written book report and not a product of critical thinking. They pretty much have to pay lip service to charity, since they're suggesting cutting off governmental aid to the indigent, and they don't want their position to look as cold as it really is. I don't really buy it though.

rsaavedra

25th November 2007, 05:25 AM

I've even heard it said that the relative dullness of her first 100 pages in both "Fountainhead" and "Shrugged" was a calculated "intelligence test" to keep less-than-superior people from getting to the heart of the plot, so you're implicitly intelligent by the mere fact that you've finished the book.
Imagine what poor writers could claim about their lousy boring works: "There just aren't sufficiently smart people in the world ready for these words!" :p

Now seriously, this is making me wonder if I should probably spend my time reading some (any) other author.

Father Dagon

25th November 2007, 05:34 AM

I find that one can take parts of Ayn Rands philosophy and leave other parts alone; it is not all or nothing- She and Nathaniel Branden led me to atheism and more appreciation of rationalism- using reason than whims or faith. As a liberal , I disagree with her economics. I hope she inspires more to be rational.But as Michael Shermer and some at Wipedia show she wanted others to agree with her on all matters. Have her writings helped others here to come to be rationalists and atheists ?There are the Peikoff- her choice - and the Kelly schools of thought. Might one add to all this?Yup: http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm

As is the case with many philosophers, Ayn Rand had some good ideas, but mixed them up with a lot of personal attitudes, and called the resulting mixture 'Moral Law'.Her ideas about estethics and sexuality are recipies for failure. I'm also amused by the great shift of perspective.

Fountainhead: Was written when Rand was a struggling artist. Profitable mass culture is bad.
Atlas: Was written when Rand was economically independent. Profitable mass culture is good.

(But that blatant shift is not to be discussed in the company of the randroids...)

Since Ayn Rand never could even deal with Hume's destruction of her main tenet, and he wrote around 250 years before her, then Rand's lack of competent dealing there rather disqualifies her at the start.

In fact, the fallacies of special pleading, ad hoc, affirming the consequent
and so on so liberally scattered throughout her works is what disqualify it all from being considered serious philosophy.Sauce, please?

I am a big fan of Ayn Rand, but that doesn't prevent me from criticizing her.

I think she was great as a philosopher, as long as you didn't ask her to elaborate, but sucked as a novelist. Her best works were short essays written for the newsletter, collected in The Virtue of Selfishness and other compilations.Me too. I think it's beacuse she has to adress a concrete issue in a concrete way, not using sooper-metals and sooper-engines as illustrative devices.

I find her lengthy speaches, like the 5,693,509 page John Galt one, obscure to the point of MEGO. Somewhere in there is a poignant, two-sentence wrapup struggling to get out.Haven't read it, but I appreciated the money speech. More useful IRL...

And I took issue with her "bow down to the nearest smokestack" quote, not to mention her vitrolic essay comparing the campers who came to watch the NASA rockets take off with Woodstock. To her, the RVers were celebrating technology but Woodstockers were just idiot potheads who consumed but did not contribute to society. A bit too simplistic for my taste.Sagan said it better when he at a dinner party or some other gathering asked how many who was alive thanks to modern science. Of course smokestacks are a problem, but you must see the whole picture.

And I guess that the Apollo Program took a bigger dent from the taxpayers money than the Woodstock festival. But did that make the Apollo Program eeviiiillll??? No, it didn't...

That said, I think her anti-altruisic, pro-selfish concepts have considerable merit and are too often ignored when new legislation and taxation is up for consideration.Don't forget the Satanic Bible while you're at it! ;)

Apology

25th November 2007, 05:41 AM

Imagine what poor writers could claim about their lousy boring works: "There just aren't sufficiently smart people in the world ready for these words!" :p

Now seriously, this is making me wonder if I should probably spend my time reading some (any) other author.

Yeah, I thought that statement was pretty dumb the first time I heard it, and was surprised by how many times I heard it repeated earnestly.

Not all Ayn Rand readers are idiots. It's possible to still like her work without believing that you're a member of the "supreme ability" clan. I feel the need to qualify the statement again: people who think things like this are misinterpreting what Rand actually says.

Lex Luthor

25th November 2007, 07:54 AM

Thanks to all, I will follow your suggestions. Don't have Anthem in my library though, but will get it and read it before any of the others.
I don't necessarily agree that you have to start with Anthem. I started with The Fountainhead and eventually read all of her other books. I do agree that starting with Atlas Shrugged may not be the best way to approach it, but for a reason that is different from what others have stated.

No other book by Ayn Rand can measure up to Atlas Shrugged with respect to creating interesting characters and delivering a powerful message. Beginning with The Fountainhead and then proceeding to Atlas Shrugged is a natural progression, even though there is no plot connection between the two books. Doing it the other way will likely cause you to be disappointed when you read The Fountainhead, simply because Atlas Shrugged is a much more ambitious project. That's too bad, because when judged solely on its own merits, The Fountainhead is an excellent book.

In my opinion, if you only read two of Rand's books, those are the books you should read.

Bluefire

25th November 2007, 09:25 AM

I think that a lot of people who are extremely fond of Ayn Rand's work believe that they are people of supreme ability and that her work is a special message to them, as persons of supreme ability. I've even heard it said that the relative dullness of her first 100 pages in both "Fountainhead" and "Shrugged" was a calculated "intelligence test" to keep less-than-superior people from getting to the heart of the plot, so you're implicitly intelligent by the mere fact that you've finished the book.

Wow, ok, you have my sympathy. I have not heard it said that way. Certainly I would say the styles of the books appeal to some sorts of people above others. But not on the "supreme" axis...

These types of attitudes aren't uncommon when discussing Rand, in particular if you make an intensive study of her work (as I did in order to win the scholarship money) and make a point of discussing her works with as many people as possible. I think that people are getting her all wrong when they think this.

If that is your experience, I can see where you are coming from. It has not been mine of course (though I have seen some other kinds of lunacy).

Most of us would be left outside Gault's valley to suffer for the mere crime of being mediocre rather than for being actual drains on society.

The point being, you do not suffer for the crime of being "mediocre" or "merely good" (but not good enough). You suffer because the prevailing ideas in a society have consequences, even for people that don't deserve them. (Sort of the same message is conveyed at the end of "We the living" when the Heroine dies while tryin to escape)

Maybe I should explain why I reacted to your post: I don't really like the many cases of wholesale group psychologizing the adherents of many -isms see. When discussing my atheism with religious folks I get that alot (they would probably be familiar to you), if I discuss libertarianism I get another set (that I am out to starve off the weak, that I lack compassion,that I am coldhearted...) , and I saw your original post as partly the same sort of psychologizing I receive in regards to Atheism and libertarianism.

Now I realize that O-ism has its fair share of nutjobs, and I can't really take the experience with them away from you...

luchog

25th November 2007, 12:52 PM

Ad Hominem.

False application. The personal lives and attitudes of those involved were not addressed in my post. The only issue was voluntary charity vs redistributionism; and the relative charitable giving of both sides of the issue.

Whether or not those who support redistribution are themselves generous beings has no effect on whether their arguments are correct or not. Religious people give more to charity, too (and I suspect this, as well as demographics, are the primary reasons for relative generosity of American conservatives - I haven't seen studies looking at other parts of the world, so I do not know of the picture there) but that does not prove that God exists.

Non sequitor. The question of the existence of God is irrelevant to the issue of charity. Redistributionism is supremely relevant, since it's a different approach to the same problem.

(PS: From the same study I read, anti-redistributionists are also much more likely to be racist, homophobic, anti-science and against stopping climate change, so bear that in mind before trumpeting the huge benefits).

Also irrelevant, and another non-sequitor since "benefits" wasn't part of the discussion; but I"m curious as to what study you're referring to, since I've never seen any such correlation in any study I've found.

The rest of your comments are pure emotionalism, so I won't bother to address them.

luchog

25th November 2007, 12:56 PM

They pretty much have to pay lip service to charity, since they're suggesting cutting off governmental aid to the indigent, and they don't want their position to look as cold as it really is. I don't really buy it though.

I've not found anything Rand's writing that completely discounts voluntary charity per se, explicitly or implicitly. What is explicitly discounted is the concept of entitlement. That the very fact of one's existence entitles one to take from others.

luchog

25th November 2007, 01:02 PM

Imagine what poor writers could claim about their lousy boring works: "There just aren't sufficiently smart people in the world ready for these words!"

In fact, many of them do; both on the conservative and liberal sides. In fact, I've seen far more of that attitude on the liberal side, that is, in the art world which is typically highly left-liberal. "You're simply not intelligent/educated/sensitive/enlightened enough to understand my art." One of the reasons I dropped out of the art scene -- self-described artists who put more creative energy into their "vision statements" than into their actual work.

Rrose Selavy

25th November 2007, 03:20 PM

Not famiiar with her work but as an aside from the heavy stuff , Steve Ditko, the co creator of Spiderman and Dr Strange was/is heavily into Objectivism - later apparently influencing his characters such as Mister A and The Question.

JEROME DA GNOME

25th November 2007, 03:45 PM

Apology

25th November 2007, 05:38 PM

Maybe I should explain why I reacted to your post: I don't really like the many cases of wholesale group psychologizing the adherents of many -isms see. When discussing my atheism with religious folks I get that alot (they would probably be familiar to you), if I discuss libertarianism I get another set (that I am out to starve off the weak, that I lack compassion,that I am coldhearted...) , and I saw your original post as partly the same sort of psychologizing I receive in regards to Atheism and libertarianism.

Now I realize that O-ism has its fair share of nutjobs, and I can't really take the experience with them away from you...

Well, having had time to think about it overnight, I realize that this type of person probably wouldn't come to the JREF. I can see from your own and other people's familiarity with the books that most likely if people were being looney about Rand then their theories would just be debunked. A few repetitions of "Where did Rand say that?" and they'd probably toddle on off to a more supremely talented place ;)

Every group has fringe loonies. I realize it's totally unfair to blame Rand's work for people like this. They didn't understand it at all and that's why they say and think these nutty things. My experience with the Rand Society in hindsight was a negative thing, but I needed the money and it did lead me in the right direction towards my own exploration of philosophy and religion, so it wasn't all bad either. It's anecdotal anyway. Just because I had some bad experiences doesn't mean everyone will or that Rand's all bad. I really enjoyed reading her stuff :blush:

skeptic griggsy

26th November 2007, 07:18 PM

For my latest comments see Drac's similar thread. I thought I had the only such thread,not realizing his/hers preceded mine.

CaptainManacles

26th November 2007, 09:47 PM

Ad Hominem. Whether or not those who support redistribution are themselves generous beings has no effect on whether their arguments are correct or not. Religious people give more to charity, too (and I suspect this, as well as demographics, are the primary reasons for relative generosity of American conservatives - I haven't seen studies looking at other parts of the world, so I do not know of the picture there) but that does not prove that God exists.

That doesn't prove god exist, but pointing out the atheists tend to be more familiar with the bible then Christians tends to provide evidence against the legitimacy of some Christian arguments. Similarly, the fact that redistributionist give less to charity lends credence to the idea that their beliefs are more about power over other people's lives and less about compassion.

skeptic griggsy

27th November 2007, 01:38 AM

Apology

27th November 2007, 02:58 AM

Captain Miralcles, the first point is correct; the second I suspect.
My citation of a work in the other thread shows her illogic.
However, one can discuss her thesis as a springboard to discussing philosophy and political economy.
To object to redistribution assumes the original distribution is just;no, it is not. The market is not fair to the least and overcompensates the top tier.Redistribution has not hurt people from getting rich.
The Social Contract through Supreme Court rulings about the general welfare affirms redistribution.Would others discuss that!

Take a look at Reagan's "Trickle Down" theory as well. I don't think that worked the way it was expected to either. It basically said (and I'm grossly oversimplifying) that by giving tax breaks to the rich, the money would "trickle down" to poorer folks through better sales, a stronger economy, and raises and such. It did not do so. It wasn't based on Objectivism, but post-Trickle Down data did show that the most well-off people kept a lot of the additional profits that they received from the tax breaks for themselves and their higher-ups rather than letting them "Trickle Down" to middle-class America. I'd be interested to see how the data from this program might affect your theory. I'd have to admit that economics is one of my weaker subjects so I can't offer you more than a lead.

Narcopuppy

27th November 2007, 05:09 AM

Rand, like LaVey and Nietzsche, appeals strongest to loner youths looking for a way to see some purpose in their lives. This in itself does not discredit her (or Nietzsche for that matter), but a writer with a fan base composed mainly of teens on power trips is suspect. I personally love her fiction, and still have a general agreement with her individualism and rationalism, but can't endorse the domineering, demagogue attitude she took toward critics, nor can I say that the cult like adulation her followers (and most of them ARE followers) gave her is appropriate to any sort of movement purporting to extol reason as the highest virtue.

Dogmatism in the name of reason? One may as well put anarchy signs on police uniforms, or thrash for Christ :p

JoeEllison

27th November 2007, 05:17 AM

Oh I get it. Anything you disagree with (or don't understand) is made fun of? Please define philosophy as you see it. Then we can all make fun of you. That will be too easy.... Instead Tell us why you disagree with this part of her philosophy. Thanks.

"There is a dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an "open mind." This is a very ambiguous term. That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skeptisism, for holding up no firm convictions and granting plausability to anything. What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an "open mind" but an active mind - a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An acitve mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood: it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of nuetrality and uncertainty: by assuming the responsibility of judgement, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants - a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, and fear.

From Philosophy: Who Needs It Ayn Rand

I'd say that partial quote taken from PWNI is quite appropriate for JREF. It is also a part of her philosophy.

It appears to be dead wrong. A mind that is completely certain is the opposite of "active". That person has stopped thinking, and is resorting to dogma as irrationally as any cultist.

Lex Luthor

27th November 2007, 11:10 AM

Take a look at Reagan's "Trickle Down" theory as well. I don't think that worked the way it was expected to either. It basically said (and I'm grossly oversimplifying) that by giving tax breaks to the rich, the money would "trickle down" to poorer folks through better sales, a stronger economy, and raises and such. It did not do so. It wasn't based on Objectivism, but post-Trickle Down data did show that the most well-off people kept a lot of the additional profits that they received from the tax breaks for themselves and their higher-ups rather than letting them "Trickle Down" to middle-class America. I'd be interested to see how the data from this program might affect your theory. I'd have to admit that economics is one of my weaker subjects so I can't offer you more than a lead.
I think a better description of supply-side economics would be to state that everyone gets tax cuts, and everyone benefits because of the resulting expansion in economic activity. Do the people with higher incomes get bigger savings in terms of absolute dollars? Yes, of course they do. But that's because they are the ones paying the taxes.

"Trickle down" is code for "I don't believe it".

JEROME DA GNOME

27th November 2007, 06:15 PM

It appears to be dead wrong. A mind that is completely certain is the opposite of "active". That person has stopped thinking, and is resorting to dogma as irrationally as any cultist.

I am not sure you understand the difference between philosophy and dogma.

Philosophy: all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts

Dogma: something held as an established opinion

Very different, would you not say?

skeptic griggsy

20th April 2010, 05:10 PM

Rand took her unconfirmed intuitions as axiomatic! Google threads from her critics to see that. One notes that she is part-this and part-that. She inveighs against certain philosophers whilst partway using their thought!
Had she taken the effort she'd has seen that Butler rebuts egoism as well as seeing she was pretty wet! Neither she nor her heir Leonard Peikoff could stand criticism, feeling that her system was the Truth for all time, never needing updating and criticism, the mark of a closed mind, not of a skeptic or rationalist or naturalist
Faith doth that to people!.

bookitty

20th April 2010, 05:32 PM

In college, arguing Rand was one of my favorite pastimes. Her work is a wonderful jumping off point. These days, I consider re-reading her books and all I can think is "Ugh! The interminable dinner parties!"

barrymore

7th May 2010, 02:36 PM

The people who reject Rand outright are no different than the people that pay lip-service to her. She has good ideas and bad ideas just like any philosopher.

To give you an example of each side:
The enemies tend to criticize her writing style and say her books are trash. OK, that may be the case, but it is irrelevant to the ideas contained within.
The lovers/followers believe in their own hype and tend to emphasize commercial success over all else.
It is as fashionable to criticize her books as it is to quote John Galt.

This is a shame because I think we can almost all agree on many of her points:
--Rationality & the importance of dispassionate analysis
--Productivity
--Individuality and Individual freedom
--Individual principles and rationally sticking to them
--The individual as a hero & aspiring to greatness

Cavemonster

7th May 2010, 03:02 PM

barrymore

7th May 2010, 03:20 PM

Barrymore,
All those things you listed that one may agree on Rand with were communcated better earlier, by more talented writers and more interesting philosophers. They are standard, not revolutionary ideas. Only twisted into Rand's thesis are they something distinct, and in that they are incorrect.

I never said they were. Two things to note:
1.) I agree that Rand is not the best implementation of philosophy. The gulf between her and Plato in writing style, presentation, and depth is as wide as the length of the universe. But her ideas should still stand on their own.
2.) As you point out, they have been uttered many times before. The funny thing is that many people find them intriguing and worthy of discussion, but suddenly slap Rand's name on them and people dismiss them. Actually, they go beyond dismissing them and get absolutely defensive over them. Look if you want to attribute the ideas to someone else go ahead, but in the end it is irrelevant. Ideas are ideas.

Not to Godwin myself, but Hitler championed pride in one's country, athletic excellence and loved dogs. Aren't those good ideas? The reason no one needs to bring up Hitler to support those things is that they all existed long before him and he didn't make any real contributions.

Rand is the same way. Anything true she said, she added nothing to.

Not sure what the Hitler reference has to do with anything. Nazism is pseudo-philosophy and never aspired to be anything more. It never tried to explain anything and was only borne out of political motives. Objectivism, while some consider it pseudo-philosophy, at least aspires to explain the world and develop a formal, consistent set of rules.

But...

Again, who cares who uttered the ideas? It's one thing to disagree with ideas. But I am railing against people dismissing Rand outright because they did not like her writing style or the cult that has grown around her. Labeling a philosophy as Randian is only useful inasmuch as it saves people time in the initial staging of discussion. Besides that, the name and the content of the ideas should not be intertwined.

MarkCorrigan

7th May 2010, 03:58 PM

I tried to read a Rand book once.

Her characterisation of Socialism was so wrong I almost thought it was a satire on Libertarianism. It was absolutely pathetic. It stated that if you adopt a socialist system, in a fairly short (implied) space of time, you would lose science to the degree that glass becomes a new discovery (what? I mean seriously, what?) and names would be banned. There were other obscenely wrong distortions of socialist philosophy, but those two really made me laugh out loud.

Furthermore, her own philosophy was roughly equivalent to a five year old, with the same levels of social conscience, empathy and altruism. There was nothing attractive (to me) about her philosophy. I find the argument that dismissing "Randian" ideas out of hand because they are based on her dreadful books or because there's a weird personality cult around her is, in my opinion, a distortion of reality. Most people I know who actually know who Rand is think her ideas that are the reason they dismiss Randian ideas out of hand.

They still agree her writing is dreck though.

barrymore

7th May 2010, 04:13 PM

Furthermore, her own philosophy was roughly equivalent to a five year old, with the same levels of social conscience, empathy and altruism. There was nothing attractive (to me) about her philosophy. I find the argument that dismissing "Randian" ideas out of hand because they are based on her dreadful books or because there's a weird personality cult around her is, in my opinion, a distortion of reality. Most people I know who actually know who Rand is think her ideas that are the reason they dismiss Randian ideas out of hand.

Thank you for proving my point.

Senex

7th May 2010, 04:40 PM

God bless :rolleyes: Ayn Rand.

It's important that articulate people exist on the edge of argumentative positions.

Heaven knows there are articulate commies out there but how many people argue that capitalism and self interest make what is best in the world possible.

She has an important place for open minded thinkers.

Chris L

7th May 2010, 04:43 PM

I'm about a third of the way through Atlas Shrugged, and while I've seen what look to be some interesting ideas, I haven't seen anything worth creating a religion over. I see the book so far as a battle of elites, those who produce and those who want to (for various reasons) control those who produce (yes, I know that is kind of obvious). I think one reason for the book's length is that Rand wanted the reader to feel the frustration of people like Daggney and Reardon. That frustration is supposed to make Galt Gulch more attractive. In any case, it's an interesting read so far.

MarkCorrigan

7th May 2010, 04:44 PM

Thank you for proving my point.

Her philosophy, to me, in my opinion (can I stress that part enough?) was morally bankrupt and had a very questionable line to it. That she didn't consider all good things to be evil strikes me as an argument no more compelling than the argument that you can't hate on Charles Manson because he had good taste in music.

The parts of her philosophy that I actually agreed with, I failed to notice because they weren't actually hers. When I discuss a philosopher and their ideas, be it Rand, or Plato or Mill, I do not consider the fact that none of them say "so start killing people for their possessions!" to be a point in their favour. Just because they approve of something good that practically every philosopher agrees to does not make their views more or less insane and laughable.

Monketey Ghost

7th May 2010, 04:46 PM

Let me know when you get to John Galt Speaks and quit reading.

barrymore

7th May 2010, 05:14 PM

Her philosophy, to me, in my opinion (can I stress that part enough?) was morally bankrupt and had a very questionable line to it. That she didn't consider all good things to be evil strikes me as an argument no more compelling than the argument that you can't hate on Charles Manson because he had good taste in music.

The parts of her philosophy that I actually agreed with, I failed to notice because they weren't actually hers. When I discuss a philosopher and their ideas, be it Rand, or Plato or Mill, I do not consider the fact that none of them say "so start killing people for their possessions!" to be a point in their favour. Just because they approve of something good that practically every philosopher agrees to does not make their views more or less insane and laughable.

What parts of her philosophy? What is logical? What is illogical?

I do not mean to compare her to these philosophers in terms of impact or quality, but dismissing Rand because you do not like her writing style or narratives is akin to dismissing Nietzsche because you did not like Thus Spoke Zarathustra or Kant because you thought The Critique of Pure Reason was too dense.

D'rok

7th May 2010, 05:58 PM

Senex

8th May 2010, 03:52 AM

. I think one reason for the book's length is that Rand wanted the reader to feel the frustration of people like Daggney and Reardon. That frustration is supposed to make Galt Gulch more attractive. In any case, it's an interesting read so far.

non-spoiler: Get back to us after you read Galt's 60 plus page radio address.

Monketey Ghost

8th May 2010, 04:18 AM

What I mentioned. If you haven't already been hit over the head with Rand's philosophy at that point in the book, JGS's will numb your brain and leave you hating her ideas and her writing.

MarkCorrigan

8th May 2010, 07:58 AM

What parts of her philosophy? What is logical? What is illogical?

I do not mean to compare her to these philosophers in terms of impact or quality, but dismissing Rand because you do not like her writing style or narratives is akin to dismissing Nietzsche because you did not like Thus Spoke Zarathustra or Kant because you thought The Critique of Pure Reason was too dense.

I explicitly stated that I dislike Rand because of her philosophy rather than writing style. Can you read for comprehension?

I find her philosophy to be utterly worthless. Want me to expand?

I feel that her theories promote the concept of social darwinism, a bankrupt philosophy based on a total misunderstanding of something that has nothing to do with morality. I find her ideas to be selfish in the extreme and I find the idea that people should haul themselves up on their own merits and those who do not do so are all lazy slobs who deserve to die shocking and disgusting.

I also find her opinion that if someone is struggling, people will just lend a hand out of the goodness of their hearts without being made to by teh evul gubmint to be laughable in it's idiocy and naivety, in much the same way that the "let's all pull together chaps" ideas of Communism are.

I also find it hilarious when Libertarians can't see that those two things are exactly the same.

Senex

8th May 2010, 06:05 PM

I explicitly stated that I dislike Rand because of her philosophy rather than writing style. Can you read for comprehension?

I find her philosophy to be utterly worthless. Want me to expand?

I feel that her theories promote the concept of social darwinism, a bankrupt philosophy based on a total misunderstanding of something that has nothing to do with morality. I find her ideas to be selfish in the extreme and I find the idea that people should haul themselves up on their own merits and those who do not do so are all lazy slobs who deserve to die shocking and disgusting.

I also find her opinion that if someone is struggling, people will just lend a hand out of the goodness of their hearts without being made to by teh evul gubmint to be laughable in it's idiocy and naivety, in much the same way that the "let's all pull together chaps" ideas of Communism are.

I also find it hilarious when Libertarians can't see that those two things are exactly the same.

Ayn Rand might be a bit deeper thinker than you give her credit for. Just look at your post. Five paragraphs and every one starts with "I." "I,I,I,I," give us a break. (I think I missed one).

The world doesn't turn because because you woke up this morning --you commie. You are on the dole aren't you?

skeptic griggsy

8th May 2010, 08:23 PM

Mark, you are the right way Corrigan!
D'rok,those matters are right on! However, she was such a hypocrite! And she didn't see individual greatness in most people!
Oh, " Atlas " as a science-fiction movie without all the obtuse philosophy could be fine.
Anjelique Jolie, atheist, want to play Dagny.

Trent Wray

8th May 2010, 08:46 PM

Ayn Rand might be a bit deeper thinker than you give her credit for. Just look at your post. Five paragraphs and every one starts with "I." "I,I,I,I," give us a break. (I think I missed one).Great observation ;)

Mark, you are the right way Corrigan!
D'rok,those matters are right on! However, she was such a hypocrite! And she didn't see individual greatness in most people!
Oh, " Atlas " as a science-fiction movie without all the obtuse philosophy could be fine.
Anjelique Jolie, atheist, want to play Dagny. I am liking this idea, except I'd replace AJ with Annie Parisse (http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Imported/BioPix/Ma/bio05/annie-parisse1.jpg). :p And yep, I'm sticking with that choice ;)

Chris L

8th May 2010, 08:48 PM

"Get back to us after you read Galt's 60 plus page radio address. "

Not a problem. As a Robert Heinlein fan, I'm used to self indulgent lectures. :)

Monketey Ghost

8th May 2010, 08:55 PM

At first I was all like, "Yeah! Why should I have to pay for anyone else's goods and services? If the poor can't carry their own weight, let them die!"

Then I was like, "Hang on a second... I'm poor. I'll need some services and goods and the charity of others..."

barrymore

8th May 2010, 08:55 PM

You state those points as if they are axioms that are self-evidently true to any rational being. By doing so you a) imitate Rand's methodology, and b) reveal that she is not a philosopher.

You also commit argumentum ad populum, as if the truth of Rand's assertions had any relevance to the number of believers.

Uh, no--try again. I was not arguing the merits of her philosophy. I was pointing out that people tend to agree with many tenets of objectivism in the abstract, yet when they are associated with Rand people vehemently argue against them and usually resort to criticizing her writing style.

I could care less about defending Rand herself or her voluminous novels, but any writer above a minimum quality deserves a fair and rational discussion concerning their ideas irrespective of the way they are presented. After all, I could call Critique of Pure Reason **** and leave it at that.

I explicitly stated that I dislike Rand because of her philosophy rather than writing style. Can you read for comprehension?

I find her philosophy to be utterly worthless. Want me to expand?

Of course. What kind of argument is "it's worthless"? Whoop-de-do. We all hold ourselves to a higher standard here to at least lay out a coherent argument. Do you agree?

I feel that her theories promote the concept of social darwinism, a bankrupt philosophy based on a total misunderstanding of something that has nothing to do with morality. I find her ideas to be selfish in the extreme and I find the idea that people should haul themselves up on their own merits and those who do not do so are all lazy slobs who deserve to die shocking and disgusting.

Well said, and I agree. Someone said on this thread or another one that it is a philosophy for the management class, which I agree with as well. Way too focused on commercial success and industrial-age definitions of productivity.

I also find her opinion that if someone is struggling, people will just lend a hand out of the goodness of their hearts without being made to by teh evul gubmint to be laughable in it's idiocy and naivety, in much the same way that the "let's all pull together chaps" ideas of Communism are.

I agree that it is idealistic to think that people will help each other out of the goodness of their hearts, but IMO, no ethical framework has resolved this. It is not self-evident to me that people should be forced to be magnanimous to others, if that is what you are getting at.

I also find it hilarious when Libertarians can't see that those two things are exactly the same.

Do not agree. Anarchy is the default state of nature so any modifications to that must essentially be justified by some kind of ethical framework. Thus, any ethical framework will always have rich language concerning the individual since that is the building block. All frameworks that lead to communism will still have strong flavors of individuality, but not other way around. It is asymmetric, and that is why they are not the same. I am interested in hearing your thoughts if you disagree with this analysis.

But I do agree that both sides can be over idealistic, but that can be said for any party really.

D'rok

8th May 2010, 09:30 PM

Uh, no--try again. I was not arguing the merits of her philosophy.
Then you shouldn't have said this:

This is a shame because I think we can almost all agree on many of her points:

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2010, 09:38 PM

I am near the end of the audio book, Ayn Rand and the World She Made (http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-World-She-Made/dp/1433271370). I've not read her fiction. But the biography is fascinating.

I watched her interview with Phil Donahue (5 parts viewable on Youtube) from 1974 the other night. More fascinating stuff.

Here's part 1:
FzGFytGBDN8

You all can find the rest from there. It isn't until part four that the interview gets testy. As soon as atheism is brought up, people get upset, including Donahue. I'd love to discuss the matter with Donahue since his fallacies are not confronted in the Rand interview.

The biography mentions other interviews so I plan to watch them as well.

Rand has some reasonable rational ideas, but was influenced by the communist revolution in Russia and it is clear that distorted her view of the nature of humankind. In the Donahue interview she expresses a belief we own all the third world's natural resources because Western corporations paid to develop the infrastructure to recover the resources. That's like saying if someone pays to have a well drilled they agree they owe the driller for the cost of all the water they use once the well is in service.

The cult that developed around Rand was/is something else. It's an excuse for self indulgence so no wonder it attracted a following. But it pisses me off that Alan Greenspan who was in Rand's inner circle adopted her warped ideas and was involved in the recent economy tanking because he had the power and influence. He was like a conned ignorant sap, saying how misled he'd been believing the self interest of CEOs and their ilk would translate into protecting the interests of the stock holders. What a jerk.

It proved I and my fellow Progressives who don't trust the corporate decision makers and believe we need REGULATED capitalism were right. Regulation does not have to equate to directing the companies' business. It just needs to keep the a-holes honest.

barrymore

8th May 2010, 09:45 PM

Then you shouldn't have said this:

I will be more exact: the amount of direct opposition to Randian ideas that have I have read on the board greatly exaggerates the actual opposition to these same ideas in an abstract context.

Not saying everybody agrees 100% with Rand on them, or even that i do (I don't), but there is more agreement than disagreement over them.

If you disagree, please point out the ones you think are contrary to the overall philosophy of JREF'ers (true JREF'ers, not the fundies).

--Rationality & the importance of dispassionate analysis
--Productivity
--Individuality and Individual freedom
--Individual principles and rationally sticking to them
--The individual as a hero & aspiring to greatness

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2010, 09:48 PM

I am not sure you understand the difference between philosophy and dogma.

Philosophy: all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts

Dogma: something held as an established opinion

Very different, would you not say?At some point it is possible one's 'learned' concepts become dogma as new evidence fails to be considered. Rand was very dogmatic, to the point she just refused to discuss anything with people who disagreed with her.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2010, 09:51 PM

barrymore

8th May 2010, 09:59 PM

The cult that developed around Rand was/is something else. It's an excuse for self indulgence so no wonder it attracted a following. But it pisses me off that Alan Greenspan who was in Rand's inner circle adopted her warped ideas and was involved in the recent economy tanking because he had the power and influence. He was like a conned ignorant sap, saying how misled he'd been believing the self interest of CEOs and their ilk would translate into protecting the interests of the stock holders. What a jerk.

It proved I and my fellow Progressives who don't trust the corporate decision makers and believe we need REGULATED capitalism were right. Regulation does not have to equate to directing the companies' business. It just needs to keep the a-holes honest.

Don't break your arm from patting yourself on the back! :p

I do not want any leader following an objectivist philosophy, but it can hardly be said that Greenspan did. It is akin to Stalin claiming he was communist. Neither followed their ideologies faithfully, and its not apparent that it would even be desirable for that to happen; but in terms of Greenspan, his unfaithful following (or interpretation, to put it nicely) certainly put us in a world of hurt.

Objectivists have essentially disowned him, which I suspect is because he partly gives them a bad name since he is associated with the philosophy, but more importantly, he clearly did not embody the philosophy. Being a Fed Chairman is the most egregious contradiction. Rand wanted the Gold Standard without the Fed I believe; at the very least, she did not want the gov't interfering with free markets (which is not uniquely objectivist, but objectivists seem to be pretty adamant about it and one would think that a staunch follower such as Greenspan would toe the line). But more importantly, he meddled in ways that are decidedly un-free market-like from keeping the interest rates low resulting in excessive credit to encouraging Congress to inflate the housing sector, etc. This is not objectivist nor is it free market in general.

Here is a piece written about Objectivism & Greenspan:

http://www.redpills.org/?p=352

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2010, 10:06 PM

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2010, 10:08 PM

Don't break your arm from patting yourself on the back! :p

I do not want any leader following an objectivist philosophy, but it can hardly be said that Greenspan did. It is akin to Stalin claiming he was communist. Neither followed their ideologies faithfully, and its not apparent that it would even be desirable for that to happen; but in terms of Greenspan, his unfaithful following (or interpretation, to put it nicely) certainly put us in a world of hurt.

Objectivists have essentially disowned him, which I suspect is because he partly gives them a bad name since he is associated with the philosophy, but more importantly, he clearly did not embody the philosophy. Being a Fed Chairman is the most egregious contradiction. Rand wanted the Gold Standard without the Fed I believe; at the very least, she did not want the gov't interfering with free markets (which is not uniquely objectivist, but objectivists seem to be pretty adamant about it and one would think that a staunch follower such as Greenspan would toe the line). But more importantly, he meddled in ways that are decidedly un-free market-like from keeping the interest rates low resulting in excessive credit to encouraging Congress to inflate the housing sector, etc. This is not objectivist nor is it free market in general.

Here is a piece written about Objectivism & Greenspan:

http://www.redpills.org/?p=352Greensapn himself admitted to his disappointment regarding the failure of Rand's market philosophy. Greenspan was in her social circle. And he himself said her ideas failed.

I'll comment on your link after I have time to read it. But my first comment is, it was written in 2007. Greenspan admitted to disappointment in Rand's ideas in 2008 after the greedy actions of a few resulted in the economy tanking for the many.

barrymore

8th May 2010, 10:13 PM

I don't think you'd find much agreement among skeptics or any other large group of people with Rand's philosophy that people with less skill and/or intelligence are leeches with nothing worth contributing to society.

I agree completely. Which one of those 5 points I outlined addresses that? None hopefully, because I specifically left it out. I find that most here are agreeable on much of the philosophy besides the whole social darwinism / dog-eat-dog point.

Here is what Rand says herself:

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

Nos 1 & 2 are full-blown skeptic tenets. No.4, in practice, is as well--with only slight disagreement on the margin about what the state's role is in economics.

Now No 3 seems to be the sticking point. Now, I will say that people opportunistically use it to **** over people and over-hype themselves. However, as written, it seems well-aligned with skeptic philosophy, especially when compared to religion and the supernatural which almost universally concentrate on sacrificing yourself for something "greater". Where No 3 falls short is in its application to decency, empathy, and altruism. This certainly is not a trivial point--in fact it is a major point as how we interact and relate with others defines our life on a day-to-day basis.

But even with that disagreement it does not warrant to me a wholesale throwing out of the philosophy when 85% of it closely aligns with what skeptics hold near and dear.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2010, 10:15 PM

barrymore

8th May 2010, 10:27 PM

I do think Rand did have some rational ideas, well worth consideration. She pointed out some obvious things we don't seem to often have the courage to confront. For example, she noted how much we spend on education of the severely mentally disabled while not spending much public funds on the gifted.

Of course that is true in early education, but Rand neglected to consider grants for the gifted which are available at the advanced education levels like universities.

Then there is her idea we should be free to voluntarily support the poor, but we shouldn't be required to by government. I have mixed feelings about this part of her philosophy. It would seem there needs to be a baseline which society doesn't let the neediest among us fall below. I'd love to ask Rand about our socialist system of police and fire services in light of her philosophy. And if you think public police and fire services are a good idea, then what about libraries, education and medical care?

There are just so many caveats to a totally self serving philosophy.

As you noted earlier her philosophies were shaped by her experience in communist Russia. That certainly influenced a swing to the complete other side of the spectrum.

IMO, Her philosophies are the bare-bones needs for society: protection of the individual, letting people live relatively free of physical and mental coercion from others, aspiring to maximize our talents and focusing on the great feats to what humans are capable of. I think all of these can be greatly refined and added to, but overall they provide a good jumping off point.

Greensapn himself admitted to his disappointment regarding the failure of Rand's market philosophy. Greenspan was in her social circle. And he himself said her ideas failed.

I'll comment on your link after I have time to read it. But my first comment is, it was written in 2007. Greenspan admitted to disappointment in Rand's ideas in 2008 after the greedy actions of a few resulted in the economy tanking for the many.

Well it does not matter that the article was written in 2007 because it was retrospective on his term as Fed governor which ended several years before that.

But my main point is that he did not follow objectivist economic principles. I have never seen any coherent argument that he did other than to use it as a thinly-veiled attack against objectivism due to his prior involvement with Rand. But it is disingenuous to claim that Greenspan's failures equated to the failures of objectivism. Especially since objectivist economics can be assaulted in a much more rigorous and measured manner.

barrymore

8th May 2010, 11:03 PM

Alan Shrugged: Greenspan, Ayn Rand and Their God That Failed (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/25-6)

I don't know much about this web group, but I loved the blog title. And this blog entry points to the Greenspan admission I was talking about. Note, Greenspan's comments were in 2008.

I understand what Greenspan said, but an objective (without the -ist) analysis of his actions is more important.

The article that you posted only deals with regulation of banks and derivatives. Yes, he ushered in an area of deregulation. Yes, this had an effect. And yes, this could fall under consistency with objectivist economics. For legislation, see: Financial Services Modernization Act ('99) and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act ('00)

Not mentioned in the article: One thing he also pushed for was the repealing of portions of Glass-Steagall which allowed commercial banks to own investment banks, which had an effect as well. See: Gramm-Beach-Lilley.

However, there are a couple things to note, which are decidedly anti free market and/or result in great distortions:
1.) Congress, Clinton, Bush & Greenspan himself were distorting the economy in other areas with increased regulations. The most egregious was the Community Reinvestment Act, which threw money at people who did not deserve it and essentially planted the seeds for the housing bubble. In general, Fannie & Freddie were encouraged to give out money to anyone and everyone so that the American dream of owning a home could be fulfilled.
2.) Basel I/II accords: without getting into the boring details, these risks frameworks were supposed to allow for more streamlined risk management and less transaction costs for all parties involved. But what really happened was it reduced capital requirements for banks (banks could lever up more), terrible models for measuring risk (esp. market risk through VaR), and other regulations that banks could hide behind to perform financial engineering tricks. Basel is an international framework (through Bank for International Settlements), but championed by Greenspan as it pertained to US.
and finally, the big kahuna:
3.) the fed funds rate. If we are talking pure objectivist economics (laissez-faire), the fed funds rate and the mechanism through which the fed sets it decidedly violates their tenets. However, let's back off a bit from the ideological case. Even then, Greenspan ABUSED it. He kept the FFR (until the financial crisis, which is obviously in Bernanke's hands now) at an unprecedented (low) level for an unprecedented length of time. This was disastrous and distortive for 2 reasons: first, people did not learn their lessons from the tech crash. They did not feel much pain or change their habits. In fact, even though a great many people lost money in the equity markets, they could make up the gap in lost funds by being able to borrow at an incredibly cheap rate. Which leads to the second effect: housing went crazy because people could buy whatever they wanted for basically interest free at the time. Housing was huge--Congress wanted it, Bush & Clinton wanted it, Greenspan wanted it--so by keeping the FFR low, mortgage rates stayed low. Housing prices took off, people felt richer because they could reverse mortgage or take out equity. Combine that with wholesale fraud in the mortgage industry (or at the very least, imprudence and terrible management), and money was flowing to everyone and anyone! This would never gotten nearly out of hand had Greenspace raised the price of money at a quicker pace. But he kept it low for far too long, and it resulted in great market distortions.

So, all in all, people who want to peg Greenspan as an objectivist like to point to derivative deregulation, but if you look at the pudding, there is more than enough proof that he meddled in the economy much more than a true laissez-faire proponent would and should.

Senex

9th May 2010, 03:24 AM

"Get back to us after you read Galt's 60 plus page radio address. "

Not a problem. As a Robert Heinlein fan, I'm used to self indulgent lectures. :)

I read Stranger in a Strange Land. You have no idea what you're in for. ;)

Senex

9th May 2010, 03:31 AM

Then I was like, "Hang on a second... I'm poor. I'll need some services and goods and the charity of others..."

Suck it up and get a job! :D

D'rok

9th May 2010, 05:42 AM

I will be more exact: the amount of direct opposition to Randian ideas that have I have read on the board greatly exaggerates the actual opposition to these same ideas in an abstract context.

Not saying everybody agrees 100% with Rand on them, or even that i do (I don't), but there is more agreement than disagreement over them.

If you disagree, please point out the ones you think are contrary to the overall philosophy of JREF'ers (true JREF'ers, not the fundies).

--Rationality & the importance of dispassionate analysis
--Productivity
--Individuality and Individual freedom
--Individual principles and rationally sticking to them
--The individual as a hero & aspiring to greatness

I have no idea what the overall philosophy of JREFers is or if such a thing even exists. But even if every last one of us agreed with Rand, that would be completely irrelevant to the truth of her assertions or the value of her ideas. If JREFers were all or mostly all Randians, why would'nt that say something uncomplimentary about the quality of JREFer thought, rather something complimentary about Rand's thought? And even if Rand mimicked some of the philosophical conclusions that JREFers value from other sources, why is it hypocritical to oppose Rand's pathetic caricatures of those conclusions?

What Rand is is a caricature of actual philosophy. She takes the arguments of Kant, Nietzsche, Aristotle and even Plato, whom she despises, and totemizes them.

Reason was the royal rule of the soul for Plato, but Plato paid due notice to honour-seeking, spiritdeness, passion, eros, etc. and to the people who were driven by those things at the expense of reason. Who were those people? At the level of archetype, it's Achilles. At the level of civil society, they were Gorgias, Thrasymachus, Callicles, Alcibiades, etc. - the wealthy, driven, successful, high-achievers of Athens; the men whose passion and ambition drove them to lead armies, to make speeches, to satisfy their appetites to the full extent of their skill. Men who would not be bound by the needs of lesser Athenians. Men to whom justice is the advantage of the stronger. John Galt, in other words, and all men like him who are driven, not by reason, but by ambition, honour, and eros. Men who Plato wanted to contain, to manage, and to orient towards civic virtue.

In opposing the philosophy of the Athenian Galts, Plato, through Socrates, stated their arguments in the strongest form he could and then made his case against them. This is showing your work in philosophy. What does Rand do? Simply assert with clumsy and juvenile prose that Achilles, not Socrates, was the rational one. She doesn't do philosophy. She totemizes reason in an absurd and contradictory caricature.

Kant also priveleged reason, but he, like Plato and unlike Rand, showed his work and made his arguments. Without getting into the details, he argued for a categorical imperative that applied to humanity, where each person was an end rather than a mere means. This imposes a duty on everyone to treat everyone else as ends in themselves. It is a communitarian duty. What does Rand do with this? Totemize the categorical imperative into a duty of the individual to himself over the community, without even making an attempt to address, much less refute Kant. Not philosophy.

And, of course, Nietzsche elevated the individual will over the herd. He too wanted to re-inject Achilles into fully Platonized, Christianized western civilization. But to get into the ways in which Rand totemizes and trivializes Nietzsche would take far longer than I have the patience for here. I've already thought about Ayn Rand too much today. Same goes for her treatment of Enlightenment rationalists like Locke and Adam Smith.

Rand was not a philosopher. She was an intellectually impoverished, second-rate novelist. Not because she took the ideas of philosophers and tried to re-cast them in the form that she preferred, but because she did so by assertion and without showing her work, and without justifying the illogic and absurdity of her conclusions. She was a sophist.

cj.23

9th May 2010, 06:03 AM

D'rok

9th May 2010, 06:12 AM

Objectivism is not objective. Don't let the name fool you. And if you really want to understand, read wider than just Rand.

Senex

9th May 2010, 06:49 AM

Objectivism is not objective. Don't let the name fool you. And if you really want to understand, read wider than just Rand.

Get a job and stop your whining. :rolleyes:

D'rok

9th May 2010, 06:55 AM

Get a job and stop your whining. :rolleyes:
Why get a job when I can get the state to tax John Galt and redistribute his wealth to me? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Monketey Ghost

9th May 2010, 06:56 AM

I'm a drain on society! Privileged people are better than me by dint of the fact that they have more!

I need to get a job, I do nothing productive! Ayn Rand was a genius!

Senex

9th May 2010, 07:03 AM

Why get a job when I can get the state to tax John Galt and redistribute his wealth to me? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

You can go the easy route -- however Rand makes it clear you will only have second class sex partners (Galt's wife) if you are lazy. (You don't want a second class sex partner, do you:confused:)

D'rok

9th May 2010, 07:08 AM

You can go the easy route -- however Rand makes it clear you will only have second class sex partners (Galt's wife) if you are lazy. (You don't want a second class sex partner, do you:confused:)
I like nerdy girls with glasses.

Monketey Ghost

9th May 2010, 07:13 AM

I've been reading Ayn Rand: Boner Buster and I must say the photo spreads are intensely softening.

geni

9th May 2010, 07:13 AM

Senex

9th May 2010, 07:15 AM

I like nerdy girls with glasses.

I like girls who have a pulse. We all have our standards ;)

barrymore

9th May 2010, 08:24 AM

I have no idea what the overall philosophy of JREFers is or if such a thing even exists. But even if every last one of us agreed with Rand, that would be completely irrelevant to the truth of her assertions or the value of her ideas. If JREFers were all or mostly all Randians, why would'nt that say something uncomplimentary about the quality of JREFer thought, rather something complimentary about Rand's thought? And even if Rand mimicked some of the philosophical conclusions that JREFers value from other sources, why is it hypocritical to oppose Rand's pathetic caricatures of those conclusions?

Again, you misinterpret my point. I am not arguing that JREFers--skeptics would a better word, I suppose--are or are not Randian. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency of certain people that dismiss the ideas of Rand outright yet openly trumpet similar ideas in the abstract. Just trying to get her a fair shake, that's all.

What Rand is is a caricature of actual philosophy. She takes the arguments of Kant, Nietzsche, Aristotle and even Plato, whom she despises, and totemizes them.

Agree. The hypocrisy of objectivists when it comes to borrowing from other philosophers is immense. They go way out of their way to deny that it happens. Over-compensating, for sure. However, this has nothing to do with the philosophy itself.

Reason was the royal rule of the soul for Plato, but Plato paid due notice to honour-seeking, spiritdeness, passion, eros, etc. and to the people who were driven by those things at the expense of reason. Who were those people? At the level of archetype, it's Achilles. At the level of civil society, they were Gorgias, Thrasymachus, Callicles, Alcibiades, etc. - the wealthy, driven, successful, high-achievers of Athens; the men whose passion and ambition drove them to lead armies, to make speeches, to satisfy their appetites to the full extent of their skill. Men who would not be bound by the needs of lesser Athenians. Men to whom justice is the advantage of the stronger. John Galt, in other words, and all men like him who are driven, not by reason, but by ambition, honour, and eros. Men who Plato wanted to contain, to manage, and to orient towards civic virtue.

In opposing the philosophy of the Athenian Galts, Plato, through Socrates, stated their arguments in the strongest form he could and then made his case against them. This is showing your work in philosophy. What does Rand do? Simply assert with clumsy and juvenile prose that Achilles, not Socrates, was the rational one. She doesn't do philosophy. She totemizes reason in an absurd and contradictory caricature.

Yes, Galt is a peculiar case. But take someone like Howard Roark, who in many ways resembles a Socrates-lite.

If you want to relate her to Greek philosophy though, I think Aristotle is a much a better fit. You have virtues of courage, magnificence, and magnanimity; also addresses ambition and pride as well. Not that there is a 1-to-1 overlap, but they still overlap in many ways. But where Aristotle & Rand depart greatly is when it comes to generosity, temperance, friendliness. Without these, one's soul is not going to be in conformity with virtue.

Kant also priveleged reason, but he, like Plato and unlike Rand, showed his work and made his arguments. Without getting into the details, he argued for a categorical imperative that applied to humanity, where each person was an end rather than a mere means. This imposes a duty on everyone to treat everyone else as ends in themselves. It is a communitarian duty. What does Rand do with this? Totemize the categorical imperative into a duty of the individual to himself over the community, without even making an attempt to address, much less refute Kant. Not philosophy.

I think Kant would be quite offended that you characterized the categorical imperative as communitarian.

But I agree wrt to Kant & Rand.

And, of course, Nietzsche elevated the individual will over the herd. He too wanted to re-inject Achilles into fully Platonized, Christianized western civilization. But to get into the ways in which Rand totemizes and trivializes Nietzsche would take far longer than I have the patience for here. I've already thought about Ayn Rand too much today. Same goes for her treatment of Enlightenment rationalists like Locke and Adam Smith.

I agree.

Rand was not a philosopher. She was an intellectually impoverished, second-rate novelist. Not because she took the ideas of philosophers and tried to re-cast them in the form that she preferred, but because she did so by assertion and without showing her work, and without justifying the illogic and absurdity of her conclusions. She was a sophist.

So it may be (I agree). But what she is is irrelevant.

I've been reading Ayn Rand: Boner Buster and I must say the photo spreads are intensely softening.

I would rather lock lips with Socrates, myself. He would make a better looking woman than Rand did.

Lallante

9th May 2010, 08:29 AM

You can't be both a good skeptic and a good believer of Rand's pop-psychology BS.

Quite simply, Objectivism as described by Rand is as much a matter of faith, ideology and naive oversimplification as any religion.

Rand's pap has many, many fatal flaws to it, but in summary to quote Gore Vidal:

This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the “freedom is slavery” sort. What interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her “philosophy,” but the size of her audience .... She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetent that’s your lookout.

Every Randian I've ever come across starts their argument by spewing the same old tired axioms as "self-evident Truth". Good luck proving the existence of a natural right to property is all I can say.

MarkCorrigan

9th May 2010, 09:05 AM

Uh, no--try again. I was not arguing the merits of her philosophy. I was pointing out that people tend to agree with many tenets of objectivism in the abstract, yet when they are associated with Rand people vehemently argue against them and usually resort to criticizing her writing style.

I could care less about defending Rand herself or her voluminous novels, but any writer above a minimum quality deserves a fair and rational discussion concerning their ideas irrespective of the way they are presented. After all, I could call Critique of Pure Reason **** and leave it at that.

Of course. What kind of argument is "it's worthless"? Whoop-de-do. We all hold ourselves to a higher standard here to at least lay out a coherent argument. Do you agree?

Well said, and I agree. Someone said on this thread or another one that it is a philosophy for the management class, which I agree with as well. Way too focused on commercial success and industrial-age definitions of productivity.

I agree that it is idealistic to think that people will help each other out of the goodness of their hearts, but IMO, no ethical framework has resolved this. It is not self-evident to me that people should be forced to be magnanimous to others, if that is what you are getting at.

Do not agree. Anarchy is the default state of nature so any modifications to that must essentially be justified by some kind of ethical framework. Thus, any ethical framework will always have rich language concerning the individual since that is the building block. All frameworks that lead to communism will still have strong flavors of individuality, but not other way around. It is asymmetric, and that is why they are not the same. I am interested in hearing your thoughts if you disagree with this analysis.

But I do agree that both sides can be over idealistic, but that can be said for any party really.

I think you're actually agreeing with me there.

I was saying that there should be absolutely no expectation that people will hand stuff out to others for free. That if there is no system of taxation then people who are rich and in good jobs will give those who are out of work whatever they need to get them back on track, such as charity for healthcare, or money for a place to live.

This idea, that we're all good people inside and isn't everyone wonderful without this evil gubmint taxing us to me seems exactly the same as the central idea of Communism. That is that if we free ourselves, then we will all contribute to a central pool of our own free will, and only take what we need. I think both ideas are inane.

Now, Senex.
Ayn Rand might be a bit deeper thinker than you give her credit for. Just look at your post. Five paragraphs and every one starts with "I." "I,I,I,I," give us a break. (I think I missed one).

The world doesn't turn because because you woke up this morning --you commie. You are on the dole aren't you?

I can't tell if you're trolling, drunk, or being serious here, but if you're actually being serious, then you're an idiot. I was asked for my opinion on Ayn Rand so I gave my opinion.

Senex

9th May 2010, 11:05 AM

[QUOTE=MarkCorrigan;5914332]

Now, Senex.

I can't tell if you're trolling, drunk, or being serious here, but if you're actually being serious, then you're an idiot. I was asked for my opinion on Ayn Rand so I gave my opinion.[/QUOTE

I''ve posted here a long time and I'm not a troll. Drunk/serious is a variation on a theme. You called me an idiot. That I won't leave.

Skeptic Ginger

9th May 2010, 12:30 PM

...
So, all in all, people who want to peg Greenspan as an objectivist like to point to derivative deregulation, but if you look at the pudding, there is more than enough proof that he meddled in the economy much more than a true laissez-faire proponent would and should.So to be clear here, are you claiming Rand's idea of total absolute laissez faire really would work if only all the real interference in the markets stopped? That's just not supported by the historical evidence. It's a fantasy.

Skeptic Ginger

9th May 2010, 12:35 PM

I've been reading about Objectivism today. Poor old Rand seems to get a lot of slagging off, and I can't really see why. The few Rand adherents i have met strike me as intelligent, decent folks with a useful perspective. In fact I have a lot of time for objectivity. Does RandFan stil lost here? He is a thoroughly sensible and very intelligent kind of guy, with a coherent philosophical position as far as I can tell? Anyway time to read the thread... but I must say the vehement abuse hurled at Rand may one day force me to actually read her properly, just to understand!

cj xShe is a fascinating phenomena. And much of the criticism is indeed critical of positions she didn't really hold.

Intelligent and very rational, yes. But she was also very narcissistic and wrong about many of her beliefs about humankind. For example she believed if individuals failed they must be inferior. But that contradicted her belief that if governments interfered with your success or failure, that wasn't reflective of the individual's actual ability. It's hard to have both of those things be true in the real world.

HBinswanger

10th May 2010, 08:52 AM

As a professional philosopher who's been an Objectivist for 48 years, I suggest we talk about the actual content of the philosophy. So far, the discussion has not considered what Objectivism holds.

Which tenets of Objectivism do antagonists want to oppose:

1. Existence exists, reality is real. There is no supernatural realm.

2. A thing is what it is; A is A. The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action: a thing can only do that which its identity gives it the potential to do.

3. Man is conscious. The primary cognitive contact with reality is via sensory perception. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. The first and basic act of reason is concept-formation. A "concept" is "a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s) with their particular measurements omitted." (Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 13.)

4. The use of reason is volitional. The senses function automatically, but the process of concept-formation and thought is a matter of choice. The choice to think or not to think is man's basic free will.

5. Reason is man's only means of gaining conceptual knowledge and his only proper guide to action. Logic, "the art of non-contradictory identification," is the method of reasoning. Objectivity is the self-conscious, deliberate employment of logic.

6. The basis of values is the fact that living organisms have to act in order to survive. "It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible." (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 1013) One's life is one's ultimate value. Man's life qua man is the standard of moral evaluation. Rationality is man's basic virtue.

Those basics should be enough for now. You can find passages from Rand's writings on 400 topics in my book The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z. It can be searched for free online (Google aynrandlexicon).

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2010, 11:51 AM

D'rok

10th May 2010, 12:21 PM

HBinswanger

10th May 2010, 02:54 PM

OK, I'll bite. The problem with reason is, garbage in garbage out. Reason relies on accurate perception of the reality you speak of. One of Rand's problems, IMO, is her perception of reality was distorted by her experience in Russia.

The Ad Hominem fallacy is committed here. The topic is not the person but the ideas. (As one who knew Ayn Rand well, I also disagree with that claim about her, but that's not the point.)

On the ideas: reason relies on sensory perception, and the accurate use of logic. Sensory perception cannot be inaccurate or in error (this Objectivist/Aristotelian tenet I defend at length in my forthcoming book How We Know). One can mess up with the conceptual processing of things--as in, uh, committing an Ad Hominem or equivocating on "perception"--because how and whether one reasons is up to one's choice. Error exists where things are not physiologically determined, which is at the conceptual level.

HBinswanger

10th May 2010, 03:15 PM

"Rand's bizarre deification of 'reason' . . ." I don't find anything bizarre about holding that reason is what makes us human, or that reason must never be sacrificed to feelings.

"Deification" suggests religion, and reason is the very opposite of religion. So this is the fallacy Ayn Rand identified as "the stolen concept"--using a concept (here "deification") while denying one or more prior concepts (here "reason") on which the first concept depends. In other words, this is the same stolen concept as in saying: "The acceptance of reason is an act of faith."

"Rand's musings . . ." She rarely mused. And never in print. The writing of Atlas Shrugged took her 12 years. She estimated that she re-wrote each page an average of 5 times (judging by the number of reams of paper she used in drafting it, compared to the number of final draft pages). Her non-fiction is the clearest, most disciplined writing in philosophy you will ever read. For one thing, she defines all the crucial terms of the discussion. She defined over 100 terms. Not bad for a muser.

I don't want to rest on mere assertion. Here is the beginning of the Preface to her book on epistemology:

-------------------------
The issue of concepts (known as "the problem of universals") is philosophy's central issue. Since man's knowledge is gained and held in conceptual form, the validity of man's knowledge depends on the validity of concepts. But concepts are abstractions or universals, and everything that man perceives is particular, concrete. What is the relationship between abstractions and concretes? To what precisely do concepts refer in reality? Do they refer to something real, something that exist--or are they merely inventions of man's mind, arbitrary constructs or loose approximations that cannot claim to represent knowledge?

"All knowledge is in terms of concepts. If these concepts correspond to something that is to be found in reality they are real and man's knowledge has a foundation in fact; if they do not correspond to anything in reality they are not real and man's knowledge is of mere figments of his own imagination." (Edward C. Moore, American Pragmatism: Peirce, James & Dewey, New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, p. 27.)

To exemplify the issue as it is usually presented: When we refer to three persons as "men," what do we designate by that term? The three persons are three individuals who differ in every particular respect and may not possess a single identica characteristic (not even their fingerprints). If you list all their particular characteristics, you will not find one representing "manness." Where is the "manness" in men? What, in reality, corresponds to the concept "man" in our mind?
-------------------------------

Pretty clear, huh? Not the kind of writing you'd be led to expect from some of the attacks on her.

kestertaylor

10th May 2010, 04:53 PM

Just to interject with a little bit of an answer based on the OP, I thought I'd jump in and say yes! Ayn Rand was in fact, a bit player in my road to atheism. Her criticism of the concept of unconditional love was part of what brought me to the conclusion that, if the Christian God did in fact exist, by human standards, he was almost certainly evil. I found a lot to like and admire in Atlas Shrugged, such as promoting pragmatism as a way to determine nonreligious morality, as well as a focus on personal responsibility. I did also, however, find her "everyone except me is evil" attitude rather dogmatic and dismissive, and that did and does bother me, as does her (in my view naïve) implied assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is a true meritocracy. I also rather mislike how much (what I have seen of) the Ayn Rand Foundation has come to resemble a religious organization.

But I do agree with the OP; I see no reason either to not credit her where credit is due, nor to whitewash areas where she's been wrong.

barrymore

10th May 2010, 05:09 PM

So to be clear here, are you claiming Rand's idea of total absolute laissez faire really would work if only all the real interference in the markets stopped? That's just not supported by the historical evidence. It's a fantasy.

I am not claiming any such thing. I am claiming Greenspan was in no way, shape or form pursuing laissez-faire policies at the Fed. Therefore, using Greenspan as evidence that laissez-faire did or did not work is a no-go.

I will also make the claim that we have never seen true laissez-faire economic system, so your claim that it is not supported by historical evidence is a no-go as well. What people, institutions, time periods are you referring to?

Monketey Ghost

10th May 2010, 05:10 PM

As a professional philosopher *snip*

Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a *bulls@#!* artist!
Comicus: *Grumble*...
Dole Office Clerk: Did you bulls@#! last week?
Comicus: No.
Dole Office Clerk: Did you *try* to bulls@#! last week?
Comicus: Yes!

Trent Wray

10th May 2010, 05:48 PM

"Who is Monkey Ghost?" :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2010, 09:17 PM

The Ad Hominem fallacy is committed here. The topic is not the person but the ideas. (As one who knew Ayn Rand well, I also disagree with that claim about her, but that's not the point.)

On the ideas: reason relies on sensory perception, and the accurate use of logic. Sensory perception cannot be inaccurate or in error (this Objectivist/Aristotelian tenet I defend at length in my forthcoming book How We Know). One can mess up with the conceptual processing of things--as in, uh, committing an Ad Hominem or equivocating on "perception"--because how and whether one reasons is up to one's choice. Error exists where things are not physiologically determined, which is at the conceptual level.It's not an ad hom fallacy if it is a factual and relevant statement.

It's ignorant to not recognize human sensory perception is wrought with imperfections. Your "Objectivist/Aristotelian tenet" that "Sensory perception cannot be inaccurate or in error" is easily demonstrated to be the fallacy. It goes beyond an error in conceptual processing because much of that incoming data is hardwired to be misinterpreted. In fact, it is only in the conceptualization where you can overcome the hardwired errors of perception.

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2010, 09:25 PM

To elaborate on my above post, consider phantom limb pain after an amputation. Those nerve endings are firing. The brain perceives the impulses to be coming from the original length of the nerve. The brain is not aware the end of the nerve is no longer there. So the brain perceives pain in the limb that is missing.

But you can trick the brain with a mirror. You can cause the brain to think the limb it sees in the mirror is the one that is missing. By this technique, people have been able to successfully trick the brain into relaxing the phantom limb which relieves the pain in many cases.

This is one example, but there are many many more ways to demonstrate your perception does not function like a camera or recording device.

Chris L

10th May 2010, 09:28 PM

Obviously the senses can be fooled, otherwise James Randi (and every other professional magician) would out of a job.

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2010, 09:35 PM

"Rand's bizarre deification of 'reason' . . ." I don't find anything bizarre about holding that reason is what makes us human, or that reason must never be sacrificed to feelings. It is also ignorant to think "feeling" and "reason" are somehow magically separate entities in the brain. Look at the research which has been done that demonstrates young children and recently a study suggests even infants have a genetically determined, physical component that results in our moral conclusions. You may think you are 'reasoning' when in reality your reasoning is inevitably impacted by your innate sense of right and wrong.

I've not seen this original research yet but I have seen other research showing evidence young children act on a sense of right and wrong that is not explained by learning.
Babies know the difference between good and evil at six months, study reveals (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html)In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to 'good' helpful characters - and rejected unhelpful, 'naughty' ones.
In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a 'naughty' puppet, some babies went further - and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head.

MontagK505

10th May 2010, 10:00 PM

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2010, 10:10 PM

I am not claiming any such thing. I am claiming Greenspan was in no way, shape or form pursuing laissez-faire policies at the Fed. Therefore, using Greenspan as evidence that laissez-faire did or did not work is a no-go.

I will also make the claim that we have never seen true laissez-faire economic system, so your claim that it is not supported by historical evidence is a no-go as well. What people, institutions, time periods are you referring to?One needn't experience 100% laissez faire system to see it won't work. That's like saying flunking several math classes is not an indication of how you'll do if you take all math classes.

As for Greenspan, you are misunderstanding what I said. I said he expressed a failure of the ideas from Rand he believed in. He was very explicit about that in a speech he gave after the economic collapse that occurred at the end of his watch. He specifically said he believed the market forces would have led the big banks to act in their self interest and that would also be in the self interest of the shareholders. But in reality, the self interest turned out to only be the self interest of a few individuals at the top, and the shareholders were the big losers.

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2010, 10:15 PM

You might want to read “Judgment Day” by Nathaniel Brandon if you want to get a viewpoint on what it was like in the “collective” (her inner circle)The biography I'm almost at the end of includes more than sufficient details about Brandon, his wife, his girlfriend besides Rand, Rand's reaction to his rejection of her sexually and so on and so on. I don't think this author is pulling any punches about Rand's real world.

I thought the next thing I should read should be something more favorable to Rand just to be sure I am getting a balanced view.

barrymore

11th May 2010, 07:15 AM

One needn't experience 100% laissez faire system to see it won't work. That's like saying flunking several math classes is not an indication of how you'll do if you take all math classes.

Whatever you say. Tell us and prove why it won't work if you are so sure of yourself. Give some examples of a "laissez-faire"-lite economy.

As for Greenspan, you are misunderstanding what I said. I said he expressed a failure of the ideas from Rand he believed in. He was very explicit about that in a speech he gave after the economic collapse that occurred at the end of his watch. He specifically said he believed the market forces would have led the big banks to act in their self interest and that would also be in the self interest of the shareholders. But in reality, the self interest turned out to only be the self interest of a few individuals at the top, and the shareholders were the big losers.

Who cares what Greenspan says? Religious people claim all the time that they are deeply religious, but as we all know, religion is largely fashionable and hardly anyone lives their day-to-day lives in a religious manner. Just because Greenspan says he is an objectivist does not mean his actions confirm this. I presented evidence for this several posts back. If you disagree, please refute the points that I made.

kestertaylor

11th May 2010, 07:31 AM

It is also ignorant to think "feeling" and "reason" are somehow magically separate entities in the brain. Look at the research which has been done that demonstrates young children and recently a study suggests even infants have a genetically determined, physical component that results in our moral conclusions. You may think you are 'reasoning' when in reality your reasoning is inevitably impacted by your innate sense of right and wrong.

I don't think anyone said anything about reason and feelings being magically separated, nor did anyone claim some sense of morality is innate in us. I'll of course agree that when people say they're going with their "gut," what they're actually doing is a shortcut based on their innate morality and reasoning work they've already done in similar circumstances, and not accessing some special logic center located in their abdomen.

Do you honestly advocate people making decisions emotionally, without employing conscious reason to them? Because that's where "crimes of passion" and really stupid relationship moves come from. I don't get the impression you actually WOULD advocate that, but it sounds to me like you're straw-manning Rand here when you would agree with her actual position on reason.

Steven Howard

11th May 2010, 08:30 AM

The Ad Hominem fallacy is committed here. The topic is not the person but the ideas. (As one who knew Ayn Rand well, I also disagree with that claim about her, but that's not the point.)

... says the man who started his first post with an appeal to authority and throws in another one here. As I'm sure you know in your capacity as a professional philosopher, appeal to authority is also a form of argument ad hominem.

W.D.Clinger

11th May 2010, 08:54 AM

On the ideas: reason relies on sensory perception, and the accurate use of logic. Sensory perception cannot be inaccurate or in error (this Objectivist/Aristotelian tenet I defend at length in my forthcoming book How We Know).
The "Ask Ayn Rand" parody quoted below (from memory) will not need to be defended at length in any forthcoming book on How We Know We Don't Know Everything We Think We Know.

Dear Ayn:

I agree with Objectionable Philosophy that reality must be as we perceive it, else it would be confusing. My friend says that doesn't follow, and whenever I press the point he turns inside out and vanishes. What can I say to convince him?

Sincerely,
Confused

Dear Sincerely:

Your friend is obviously a solipsist. My advice is to buy yourself a new friend.

Objectively,
Ayn

kestertaylor

11th May 2010, 10:46 AM

I don't think anyone said anything about reason and feelings being magically separated, nor did anyone claim some sense of morality is innate in us. .

D'oh! This should've read, "ISN'T" innate in us.

Carry on.

dudalb

11th May 2010, 11:57 AM

My Favorite quote on Ayn Rand:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

-John Rogers

I also like the comment that Objectivism is sort of a Fundamentalist Religion for Athiests.

skeptic griggsy

11th May 2010, 12:37 PM

Binswanger, sir, your philosophy lacks reality, because for one big thing it is a closed system as though she could anticipate all criticisms and new ideas!
Why do you put any more credence into her bizarre philosophy than into that of Yeshua, her fellow cult leader, sir?
She contemned Kant without fathoming him and also was part Kantian herself. She,as others here note, did not study much philosophy and distorted what she did. We rationalists no more need her for good ideas than we do any holy book, sir! Philosophers had already objurgated egoism as a failed god.
How that intelligent John Hospers and you and others can follow her illuminates the power of faith- the we just say so of credulity.
Mark and Trent, my friends and others, thanks for continuing this needed thread in order to expose the sophistry of libertarianism in general and Objectivism in particular!
She led me to naturalism, rationalism and skepticism but Michael Shermer and Walker note well her irrationalism. Again, she resembles Yeshua - hypocrite!
Binswanger, well, then compose a book illustrating what you take as our errors, sir. Oh, that is impossible,eh?

HBinswanger

11th May 2010, 01:20 PM

HBinswanger

11th May 2010, 01:33 PM

Why did I give my credentials as "a professional philosopher"? Two reasons, neither constituting an Appeal to Authority:

1. The original post was from someone who made a big point of the fact that he had taught philosophy as a graduate student.

2. Many assertions in this thread have been to the effect that Ayn Rand was *patently* inane, not philosophically serious, and, in effect, any person at all educated in philosophy would see that. That made it relevant to counter that claim with my own case. So it was testimony from a credentialed philosopher (Ph.D. Columbia University, 1973), that rebutted the testimony by the earlier poster. I have been careful *not* to commit the Appeal to Authority by injecting into the discussion, for the first time, the actual ideas in question, for you all to judge for yourselves. Same with my sample of her nonfiction writing: I was saying, "Don't take my word for it, look at the writing."

Let's get away from the personal attacks. Unless I missed something, the only tenet of Objectivism I listed that has been criticized is the doctrine that sensory perception doesn't make mistakes. This, I grant you, is a topic that does need discussion. I tried to give a quick support for it. But it's only one of about 10 revolutionary ideas I cited. Is it the only thing that people demur from? And isn't the whole list rather, uh, impressive? Isn't it much more contentful and pro-reason than what previous posts painted Objectivism as being?

W.D.Clinger

11th May 2010, 01:53 PM

Let's get away from the personal attacks. Unless I missed something, the only tenet of Objectivism I listed that has been criticized is the doctrine that sensory perception doesn't make mistakes. This, I grant you, is a topic that does need discussion. I tried to give a quick support for it. But it's only one of about 10 revolutionary ideas I cited. Is it the only thing that people demur from?
No, but it's the easiest to attack.

Isn't it much more contentful and pro-reason than what previous posts painted Objectivism as being?
I'll grant that.

I'll also grant that, by and large, people aren't attacking Ayn Rand's ideas so much as attacking other people's promotion/demotion of her ideas to the status of religious belief.

David Wong

11th May 2010, 02:04 PM

As a professional philosopher who's been an Objectivist for 48 years, I suggest we talk about the actual content of the philosophy. So far, the discussion has not considered what Objectivism holds.

Which tenets of Objectivism do antagonists want to oppose:

1. Existence exists, reality is real. There is no supernatural realm.

2. A thing is what it is; A is A. The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action: a thing can only do that which its identity gives it the potential to do.

3. Man is conscious. The primary cognitive contact with reality is via sensory perception. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. The first and basic act of reason is concept-formation. A "concept" is "a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s) with their particular measurements omitted." (Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 13.)

4. The use of reason is volitional. The senses function automatically, but the process of concept-formation and thought is a matter of choice. The choice to think or not to think is man's basic free will.

5. Reason is man's only means of gaining conceptual knowledge and his only proper guide to action. Logic, "the art of non-contradictory identification," is the method of reasoning. Objectivity is the self-conscious, deliberate employment of logic.

6. The basis of values is the fact that living organisms have to act in order to survive. "It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible." (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 1013) One's life is one's ultimate value. Man's life qua man is the standard of moral evaluation. Rationality is man's basic virtue.

Those basics should be enough for now...

Actually, no. Rand wrote lots of other silly things beyond that, which have been discussed in this thread and form the basis of most of the criticism.

Interesting attempt to limit the discussion, though.

Chris L

11th May 2010, 02:24 PM

The *senses* are not the conclusion your intellect draws from what you see.

I'm not sure you can separate the interpretation and the signal being received in this case. The senses are not stand alone units that that simply receive data from the outside world. The sound waves hitting the ear and the light hitting the eye are meaningless until the decoding and interpreting are done. So if you can influence the interpretation, you can "fool" the senses. That's what magic tricks and optical illusions are all about.

Skeptic Ginger

11th May 2010, 02:35 PM

I don't think anyone said anything about reason and feelings being magically separated, HBinswanger is claiming one can think with pure reason. I don't believe that is a supportable premise because one cannot divorce reason from the innate processes in one's brain that influence reason.

nor did anyone claim some sense of morality is innate in us.I am claiming it! The evidence supports this is the case. We are born with a mechanism that amounts to a moral mechanism which influences our thought processes including our reasoning.

I'll of course agree that when people say they're going with their "gut," what they're actually doing is a shortcut based on their innate morality and reasoning work they've already done in similar circumstances, and not accessing some special logic center located in their abdomen. A lot of brain function occurs nearly instantaneously and subconsciously. This can be demonstrated with studies of brain damaged people.

Do you honestly advocate people making decisions emotionally, without employing conscious reason to them? Because that's where "crimes of passion" and really stupid relationship moves come from. I don't get the impression you actually WOULD advocate that, but it sounds to me like you're straw-manning Rand here when you would agree with her actual position on reason.You don't understand what I'm saying, but then I haven't really elaborated much here. It's a false dichotomy to say one is either making an emotional decision or a reasoned decision.

One of my conclusions regarding philosophy is that philosophers, including Rand, developed their ideas amidst a paucity of information about the biology of the brain. Recent scientific discoveries about how the brain perceives, stores and regurgitates information need to be incorporated into philosophical theories. If you don't do that, you might as well be speculating about the nature of morality as if morality emanated from some magical place.

Skeptic Ginger

11th May 2010, 02:44 PM

D'oh! This should've read, "ISN'T" innate in us.

Carry on.Oh.

Well you'd be surprised how many people are unaware morality in humans exists regardless of the impact of teaching/learning. We just had this go round in a recent thread where it was implied morality was a function of human advanced thought and no other living creatures could possibly have any moral reasoning. But the evidence of the evolution of morality can be seen in non-human primates and probably seen many other animals. The morality function of our 'reasoning' is clearly present in other species.

Skeptic Ginger

11th May 2010, 02:58 PM

My Favorite quote on Ayn Rand::D

I also like the comment that Objectivism is sort of a Fundamentalist Religion for Athiests.Nonsense. Lack of god beliefs has no direct connection to the rest of Rand's philosophy just as theists were among her followers even though they disapproved of her atheism.

Skeptic Ginger

11th May 2010, 03:09 PM

"Obviously the senses can be fooled, otherwise James Randi (and every other professional magician) would out of a job."

The *senses* are not the conclusion your intellect draws from what you see. The error is in the conclusion not in the *seeing*. The senses do not *interpret* only respond to the incident energy and automatic neural processing as they must.This is where we are not on the same page. If you consider some of the more recent revelations about brain function, you'd find, as you say, that those 'senses' were indeed merely electrical impulses until they reach the brain where they are stored as already altered "interpretations".

Maybe you don't see interpretations as the way information is stored. Do you think we interpret the information after it is stored?

Where we don't seem to be connecting here is what amounts to this ideal "interpretation"? I suggest there is no such thing as I interpret you to be describing it. You can strive for the best critical thinking skills, and the best reasoning and rational thinking. I certainly do.

But if you don't recognize how the way the brain is organized, the way it deals with organizing that sensory input, with the innate, not-part-of-one's-learned-response, brain mechanism for determining moral conclusions, and so on, then your conclusions are going to be less than the best conclusions.

Skeptic Ginger

12th May 2010, 02:38 AM

Whatever you say. Tell us and prove why it won't work if you are so sure of yourself. Give some examples of a "laissez-faire"-lite economy.This is such a no brainer it boggles the mind people still stick to their Libertarian fantasy.

How about just explaining the difference between regulating an industry that amounts to interfering and regulating an industry to prevent greedy thieving individuals from cheating and stealing.

Then explain how the laissez faire market forces should have prevented the orgy of playing Pass the Hot Potato for a profit with those under-collateralized sub-prime loans?

How are laissez faire market forces supposed to prevent the faking of assets large companies were assisting each other with by trading worthless assets for big bucks temporarily with each other so their books would look fat, then trading them back after the books had been examined by the credit raters or whoever else they needed to fool at the moment?

Who cares what Greenspan says? Religious people claim all the time that they are deeply religious, but as we all know, religion is largely fashionable and hardly anyone lives their day-to-day lives in a religious manner. Just because Greenspan says he is an objectivist does not mean his actions confirm this. I presented evidence for this several posts back. If you disagree, please refute the points that I made.You keep going on and on with this straw man. Greenspan denounced Rand specifically because he believed the economy tanking refuted her ideas. Those were his words. If you think he was wrong, that is your opinion.

I merely pointed out Greenspan changed his mind. I've never bought all of Rand's beliefs. Greenspan apparently agrees with me in this case. You don't have to agree. Your opinion has nothing to do with what I said about Greenspan's change of heart about Rand.

Skeptic Ginger

12th May 2010, 02:41 AM

I'll also grant that, by and large, people aren't attacking Ayn Rand's ideas so much as attacking other people's promotion/demotion of her ideas to the status of religious belief.Some of her extremist positions deserve to be attacked. But that doesn't mean she didn't have intelligent interesting points of view.

HBinswanger

13th May 2010, 02:25 AM

How about just explaining the difference between regulating an industry that amounts to interfering and regulating an industry to prevent greedy thieving individuals from cheating and stealing.

Sure. Under laissez-faire, there are no preventive laws. That means no regulation--zero--only punishment for violations of the law that have occurred (or where there is a "clear and present danger"). It's "management by results," so to speak.

Regulations are immoral because they subject to state coercion people who have done nothing wrong. Regulation says: "Satisfy us that you won't do something wrong."

Then explain how the laissez faire market forces should have prevented the orgy of playing Pass the Hot Potato for a profit with those under-collateralized sub-prime loans?

The financial crisis shows the absolute failure of the regulatory state. Banking and insurance--the focus of the failure--are the most highly regulated industries.

Laissez-faire doesn't have this problem, because there is no Federal Reserve, no Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, no government pushing banks to loan for "the ownership society."

In short, we Objectivists see the financial crisis as caused by government intervention. Lots of it. Tons of it. (Over 50,000 new regulations were imposed in the 12 years prior to the crisis, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.) The Fed (which wouldn't exist under laissez-faire) held interest rates too low too long; the extra money was channeled into housing by Fannie and Freddie.

How are laissez faire market forces supposed to prevent the faking of assets large companies were assisting each other with by trading worthless assets for big bucks temporarily with each other so their books would look fat, then trading them back after the books had been examined by the credit raters or whoever else they needed to fool at the moment?

How are regulatory agencies supposed to prevent it? How come the SEC though informed about Bernie Madoff repeatedly, with documentation, by Harry Markopoulis, didn't lift a finger?

Under laissez-faire, it's investor beware. There's no SEC, no governmentally imposed reporting requirements, no FDIC, etc. Today's regulatory agencies give the investor a false sense of security, while also hamstringing financiers. The paperwork requirements are very expensive in time and money, and their are all kind of restrictions on perfectly proper deals.

HBinswanger

13th May 2010, 02:40 AM

If you consider some of the more recent revelations about brain function, you'd find, as you say, that those 'senses' were indeed merely electrical impulses until they reach the brain where they are stored as already altered "interpretations".

Maybe you don't see interpretations as the way information is stored. Do you think we interpret the information after it is stored?

There is no interpretation of data by the brain, only processing. "Intepretation"--i.e., an identification of the nature and meaning of what you're looking at--is the application of concepts to the sensory material.

Take the stick half-submerged in water. It looks bent. That is, its appearance is similar to that of bent sticks out of water. But your senses don't whisper in your ear, like Chloe does to Jack on 24, "This is a bent stick." Nor do they whisper, "This is a straight stick that looks bent." They simply present you with a scene (the same as a photograph of it would). The interpretation, "That is a bent stock" is made by your intellect, by subsuming the perceived thing under the concepts "bent" and "stick." That is where the error is. You don't see incorrectly. You don't need a trip to the opthamologist.

In principle, whatever form of perception results from the processing done automatically, deterministically by your sensory mechanism is "the given." It is not evaluatable. It just is what it is.

Rand distinguishes the form of perception from the object of perception. All forms of perception are valid. The possibility of error and distortion enters only where there is volitional control over the process--i.e., at the conceptual level.

If your brain were rewired so that you had color-inversion, seeing yellow where you saw blue before, red where you saw green before, etc., that would merely be a different form of perceiving the same objects in reality. It would not be an "error," and would not deprive you of any information.

So, one can defend the inerrancy of the senses by calling on the two points:

1. it is the intellect, not the senses that interprets, judges, conceptually identifies

2. the same object can be perceived in different forms, with no error

In general, the best writer on perception is J. J. Gibson, who was not an Objectivist.

W.D.Clinger

13th May 2010, 09:34 AM

Regulations are immoral because they subject to state coercion people who have done nothing wrong. Regulation says: "Satisfy us that you won't do something wrong."
That sounds like a statement of religious belief.

Many regulations are normative: They define what is wrong.

Consider, for example, the US FCC regulations that allocate the radio spectrum. There is no inherent natural law that would make it wrong for someone to broadcast a 50 kilowatt AM signal on a frequency allocated to cell phone, marine, emergency, or television broadcast communications; the reason it would be wrong to do so is that the general interest is served by adopting technical conventions for use of the radio spectrum, and the regulations determine those conventions.

Much the same could be said for driving on the left or right side of the road (although I suspect that convention is a law in most jurisdictions, rather than a mere regulation).

Violating such conventions, though they be largely arbitrary, would be wrong because it would harm the general interest. Rand's ideas are attacked in part because so many people use her ideas to deny the existence of a common interest or to justify anti-social behavior in the name of self-interest or selfishness.

Skeptic Ginger

13th May 2010, 03:14 PM

Sure. Under laissez-faire, there are no preventive laws. That means no regulation--zero--only punishment for violations of the law that have occurred (or where there is a "clear and present danger"). It's "management by results," so to speak.

Regulations are immoral because they subject to state coercion people who have done nothing wrong. Regulation says: "Satisfy us that you won't do something wrong."Your underlying premise is stealing, cheating, & deceiving people is not wrong, it's the strong winning and the weak losing. The majority of humans on the planet do not operate on this underlying moral foundation.

The financial crisis shows the absolute failure of the regulatory state. Your illogic here is that because regulations weren't strong enough, and enforcement was lax, that somehow the solution is even less regulation.

The private interested parties exert millions of dollars worth of political influence to defeat regulations or their enforcement, which results in one disaster after another.

Your premise is false that somehow this would all cease if markets were even less regulated. The problem is Bush let the regulatory system, which had already been chipped away at, totally disintegrate.

Banking and insurance--the focus of the failure--are the most highly regulated industries.

Laissez-faire doesn't have this problem, because there is no Federal Reserve, no Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, no government pushing banks to loan for "the ownership society."Your scenario is pure fantasy. With even less regulation we'd go back to the days of peasant uprisings every few decades or so.

In short, we Objectivists see the financial crisis as caused by government intervention. Lots of it. Tons of it. (Over 50,000 new regulations were imposed in the 12 years prior to the crisis, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.) The Fed (which wouldn't exist under laissez-faire) held interest rates too low too long; the extra money was channeled into housing by Fannie and Freddie. Always the claim someone/thing prevents Rand's true philosophy of working. And never the true self assessment that human nature is poorly accounted for in Rand's philosophy. She falls short of recognizing we are a heterogeneous, not a homologous species. And Objectivist underlying premises simply don't match reality.

I said somewhere in one of these discussions of Rand, garbage in garbage out. Her assessment of human nature was so poorly done, her conclusions based on that assessment were grossly flawed.

It's interesting the very thing Rand rated about, the philosophy of communism, was just as ignorantly based on a very poor assessment of basic human nature. Rand's philosophy amounts to a philosophy applied to an imaginary world. In the real world, because of the erroneous underlying premises, Objectivism does not work.

You cannot remove the part of human nature which leads to people exerting influence on government, except in lala land. You cannot take all government out of the business world except in lala land. So what results is some imaginary belief that the more you deregulate, the closer you get to Rand's imaginary world.

But that isn't what happens because lala land is not real. The more you deregulate, the worse things get. Bush's 8 years demonstrates that fact unequivocally. If less regulation was better, we should have seen major advances in the economy during Bush's term. Instead, the economy tanked. Corporations got more and more inventive in how to cheat people.

When the Libertarians and/or Objectivists look at the data, they ignore the evidence that less regulation made things even worse, and fall back on the illogical claim government intervened even more.

How are regulatory agencies supposed to prevent it? How come the SEC though informed about Bernie Madoff repeatedly, with documentation, by Harry Markopoulis, didn't lift a finger?If you read Markopolos' book, "No One Would Listen (http://www.amazon.com/No-One-Would-Listen-Financial/dp/0470553731)", or heard the author's story, you would know how Bush's gutting of enforcement of regulations in order to nullify the laws Bush didn't agree with Congress on, led to the conditions which resulted in no one listening. The SEC turned a deaf ear to Markopolos. You try to discredit Greenspan's idealizing Objectivism. But by his own admission his idealizing of Rand's ideas resulted in a false assumption by Greenspan that market forces were sufficient, and regulations had a negative impact.

How on Earth would no regulations have stopped Madoff? It's not like you can point to any market forces that would have stopped him and some regulation that didn't.

Under laissez-faire, it's investor beware. There's no SEC, no governmentally imposed reporting requirements, no FDIC, etc. Today's regulatory agencies give the investor a false sense of security, while also hamstringing financiers. The paperwork requirements are very expensive in time and money, and their are all kind of restrictions on perfectly proper deals.I doubt eliminating that "false sense of security" would have any impact whatsoever on people's abilities to cheat other people, especially the ability of the rich and powerful to cheat and steal from those not as well off.

In Rand's view the weak and poor steal from the rich. It's ludicrous. Her view clearly results from her narrow experience as a young person where a revolution affected the economic status she was born into.

Many relatives altruistically contributed to Rand's getting to the US, establishing a life here, and getting her initial breaks as a writer. She never admitted (probably not even to herself) that she did not become successful entirely on her own. Numerous people gave her things, at a cost to themselves, that were never repaid.

It all comes down to your false underlying premise that in the real world all you need do is [X] and everything will work. It's unrealistic.

Skeptic Ginger

13th May 2010, 04:08 PM

There is no interpretation of data by the brain, only processing. "Intepretation"--i.e., an identification of the nature and meaning of what you're looking at--is the application of concepts to the sensory material.The brain automatically interprets many things, sans any conscious input. All you get in your conscious realm is the interpreted input. You never get the raw input because the brain has no mechanism of taking in and storing raw data like a recording device.

Have you ever looked at something in the distance or in poor light which you believed was [x] but when you got a better look, you could see it was [y]? And once you could see it was [y], when you return to the poor light or distance, guess what? It now looks like [y] and your brain cannot recreate (for the most part) what you saw originally that looked like [x].

When you see something, the brain interprets what you are seeing. That doesn't mean the interpretation cannot be, "I don't know what that is". But what research clearly demonstrates is the brain interprets what you see as the data comes into the brain, not after it gets there. The brain adds and subtracts data, filling in that blank spot on the retina for example. No "processing" as you are describing it, occurs in that first step of receiving the incoming data.

Take the stick half-submerged in water. It looks bent. That is, its appearance is similar to that of bent sticks out of water. But your senses don't whisper in your ear, like Chloe does to Jack on 24, "This is a bent stick." Nor do they whisper, "This is a straight stick that looks bent." They simply present you with a scene (the same as a photograph of it would). The interpretation, "That is a bent stock" is made by your intellect, by subsuming the perceived thing under the concepts "bent" and "stick." That is where the error is. You don't see incorrectly. You don't need a trip to the opthamologist.

In principle, whatever form of perception results from the processing done automatically, deterministically by your sensory mechanism is "the given." It is not evaluatable. It just is what it is. Your example is not analogous at all to what I'm referring to. In your example, you are merely talking about seeing bent light. This isn't a true brain illusion because the light actually is bent. The light bends before it reaches the brain. And, in the case of your example, the brain learned that light can bend very early in life.

There are certain properties of some optical illusions which demonstrate the principle I am referring to. In these illusions, the light is not bent, but the brain adds an interpretation to the data AFTER the incoming input reaches the brain.

These two optical illusions demonstrate what I am referring to:

Chessboard Shading Optical Illusion (http://www.illusion-optical.com/Optical-Illusions/ChessboardShading.php)

Line Length Müller-Lyer Optical Illusion (http://www.illusion-optical.com/Optical-Illusions/LineArrows.php)

No matter that you can see intellectually the two lines are the same length and the two squares are the same shade of gray, your brain will insist the lines are different lengths and the squares are two different shades. The brain is not perceiving pure data, it is perceiving data interpreted by the rules of the game which the brain is programed to use. That is, the perception of the lines and the squares includes interpretation using additional data.

When the Moon is on the horizon, the brain interprets its size based on thinking it is closer. As the Moon moves overhead it looks smaller. When it is on the horizon, cover one eye. The Moon will get instantly smaller. Uncover the eye, the Moon will look larger. You can cover and uncover your eye over and over and the brain will change the size of the Moon for you over and over.

Why? There are still the same horizon cues just as the adjacent squares and arrows in the line and square illusions. It turns out seeing with one or two eyes includes its own set of rules for your brain interpreting incoming data.

There are many such illusions. The brain expects light to be from above, so depending on the side of a circle you see a shadow on, the brain will either see a hill or a hole. All of these illusions demonstrate the rules the brain automatically applies to our rational thought. These are visual rules. There are other rules as well which don't involve immediate input.

Your moral rules, rules of beauty, capacity for logic and so on all vary from person to person. The initial brain functions exist and can be modified or damaged, but one doesn't start with a blank slate.

Some of these rules are the same from person to person. People in all cultures recognize a smile. Beauty is impacted by social influence, but babies are cute from culture to culture. Studies of very young children demonstrate innate sense of morals unrelated to learning, and brain damage can destroy moral beliefs demonstrating there is a hardware moral function in our brains.

Rand distinguishes the form of perception from the object of perception. All forms of perception are valid. The possibility of error and distortion enters only where there is volitional control over the process--i.e., at the conceptual level.Can you see the squares and lines in the above illusion correctly even after you learn they are the same respectively? Your perception of many things are not under voluntary control. The brain has many hard wired rules.

So, one can defend the inerrancy of the senses by calling on the two points:

1. it is the intellect, not the senses that interprets, judges, conceptually identifies

2. the same object can be perceived in different forms, with no errorMy examples prove both these points wrong.

In general, the best writer on perception is J. J. Gibson, who was not an Objectivist.If we are talking about the same person, JJ Gibson died in 1979. That was 30 years ago. You might want to take a look at what we've discovered about the brain in the last 3 decades.

kestertaylor

15th May 2010, 04:13 PM

Oh.

Well you'd be surprised how many people are unaware morality in humans exists regardless of the impact of teaching/learning. We just had this go round in a recent thread where it was implied morality was a function of human advanced thought and no other living creatures could possibly have any moral reasoning. But the evidence of the evolution of morality can be seen in non-human primates and probably seen many other animals. The morality function of our 'reasoning' is clearly present in other species.

Yeah, I was so pissed about that uneditable typo; it COMPLETELY wrecked my original post. Sadly, the refusal to acknowledge our morality is innate leads to lots and lots and lots of religious apologists throwing the "well where does your morality come from?" question at atheists.

You don't understand what I'm saying, but then I haven't really elaborated much here. It's a false dichotomy to say one is either making an emotional decision or a reasoned decision.

I think that depends upon how you define an "emotional decision." Yes, one could say that all decisions are both 'reasoned' and 'emotional,' and that the differences people talk about do not exist neurologically based on the evidence we have. That is true.

However, I would argue that when most people say "emotional" decision, we can identify the decisions they're talking about as "poorly reasoned," and it's a recognizable behavioral phenomenon, even if there isn't (as you've correctly and repeatedly pointed out) an actual separation in the brain. And I certainly don't think it's a stretch to say that--irrespective of her lack of knowledge of neurological processes--when Ayn Rand "deifies reason," she's advocating making well-thought-out decisions, because regardless of brain chemistry, the behavioral difference remains.

kestertaylor

15th May 2010, 04:21 PM

There is no interpretation of data by the brain, only processing. "Intepretation"--i.e., an identification of the nature and meaning of what you're looking at--is the application of concepts to the sensory material.

Take the stick half-submerged in water. It looks bent. That is, its appearance is similar to that of bent sticks out of water. But your senses don't whisper in your ear, like Chloe does to Jack on 24, "This is a bent stick." Nor do they whisper, "This is a straight stick that looks bent." They simply present you with a scene (the same as a photograph of it would). The interpretation, "That is a bent stock" is made by your intellect, by subsuming the perceived thing under the concepts "bent" and "stick." That is where the error is. You don't see incorrectly. You don't need a trip to the opthamologist.

If you want to call automatic neurological processes you have no control over "intellect," fine, but that's not what most people use the word to mean. It's pretty clear you're stretching your terms to fit your desired conclusion, that the "senses are inerrant."

Senex

15th May 2010, 08:23 PM

This post is for Skeptic Ginger.

I'm ashamed to admit that sometimes I don't read certain people's posts for one reason or another. I've frequently not read your posts because you often cover your own post, meaning you post again and again without anyone replying to your (or anyone elses) last post. It's not against the rules nor wrong, but it has made me less likely to read your posts. It's a preference on my part and it is my problem not yours.

I felt bad and made an effort to read all your posts on page 5 of this thread about Ayn Rand.

One of my conclusions regarding philosophy is that philosophers, including Rand, developed their ideas amidst a paucity of information about the biology of the brain.
This is silly. Do you wish to undermine Plato for the same reason. Which philosophers are Sceptic Ginger informed of the biology of the brain appoved? You must have the names of some sharp philosophers or are all philosophers brain biology misinformed?
Recent scientific discoveries about how the brain perceives, stores and regurgitates information need to be incorporated into philosophical theories. If you don't do that, you might as well be speculating about the nature of morality as if morality emanated from some magical place.
You evidently are speculating from such an informed place. It must not suck to be you.

Your underlying premise is stealing, cheating, & deceiving people is not wrong, it's the strong winning and the weak losing. The majority of humans on the planet do not operate on this underlying moral foundation.
"Stealing, cheating, & deceiving" is not the same "as the strong winning and the weak losing." It's not that I ever needed to discern the difference but I would prefer to lose to a stronger individual than one who steals, cheats and deceives. I don't cotton to that stealing, cheating and deceiving thing.

In Rand's view the weak and poor steal from the rich. It's ludicrous. Her view clearly results from her narrow experience as a young person where a revolution affected the economic status she was born into.
I don't see her view as narrower than anyone elses. In fact she knows about Russia, Hollywood and writing. She has seen a lot. You're wrong that she has a narrow view.

Many relatives altruistically contributed to Rand's getting to the US, establishing a life here, and getting her initial breaks as a writer. She never admitted (probably not even to herself) that she did not become successful entirely on her own. Numerous people gave her things, at a cost to themselves, that were never repaid.
I'm calling BS on this. Where did you get this information?

It all comes down to your false underlying premise that in the real world all you need do is [X] and everything will work. It's unrealistic.

Are you going to write a book "Atlas is alive and well?"

marplots

15th May 2010, 08:50 PM

I don't understand #4 on the list:

4. The use of reason is volitional. The senses function automatically, but the process of concept-formation and thought is a matter of choice. The choice to think or not to think is man's basic free will.

It doesn't seem this way to me. For instance, when I read these posts. I form concepts that seem without any volition at all. It seems effortless and outside of my control. Same with reading words and other habitual tasks.

I think I must have it wrong somehow. I do not seem to have, "the choice to think."

Senex

15th May 2010, 09:01 PM

I think I must have it wrong somehow. I do not seem to have, "the choice to think."

You suffer from that self-fulfilling prophesy thing. The good news is you can shake that problem at any moment you wish.

Skeptic Ginger

17th May 2010, 06:23 PM

....However, I would argue that when most people say "emotional" decision, we can identify the decisions they're talking about as "poorly reasoned,"Then that is what should be said because claiming one's emotions are the opposite of reason is an erroneous statement. Reason cannot be void of the brain mechanisms which include emotional input. It's not possible.

.... and it's a recognizable behavioral phenomenon, even if there isn't (as you've correctly and repeatedly pointed out) an actual separation in the brain. And I certainly don't think it's a stretch to say that--irrespective of her lack of knowledge of neurological processes--when Ayn Rand "deifies reason," she's advocating making well-thought-out decisions, because regardless of brain chemistry, the behavioral difference remains.The problem, however, is making a "well thought out decisions" based on false underlying premises. If you don't start with valid underlying premises, all the rational deliberation in the world is not going to make the decision outcome valid.

Rand had, IMO, many false underlying premises about human nature.

Skeptic Ginger

17th May 2010, 07:14 PM

This post is for Skeptic Ginger.

...I've frequently not read your posts because you often cover your own post, meaning you post again and again without anyone replying to your (or anyone elses) last post. It's not against the rules nor wrong, but it has made me less likely to read your posts. It's a preference on my part and it is my problem not yours.I don't know what this means. I answer posts, many in a row sometimes, but usually each of my posts starts with the quote of the person I am replying to.

I felt bad and made an effort to read all your posts on page 5 of this thread about Ayn Rand. Geese, don't feel bad. Who can possibly read everyone's posts or entire threads when they are very long. I certainly don't.

This is silly. Do you wish to undermine Plato for the same reason. Which philosophers are Sceptic Ginger informed of the biology of the brain appoved? You must have the names of some sharp philosophers or are all philosophers brain biology misinformed?One doesn't 'judge' a philosopher of many centuries ago based on standards of today. Sometimes ancient people got it right. Look at Newton and Da Vinci.

When it comes to Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and the other great philosophers, they had many great insights. But does it translate exactly to today, idea by idea? I think not. The great mathematicians (wasn't Plato also in this category?) OTOH, had more concrete data to deal with. Not too many math theories I'm aware of turned out to be false. The great astronomers had to build on each others' foundations. Medical science didn't really start in earnest until the mid 1800s. So if you expect Plato's insights would have been the same if he had the advantage of today's neurobiology, I think that might be what is silly.

You evidently are speculating from such an informed place. It must not suck to be you.I don't get your problem here. Why isn't it possible I know what I'm talking about? People see things from different viewpoints. I think quite often more than one person in a debate is correct, but what appears to be disagreement is often because the parties are not exactly talking about the same things.

"Stealing, cheating, & deceiving" is not the same "as the strong winning and the weak losing." It's not that I ever needed to discern the difference but I would prefer to lose to a stronger individual than one who steals, cheats and deceives. I don't cotton to that stealing, cheating and deceiving thing. I totally agree that being wise and successful does not require one cheat steal and deceive. My point was that everyone who is successful has not accomplished that success based on their innate abilities unless you include being good at cheating people on your list of successful traits.

I don't see her view as narrower than anyone elses. In fact she knows about Russia, Hollywood and writing. She has seen a lot. You're wrong that she has a narrow view.In the 1900s, there was not information available about modern neurobiology. Rand lived through the Russian revolution. Sure, that's a lot, but it also slants ones view, just as my Dad's view was slanted by the "Red Menace" and mine was slanted by the Vietnam War. We have the advantage today of incredible access to massive amounts of information in addition to our experiences. Some people recognize how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in. Others believe their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant.

I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the "domino effect". But he was wrong. It was and is the corruption in Russia and China that prevent their populations from emerging as free societies. While I think capitalism is a preferable model, and there are many reasons for that, I also think corrupt capitalism can be just as bad as corrupt communism. We need a mix of economies, not the pure laissez faire in Rand's imaginary world.

I'm calling BS on this. Where did you get this information?From the biography of Ayn Rand by Anne Heller, "Ayn Rand and the World She Made" (http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-World-She-Made/dp/0385513992), which I just finished reading. Rand had relatives in Russia that gave her money to come here. And she lived with cousins in New York when she got here who not only supported her financially, they gave her money to go to Hollywood which Rand used until she got a job there. According to Heller, Rand never paid these relatives back for their generosity nor credited them with helping her.

That doesn't mean Rand never helped anyone or gave anything to other people. She did. But not necessarily to those people who helped Rand get to America or become established here.

That biography did have a point of view. I plan to read another biography next but I've not decided which one would offer the best balance to the one I just read. As for Rand's own words, I've listened to the interview with Phil Donahue and I plan to hear the Wallace interview next.

IAre you going to write a book "Atlas is alive and well?"If I write a book, this is not the topic I would choose to address first.

Skeptic Ginger

17th May 2010, 07:30 PM

This post is for Senex as well as Marplots.
I don't understand #4 on the list:

4. The use of reason is volitional. The senses function automatically, but the process of concept-formation and thought is a matter of choice. The choice to think or not to think is man's basic free will.

It doesn't seem this way to me. For instance, when I read these posts. I form concepts that seem without any volition at all. It seems effortless and outside of my control. Same with reading words and other habitual tasks.

I think I must have it wrong somehow. I do not seem to have, "the choice to think."Your post suggests you understand more about neurobiology than Rand did.

One of those instantaneous things about thinking are the instant interpretations we make. Think about how you recognize anything the first time you encounter it. Say you are looking at a tree species you've never seen before. What must go into your nearly instantaneous conclusion you are looking at a tree? Your brain has to recognize all the qualities which define a tree and do it in a nanosecond. Amazingly, the brain has no trouble doing this.

So called 'intuition' involves this same nearly instantaneous assessment of the situation. But if your 'intuition' is accurate, it isn't magical, 'you just know', thinking. It is really really fast and comprehensive unconscious assessment thinking.

Just slowing this down with careful deliberation is no guarantee you'll get it right. Sometimes people have the innate skill to get it right with rapid decision making. You'd hope the doctor with a critical patient in the ED is such a rational thinker.

OTOH, you have people who are convinced they have carefully thought something out, and they are certain they are right. But if they are lacking some key information, they can be very thoughtfully wrong. I find it interesting to look at the false underlying premises people operate on and how strongly they believe they are right when they are obviously wrong.

Take the Creationists who are convinced evolution theory is unproved and wrong. Typically they are unaware of the vast amount of progress in genetic science we've made in the last few decades. They have no insight as to why they are wrong.

Is it possible there are things that if I knew them I'd draw different conclusions? Absolutely. You keep that in the back of your mind and you look for new data that corrects any underlying premises you operate on. It doesn't undermine my confidence in what I do know. It's all just part of rational thinking. ;)

marplots

17th May 2010, 11:24 PM

One of those instantaneous things about thinking are the instant interpretations we make. Think about how you recognize anything the first time you encounter it. Say you are looking at a tree species you've never seen before. What must go into your nearly instantaneous conclusion you are looking at a tree? Your brain has to recognize all the qualities which define a tree and do it in a nanosecond. Amazingly, the brain has no trouble doing this.

So called 'intuition' involves this same nearly instantaneous assessment of the situation. But if your 'intuition' is accurate, it isn't magical, 'you just know', thinking. It is really really fast and comprehensive unconscious assessment thinking.

Yes, and I think this is why #4 on the list didn't fit with my experience. I do not think that the process you describe is volitional. I also, as you say, do not think it is 'magical'. If that list was and accurate representation of what Ayn Rand proposed, then I disagree with her.

kestertaylor

18th May 2010, 09:35 PM

Is it possible there are things that if I knew them I'd draw different conclusions? Absolutely. You keep that in the back of your mind and you look for new data that corrects any underlying premises you operate on. It doesn't undermine my confidence in what I do know. It's all just part of rational thinking. ;)

Yes, yes, yes, a zillion times yes. I know it's off-topic, but this is precisely what people obsessed with solipsism--as well as religionists who criticize science for change--just won't get. The whole underlying premise of skepticism and the scientific method are that we DON'T possess absolute certainty; just PRACTICAL certainty.

Skeptic

18th May 2010, 10:24 PM

People are being a bit unfair to Rand here in two ways.

1). They confuse the cult that grew around her with her philosophy.
2). They take what she obviously meant metaphorically in her philosophical claims literally. For example, when she says one should "hold firm beliefs", she clearly doesn't mean "refuse to change one's mind under any circumstances", but merely to take reasoning and its conclusions seriously -- to not consider conclusions one reaches as mere personal affectations, a fashion to be worn for a day and then discraded, as so many who rush from one "genius" to another in their philosophical views do.

The problem with Rand as a philosopher is different. It is, as Goethe once said about a weak drama, that she's a good and original philosopher -- but the good part isn't original and the original part isn't good.

The good part is her respect for reality (as she sees it), and her attempt to find ethical rules of behavior that are more than mere fads. But that one should, for example, not lie or steal out of respect to the moral laws, out of respect to the truth, is good -- or at least arguably good -- philosophy, if a bit quirky (her view of respect for truth as the fountaindhead -- sorry -- of all morality reminds one of the 18th-century philosohper who claimed that adultery is wrong because it "tells" an observer the couple are husband and wife, when they are not). But it goes back to Plato and Kant (to name two).

The original part is that she poses the question "why be moral and not selfish?" -- the old question -- and replies, not as Plato said, that being moral is so important a good for one's soul that all other selfish concerns pale into insignificance, but that perfectly selfish people will be perfectly moral.

But why? Because (roughly) lying for gain, for example, creates a false picture of the world, and that purely selfish people will have incredible concern to avoid it (this unbending, almost fanatical concern to act according to moral laws in all circumstances, by the way, is pure Kant -- although she despises Kant as one of those "unrealistic" metaphysicians.)

The problem is that if I lie to you, there is no false picture in the world in my worldview; at most I create one in your worldview. And why should I, a selfish person, care about your interst? Rand's reply is the dogmatic, "There are no conflicts of interests among rational egoists". This avoids the contradiction, but at the price of being totally ridiculous.

So the original part in Rand's ethics -- purely selfish people will be moral -- is simply absurd. The rest is more reasonable, but unoriginal.

Skeptic Ginger

19th May 2010, 12:26 AM

People are being a bit unfair to Rand here in two ways.

1). They confuse the cult that grew around her with her philosophy.And you know this because?

I haven't read anything from Rand cultist's points of view. So far, I've finished the biography and listened to Rand's interview on the Donahue show. And I heard a clip of her in some other interview where she was adamant about absolute laissez faire market being the best. Laissez faire is unrealistic in light of human nature. If it was such a great system, why is it not practiced in a single country in the world? Shouldn't we have migrated toward it by nature of its success?

And I totally disagree with Rand's own words about the fact that since we supposedly developed natural resources in third world countries while they "didn't use them", in Rand's mind makes it OK for the US to exploit the poor in those countries and take the resources we don't own. It is a disgustingly greedy point of view.

2). They take what she obviously meant metaphorically in her philosophical claims literally. For example, when she says one should "hold firm beliefs", she clearly doesn't mean "refuse to change one's mind under any circumstances", but merely to take reasoning and its conclusions seriously -- to not consider conclusions one reaches as mere personal affectations, a fashion to be worn for a day and then discraded, as so many who rush from one "genius" to another in their philosophical views do. And yet as Rand grew older she just excluded anyone from her presence that held opposing views. You can see it in the Donahue interview when a woman questions Rand's underlying premise about altruism, Rand doesn't debate the woman, she tells her to shut up, it's Rand's show, not the woman's.

I'm sorry, but Rand clearly didn't want to examine or challenge her beliefs, she just wanted to bask in them. This was one of the worse things about her. She surrounded herself with unchallenging yes men.

Skeptic

20th May 2010, 02:23 AM

Oh, for goodness' sake. I didn't say anybody who criticizes Rand is making the mistakes I pointed out, only that those are typical.

Senex

20th May 2010, 07:40 AM

Wise Senex:This is silly. Do you wish to undermine Plato for the same reason. Which philosophers are Sceptic Ginger informed of the biology of the brain appoved? You must have the names of some sharp philosophers or are all philosophers brain biology misinformed?

When it comes to Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and the other great philosophers, they had many great insights. But does it translate exactly to today, idea by idea? I think not. The great mathematicians (wasn't Plato also in this category?) OTOH, had more concrete data to deal with. Not too many math theories I'm aware of turned out to be false. The great astronomers had to build on each others' foundations. Medical science didn't really start in earnest until the mid 1800s. So if you expect Plato's insights would have been the same if he had the advantage of today's neurobiology, I think that might be what is silly.

Admit this is bulloney or provide names of your neurobiology approved philosophers (unless these are fairy tale philosophers and then you should admit you make stuff up as you go along) so we can have a go at them as easily as you feel comfortable having a go at Rand.

Not too many math theories I'm aware of turned out to be false

What history of math texts do you read and more importantly what is your point?

My point is if Plato published today he would be influenced more by Rand than that pseudo-science "neurobiology" you are a disciple of. You are a woo if you believe neurological science has philosophical answers (and believe it can discredit classical philosophers).

You are a woo (an energetic typing woo) but a woo nonetheless.

BillyRayValentine

20th May 2010, 08:14 AM

I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the "domino effect". But he was wrong. It was and is the corruption in Russia and China that prevent their populations from emerging as free societies.

Total non-sequitur. We shouldn't have done all we could to contain the spread of communism because the corruption of communist states was what prevented free societies from emerging? Makes not a lick of sense.

What I think you were trying to say is that active opposition to communism was unnecessary (counterproductive?) since the corruptness of the foremost communist states, Russia and China, guaranteed that their particular brand of communism would go the way of the dodo. That about right?

If by chance that's your thesis, all I can say is that it demonstrates an appalling indifference to 20th century history. Since its first application as a governing philosophy in the early 1900's, communist rule has been defined by its brutality and oppression, the scale of which the civilized world has never seen. It has (had) metastasized via brute force and violence - always.

The need to actively, aggressively confront those who seek to spread non-freedom under the threat of a gun should be self-evident. The notion that we should have stayed passive, sat tight and waited for communism to burn itself out is absurd. Very frightening to think about, actually. Imagine the world today if your mindset had prevailed at certain critical junctures in history. Makes me shudder.

drkitten

20th May 2010, 08:17 AM

Admit this is bulloney or provide names of your neurobiology approved philosophers (unless these are fairy tale philosophers and then you should admit you make stuff up as you go along) so we can have a go at them as easily as you feel comfortable having a go at Rand.

Start with Dennett and the Churchlands.

My point is if Plato published today he would be influenced more by Rand than that pseudo-science "neurobiology" you are a disciple of.

<Shrug>. Then either your point is wrong, or Plato would be a hack unworthy of modern analysis.

You are a woo if you believe neurological science has philosophical answers (and believe it can discredit classical philosophers).

Certainly it can discredit classical philosophers; it shows that a lot of the beliefs they took as factual are in fact incorrect, which renders most of their conclusions at best unsupported and at worst actively disproven. An example of that is Plato's separation of human reason between "desire, emotion, and knowledge"; Nobel prizes have been won for showing that these aspects of cognition cannot, in fact, be separated.

Senex

20th May 2010, 08:53 AM

<Shrug>. Then either your point is wrong, or Plato would be a hack unworthy of modern analysis.

First, I had a method for slowing down someone that now you hurt.

Second, Ok, that's my point. Clearly, no qualifiers, your mind is biological. Your mind is entirely, completely, no bones about it, entirely your brain.

But that knowledge doesn't discredit Rand.

I Think Rand is one of the few philosophers who lived in my life who is relevant.

I won't defend Plato's Mind/Body argument anymore than I will argue whatever woo today's argument will provide. My point is at this point no one has a philosophy on sound enough advice to live on. Do your best and let the rascals bitch and moan about you after you die.

drkitten

20th May 2010, 09:01 AM

Ok, that's my point. Clearly, no qualifiers, your mind is biological. Your mind is entirely, completely, no bones about it, entirely your brain.

I didn't say that. But if your belief is either that the mind is 100% biological, or neuroscience has nothing whatsoever to say about the mind, then you're also a hack unworthy of serious analysis.

But that knowledge doesn't discredit Rand.

If merely being wrong beyond possibility of repair -- AND being a terrible writer, to boot -- doesn't discredit a philosopher, what does?

Senex

20th May 2010, 09:19 AM

I didn't say that. But if your belief is either that the mind is 100% biological, or neuroscience has nothing whatsoever to say about the mind, then you're also a hack unworthy of serious analysis.

hehehehe...you don't know the half of it.

If merely being wrong beyond possibility of repair -- AND being a terrible writer, to boot -- doesn't discredit a philosopher, what does?

She may not be wrong (she may be wrong -- some things are hard to tell). She is a not a good writer but many people have gotten through her writings.

drkitten

20th May 2010, 03:56 PM

he
She may not be wrong (she may be wrong -- some things are hard to tell).

No, she's wrong. Some things are indeed hard to tell, but this is not one of them. A cursory read of her writings indicates she makes many simple claims that are observationally false.

Greenspan's recantation is just one example among many.

Senex

20th May 2010, 05:39 PM

No, she's wrong. Some things are indeed hard to tell, but this is not one of them. A cursory read of her writings indicates she makes many simple claims that are observationally false.

Greenspan's recantation is just one example among many.

Since when did you decide to fight Skeptic Ginger's battles?

If she authorizes you to fight her battle I'll bulldoze your argument as I would hers.

BillyRayValentine

20th May 2010, 10:03 PM

An example of that is Plato's separation of human reason between "desire, emotion, and knowledge"; Nobel prizes have been won for showing that these aspects of cognition cannot, in fact, be separated.

Please provide more detail. Which Nobel prizes were awarded for showing "desire, emotion and knowledge" cannot be separated? Who were the recipients and what was their work?

Thank in advance.

Senex

21st May 2010, 05:29 PM

Crickets? hehehe...as expected.

BillyRayValentine

21st May 2010, 10:35 PM

Crickets? hehehe...as expected.

Yes, I raised a eyebrow when I read "Certainly it (neurological science) can discredit classical philosophers." An absurd statement to the core, all by itself. But when you consider what I suspect was the whopper about Nobel Prizes specifically supporting this position, I sensed we had a very ironic case of dishonesty on our hands.

Of course I could be wrong. Which is your cue, drkitten, to return and back up your claims.

Senex

22nd May 2010, 09:26 AM

Yes, I raised a eyebrow when I read "Certainly it (neurological science) can discredit classical philosophers." An absurd statement to the core, all by itself. But when you consider what I suspect was the whopper about Nobel Prizes specifically supporting this position, I sensed we had a very ironic case of dishonesty on our hands.

Of course I could be wrong. Which is your cue, drkitten, to return and back up your claims.

The beauty of the JREF is you can banter an argument around. Unless your opponent dodges you.

Skeptic Ginger

22nd May 2010, 11:35 AM

Oh, for goodness' sake. I didn't say anybody who criticizes Rand is making the mistakes I pointed out, only that those are typical."People are being a bit unfair to Rand here "

Oh for goodness sake. And I thought you were referring to in this thread by the word, "here". :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger

22nd May 2010, 11:41 AM

Admit this is bulloney or provide names of your neurobiology approved philosophers (unless these are fairy tale philosophers and then you should admit you make stuff up as you go along) so we can have a go at them as easily as you feel comfortable having a go at Rand. My "professors" as in, argument from authority?????

Tell me specifically which claim of fact you are objecting to (because there were many in that paragraph) and I'll see if I can't find something concise that addresses your incredulity.

What history of math texts do you read and more importantly what is your point? Math "texts" are irrelevant. My point was only that math is a much more concrete science where laws actually are laws because they describe relationships. All the other sciences are continually evolving as more data is discovered. Philosophy most certainly falls into the evolving category. How can one not incorporate accumulating discoveries about the brain into modern philosophy?

My point is if Plato published today he would be influenced more by Rand than that pseudo-science "neurobiology" you are a disciple of. You are a woo if you believe neurological science has philosophical answers (and believe it can discredit classical philosophers).

You are a woo (an energetic typing woo) but a woo nonetheless.Neurobiology is a pseudo science???????? And you think I'm a woo????? :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger

22nd May 2010, 11:47 AM

Total non-sequitur. We shouldn't have done all we could to contain the spread of communism because the corruption of communist states was what prevented free societies from emerging? Makes not a lick of sense.Amazing that you totally bypassed the point of my example and instead addressed the example.

My point had zilch to do with communism specifically. It had to do with one's experiences having a varying degree of influence on one's 'rational' conclusions.

What I think you were trying to say is that active opposition to communism was unnecessary (counterproductive?) since the corruptness of the foremost communist states, Russia and China, guaranteed that their particular brand of communism would go the way of the dodo. That about right?Not at all what I was saying.

[snipped rest of answer built on totally false premise about what I had said]

Are you defending Libertarianism, Rand or both? Remind me what your issue was and I'll try a different approach to explaining my position. It appears your false assumptions about my position prevented you from getting what I was saying.

Skeptic Ginger

22nd May 2010, 11:49 AM

... An example of that is Plato's separation of human reason between "desire, emotion, and knowledge"; Nobel prizes have been won for showing that these aspects of cognition cannot, in fact, be separated.Excellent example. You are doing better than I am.

Skeptic Ginger

22nd May 2010, 12:25 PM

...
Second, Ok, that's my point. Clearly, no qualifiers, your mind is biological. Your mind is entirely, completely, no bones about it, entirely your brain.

But that knowledge doesn't discredit Rand.....No. But what does discredit Rand is the fact her philosophy is based on false underlying premises. As are people who argue pure laissez faire capitalism and those who argue pure socialism.

The reason both of these economic systems are not realistic is they fail to take into account the true nature of the human brain. In particular, the problem is that there is a range of behaviors within all human communities, and within that range of individual's behaviors are predictable actions which prevent those 'pure' economic systems from being applied practically.

What good is laissez faire if you cannot eliminate corruption in government, for example? It's nice on paper, but in the real world, it is unobtainable.

Take also the social aspects of removing all government influence on commerce. Rand Paul's recent inability to articulate how one addresses gross discrimination if one leaves everything up to private owner decisions. One might argue letting the Woolworth's lunch counter to remain segregated, but suppose a whole town denies service to blacks? Are white store owners to be allowed to drive all blacks out of their town by simply denying them services?

There is a point where private owners' rights come up against the larger's society's rights. According to Rand, all the individuals in the 'larger society' who would suffer at the whim of the private owner are undeserving leeches.

Rand's false underlying premise is that "the greater good" translates to the undeserving leeches getting something for nothing from the skilled contributors. In reality, "the greater good" translates to everyone benefitting, including the supposed contributors.

We all benefit from a highly educated populace. We all benefit from the infrastructure. We all benefit from a social safety net, just as one values other kinds of insurance before one needs to use it.

The Rand Objectivists cherry pick, just as Rand herself did, in believing all they have earned, they did so entirely of their own accord. Rand was helped as a young woman or she would never have made it to the USA, never had survived here if she had made it, and never had the opportunity to write. If it had not been for the relatives who helped her and the infrastructure that other people built which existed around her, she'd have never been able to leave Russia.

If you ignore your education and the rest of society's infrastructure, you can fantasize that you earned everything you own.

Skeptic Ginger

22nd May 2010, 12:47 PM

The beauty of the JREF is you can banter an argument around. Unless your opponent dodges you.If you are referring to me, my computer's been in the shop for 3 days. One of the RAM chips failed and the Apple store had to order the part.

First, Neurobiology is indeed a science. So let's dispense with that nonsensical challenge right here.
U of WA's graduate program (http://depts.washington.edu/behneuro/)Investigations into the mechanisms of neural function require an interdisciplinary approach using the knowledge base and techniques of anatomy, biochemistry and molecular biology, physiology, pharmacology, and the behavioral sciences.
Harvard Medical School's program (http://neuro.med.harvard.edu/)The Department of Neurobiology, established in 1966 with Stephen W. Kuffler as Chair, was the first of its kind. The intent was to bring together members of traditional departments-- physiologists, biochemists, and anatomists-- in order to understand the principles governing communication between cells in the nervous system. This interdisciplinary approach was revolutionary at the time, and the interdisciplinary theme has continued to permeate the evolution of the field of neuroscience ever since....
Among the major breakthroughs during the early era were: description of receptive field organization in the retina and visual cortex; delineation of neural circuits that underlie visual perception; discovery of critical periods during development when synapses form and are stabilized in the cerebral cortex; electrophysiological analysis of excitatory and inhibitory chemical synaptic transmission, including the phenomenon of presynaptic inhibition; characterization of GABA and other amine neurotransmitters; the first demonstration that peptides play a role in synaptic transmission; discovery of electrical excitation and inhibition, and appreciation of the importance of electrical coupling between neurons during development; characterization of the unique properties of single neurons in simple nervous systems; demonstration that glia in the brain modulate changes in extracellular ion concentrations; maintenance of nerve cells in long-term cultures, and the characterization of neuronal plasticity regarding neurotransmitter synthesis. One of the highlights of this period was the awarding of the Nobel Prize in 1981 to David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel for their work on visual processing.
Duke (http://www.neuro.duke.edu/main/)The Platt Laboratory combines classical ethological approaches with contemporary neurophysiological methods to study the neural bases of cognitive behavior. Charles Darwin first sketched an evolutionary approach to cognitive neuroscience: "He who understands baboon would do more toward metaphysics than Locke" (Notebook N)....
Ultimately, attention, emotion, and decision-making reflect the operation of neural mechanisms that evolved to deal with the behavioral problems animals, including humans, have confronted in their natural environments during their evolutionary history. Current research in the Platt lab applies principles of decision theory, derived from both evolutionary ecology and behavioral economics, to study how the brain decides between different actions. Neurophysiological studies in the lab have revealed neural correlates of stimulus and movement value in parietal cortex and cingulate cortex, neural circuits implicated in attention, emotion, and decision-making. Current work is aimed at extending these approaches to the neural correlates of risk-sensitive decision-making and social evaluation.
Yale (http://info.med.yale.edu/neurobio/index.php)Our multidisciplinary training program for graduate students emphasizes developmental, cellular, systems and cognitive neuroscience employing a broad spectrum of techniques including molecular and cellular neurobiology, state of the art in vitro and in vivo electrophysiology and imaging (e.g. two photon microscopy), as well as studies of normal and abnormal cognitive function in behaving animals.
Stanford (http://neurobiology.stanford.edu/)neural mechanisms mediating higher nervous system functions, including perception, learning, attention and decision making.

Next, the research and how it applies to Rand's philosophy.

Senex

22nd May 2010, 04:03 PM

I lost a post I worked hard on. That is not the only reason I'm having a bad day.

Senex

22nd May 2010, 04:19 PM

My "professors" as in, argument from authority?????

Tell me specifically which claim of fact you are objecting to (because there were many in that paragraph) and I'll see if I can't find something concise that addresses your incredulity.

I'm more interested in reading an essay by a guru you love. You mock Rand and I'm interested in reading what a neurobiology thinker who has this all figured out thinks.

Math "texts" are irrelevant. My point was only that math is a much more concrete science where laws actually are laws because they describe relationships. All the other sciences are continually evolving as more data is discovered. Philosophy most certainly falls into the evolving category. How can one not incorporate accumulating discoveries about the brain into modern philosophy?
Math evolves. Philosophy devolves from time to time.

Neurobiology is a pseudo science???????? And you think I'm a woo????? :rolleyes:
If you think your knowledge of neurobiology discredits the great thinkers of western civilization I'm calling you a woo.

Tony Robbins seems like a nice fellow but his neurobiology stuff won't make a dime off me.

Senex

22nd May 2010, 04:31 PM

I'm doing something I'm against -- covering my own posts. A rare glitch.

.

What good is laissez faire if you cannot eliminate corruption in government, for example? It's nice on paper, but in the real world, it is unobtainable.
The only book I read of Rand was Atlas Shrugged and it was all about government corruption. You should read it.

Take also the social aspects of removing all government influence on commerce. Rand Paul's recent inability to articulate how one addresses gross discrimination if one leaves everything up to private owner decisions. One might argue letting the Woolworth's lunch counter to remain segregated, but suppose a whole town denies service to blacks? Are white store owners to be allowed to drive all blacks out of their town by simply denying them services?
I'm calling shame for saying Rand is racist.

The Rand Objectivists cherry pick, just as Rand herself did, in believing all they have earned, they did so entirely of their own accord. Rand was helped as a young woman or she would never have made it to the USA, never had survived here if she had made it, and never had the opportunity to write. If it had not been for the relatives who helped her and the infrastructure that other people built which existed around her, she'd have never been able to leave Russia.
Rand came here with only the clothes on her back and made it. Get over it ;)

If you are referring to me, my computer's been in the shop for 3 days. One of the RAM chips failed and the Apple store had to order the part.
And my dog ate my homework.

First, Neurobiology is indeed a science. So let's dispense with that nonsensical challenge right here.
U of WA's graduate program (http://depts.washington.edu/behneuro/)
Harvard Medical School's program (http://neuro.med.harvard.edu/)
Duke (http://www.neuro.duke.edu/main/)
Yale (http://info.med.yale.edu/neurobio/index.php)
Stanford (http://neurobiology.stanford.edu/)

Next, the research and how it applies to Rand's philosophy.

Is that some sort of threat?

Skeptic Ginger

22nd May 2010, 08:40 PM

I lost a post I worked hard on. That is not the only reason I'm having a bad day.I feel for you.

Skeptic Ginger

22nd May 2010, 08:43 PM

I'm more interested in reading an essay by a guru you love. You mock Rand and I'm interested in reading what a neurobiology thinker who has this all figured out thinks.I'm my own guru. Why do you assume one needs to follow?

Math evolves. Philosophy devolves from time to time.

If you think your knowledge of neurobiology discredits the great thinkers of western civilization I'm calling you a woo.

Tony Robbins seems like a nice fellow but his neurobiology stuff won't make a dime off me.You can call me a woo, that doesn't make it so.

I'm calling you stuck in time, unable to adapt your thinking when new data surfaces. It may or may not be true.

Skeptic Ginger

22nd May 2010, 08:55 PM

I'm doing something I'm against -- covering my own posts. A rare glitch.

The only book I read of Rand was Atlas Shrugged and it was all about government corruption. You should read it.

I'm calling shame for saying Rand is racist. Rand Paul doesn't have to personally be a racist to support his Libertarian point of view that the government should not tell private property owners they cannot offer goods and services to the public unless they do so without discrimination. Ayn Rand wouldn't need to personally be a racist either.

However, I did find Ayn Rand's view that the resources of third wold countries belong to the first world countries which build the infrastructure to exploit the resources (Rand's own words in the Donahue interview) to be very racist. It's like saying you owe continual rent to the contractor that built your house on your property.

Rand came here with only the clothes on her back and made it. Get over it ;)You might want to add a Rand biography to that reading list of yours or stop making assertions you don't really have the facts about.

Senex

23rd May 2010, 12:16 AM

I feel for you.
My dog is dieing. And I have other family members in trouble.

I'm my own guru. Why do you assume one needs to follow?
I want something tangible to mock.

You can call me a woo, that doesn't make it so.
Yes, but you don't have life figured out if a rascal like me can get under your skin.

I'm calling you stuck in time, unable to adapt your thinking when new data surfaces. It may or may not be true.
I've been called worse.

Rand Paul doesn't have to personally be a racist to support his Libertarian point of view that the government should not tell private property owners they cannot offer goods and services to the public unless they do so without discrimination. Ayn Rand wouldn't need to personally be a racist either.
None of these are your most telling sentence.
Let's wait for it.

However, I did find Ayn Rand's view that the resources of third wold countries belong to the first world countries which build the infrastructure to exploit the resources (Rand's own words in the Donahue interview) to be very racist. It's like saying you owe continual rent to the contractor that built your house on your property.

You might want to add a Rand biography to that reading list of yours or stop making assertions you don't really have the facts about.

I have all the facts I need ;)

Senex

23rd May 2010, 12:18 AM

editing

Uncayimmy

23rd May 2010, 01:22 AM

Rand's false underlying premise is that "the greater good" translates to the undeserving leeches getting something for nothing from the skilled contributors. In reality, "the greater good" translates to everyone benefitting, including the supposed contributors.
It's hard to type when I'm giggling, but the above paragraph is just downright silly. You claim she has a "false" premise and then supply a definition of "greater good" that proves her premise to be true. What you fail to understand is that you're discussing value based philosophies. Your philosophy seems to be that nobody is "undeserving" therefore her premise must be false. Some people believe that there are those that are undeserving, and there's no objective way to prove this true or false.

Take someone who lives on the streets begging for money and not working. The very streets they walk are the result of "contributors" and by definition they are "benefiting" from them. Are they undeserving? She says they are, and you say they are not.

From there the arguments continue to center around who "deserves" what. Many people believe that children are deserving, but the unemployed, alcoholic, Montel-watching parents are not. They want a welfare system that takes care of the children without benefiting the parents. Others believe that a system that helps the children can have some level of acceptable "loss" with "undeserving" parents receiving "benefits." Some go as far as saying the system must help those that need it most regardless of the "losses" to those that don't deserve it. At the other end some argue that if you help the children at all, you're helping the parents, so don't help them at all.

It's all a matter of degree. Your black and white view and claims of "false" premises are downright ignorant and silly.

The Rand Objectivists cherry pick, just as Rand herself did, in believing all they have earned, they did so entirely of their own accord.
No, they don't. You can't seriously argue that Rand believed the profits from her books were entirely of her own doing and that the editors, printers, bankers, shipping companies, bookstores, cashiers, and all the other thousands of people involved played no part.

Their argument is basically that there are those who are part of the productive system and those that are not, and that those that "do" shouldn't be called upon to support those that "don't" because that ultimately hurts everyone. If everyone were to be a "doer" then we'd all be better off, and any social system that does not encourage everyone to be a "doer" is immoral. It's a gross simplification, but so is your claim about their philosophy. The difference is a follower discussing my brief commentary would expand on it while they would reject yours outright.

Take also the social aspects of removing all government influence on commerce. Rand Paul's recent inability to articulate how one addresses gross discrimination if one leaves everything up to private owner decisions. One might argue letting the Woolworth's lunch counter to remain segregated, but suppose a whole town denies service to blacks? Are white store owners to be allowed to drive all blacks out of their town by simply denying them services?

The interesting thing about that is if the laws are what's preventing discrimination from happening, then the moral issue of racism is still there. In other words you haven't actually solved the moral issue at all - you just made it harder to act on a belief system you don't support. Since you're not affecting the moral positions, the justification for these laws must really be a practical one. That's a huge debate in itself.

Skeptic Ginger

23rd May 2010, 01:25 AM

...

Yes, but you don't have life figured out if a rascal like me can get under your skin. Here's another false assumption on your part. Anyone who calls neurobiology, woo, isn't a debate challenger to worry about. I mostly reply to posts like yours for the benefit of the thread lurkers.

...None of these are your most telling sentence.
Let's wait for it.Sorry, but I don't get your point.

...I have all the facts I need ;)I do believe that is consistent with what I said. ;)

Skeptic Ginger

23rd May 2010, 02:28 AM

It's hard to type when I'm giggling, but the above paragraph is just downright silly. You claim she has a "false" premise and then supply a definition of "greater good" that proves her premise to be true. What you fail to understand is that you're discussing value based philosophies. Your philosophy seems to be that nobody is "undeserving" therefore her premise must be false. Some people believe that there are those that are undeserving, and there's no objective way to prove this true or false.

Take someone who lives on the streets begging for money and not working. The very streets they walk are the result of "contributors" and by definition they are "benefiting" from them. Are they undeserving? She says they are, and you say they are not. You make the same mistake Rand makes. You cherry pick the need (a lazy bum) and you cherry pick the outcome (getting support from people who earned it).

Your assumption is that anyone using anything they didn't personally earn must, by definition, be a non contributor. Rand was given the money to pay for her trip to America. She was supported by relatives in New York including giving her money to get to Hollywood and live until she got a job. She went to school in Russia and in New York. She didn't earn any money until she got a job as an extra in a movie in Hollywood.

You, like Rand, are saying that only the individual matters. This ignores the reality that all of us are both individuals and members of the group. Contributions to the group such as educating our children collectively is but one area where the individual benefits by contributing to the group.

From there the arguments continue to center around who "deserves" what. Many people believe that children are deserving, but the unemployed, alcoholic, Montel-watching parents are not. They want a welfare system that takes care of the children without benefiting the parents. Others believe that a system that helps the children can have some level of acceptable "loss" with "undeserving" parents receiving "benefits." Some go as far as saying the system must help those that need it most regardless of the "losses" to those that don't deserve it. At the other end some argue that if you help the children at all, you're helping the parents, so don't help them at all.Again your view of people in need is anemic. You include only the stereotype that is easy to denigrate.

Rand did the same. She witnessed her parent's store in Russia confiscated by the people Rand felt had not earned the store while her parents had. Therefore ALL contributions from the individual to the group fit in this category in Rand's view. It is simply a false picture of the broader reality.

It's all a matter of degree. Your black and white view and claims of "false" premises are downright ignorant and silly.It's not a matter of degree. It is a matter of false underlying premises that the non-contributing proletariat steals from the contributing John Galts.

In the real world, many people work hard and by circumstance are poor. Some of those people who took over Rand's parent's store in Russia had worked hard their entire lives only to be kept down by people with the resources to oppress the poor. Rand was well aware of government corruption having the same problematic influence on the ideal laissez faire market as non-corrupt government influence on the market. But Rand never spoke of the 'proletariat' as anything other than non-contributors stealing from her contributing family. In reality, while Rand's family may or may not have contributed to the reason the 'proletariat' rose up against the rich in Russia, many of those rising up had been hard working people oppressed by the rich and powerful. It was by circumstance, not by their own deeds necessarily, that put many people in the positions they were in, in Russia at the time.

Rand seemed oblivious to the circumstances that placed her in the ownership class she was born into. Instead, Rand was convinced if you were well off, you deserved it and if you weren't well off it was your own doing. She certainly recognized the problem of undo influence such as government corruption. But circumstance never seemed to cross into her observations of why those supposed non-producers may have not been successful.

No, they don't. You can't seriously argue that Rand believed the profits from her books were entirely of her own doing and that the editors, printers, bankers, shipping companies, bookstores, cashiers, and all the other thousands of people involved played no part.Those are not the people Rand refused to recognize that I am talking about. [Snide comment that you obviously can't read withheld.] Rand refused to recognize the help she got as a young woman, from relatives who didn't know her until she arrived in New York. Rand always spoke of herself as being entirely on her own from the time she left Russia and that is not true.

Their argument is basically that there are those who are part of the productive system and those that are not, and that those that "do" shouldn't be called upon to support those that "don't" because that ultimately hurts everyone. If everyone were to be a "doer" then we'd all be better off, and any social system that does not encourage everyone to be a "doer" is immoral. It's a gross simplification, but so is your claim about their philosophy. Sounds good on paper. Translates into revolutions, crime, and people dying on the streets when put into practice.

The people who are true non-contributors that could contribute but choose not to is a very small minority of most populations. These people certainly do not compromise a proportion as large as Rand imagines in "Atlas Shrugged".

The interesting thing about that is if the laws are what's preventing discrimination from happening, then the moral issue of racism is still there. In other words you haven't actually solved the moral issue at all - you just made it harder to act on a belief system you don't support. Since you're not affecting the moral positions, the justification for these laws must really be a practical one. That's a huge debate in itself.I've not claimed that one can legislate away racism. It takes legislation and time and other factors like educating children to be tolerant. The issue is how far can you take the philosophy of private property rights, not how do you make society more moral. [Second snide comment denigrating your reading skills withheld.]

valis

23rd May 2010, 04:38 AM

Senex

23rd May 2010, 04:46 AM

Here's another false assumption on your part. Anyone who calls neurobiology, woo, isn't a debate challenger to worry about. I mostly reply to posts like yours for the benefit of the thread lurkers.
For the benefit of the lurkers (hey wait a second "another false assumption?" You're trying to pull a fast one on me. I have no previous false assumptions on my record.) I have a neurobiology guru called Steve Novella. He kicks your imaginary guru's ass.

Sorry, but I don't get your point.
I never really expected you to. You may be crazier than me.

I do believe that is consistent with what I said. ;)
Maybe, but you're a crazy lady.

Senex

23rd May 2010, 07:13 AM

.

If she was so darn rational then why wasn't her personal life more orderly?

Let's talk about Martin Luther King's life. Abraham Lincoln was married to a crazy lady. You can't judge on that level.

marplots

23rd May 2010, 09:26 AM

Isn't it shallow to separate the economic sphere into doers and leeches?

I think there are two (at least false assumptions there). The first is that people move from one category to another. Today's doer came from last year's college slacker and will, in time, become a retired slacker again. As I read it, gumption is a fundamental character trait that doesn't change with time or circumstance.

The second assumption seems to be that doers primarily do for themselves. I find this to be so only in a limited way. I think the 'greater good' inspires many to achieve well past their initial goals. Doers need a context in which doing pays off. Not just in a fat bank account, but in self-worth and emotional satisfaction.

I think Rand paints the situation as a sort of royal-blood that rises to the top by dint of virtue and bestows their gifts on the ignorant and flawed masses. But this is just where the best of us comes from. That very same pool of humanity. I think it is wise, for instance, to spend money on educating our citizens, not to make any one of them better, but to make society better.

W.D.Clinger

23rd May 2010, 12:09 PM

From there the arguments continue to center around who "deserves" what.
Will Munny gave the definitive answer to that.

After all, we're discussing a philosopher whose major works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_for_Ayn_Rand_and_Objectivism) include novels and screenplays.

Skeptic Ginger

23rd May 2010, 02:02 PM

For the benefit of the lurkers (hey wait a second "another false assumption?" You're trying to pull a fast one on me. I have no previous false assumptions on my record.) I have a neurobiology guru called Steve Novella. He kicks your imaginary guru's ass. ....So you call neurobiology, Woo, but you have a neurobiologist you respect?

Your conversation is drifting into useless drivel.

Senex

23rd May 2010, 02:49 PM

So you call neurobiology, Woo, but you have a neurobiologist you respect?

Your conversation is drifting into useless drivel.

Yeah, but he is a bricks and mortar kind of fellow. I could poke him with a stick if I was of a mind to.

Where's your guy? Your guy is keeping company with my supermodel girlfriend ;)

Skeptic Ginger

23rd May 2010, 05:21 PM

I'll take that as, you have no point and nothing on topic to say, Senex.

BillyRayValentine

24th May 2010, 09:32 AM

Amazing that you totally bypassed the point of my example and instead addressed the example.

Um, when you make a point by way of example, and the example makes no sense whatsoever, it's quite reasonable that someone point this out. What's amazing is that you think otherwise.

Here was your point, verbatim: "Some people recognize how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in. Others believe their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant."

These sentences immediately preceded your example, which was: "I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the "domino effect". But he was wrong. It was and is the corruption in Russia and China that prevent their populations from emerging as free societies."

Quite clearly you're offering up your "wrong" father as an example of someone who "believe(s) their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant." Leaving you the more evolved role of one who "recognize(s) how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in."

The problem is, as I pointed out, your father was not wrong, and most certainly not for the completely nonsensical reason you gave. And so it's a pointless example. Which is my point.

BillyRayValentine

24th May 2010, 10:03 AM

I've not claimed that one can legislate away racism. It takes legislation and time and other factors like educating children to be tolerant. The issue is how far can you take the philosophy of private property rights, not how do you make society more moral. [Second snide comment denigrating your reading skills withheld.]

Sigh. It's good that you withheld that comment denigrating UncaYimmy's reading skills, seeing as how every single word he wrote was germane to the Rand Paul discrimination imbroglio. Which you raised.

You think far too highly of yourself. And your tunnel vision prevents you from seeing how petulant and silly you can be.

Skeptic Ginger

24th May 2010, 05:37 PM

Um, when you make a point by way of example, and the example makes no sense whatsoever, it's quite reasonable that someone point this out. What's amazing is that you think otherwise.Um, when you use an example to make a point, the discussion is ABOUT THE POINT, NOT ABOUT THE EXAMPLE.

Here was your point, verbatim: "Some people recognize how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in. Others believe their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant."

These sentences immediately preceded your example, which was: "I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the "domino effect". But he was wrong. It was and is the corruption in Russia and China that prevent their populations from emerging as free societies."

Quite clearly you're offering up your "wrong" father as an example of someone who "believe(s) their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant." Leaving you the more evolved role of one who "recognize(s) how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in."

The problem is, as I pointed out, your father was not wrong, and most certainly not for the completely nonsensical reason you gave. And so it's a pointless example. Which is my point.The problem is, if you want to talk about the validity of the Red Menace, forum protocol is to start a new thread, not hijack one which is about the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Getting back to the point I made, Rand was also awed by the buildings in NYC when she arrived there. This also affected her view that capitalism was wholly responsible for the success in the US. But many things were responsible for the success in the US at the turn of the century. The country was relatively new. It wasn't burdened with thousands of years of society, history, and all the baggage that existed in Europe and Russia at the time. It's easy to attribute cause to capitalism and ignore all the other contributing factors. But such a conclusion negatively affects one's "rational" thinking.

Skeptic Ginger

24th May 2010, 05:47 PM

Sigh. It's good that you withheld that comment denigrating UncaYimmy's reading skills, seeing as how every single word he wrote was germane to the Rand Paul discrimination imbroglio. Which you raised.

You think far too highly of yourself. And your tunnel vision prevents you from seeing how petulant and silly you can be.Generally, if a reply is to a straw man and misses the point of what one is replying to, reading skills underlie the event.

Beerina

24th May 2010, 06:31 PM

Getting back to the point I made, Rand was also awed by the buildings in NYC when she arrived there. This also affected her view that capitalism was wholly responsible for the success in the US. But many things were responsible for the success in the US at the turn of the century. The country was relatively new. It wasn't burdened with thousands of years of society, history, and all the baggage that existed in Europe and Russia at the time. It's easy to attribute cause to capitalism and ignore all the other contributing factors. But such a conclusion negatively affects one's "rational" thinking.

And that the new huge buildings are no longer built in the US but other nations with faster growing economies suggests...what?

You have lots of money, where are you gonna invest? In a society well down the road to quasi-collapse like Europe? Or the new, throbbing economies on the edge of the old, declining power?

And to address your point, yes, of course there are myriad things that affect this or that, and sorting through them is difficult, especially when they are part of a complex thing that's hard to test experimentally.

One good place to look is at similar areas with vast differences: North vs. South Korea. Haiti vs. Dominican Republic. Hong Kong and Taiwan vs. the rest of China.

The last of those is especially instructive because China is moving towards Hong Kong, rather than Hong Kong being ripped back into the Chinese dictatorship. As they move to more economic freedom, their wealth and quality of life, for everybody, is growing by leaps and bounds.

Exactly as good old capitalist theory predicts. Capitalism, as derivative of freedom, properly understood.

And, of course, the whole libertarian/objectivist/anarcho-capitalist axis suggests, loudly, that the proper view of politics is not north/south or east/west, but rather freedom/control. Especially in the realm of economics. Hence dictatorships (especially over economics, ala communism) flop, be they communist or heavy-handed socialism or some right-wind dictatorship, or some failed state (or semi-failed, as in Mexico) where the governments are lousy with corruption.

In all cases, you cannot make economic moves without being stopped by officials, who expect the kickbacks to get out of the way. Those two extremes, deemed "right" and "left" wing by standard politics, are bundled into the same group under libertarian-style thinking and the bundling similarity is the exact thing that induces them to be terrible economies.

Theory. Prediction. Result. You know. Things skeptics love.

Piggy

24th May 2010, 06:47 PM

BillyRayValentine

25th May 2010, 11:33 AM

Generally, if a reply is to a straw man and misses the point of what one is replying to, reading skills underlie the event.

He he, great stuff. I think you should learn a bit more about the straw man fallacy before continuing. It's quite straightforward, so there's really no excuse for botching its application the way you just did.

Though I suspect you'll just keep digging.

Steven Howard

26th May 2010, 10:09 AM

I love coming in at page 6 of an Ayn Rand thread.

It seems to make no difference at all whatever I've missed.

There's always the over-under on when somebody brings up William Hickman (geni, in Post 128 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5914011&postcount=128)).

And the inevitable link to The Fountainhead, starring Skull Force (http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/parody/) (me, just now).

kestertaylor

28th May 2010, 07:51 AM

He he, great stuff. I think you should learn a bit more about the straw man fallacy before continuing. It's quite straightforward, so there's really no excuse for botching its application the way you just did.

Though I suspect you'll just keep digging.

Unless a straw man fallacy is something other than misrepresenting someone's position and then knocking it down and claiming victory, you straw-manned Skeptic Ginger. Because when you take an example out of context, say it fails to effectively make a point it's not trying to, and then declaring victory, that's what you're doing.

Either that or you genuinely didn't get the post.

kestertaylor

28th May 2010, 08:00 AM

And that the new huge buildings are no longer built in the US but other nations with faster growing economies suggests...what?

You have lots of money, where are you gonna invest? In a society well down the road to quasi-collapse like Europe? Or the new, throbbing economies on the edge of the old, declining power?

And to address your point, yes, of course there are myriad things that affect this or that, and sorting through them is difficult, especially when they are part of a complex thing that's hard to test experimentally.

One good place to look is at similar areas with vast differences: North vs. South Korea. Haiti vs. Dominican Republic. Hong Kong and Taiwan vs. the rest of China.

The last of those is especially instructive because China is moving towards Hong Kong, rather than Hong Kong being ripped back into the Chinese dictatorship. As they move to more economic freedom, their wealth and quality of life, for everybody, is growing by leaps and bounds.

Once again, you cherry pick places where you see a win for capitalism, as Ginger pointed out, and summarily dismiss examples that show when it fails by claiming--without evidence--that the best place to look is where you've just happened to cherry pick. Not to mention you ignored every single other possibility for why the skyscrapers are going up in the developing world other than a heaping dose of good ol' pure capitalism. The hilarious thing is, most of us here who are anti-Laissez Faire can and will readily agree with you that communist countries damned well need more economic freedom! We're not anti-Ayn Rand because we're pro-communism or socialism. Pure socialism is just as big a fail. But that's not what this thread about. It's about Ayn Rand.

drkitten

28th May 2010, 08:13 AM

Please provide more detail. Which Nobel prizes were awarded for showing "desire, emotion and knowledge" cannot be separated? Who were the recipients and what was their work?

Start with Daniel Kahneman (Economics, 2002), who showed exmpirically that your desire and expectation for something to be true influenced your knowledge/belief that it was true (and more accurately, your assessment of the probability that it was true).

Judgement Under Uncertainty (Cambridge 1982) is a good introduction to his work.

Herbert Simon (Economics 1978) is another relevant example.

RobRoy

28th May 2010, 08:15 AM

BillyRayValentine

28th May 2010, 08:56 AM

Unless a straw man fallacy is something other than misrepresenting someone's position and then knocking it down and claiming victory, you straw-manned Skeptic Ginger. Because when you take an example out of context, say it fails to effectively make a point it's not trying to, and then declaring victory, that's what you're doing.

Either that or you genuinely didn't get the post.

Kind of annoying when people join an argument mid-stream and have no idea what in hell they're talking about.

Or maybe you could explain, clearly, how I "straw-manned" Skeptic Ginger. What was her original argument and what exactly was the straw man I addressed instead? Please be very specific, with quotes and whatnot, or kindly shut your yap.

BillyRayValentine

28th May 2010, 09:19 AM

Start with Daniel Kahneman (Economics, 2002), who showed exmpirically that your desire and expectation for something to be true influenced your knowledge/belief that it was true (and more accurately, your assessment of the probability that it was true).

Judgement Under Uncertainty (Cambridge 1982) is a good introduction to his work.

Herbert Simon (Economics 1978) is another relevant example.

Allow me to refresh your memory.

1. The topic was neurobiology and neurological science.
2. With respect to neuroscience and its impact on philosophical thought, the specific claim was "Nobel prizes have been won for showing that these aspects of cognition (desire, emotion, and knowledge) cannot, in fact, be separated."

And now you back up your claim by presenting a Nobel prize winning study in behavioral economics, which was purely observational and had absolutely nothing to do with neurobiology or neuroscience whatsoever? Are you for real?

You're either very dishonest or very, um, confused. Better to just say "ok, I pulled that Nobel prize crap out of thin air". Stop digging and move on.

Senex

28th May 2010, 09:39 AM

I love coming in at page 6 of an Ayn Rand thread.

It seems to make no difference at all whatever I've missed.

All I can say about Rand is that she had no choice but to convey her philosophy in fiction.

Same old same old --except I've now been employed. hehehehe....Screw the lazy unemployed bastards

drkitten

28th May 2010, 11:36 AM

Allow me to refresh your memory.

My memory needs no refreshing, but perhaps your understanding of Kahneman's work does.

And now you back up your claim by presenting a Nobel prize winning study in behavioral economics,

Nope. I don't. Although I would understand this comment if you'd never read a word of (or about) Dr. K.

dudalb

28th May 2010, 02:08 PM

Someone believing they are capable of cold rational, logical thought is just as religious as someone who believes Jesus is going to heal their illnesses.

If she was so darn rational then why wasn't her personal life more orderly?

What makes it so ironic is that Ayn Rand claimed time and time again that EVERY decision she made was dictated by cold logic............

kestertaylor

29th May 2010, 12:43 AM

Kind of annoying when people join an argument mid-stream and have no idea what in hell they're talking about.

Or maybe you could explain, clearly, how I "straw-manned" Skeptic Ginger. What was her original argument and what exactly was the straw man I addressed instead? Please be very specific, with quotes and whatnot, or kindly shut your yap.

Since you're disingenuously trying to dismiss me with an unsupported accusation that I haven't been following this thread, I'll be glad to point out exactly where you did this.

The following is the segment of Ginger's post you straw-manned, in better context than you chose to present it.

I don't see her view as narrower than anyone elses. In fact she knows about Russia, Hollywood and writing. She has seen a lot. You're wrong that she has a narrow view.

In the 1900s, there was not information available about modern neurobiology. Rand lived through the Russian revolution. Sure, that's a lot, but it also slants ones view, just as my Dad's view was slanted by the "Red Menace" and mine was slanted by the Vietnam War. We have the advantage today of incredible access to massive amounts of information in addition to our experiences. Some people recognize how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in. Others believe their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant.

I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the "domino effect". But he was wrong. It was and is the corruption in Russia and China that prevent their populations from emerging as free societies. While I think capitalism is a preferable model, and there are many reasons for that, I also think corrupt capitalism can be just as bad as corrupt communism. We need a mix of economies, not the pure laissez faire in Rand's imaginary world.

The following is your post where you straw-manned her position based on taking a tiny portion of it out of context, not addressing the greater point, and then declaring her wrong.

Total non-sequitur. We shouldn't have done all we could to contain the spread of communism because the corruption of communist states was what prevented free societies from emerging? Makes not a lick of sense.

This in itself is a straw man, because you intentionally worded her statement in such a way as to make it look weaker. What she said, pretty clearly, was that the dogmatic, freedom-restricting governments that imposed it, and not communism itself, were the primary factors in limiting the freedoms of people in those countries. Given the sample size of communist states we've had, and the fact that none of them were put into power democratically, her assertion is no less valid than your apparent implication that corruption is endemic to communism. But it doesn't matter who's right; you still twisted her words to claim that you were.

What I think you were trying to say is that active opposition to communism was unnecessary (counterproductive?) since the corruptness of the foremost communist states, Russia and China, guaranteed that their particular brand of communism would go the way of the dodo. That about right?

If by chance that's your thesis, all I can say is that it demonstrates an appalling indifference to 20th century history. Since its first application as a governing philosophy in the early 1900's, communist rule has been defined by its brutality and oppression, the scale of which the civilized world has never seen. It has (had) metastasized via brute force and violence - always.

The need to actively, aggressively confront those who seek to spread non-freedom under the threat of a gun should be self-evident. The notion that we should have stayed passive, sat tight and waited for communism to burn itself out is absurd. Very frightening to think about, actually. Imagine the world today if your mindset had prevailed at certain critical junctures in history. Makes me shudder.

And here's the secondary straw man. After doing the set 'em up, knock 'em down approach on the tiny sliver of her post, you go on to build a case against her whole argument around it, when all it was meant to do was serve as an example of how people can sometimes draw conclusions without enough information, and hence, get it wrong. You deliberately chose to attack her example rather than her overall argument, pretending it was her "thesis." Even if her example had been 100% wrong and completely off-base, she was illustrating that people occasionally draw inaccurate conclusions from insufficient data, something I cannot imagine you would disagree with.

In this context, perhaps Ginger's accusation of reading comprehension issues--though crude--was kinder than the alternative: accusing you of intentionally derailing the thread rather than addressing the topic at hand, Ginger's claim that modern neurobiology (with findings to which Rand would not have been privy) disproves claims made by Rand about reason.

kestertaylor

29th May 2010, 06:33 AM

In this context, perhaps Ginger's accusation of reading comprehension issues--though crude--was kinder than the alternative: accusing you of intentionally derailing the thread rather than addressing the topic at hand, Ginger's claim that modern neurobiology (with findings to which Rand would not have been privy) disproves claims made by Rand about reason.

CORRECTION: This accusation was leveled at Yimmy, not BillyRay.

BillyRayValentine

31st May 2010, 11:25 PM

Since you're disingenuously trying to dismiss me with an unsupported accusation that I haven't been following this thread, I'll be glad to point out exactly where you did this.

As you trumpet how well you've been following the thread, maybe you should take note of the fact that Ginger's straw man accusation was directed at UncaYimmy, not me. She never once directed that accusation at me, especially for he incredibly, vapidly, repulsively stupid reasons you present. Good grief man, your comprehension skills, your ability to grasp the substance of what you read, is seriously lacking. Embarrassingly so, really. And so here we go...

The following is the segment of Ginger's post you straw-manned, in better context than you chose to present it.

Originally Posted by Senex
I don't see her view as narrower than anyone elses. In fact she knows about Russia, Hollywood and writing. She has seen a lot. You're wrong that she has a narrow view.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

In the 1900s, there was not information available about modern neurobiology. Rand lived through the Russian revolution. Sure, that's a lot, but it also slants ones view, just as my Dad's view was slanted by the "Red Menace" and mine was slanted by the Vietnam War. We have the advantage today of incredible access to massive amounts of information in addition to our experiences. Some people recognize how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in. Others believe their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant.

I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the "domino effect". But he was wrong. It was and is the corruption in Russia and China that prevent their populations from emerging as free societies. While I think capitalism is a preferable model, and there are many reasons for that, I also think corrupt capitalism can be just as bad as corrupt communism. We need a mix of economies, not the pure laissez faire in Rand's imaginary world.

There's a reason I presented a specific quote and explained why I took issue with it. Why would you pretend I was addressing the point made by Sentex in the above quote, or that entire argument in general, for that matter? I was abundantly clear, and even clarified this in later posts, that what I was taking issue with were her egregiously stupid statements regarding the containment of communism. And yes, it's definitely notable, and more than a little bit ironic, that such statements were made in the context of her presenting herself as an example of someone drawing from their broad (objective) as opposed to personal (biased) experiences.

The following is your post where you straw-manned her position based on taking a tiny portion of it out of context, not addressing the greater point, and then declaring her wrong.

Originally Posted by BillyRayValentine
Total non-sequitur. We shouldn't have done all we could to contain the spread of communism because the corruption of communist states was what prevented free societies from emerging? Makes not a lick of sense.

This in itself is a straw man, because you intentionally worded her statement in such a way as to make it look weaker. What she said, pretty clearly, was that the dogmatic, freedom-restricting governments that imposed it, and not communism itself, were the primary factors in limiting the freedoms of people in those countries. Given the sample size of communist states we've had, and the fact that none of them were put into power democratically, her assertion is no less valid than your apparent implication that corruption is endemic to communism. But it doesn't matter who's right; you still twisted her words to claim that you were.

All I can do is scratch my head at such complete and utter incomprehension. My point, CLEARLY, was that her claim that "I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the 'domino effect'. But he was wrong" was idiotic and stupid, especially for the reasons that you felt the need to expand upon above.

I'm not questioning the validity of her assertions about the corrupt brand of communism practiced by China and Russia, I'm questioning why in hell that would ever lead to the conclusion that her father was "wrong" about not needing "to stop the domino effect". Prattle on all you like about the better, democratic communism they might have aspired to, but that doesn't change one bit of the history of the evils perpetrated by these countries, the reality of what happened. Which is why, as I pointed out, it makes not a lick of sense to say we shouldn't have actively sought to contain the spread of communism because, in theory, a much kinder, gentler form of communism could have existed.

That was my point, very narrowly, very specifically, very obviously. The imputation that I was addressing anything beyond that is a figment of your imagination. A veritable straw man created to accuse another of the same. Oh the irony.

And here's the secondary straw man. After doing the set 'em up, knock 'em down approach on the tiny sliver of her post, you go on to build a case against her whole argument around it, when all it was meant to do was serve as an example of how people can sometimes draw conclusions without enough information, and hence, get it wrong. You deliberately chose to attack her example rather than her overall argument, pretending it was her "thesis." Even if her example had been 100% wrong and completely off-base, she was illustrating that people occasionally draw inaccurate conclusions from insufficient data, something I cannot imagine you would disagree with.

Yes, my point was that her example was 100% wrong. And I went into the reasons why. Nothing more, nothing less. Once again, your straw man claim is hereby dismissed for its abject stupidity.

Regarding her larger point, yes, if you must know, it was indeed facile and stupid. She basically said that some people are objective and informed, while others are have a subjective bias. Wow, what an incredible insight.

But again, and for the last time, the notable part was that she held herself up as the former and her father as the latter as she made comments that reflected, as I said, an appalling indifference and/or ignorance to 20th century communist history.

In this context, perhaps Ginger's accusation of reading comprehension issues--though crude--was kinder than the alternative: accusing you of intentionally derailing the thread rather than addressing the topic at hand.

What derails threads are people who are incapable of understanding what they read and who see straw men in their dreams, but have no clue what in hell they really are.