HaysooChreesto!

There's enough complexity in Ayn Rand's philosophy. I think that the problem that most people have with it is that they may perceive Rand to be too harsh. She dealt purely with reality and based her philosophy on the rules of logic that Aristotle discovered.
If you wish to learn about Ayn Rand, then start with a book titled "the philosphy of Ayn Rand" or "For the New Intellectual". I'm a fan of her work, but even I'll admit that her fiction can be tedious and overbearing at times. She presents people as either the worst that man has to offer or the absolute very best.
Sorry, I'm fragmented today. It's early Monday morning and I'm really procrastinating here at work.

What I don't get though, is the people who claim to despise Rand but are fans of Noam Chomsky who in an article once declared "we don't really know how water comes out of the tap in your sink". Hmm, I bet I can call the Roto Rooter guy and he could tell me!

But really, my quote of Chomsky is about as representative of his work as any other person here who's Rand hating.

elwoodblues

This is just getting silly.

Rand testified in front of that committee, yes. She testified regarding her experiences in Russia under communism. And then, when asked, she refused to name names. On principle. Because she thought what the US gov't was doing was wrong.

If you've found a contrary account of matters, do tell. But even the most vitriolic accounts I've run across have the honesty to point out that she didn't name names when she easily could have. As so many others did.

Rand had plenty wrong with her. As pointed out above several times, she was a bad author. Really bad. Plenty of people have taken her ideas and managed to forge pseudo-cults from them. She made some questionable decisions in her personal life.

The first criticism is valid, but hardly makes her the anti-christ. The second is arguably not her fault. The third is applicable to just about anyone reading this (though she did it with considerably more panache and gusto).

The fact remains that her ideas resonate with a lot of people, especially intelligent young individuals trying to figure out WHAT they believe. You better account for that when analyzing Rand and her ideas, and it's tough to do so while still dismissively laughing her off.

Robert G. Ingersoll

Ayn Rand's philosophy was quite effectively analyzed and exposed for what it is back in 1968 in Dr. Albert Ellis's book "Is Objectivism a Religion?".

(( One of the more amusing anecdotes in the book relates the effect of a (metaphorical) ass-kicking Ellis gave to N. Branden in a live debate. At one point Rand, who was in the audience, jumped up screaming and stormed out of the room. Poor baby got her feelings hurt - someone failed to recognise that she was the living god. Sheesh. ))

tk

Actually, Aristotle's works contain errors. For example, the syllogism "All A are B. All A are C. Thus some B are C." is easily refuted if we consider the possibility that there aren't any A.

Besides, Aristotle's logical rules are based on natural language, which is too ambiguous and slippery to be useful for serious reasoning. Consider: "Some persons are illiterate. I am some person. Thus I am illiterate."

Fortunately, in the current age of ones and zeros, we now have something better: a way to reduce logical reasoning to the mechanical manipulation of mathematical values and symbols.

August Spies

Speaking as a working philosophy major:
"There's enough complexity in Ayn Rand's philosophy. "

Ayn Rand has about the simpilest philosophy I know. Certainly the simplist that any modern person subscribes too.

"But really, my quote of Chomsky is about as representative of his work as any other person here who's Rand hating."

um.... even if it was (which is doubtful, since the rest of us have been quoting Rand in context and about her philosophy while you have quoted a sentence fragment out of context that is not about his beliefs per se) Chomsky would still win in my book. I bet you the average person does not know how water gets out of his tap, which seems to be what teh quote implies.

Gurdur

Wrong again.

This is not an argumentum ad populum, it's an empirical argument - i.e. it's confronting a semi-religious ideology with the physical facts.
Let me break it down into easily-digestible chunks:

1. The Objectivists claim that humans are inherently and essentially rational - in fact they ignore the continuum of biological evolution completely, and claim a Creationist-like gulf between humans and animals.
   
   See this thread here for further details and refutations (just one among man, many threads).
   .
2. The Objectivists also claim the existence of objective morals --- i.e. morals independent of human perception and interpretation.
   The Objectivists deny the validity and try denying the very existence of other morals - such as social responsibility morals etc.
   They make the claim that their picture of so-called Big Government is immoral --- not just immoral for them, but immoral on an objective basis for everyone.
   .
3. The Objectivists then claim these so-called objective morals are easily ascertainable through the use of reason - and they claim humans are creatures of reason.
   .
4. heh, heh, heh.
   Difficulty No.# 1
   So just WhyTF do so few humans recognise the validity of such so-called objective morals ? Just WhyTF do most humans insist -- throughout history -- upon a strong bias towards recognising and implementing social morals, no matter what a tiny minority inside the USA say ?

So how will they explain Difficulty No.# 1 ?
Are they going to claim brainwashing on a massive scale for thousands of years ?
UFO's mind-control ?

99Percent

If you say so Frankly "discussing" with you is seems to be just a shouting match to see who can say "You are wrong" the loudest. Not pleasant

Where we derived our reason or essential rationalness is another question. We don't just assume its there. It can be perfectly derived through evolution. Objectivism doesn't discard the theory of evolution apriori. You are building a huge strawman.
We don't just dictate our morals. We derive them through reason. That you refuse to use your own reason does not mean that these morals don't apply to you.
Yes, just as we derive other objective concepts, like logic itself or the concept of life and happiness.
Because human consciousness and philosophy and understanding is also evolving. God doesn't exist yet billions of people still believe categorically in its existence. If you are going to use argumentum ad populum you might as well accept God exists too, in fact Christianity is the most popular religion so are you a Christian?
It would seem to be the way if you don't actually believe we are rational beings. Any kind of non theistic philosophy requires individual thinking to develop it, not just following the current "trend" or fashion of the moment.

BTW, your ridiculous use of smilies is not helping your case at all.

ybnormal

After reading this thread in one sitting, I'm left to wonder if there's a "books" counterpart to the old retort, "If you don't like the show, just change the channel and kwitcherbellyaching". Jeeeezus!

The Repubs who went after Clinton could take some pointers off this thread.

Uh, a Capitalist opposed to trade unions indicates prejudice? Learn something new every day I do...

At least now I better understand the enduring interest in Rand twenty years after her death. I'm sure her fans and publishers appreciate these obsessions real much.

"Howard Roark laughed."

Gurdur

I'm presenting reasoned arguments, you simply want to personally attack me. Tsk.

Maybe you should calm down and concentrate on the logical, not the personal.


Nonsense. You've been refuted on this very point time and time again, lastly here.


More nonsense. You derive your "morals" from subjectively arbitrarily-chosen premises. The fact that you can possibly logically derive them from your premises doesn't help when your premises are wrong.

Your personal abuse that because I simply don't agree with you, therefore I am not using my reason, is noted. Tsk.

I don't use argumentum ad populam; I use an empirical argument that looks at the physical evidence and confronts the ideological claims of Objectivism - refuting them.
You've already had this detailed to you above; you've simply evaded a reasoned argument by using a repetitive assertion.

Praising yourself at the expense of others is no adequate substitute for a reasoned argument.

Now how about you go back and attempt actually logically rebutting my reasoned argument above ?
Oh, and drop the personal abuse. It's contrary to PD rules.

tk

Actually I'd think that's a pretty weak argument, and personally I won't accept it either. Thankfully, it's possible to refute Objectivism simply by looking for logical fallacies, without reference to what other people in the world are thinking.