99Percent

Yes, she offered that you have the tool - your brain.

Thats a pretty unfair generalization. Tsk tsk.

Those tools seem for confirming empirical facts. They don't seem to help for philosophical criticism.

No, you must show that you understand her philosophy before rejecting it. So far I haven't found a single person here that makes valid objections and who also seems to know genuinely what her philosophy is really about. (and I can think of several ones I have read in books and on the web of those who have) a good one is Nathaniel Branden's an ex-Randian.

You are confusing philosophy and science, a typical mistake.

fando

Uh oh. That's Pandora's box right there...

tk

Philosophers like to tread into the realms of science, by making blatant assertions about the real world. For instance, although "man should be selfish" can't be falsified, "there are only two moral systems in the world" can be. Statements like the latter can and should be studied via the scientific method -- to suggest otherwise is to suggest that philosophy should have zero relevance to the real world.

Besides, Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit does touch on philosophical issues, such as the existence of God.

The same brain that causes people to believe in the Biblical God? A pretty useless tool for analyzing philosophy, certainly.

There are some skeptical Randists in the world, though they're not on this thread. By "skeptical", I mean people who try to prove the validity of Randism using logical formalisms, or acknowledge that Randism may not the Ultimate Truth.

Well, I just read the 10 points under the paragraph "Objectivism teaches..." in Branden's essay, so I guess I'm now at least semi-qualified to comment on Randism.

Nobody is saying that all of Randism is invalid. Randism does have something in it. Unfortunately, the good stuff has already appeared long ago in others' works -- freedom and individualism in Rousseau and Voltaire, selfishness in Machiavelli, logic in Aristotle and Boole. Randism is nothing more than a half-baked philosophical stew which combines others' good works.

(I think Branden is a bit too forgiving of Rand...)

If this isn't "understanding" enough, I'd like to see a test which can tell unambiguously whether a person has actually "understood" Randism.

Greg2003

99Percent, I think that you are confusing Rand's writings with philosophy. Rand repeatedly voiced her contempt for philosophy and demonstrated that she really didn't understand the works of major philosophers, though she pretended that she did and arrogantly argued that she had a better system of thinking and living than the greatest philosophers.

I would ask that you show us where Rand demonstrates mastery of a single philosophers work, any philosopher, before you condemn anybody here of not taking the time to "master" Ayn Rand.

Celsus

7 pages of posts, and finally 99% admits to compartmentalisation... What next, the sky falling down?

Joel

99Percent

tk:
Incorrect. Philosophy strives to find what are the limits of science and when you can make assertions that are not provable with science or logic. For example the fact that we have free will is something that cannot be proved with science. Pure science and logic would dictate that we do not in fact have free will because we are bounds by TLOP (The Laws of Physics), but its pretty clear that we do have free will within the philosophical realm of human understanding.

Incorrect again. The above statements are both infact unprovable by science, it can only be reasoned out with philosophical assumptions. If philosophical arguments had as much weight as scientific proof we would save ourselves a heck of a lot of problems and misunderstandings. The subjects of morality and therefore politics always fall under philosophical discussions because they deal with our human aspects that science is unable to explore. I would claim that there is in fact only one moral system in the world, but I would have to "prove" this with philosophical arguments only. I could never use science because it falls out of its dominion.

I said, your brain

Greg2003:Blatantly false. Ayn Rand in fact has a book called "Philosophy: Who Needs it" which is a collection of philosophical essays that invites you to explore philosophy in an accessible and interesting matter. One of the reviewers of the book:Celsus: To the contrary, maybe we can finally find the right ground over which we should be discussing these things.

Greg2003

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 99Percent
Ayn Rand in fact has a book called "Philosophy: Who Needs it" which is a collection of philosophical essays that invites you to explore philosophy in an accessible and interesting matter.
No. This is blatently false. She clearly states in this book as well as other essays that she considers philosophers as propagandists for anti-individualism. But because philosophers seem to have such profound impact on the intellectual culture we must study the evil anti-individual propagandists to understand how they are trying to undermine the heroic . . . blah, blah, blah. You know what, this doesn't really deserve anymore response from me. Rand is ignorant and a horrible writer. You just need a better education to see it. I consider objectivists in the same class as moon hoaxers, creationists, Hinn worshipers and Sylvia disciples. Probably nothing anyone can say will change your opinion. You just have to read much more widely and think more critically.

tk

This is such a huge misunderstanding about physics that it cannot go uncorrected. The laws of physics contain a great deal more nondeterminism than you can imagine -- enough to fit in heaps of free will. Equations such as F = ma, E = mc^2, and so on are widely recognized as approximate models of reality when we look at things from the large scale. But as one descends to the level of subatomic particles (or even lower than that), one encounters huge loads of unpredictability. (Can anyone predict exactly what the Geiger meter in his hand will read in the next second?)

Sorry, but science works excellently, even when stretched beyond its supposed limits.

My brain still says that Randism is bogus. (In view of this, is truth therefore subjective? Oops.)

How hard can it be to simply give a list of existing systems of morality in the world (Socialism, Confucianism, Randism, ...), and see if the length of that list is equal to 2?

Once more, science and math stretch beyond their "limits".

Gurdur

Let's reduce it all down to one terribly simple question for 99percent, and just keep asking till it's directly answered.

1. Using scientific methods (observation, definition etc.) we can easily see that many people have ethics that are very diametrically different to those of Objectivism.
   
2. I am one of those people (the majority).
   Not only do I have individual ethics, I have social ethics and responsibilities.
   
3. According to 99percent's Objectivism, I do not exist (in the terms I have stated myself), since social ethics and responsibilities simply do not exist according to him.

How does 99percent solve this problem without resort to abuse (such as "intellectual cop-out") ?

Answer please !

Gurdur

This is just all so wrong on so many levels.

1) If good science shows something does not exist, no amount of philosophizing will save it.

2) Science and physics especially do not rule out limited free-will.
I've been through this one a million times up in the Philosophy forum; see the threads there.
Hint: look for "effects of complexity".
No appeal to quantum physics is necessary.

Moreover, I have genuine qualifications in both philosophy and hard science (the result of a double-degree program); I would love to know 99percent's sources for his assertions, which are blatantly at odds with all scientific and philosophical consensus at this time.