Ayn Rand and Objectivism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Ayn Rand and Objectivism » Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Justus
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: KY, USA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 419

Posted 10/25/04 - 08:25 PM:	#91
So then what do you categorize Ayn Rand's work as? And if not, philosophy, could it be possible that she was simply trying to throw out all the philosophical work of past thinkers? If so, what's wrong with that? JHBowden at this point would probably think up something like we didn't throw out Newton when Einstein came along, we simply revised our theories. Don't compare natural science with science of the mind. Where as we can be absolutely certain that gravity exists in some form or another, we cannot have that same degree of certainty when it comes to the faculty of the human mind. Could it be possible that we all think differently and thus come to different philosophies? Not that we disagree with each other on principle but rather that it is impossible for us to agree because we PHYSICALY think differently as a result of genetics.
"The present existing intellectuals have declared their own bankruptcy by abandoning the intellect. What we need today out of an intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, and not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystical relations." -Ayn Rand

nspeds
Nozickean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2004
Location: The Noumenal Realm

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 194

Posted 10/26/04 - 04:19 AM:	#92
Once again, my post was not meant as an indictment of Ayn Rand, I merely intended to use her as an example. If you desiderate, you may insert any name into that field. The point I was trying to convey was that there are varying degrees of differences. I could argue that I am a rational human being, but I have no sexual organs, my eyeballs are at my knees, and my birthplace is a volcano on Mars. This would engender the argument that "I am not human", but in this context, I am really not one... it is not a question of difference in gender or ethnicity, it is a quesetion of whether I am a bipedal from the planet Earth... Perhaps using me as an example helped I would give Ayn Rand a read but I have a long list of books that I have been wanting to read and she is at the very bottom... which is why I am relying on the warrancy of JHBowden and other opposers of Ayn Rand. I could also characterize Winston Churchill as a "thinker", and he possessed a massive "book of anecdotes" that we still use today, but to call him a philosopher is blasphemy... ...by that reasoning, I could call Adolf Hitler a philosopher for is "gene-based" analysis of Aryan(sp?) superiority in Mein Kempf(sp?). ND
Online Journal

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5576

Posted 10/26/04 - 04:55 AM:	#93
And if not, philosophy, could it be possible that she was simply trying to throw out all the philosophical work of past thinkers? If so, what's wrong with that? JHBowden at this point would probably think up something like we didn't throw out Newton when Einstein came along, we simply revised our theories. Don't compare natural science with science of the mind. Where as we can be absolutely certain that gravity exists in some form or another, we cannot have that same degree of certainty when it comes to the faculty of the human mind. Justus, the work of the past thinkers constitute the philosophical tradition. It is this tradition that defines what counts as a philosophical problem or not. If you simply throw out all works of past philosophical thinkers, you will through out all philosophical problems out with them. Furthermore you place yourself outside of the philosophical debate. Philosophy consists of examining a problem, looking at the answers of others and than giving your own answer. Just ignoring the answers a past thinker gave or very briefly disparaging them will not do. To be a philosopher you have to be in discourse with your fellow philosophers. Thirdly throwing outthe works of past thinkers and than thinking you have found the solution to a problem where all the others failed miserably is hopelessly naive. historYs greatest minds have tackled the problem you are tackling and if they failed it is very likely that you will too. building up on their ideas seems a more prudent course than just disregarding them. Fourthly, what Ayn rand tries to do is not new. Descartes already vowed to take a completely new look at things, Kant promised a Copernican turn in philosophy. If push comes to shove though we can see all kinds of past influences in their work. How can it be different? If you take philosophy seriously you read and study the works of those before you and they are bound to influence your thinking. Even more importantly, a philosoopher should realize that he or she is after all a child of her time. That time in philosophy is defined by the ones that came before. Our time for instance is defined by the Kantian enlightment, a Nietzschean relativism and the battle between the analytic and continental schools of philosophy. A philosopher can only think in the cadres set by that perticular historical era. Recognizing this is already a step towards doing something new. The fact that Ayn Rand didn't figure that out is not a recommendation, it means she thinks quit archaic. Could it be possible that we all think differently and thus come to different philosophies? Not that we disagree with each other on principle but rather that it is impossible for us to agree because we PHYSICALY think differently as a result of genetics. It is certain we think differently because we are different people and how you think about things is partly conditioned by the circumstances and indeed traditions you are in. Yet, we cannot tjink so very differently. Communication between us is possible and we can argue using more or less the same rules for argumentation. It is not impossible for us to agree, we in fact agree of a great many things, if it were not everybody would live on their own world and any communication would be cut short immediately. If Ayn Rand really does what you say she does, she is a naive ostridge. regards Tobi
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

nspeds
Nozickean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2004
Location: The Noumenal Realm

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 194

Posted 10/26/04 - 06:56 AM:	#94
What really upsets me is the "rumor" that Rand misconceptualizes Kant. No respectable philosopher would waste text on an ill-warranted criticism of one of the most revolutionary texts in all of philosophy. If I have a problem while reading the "Critique of Pure Reason", I never approach it as a flaw in the text (and thus something that is apt for criticism), I always approach it from the perspective the I could be wrong and that I am misconceptualizing the Kantian framework. Like I said earlier, if you're going to critique Kant, that is all good and well and fun and whatever word you use to describe "satisfactory", but do it right. Fellow Neo-Kantian, ND
Online Journal

Archimedes
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 10/26/04 - 08:48 PM:	#95
Justus wrote: So then what do you categorize Ayn Rand's work as? A writer. In the tradition of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy (from her country), Hemingway, even Mailer and his crew of "so called" intellectuals (Ginsberg etc.). These were sharp witted individuals who could pierce the vague "so-called" truth people were feeling inside and dramatically bring it to life. Their brutal honesty, tempered with deeper thinking than the population tends to exhibit enamors them editors and people of position who tire of shallow analysis. The problem with these "intellectuals" is that sharp wit and deep thinking alone doesn't solve many problems. It takes a more "formal" analysis. One that allows all the relevant possibilities to be explored, if not at least ordered. Philosophy usually (and properly) does not accept this informal analysis. We need terms that are defined (note the terms analytic, synthetic, a priori, a posteriori, deontic, de re, de dicto etc.). Philosophy is endless with jargon; but importantly so (usually). Such terms allow us to be more precise in our analysis (math and logic even more so). I have seen Rand in interviews and I am impressed with how much she seems to have thought through. This is one reason why I am unwilling to say she is wrong about any particular subject (and the fact that I have not read much of her). But somewhere in her writings or in recorded speeches she needs to have good answers to important issues in philosophy--or have good answers as to why they are unimportant. You can't simply say "they are bad" or that they are bad because it serves "an evil" end. Note that Rand doesn't necessarily have to have done this herself. If someone else can do this showing it to be consistent with Rand's statements or beliefs etc. That's just as effective. And if not, philosophy, could it be possible that she was simply trying to throw out all the philosophical work of past thinkers? If so, what's wrong with that? You need good reasons--and they can't be private if you want US to throw them out too. Before we throw them out, we'll need to be convinced that doing so is wise. Most philosophers think Plato makes many grave errors, as does Kant, Hume etc. But there are also good things as well. To throw EVERYTHING out seems naive at best. Most of these thinkers are considered great for good reason (I say most, because there are some who I have yet to find anything good about). Actually, I know Ayn Rand can't have thought that because she respects Aristotle--probably too much. But my point stands. Anything she wants thrown out needs to have well argued reasons for doing so. I have yet to see or hear them. I can't deny their existance, I just haven't been witness to any. This should be your tactic. Seperate point: Your posts indicate amazement at the willingness to discard Ayn Rand. First, not everyone here does. Most are withholding judgement. If someone were to yell "I found gold over here" to a crowd of gold prospectors who were in a promising dig, they'd have to supply some evidence before the prospectors would pack up and go dig there. So the same goes for Ayn Rand's work. If there is something in her work that is valuable philosophically there needs to be some evidence of it. Most of her speeches drip with prior work that supports her claims, but she offers no bibliography so we can't tell just how strong the support is. Who wants to spend the time to go chasing through her work? Oh, wait I know ...a committed "objectivist". I guess it comes down to this. Either an "objectivist" learns the relevant philosophy and shows the connection to Rand, or a philosopher goes through Rand showing its connection to philosophy. Which do you think is going to happen first?

Archimedes
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 10/26/04 - 09:22 PM:	#96
JHBowden wrote: For the New Intellectual and Philosophy: Who Needs It look relevant for our purposes, since it looks like both philosophical history and ideas are discussed. I'll have to be provided with time to purchase the material, but if you guys really want to get something out of a discussion with me, this is the way to proceed. Philosophy: Who Needs It is available online. It is simply a speech given to West Point graduates. If you search for the following text you will find it (searching the title simply lists tons of booksellers): "Most men spend their days struggling to evade three questions," I think it isn't valuable for a discussion since it is a speech to a) rally believers, b) warn those who haven't seen the"evil" out there and c) chastise those who are "evil." The book of the same title has more speeches and editorials in them. I suspect they are about as valuable as the title speech. I don't know about For the New Intellectual. Nathaniel Branden wrote a book called "Who is Ayn Rand?" that apparently analyzes her fiction works in philosophical terms. Branden was actually the workhorse for "Objectivism" while Rand was its intellectual advisor. It's a rather long and complicated (but interesting) sordid history of why the book is no longer in print (Branden and Rand became lovers, but then she was jilted by him so she cut off all contact), so you'd have to find it in a library somewhere. I'd like to see that one since Branden on his own website claims it is the best work describing Rand's philosophical beliefs. Having not seen it though, its just speculation on how good it is. Branden claims that Rand worked with him almost every day on it making sure it stated what she actually believed. I don't think he's making it up since it was her publisher that published the book.

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/27/04 - 07:32 AM:	#97
Archimedes wrote: A writer. In the tradition of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy (from her country), Hemingway, even Mailer and his crew of "so called" intellectuals (Ginsberg etc.). These were sharp witted individuals who could pierce the vague "so-called" truth people were feeling inside and dramatically bring it to life. Their brutal honesty, tempered with deeper thinking than the population tends to exhibit enamors them editors and people of position who tire of shallow analysis. The problem with these "intellectuals" is that sharp wit and deep thinking alone doesn't solve many problems. It takes a more "formal" analysis. One that allows all the relevant possibilities to be explored, if not at least ordered. Philosophy usually (and properly) does not accept this informal analysis. We need terms that are defined (note the terms analytic, synthetic, a priori, a posteriori, deontic, de re, de dicto etc.). Philosophy is endless with jargon; but importantly so (usually). Such terms allow us to be more precise in our analysis (math and logic even more so). In my opinion she would have been much better off had she just continued to write novels, instead of trying to pass herself off as a philosopher and cult-leader, so late in life. If Rand had any gifts at all, it was the ability to simplify things and make philosophical issues understandable to young people, or lay people (without the jargon). I think thats a fine idea, philosophers need to develop a better relationship with the public. But you have to really be able to understand the jargon first, before you simplify it.

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/27/04 - 07:36 AM:	#98
Archimedes wrote: I don't know enough to make definitive statements, but I will say something positive that I see in her work. Rand is an advocate for strong personal integrity. You should not be cowed by the popular. You should be willing to stand up for yourself. Further, you should not appeal to some inequity to justify your reason for standing up against the crowd. If you are rational, have good moral conviction and can demonstrate your correctness, that's enough. I think it's a good rule to live up to, but I don't see how it fits into philosophy. I think Branden tried to show that it is psychologically healthy to live this way--see all his work on self-esteem. By cowering in the face of public opinion you demean your own self-worth--you don't trust your own opinions. Branden also warned of the over-use of this attitude. We can't really forget our emotions, and we need to deal with them. For people in the dark, Branden was basically the co-founder of 'Objectivism' as an organization of followers (for instance the Ayn Rand Institute, used to be called Branden Institute), had an affair with Ayn Rand and when she got pissed with him cheating on her she denounced him as 'irrational' and basically cut him off and tried to ruin his life. http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivis...en/BenefitsAndHazards.html

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 11/01/04 - 05:35 AM:	#99
I split the thread to "Ayn Rand and Rights" into Politics, so go there. I also cleaned this up a bit. I am of the opinion that we will keep Rand's ideology out of this discussion - you can start a thread of it. The split thread is here: http://www.philosophyforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=12335 ~Morrandir~
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

JoelMac_21
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 02, 2005

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/06/05 - 07:11 PM:	#100
Hello everyone. I was once very philosophical in my youth, then abandoned it due to the many ideas of post-structuralism. I decided to get back into philosophy by stumbling onto an Ayn Rand site. These are my current opinions- Archimedes wrote - "As I stated earlier, Ayn Rand did not help her cause (to be considered as a philosopher), by generalizing against all other philosophers, but she still may have a decent philosophical theory tucked in her work. The question is whether or not the reward for digging is worth the effort. " After reading much of "Philosophy Who Needs It" I've noticed Rand argies like this - 1. Take a common saying, "You can't be certain about everything. 2. "Attach clear and distinct meanings" (her words), So the above phrase becomes "You can not be certain of anything. Ever." 3. Assign a philosopher to have said this. Kant, who she hates will do nicely. 4. Knock down the extreme skepticism. Then it gets better - 5. State that everything in my (Rand's) philosophy is self evident and known to all. 6. Then say because of this no philosopher can question your beleifs out of a search for truth, rather it is a dodge, a rationalisation. 7. Everyone who rationalises (defined as opposition to Ayn Rand) is evil. You'll find all that in "Philosophical Detection". That alone takes Rand out of the Philosopher's Club, in my opinion. Further, on every page she throws insult after insult, without a single logical arguement. There are good things in her workl however, if you look carefully and think on your own - 1. In our society to be moral is seen as the highest goal. Yet morality is always defined in opposition to yourself - giving without wanting in return. Our greatest acheivements are never moral though, they are just 'good'. But why can't we say a great architect is as good as a charity worker? They do the same for humanity. 2. An emphasis on reason. She lays out a good arguemnt for studying philosophy, just don't get caught up in her 'Reason'. 3. She emphasies value in ohilosophy, that it is good in dofar as it helps mankind. What would Aristotle have said to today's philosophers who see there job as "We liberate people by destroying ideas of truth and morality." This was typed at midnight, sorry if it seems a bit choppy.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.