Freethought & Rationalism Archive

12-29-2002, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Not at all necessarily.

I've known Christians who were Objectivists; we even have one on this board (Radcliff Emerson).

Objectivism is a set of assertions which pretends to being a coherent philosophy; the reason why most philosophy departments of university don't include it in their teaching programs is that it was a very half-baked creation very late in the day; it said nothing new, and said it all in quite ridiculously pompous tones, all terribly easily refuted just on logical grounds, let alone empirical ones.

Its claims to being the Ultimate Truth � are of course contradicted by its being such a minority semi-religion; you'ld think "objective morals" --- if they really existed as claimed --- would be recognised by more people worldwide than a tiny political party in the USA, just for one example.

It doesn't make much sense to be a theist and an objectivist. Objectivism was founded on reason, and so I don't see how you could be both.

This whole "baseless assertion" thing has come up quite a bit on these forums, and yet all I've read in condemnation of Ayn Rand's views have been "assertions" without substance themselves. Could someone actually present something other than throw away statements regarding Objectivism? I'm not an objectivist by any means, but upon a more than casual glance, I don't find anything objectionable. There�s a mouthful

Quote:

Yes.
She had a number of prejudices (among others, she thought rape was erotic , she disliked homosexuals, and she really disliked trade-unions), and she justified her prejudices by specious back-reasoning.

I questioned for a time whether the creator of a philosophy should be beholden to his or her philosophy. Logically they should, but if you look back at the recognized "minds" of philosophy, the majority seems to have skeletons in their closets, so to speak, and they often lived contradictory lives, so I'm not sure how fair it is to replace the philosophy with the philosopher in criticism.

As for Rand's justifications, it's my understanding that she never did backup any of her prejudices. Even her close friends rarely discussed her "personal tastes" (as she called them). She had several gay friends, though she found their sexual practices to be disgusting; and to be honest, I believe that rape can be erotic. Or, at the very least, it has a history of being displayed as erotic.

Ultimately, the only reason I became interested in Rand is because her fiction was recommended to me. After reading two of her novels, I don't have any objections about her writing ability, which to my knowledge was the reason for her developing her philosophy in the first place.

She mentions that the philosophy was just in the service of her work, which is why I'm surprised she approached it as an end in itself later on. There was a demand for it, but personally, I think it would have been more interesting if she just let people figure it out for themselves.

I also found her ideas concerning writing to be particularly valuable. In fact, I first heard Rand's name in an interview with Terry Goodkind, who mentioned some of her concepts. I found them very enlightening and helpful in my own work, so that must count for something

Gurdur · 12-29-2002, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jsimmons

It doesn't make much sense to be a theist and an objectivist. Objectivism was founded on reason, and so I don't see how you could be both.

These are as yet unsupported assertions of yours. Proof ?

Quote:

This whole "baseless assertion" thing has come up quite a bit on these forums, and yet all I've read in condemnation of Ayn Rand's views have been "assertions" without substance themselves. Could someone actually present something other than throw away statements regarding Objectivism?....

See my last couple of posts on the page of this thread before this one - you must have missed them. Concrete criticisms there; plus you will find more concrete refutations of various Objectivist assertions scattered on:

this thread, "Suicide is, in some cases, one's moral duty"
and on
this thread, "Humans are supposed to be inherently rational?"

Plus there are like many , many threads in the archives. Do a search ?

Quote:

As for Rand's justifications, it's my understanding that she never did backup any of her prejudices.

Then you missed her depictions and characterizations of trade-unionists in her novels ? Tsk, tsk.

Quote:

I also found her ideas concerning writing to be particularly valuable. In fact, I first heard Rand's name in an interview with Terry Goodkind, who mentioned some of her concepts. I found them very enlightening and helpful in my own work, so that must count for something.

This hardly counts as a rational argument as yet of yours; you'll have to go far more into concrete description.

Quote:

Originally posted by jsimmons
...... and to be honest, I believe that rape can be erotic. Or, at the very least, it has a history of being displayed as erotic.

Which one ? Do you find it erotic or not ?
Ugh.

tk · 12-29-2002, 11:16 PM

Ah, the Knights of Objectivism are back again, with their Swords of Rationality... or rather, "Rationality"...

Quote:

Well the first exercise is ridiculous. It misses the entire point of objectivism. The author tries to imply that objectivism is a philophy learned by rote. Like the learning math memorizing the tables of multiplication.

Vacuous objection. How do you prove that (x + 1)^2 = x^2 + 2x + 1? Ah, let me guess:

"By reason, (x + 1)^2 = x^2 + 2x + 1. If you don't understand why, then you've missed the entire point of arithmetic. Arithmetic isn't something to be learned by rote. QED."

OK, so that's not how you'd prove it. You'd prove it using the rote-learned rules of arithmetic and algebra that you so detest -- commutativity, associativity, distributivity.

And no, I don't buy the drivel that Objectivism is `different' from algebra, so it shouldn't be subject to the same rigorous analysis. If Objectivism is to be based on solid reason, then it must strive to put itself on a rigorous foundation for reasoning. And formal logical systems do exist (though I guess Objectivists would prefer to just continue believing in their crazed `truth').

I'm outta here. *sigh*

August Spies · 12-29-2002, 11:18 PM

Personally I would avoid reading Ayn Rands literature unless you are really interested. It is just bad.

The characters are completely flat, there is no development. Worse, the characters are all the same (either the good capitalist CEO hero or the bad everyone else). Her books repeat themselves endlessly... For example, in Atals Shrugged the main character gives a 60 page monologue that endlessly repeats itself and could be summerized in a page.

Her books are also thinely failed libertarian propaganda. Really. It is about the most blatant authorial intrusion you will ever read. Of course, maybe you want to have objectivism beaten into your heat over a thousand pages.... I dunno.

Which brings up another problem with her books. way to long. Atlas shrugged would probably be a very intersting (if pulpy) book if it was 200-300 pages. There is no need for it to be over a 1000.

August Spies · 12-29-2002, 11:21 PM

I also second the opinion stated so far that objectivism is horrible philosophy. It is not based on reasoning or logic at all. They merely make claims without even bothering to back them up with annoying details like premises or reasons.

note: who is saying marx's though is simplistic? it is ANYTHING but, even if you disagree (as I do) with most of it. Or where you trying to say that "marxism" as a sperate thing is simplistic?

Ronin · 12-29-2002, 11:23 PM

I remember when I first heard her name spoken ~ and realized that I had been pronouncing it in my head wrong for many years.

After that, I have always enjoyed just saying her name outloud ~ Ayn...Ayn, Ayn, Ayn, Ayn, Ayn...Ayn, Ayn.

That's as deep as I get ~ move along.

Gurdur · 12-29-2002, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Acinom

Couldn't have put it better myself, Gurdur. ...

You are sweet music to my ears, Acinom.

Thanks ! :notworthy

BTW, I think a lot of young people like Rand because of the idealism and the "heroic" stances; no-one likes being part of a large society, not standing out, and many feel irked at social expectations and responsibilities, as well as not being immediately recognized as the "great warriors" they know they are.

_____________

Quote:

Originally posted by Jagged

Open season on uppity women, huh?

I know your remark was aimed at RED DAVE, Jagged, and possibly warranted; but just for the record, I admire and like Emma Goldmann, though I don't agree with her; most of my favourite novelists are women, and neurolinguistics (my field) has a lot of leading women in it.
I myself would be just as hard on Ayn Rand had she been XY, not XX, which I regard as irrelevant.

'Course, just to be cheeky, we can discuss also the deficits of Margeret Thatcher.
Ugh !

tk · 12-29-2002, 11:28 PM

Quote:

This whole "baseless assertion" thing has come up quite a bit on these forums, and yet all I've read in condemnation of Ayn Rand's views have been "assertions" without substance themselves. Could someone actually present something other than throw away statements regarding Objectivism?

May jsimmons be gratified: in "Introducing Objectivism" (from "The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought"), Rand wrote:

Quote:

Today... the choice is clear-cut<1>: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and man's happiness on earth -- or the primordial morality of altruism<2>, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror, and sacrificial furnaces.

In this tiny passage, there are already two logical fallacies:

<1> Fallacy of the excluded middle: She presents "rational self-interest" and "altruism" as the only two possible moral systems. Whatever happened to Buddhism and Confucianism, which are neither?

<2> Inconsistency: Not only does she redefine the word "altruism" to suit her own ends, to mean "complete loyalty to some great leader", but also in her notion of "altruism", the leader is exempt from exercising "altruism" towards others. What gives?

By the way, if anyone still feels bored (the subject of this thread), try reading Agatha Christie.

August Spies · 12-29-2002, 11:30 PM

"It doesn't make much sense to be a theist and an objectivist. Objectivism was founded on reason, and so I don't see how you could be both. "

objectivism really isn't founded on reason, as has been explained above. AT BEST, its only founded on it in the way every philosophy/ideology claims to be based on reason.

Anyway nothing at the base of objectivist thinking (individualism) is seperate from a view of god.

IN FACT, many of the originators of individualist philosophy relied on God (think John Locke) to make individualism work.

August Spies · 12-29-2002, 11:33 PM

jsimmons:

I realize it might seem like members here are just attacking Rand but not mentioning specifics. This is really not because we can't name them, but because (as you can not by the high post counts of people like Me, gurdur and 99) we have argued about this many times. Those things have already been brought up.

but, it would not be hard to show some again. Gurdur and the poster above me already mentiond some. But really, to see if Ayn Rand makes assertatinos without logical steps backing her up you have to read the original text or we would have to do a long critique.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-29-2002, 11:18 PM	#54
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	Personally I would avoid reading Ayn Rands literature unless you are really interested. It is just bad. The characters are completely flat, there is no development. Worse, the characters are all the same (either the good capitalist CEO hero or the bad everyone else). Her books repeat themselves endlessly... For example, in Atals Shrugged the main character gives a 60 page monologue that endlessly repeats itself and could be summerized in a page. Her books are also thinely failed libertarian propaganda. Really. It is about the most blatant authorial intrusion you will ever read. Of course, maybe you want to have objectivism beaten into your heat over a thousand pages.... I dunno. Which brings up another problem with her books. way to long. Atlas shrugged would probably be a very intersting (if pulpy) book if it was 200-300 pages. There is no need for it to be over a 1000.

12-29-2002, 11:21 PM	#55
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	I also second the opinion stated so far that objectivism is horrible philosophy. It is not based on reasoning or logic at all. They merely make claims without even bothering to back them up with annoying details like premises or reasons. note: who is saying marx's though is simplistic? it is ANYTHING but, even if you disagree (as I do) with most of it. Or where you trying to say that "marxism" as a sperate thing is simplistic?

12-29-2002, 11:23 PM	#56
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	I remember when I first heard her name spoken ~ and realized that I had been pronouncing it in my head wrong for many years. After that, I have always enjoyed just saying her name outloud ~ Ayn...Ayn, Ayn, Ayn, Ayn, Ayn...Ayn, Ayn. That's as deep as I get ~ move along.

12-29-2002, 11:30 PM	#59
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	"It doesn't make much sense to be a theist and an objectivist. Objectivism was founded on reason, and so I don't see how you could be both. " objectivism really isn't founded on reason, as has been explained above. AT BEST, its only founded on it in the way every philosophy/ideology claims to be based on reason. Anyway nothing at the base of objectivist thinking (individualism) is seperate from a view of god. IN FACT, many of the originators of individualist philosophy relied on God (think John Locke) to make individualism work.

12-29-2002, 11:33 PM	#60
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	jsimmons: I realize it might seem like members here are just attacking Rand but not mentioning specifics. This is really not because we can't name them, but because (as you can not by the high post counts of people like Me, gurdur and 99) we have argued about this many times. Those things have already been brought up. but, it would not be hard to show some again. Gurdur and the poster above me already mentiond some. But really, to see if Ayn Rand makes assertatinos without logical steps backing her up you have to read the original text or we would have to do a long critique.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.