Clutch

That was me, not Alonzo. It was neither intimidation nor a shift of the goalposts.

Alonzo claimed to have found a serious error in Rand's treatment of Hume. You replied, rather snippily, that he'd obviously not read the right stuff; according to you, Rand really does answer Hume's is-ought problem.

What I intended my (also rather snippy) question to convey was something like, "And just what do you take Hume's reasoning to be, given your claim that Rand has obviously refuted it?"

Your admission that you don't know what Hume actually said ought, I think, lead you to reconsider your confidence that Rand has actually engaged his view.

I hope that's clearer.

AquaVita

I also agree this thread should be moved to Philosophy.

exnihilo

I think your example is a bit reductionistic and misleading. While Microsoft has been found guilty of serious violations of anti-trust law, they do have a superior product. The problem is that the idea of laissez-faire capitalism that Rand, objectivists, and many libertarians promote is that it is simply a self-serving facade. I am not denying that much hard work and effort goes into producing a useful and profitable product, but to ignore all the political favoritism, government subsidization, corporate crime, and outright graft inextractibly connected to the business process is both hypocritical and dishonest.
So while people like Rand throw up their self-righteous arms in disgust when it comes to social programs such as welfare and education grants, for instance, they convienently turn a blind eye when corporations take advantage of what is essentitally corporate welfare. A fine example of this double-standard is the airline bailout of 2002. Objectivists claim that if people can't succeed without handouts from the government, they are either lazy or just not talented enough. But when corporations file bankruptcy as a result of mismanagement or corporate malfeasence or a thousand other reasons, a government sponsored bailout--at taxpayer expense--is perfectly fine. Unfortunately this hypocritical behavior simply doesn't agree with objectivist rhetoric.
The make-believe form of capitalism celebrated by Rand has never existed and never will exist. Companies with powerful lobbyists attain billions in subsidies and special contracts that does nothing but subvert the tenets of competition that objectivists claim to support. The closest example of an laissez-faire economy can be found in the so-called era of the robber barons, which because of the lack of regulation and oversight, corporations ran roughshod over the rights of consumers, workers and other companies. Although these egregious behaviors aren't exactly celebrated, a return to the same conditions is exactly what would result if such reckless policies were ever revived.

That is what is wrong with objectivism.

Alonzo Fyfe

Actually, in my years of hanging around with Ayn Rand type objectivists, I found this not to be the case. They complained as much about corporate welfare as social welfare. Indeed, one of the major objectives of the Libertarian party in Montana while I was a member was eliminating the government subsidy of the state's milk industry.

Now, for every non-hypocritical Libertarian, there are perhaps a dozen "corporate feudalists" (as I call them) who simply exploit capitalist language when it serves their purpose, and twists its meaning to muster support for self-serving legislation that nobody who truly understands capitalism could support. They hire big PR companies to associate the word "capitalism" with all sorts of legislation that aims to do nothing but interfere in the free market for the benefit of their clients.

So, the type of people against which this post was directed certainly exist, it is a mistake to assert that this is true of all "people like Rand."

More relevant to the subject of this thread is the fact that it is not a legitimate objection against a particular view that somebody distorts it and exploits it for purposes that the view itself does not defend. To make this type of argument is to give weight to the straw man -- to say, "if a straw man interpretation of this view is possible, then the view itself is to be rejected." It is a standard that no view can live up to.

exnihilo

Er, isn't that exactly what Rand does in her exceeding facile critique of socialism? Build up a giant evil straw man and then through her cardboard cut-out mouthpieces tear that system apart, all the while celebrating the virtues of capitalistic individualism.

Just so I don't misinterpret your words are you saying that if it wasn't for all the government interference and regulation Corporations would operate in a safe and ethical manner. If so, such a belief is an example of naiveity par excellence. The critcal failure of objectivism that I was alluding to is the belief in the essential benevolence in the sytem of capitalism itself. That is absolutely absurd and in direct contradiction of the entire history of industrialzation and capitalism itself.

JERDOG

And if you will go back and look more carefully you will see that I was in fact speaking to Alonzo about the tread him and I were engaged in previously.
Which by the way had nothing to do with you.

Clutch

Actually, reading carefully is no help, since your post was simply ambiguous as to what bit was addressed to whom. Thank you for clarifying, though.

Am I right that what you wrote after the quote from me was in fact addressed to me? I replied to it, perhaps under a mistaken impression.

XGuilt

The arbitrary assertions about Ayn Rand in this post cannot be left unchallenged. And while the individual initiating this post clearly implies a lack of adequate personal knowledge and awareness of who Rand really was (apparently preferring the opinions of others) and of her extraordinary achievements in life on the world-wide stage, not only in the field of philosophy but in ethics and literary genius, referring to Ayn Rand as a "cold war relic" is not only WAY off the mark in TODAY'S field of philosophy, it is too offensive and foolishly dismissive for further comment. And as a point of FACT, Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", according to the Library of Congress, is "the book that most influenced people's lives - 2nd only to the bible." If that makes her "a terrible writer", then all other recognized authors throughout history fall somewhere below HER... which specifies the level of literary credibility and expertise of whomever posted this subject.

I have studied all of Rands writings intensively since 1985, challenging and comparing everything she ever wrote, recorded and videotaped, and with a view toward finding any contradiction I possibly could between and among her philosophy's stated values, morals, ethics and virtues - including indepth comparisons to all recognized historical philosophers' assertions in all major areas of the human experience. To this day, I still support the ranks of the numerous recognized world academicians who, themselves - to the last one, admit (publicly and in print) that Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism is the ONLY fully integrated, rational, logical and sensible SYSTEM of philosophy ever conceived. And further that, other than Aristotle himself, no other philosopher or philosophy in history has survived the intellectual challenges OF the entire philosophical community but Ayn Rand and her Philosophy of Objectivism. These are established and recognized facts, from someone who has invested the time necessary to state them from personal knowledge and awareness. For anyone to do less is intellectually reckless and irresponsible. And I don't have to qualify my statements with "for some reason", because I know why "everyone seemed to hate her" - and so did she. In fact she wrote about it, in considerable detail herself. Anyone who is sufficiently well-read already knows that every extraordinary and notable person throughout recorded history was the object of 'hate' by the seeming majority during their time... which is irrelevant to the person's actual value and credibility, given the general vacuousness of 'the public taste'.

I would strongly recommend, to everyone who has not spent time reading and understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy - through her remarkable fictional writings, if not her non-fiction philosophical writings, two things in their OWN best interests: 1) Read "The Fountainhead", and then "Atlas Shrugged" - the storylines and characterizations are wonderful in themselves - even aside from their fictional dramatization of Rand's philosophy; and 2) to recognize the wisdom of Ayn Rand herself when it comes to indulging promiscuous, uninformed commentary, "It is not advisable to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener."

Clutch

It's difficult to know which is weirder: the delirious assertion about the history of philosophy, or the fervent and trembling paean to Rand's impoverished screeds.

The former, I suppose. What could you conceivably mean by this remark about Aristotle?

JGL53

XGuilt will probably dismiss me as a witch doctor (hee hee), but I can understand and appreciate the prevalence of fundamentalist christian belief more so than I can understand the mindset of the goose-stepping ranks of Randroids.

The former were brainwashed as children. The latter - what's their excuse? It's common knowledge that many were introverted, above average intelligent teen-agers looking for some way out of their ennui and cynicism who, when they came across the Rand cult, thought they had died and gone to heaven (so to speak).

I've met more than a few 'admirers' of the Great One (Rand, not god) in my life, and the deeper the person was into the cult, the more braindead - or the more an egotistical asshole- the person seemed to me.

However, like VERY liberal christians who may be basically decent people, I suppose there are plenty of A. R. admirers who are admirable people themselves, and even fun to be with on a rainy day. Xguilt may be one.

But, compared to Xguilt, am I stupid or what? As mentioned, I read nearly all of Rand's non-fiction works, and discussed, debated and, for many years, defended Rand's philosophy. However, eventually I came to the realization that much of Rand's seemingly brilliantly defended out-pourings were useless pontification and anti-empirical, anti-scientific claptrap. Anything that she said that was useful, someone else had said it before, and in more understandable terms.

As for Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, I never got more than a few pages into each without a feeling that my I.Q. was being slowly shrunken by the experience. Thankfully, I stopped before I lost the ability to feed myself. I can only stand in amazement at those who can wade through to the end of either book. In fact, I sort of 'admire' them for possession of an ability I will never be able to fully appreciate.

Though it might piss them off mightily, here's my psychological analysis of those who take Rand way too seriously, i.e., to the point of extreme hero worship: instead of a male spirit in the sky, their omniscient 'god' is a dead female human in a grave. In other words, they aren't atheists - not really.

But, for those who view Rand as an exceptional philosopher from whom we have much to learn (i.e., they can still maintain some semblance of devotion to actual objectivity), then no harm no foul - probably. (If they just stay the fuck away from Leonard Peikoff, they should be ok.)