Philosophy Forums


Ayn Rand and Objectivism

PrintPrint


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

Ayn Rand and Objectivism
JHBowden
I love you guys!
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 20, 2003
Location: Little Italy, Chicago

Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1434
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 10/15/04 - 10:00 AM:
quote post
#21
"Out of the mainstream" is being nice. Objectivism is out of the mainstream of philosophy like astrology is out of the mainstream of astronomy. It is an issue of basic competence, not an issue of getting help from other people.

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." -- Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -- Isaiah 5:20

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Ikiru
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 13, 2004
Location: Northeast US

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 138
Posted 10/15/04 - 11:36 AM:
quote post
#22
Comparing objectivism to astrology is an absolutely biased comparison. Arguing whether or not man has rational choice and free will or the universe is deterministic is like arguing whether or not the world is flat -- one of the choices is absolutely false. Man cannot be deterministic and have free will.

So comparing objectivism to the rest (some) of philosophy, you have to make the analysis of whether objectivists are arguing that the world is flat, or whether they are being persecuted by those who believe the world to be flat.
zephos
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 13, 2004

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 406
Posted 10/15/04 - 12:23 PM:
quote post
#23
Ikiru wrote:
Comparing objectivism to astrology is an absolutely biased comparison. Arguing whether or not man has rational choice and free will or the universe is deterministic is like arguing whether or not the world is flat -- one of the choices is absolutely false. Man cannot be deterministic and have free will.

So comparing objectivism to the rest (some) of philosophy, you have to make the analysis of whether objectivists are arguing that the world is flat, or whether they are being persecuted by those who believe the world to be flat.
Rand herself runs into this very problem. Mans' actions are a rational extention to accomplish a selfish desire. Mans' ultimate desire is that of prolonged survival [and possibly reproduction.] This very instinct of survival is not a rational decision. The self-presevation urge is not always rational and is not a decision whether to embrace or not. Instead it is instinct, urge, determined. So if the fundamental driving force of my entire being is not rationally chosen by me, then in what sense are the 'rational' decisions I make to follow this drive rational?

spelling, grammar, and incoherent expression of ideas brought to you by the public education system...
Unisonus
Registered Abuser
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: New York, New York

Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1537
Posted 10/15/04 - 05:27 PM:
quote post
#24
There are philosophers with whom almost no one in the mainstream agrees with anymore (take Ayer, as an example) - but they are still considered philosophers. They understood the issues as hand, and they made consistent and well thought-out arguments. Ayn Rand failed to do so. She was good at rhetoric, poor at argumentation... good at spitting out seething insults, poor at poignant critques.

Objectivism is a cult for people who want to be in a group. It is not a philosophy.

"...take care that your style and diction run musically, pleasantly, and plainly, with clear, proper, and well-placed words, setting forth your purpose to the best of your power, and putting your ideas intelligibly, without confusion or obscurity."

- Miguel de Cervantes
Justus
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 419
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 10/15/04 - 06:04 PM:
quote post
#25
To say that man is not guided by reason is self-defeating. You could not come to such a statement without REASON.

"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
JHBowden
I love you guys!
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 20, 2003
Location: Little Italy, Chicago

Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1434
Posted 10/15/04 - 06:20 PM:
quote post
#26
Ikiru wrote:
Comparing objectivism to astrology is an absolutely biased comparison.

Ikiru --

It is a biased comparison. It is also true, which is what counts.

People don't consider Rand a serious philosopher given what she writes is rhetoric and not philosophy. My grandma can ask philosophical questions, but whether my grandmother can do serious philosophical work is separate issue.

Not only has Rand said many erroneous things about other philosophers, she never had a solid grasp on the basic issues any undergraduate should be able to tackle. For instance, with the issue of universals, one can defend either a one-tiered ontology or a two-tiered ontology. There is no intermediate position; either universals exist or they don't. Rand also called herself a "rationalist" but contradicted three properties ascribed to Reason --the formation of a priori concepts, the intuiting of necessary and universal connections between properties, and the power of drawing inferences from premisses. One certainly can deny a priori knowledge in logic, mathematics, and in ethics, but subsequently calling oneself a follower of "Reason" is demented.

The spectacle degenerates further when we get to Rand's economic and political philosophy. Rand believed capitalism is a direct result of the behavior "rational" individuals, as if market forces function only in the presence of rationalistic ubermen. In reality, capitalism is superior to command economies because it addreses human ignorance by systemically coordinating dispersed, limited knowledge. The profit system, as writers like von Mises have noted, makes men prosper that satisfy the wants of their customers in the best possible and cheapest way. Misunderstanding the nature and logic of capitalist enterprise, Howard Roark would be a bum in this world. People succeed economically by producing the customer's B, not by sticking with your A. Consumer sovereignty is the very raison d'etre of capitalism.

Lastly, Rand never dealt with the problems with Egoism. Both deontological and teleological variants have severe problems. Philosophers don't merely state positions, they defend them. If one is a fan of virtue ethics, self-indulgence, vanity, irascibility, and so forth, are excesses for Rand's supposedly esteemed Aristotle. Rand's ethical ideal ends up being South Park's Eric Cartman, which certainly is not mine.

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." -- Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -- Isaiah 5:20

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Ikiru
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 13, 2004
Location: Northeast US

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 138
Posted 10/15/04 - 10:19 PM:
quote post
#27
zephos wrote:
Rand herself runs into this very problem. Mans' actions are a rational extention to accomplish a selfish desire. Mans' ultimate desire is that of prolonged survival [and possibly reproduction.] This very instinct of survival is not a rational decision. The self-presevation urge is not always rational and is not a decision whether to embrace or not. Instead it is instinct, urge, determined. So if the fundamental driving force of my entire being is not rationally chosen by me, then in what sense are the 'rational' decisions I make to follow this drive rational?
Rand fully addresses this. . .

Faith and Force and Excerpts from 'Atlas Shrugged' wrote:
"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch -- or build a cyclotron -- without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

"But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival -- so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to think or not to think.'

A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence -- and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is not alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.

Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Why are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer -- and that is the way he has acted through most of his history....

Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice -- and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man -- by choice; he has to hold his life as a value -- by choice; he has to learn to sustain it -- by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues -- by choice.

A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.

Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever living remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value.

All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.

Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being -- not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement -- not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason

Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man -- for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life.
----------------------------------------------------


JHBowden wrote:
For instance, with the issue of universals, one can defend either a one-tiered ontology or a two-tiered ontology. There is no intermediate position; either universals exist or they don't. Rand also called herself a "rationalist" but contradicted three properties ascribed to Reason --the formation of a priori concepts, the intuiting of necessary and universal connections between properties, and the power of drawing inferences from premisses. One certainly can deny a priori knowledge in logic, mathematics, and in ethics, but subsequently calling oneself a follower of "Reason" is demented.
Wikipedia wrote:
A priori is a Latin phrase meaning "from the former". In much of the modern Western tradition, the term a priori is considered to mean propositional knowledge that can be had without, or "prior to", experience. It is usually contrasted with a posteriori knowledge, which requires experience.
For those within the mainstream of the tradition, mathematics and logic are generally considered a priori disciplines. Statements such as "2 + 2 = 4", for example, are considered to be "a priori", because they are thought to come out of reflection alone.
By saying objectivism is demented due to it contradicting the formation of a priori concepts, and thereby contradicting reason, is completely wrong.

"Kant Versus Sullivan" wrote:
Concepts are the products of a mental process that integrates and organizes the evidence provided by man's senses. Man's senses aree his only direct cognitive contact with reality and , therefore, his only source of information. Without sensory evidence, there can be no concepts; without concepts, there can be no language; without language, there can be no knowledge and no science.
All human knowledge comes from sensory evidence, which are his only source of information. Therefore, nothing in objectivist ethics or epistomology, and in addition thereby nothing in the human mind, is a priori.

Objectivism does address the problem of universals.

Definition of Objectivist philosophy wrote:

The problem of universals

Objectivism offers the foregoing account as the solution of the problem of universals. This problem has throughout the history of philosophy been regarded as a problem of metaphysics, but Objectivism asserts that its proper resolution lies in epistemology. Traditional solutions to the problem divide generally into realism and nominalism. Objectivism regards the first as "intrinsicism" (the view that universals are "intrinsic" to reality) and the second as "subjectivism" (the view that universals are arbitrary creations of the human mind). The proper resolution, Objectivism says, is that universals are concepts, created to meet the unique cognitive needs of the human mind, but objective so long as they are validly formed.
Rand believed capitalism is a direct result of the behavior "rational" individuals, as if market forces function only in the presence of rationalistic ubermen. In reality, capitalism is superior to command economies because it addreses human ignorance by systemically coordinating dispersed, limited knowledge
If you accept Rand's philosophy, then obviously captialism becomes the only ethical system of market. Denying man's capacity to self-govern, to regulate and exchange his own economy, and thereby removing man's choice . . . is the greatest disservice to humanity. I understand socialism, and the attractiveness of it, but it is an end, not a means. In reality, capitalism is superior to command economies because is allows human ignorance AS WELL AS human superiority and reason, in contrast to a system which denies men's rights, and man's volition. And if you accept man's rationality, and reason, and free will .. then you must accept the belief that man must be allowed to govern himself.

---------------------------------------------------

In the end, I believe you are succumbing to quickly to your self-described biases. I think you are extremely intelligent, but you can't just run off believing the first thing that someone says. And please, as I've stated before, I believe that their are a lot of self-described objectivists on these boards who really don't stand up. Just because someone 'says' they are objectivist, does not really mean it. Especially when they come up with a collectivist attitude towards things, and brush off reason.

Please remember, before you respond, that in order to accept objectivist theory you HAVE to be willing to believe in things like free will...therefore if you absolutely 100% will not even listen to the possiblity of free will or rational choice, then objectivist theory will NEVER make sense to you.
JHBowden
I love you guys!
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 20, 2003
Location: Little Italy, Chicago

Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1434
Posted 10/16/04 - 08:55 AM:
quote post
#28
Ikiru--

Rand is not considered a philosopher by philosophers not because philosophers disagree with her views. Disagreement is common in philosophy. Rand had not only stated erroneous things about other philosophers, but more importantly, did not even understand fundamental issues. When I encounter Objectivists online claiming to be philosophically literate, I'm reminded of crackpots in other fields that insist pi is a rational number, life never evolved, the space of the universe is Euclidean, etc., despite all reason and evidence to the contrary. While some note Objectivism has the features of a cult, it is more like a scam like Amway, the dupes this time being individuals without any solid philosophical background.

Before addressing the disease, let us look at a few of the many symptoms.

A rationalist says Reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge. Many empiricists, take Quine for instance, have rejected the a priori character of mathematics, ethics, logic, in addition to denying the analytic/synthetic distinction. However, to proclaim oneself as a defender of Reason after doing so indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of epistemology.

You are familiar with the law of the excluded middle, no? Either properties exist or they don't. The view quoted above states a token is an instance of a certain type just in case someone's concept applies to the token. Nothing innovative about it, this is class nominalism, a close cousin of predicate nominalism. Under this view, for a proton to have charge is for someone to apply their concept "charge" to the token. It implies that unnamed undiscovered scientific properties do not exist. You will be hard-pressed to find many arguments in defense of the external world which state pterodactyls were undifferentiated, structureless blobs before homo sapiens thought of them. Again, one would know all of this by reading an introductory text about metaphysics.

Can we know whether capitalism is just a priori? Can we evaluate its performance a priori? If not, we evaluate how capitalism functions and its peformance relative to other systems by appropriately evaluating the evidence. In addition, Rand never came to terms with whether rights are conventional or a priori in basis. Once again, Rand's "philosophy" is incoherent to the point of foolery.

What is the disease? You speak often of what is "accepted," what is "believed," and so forth. This is not conducive to clear thinking. That followers of Objectivism believe not only faithfully, but blindly, is what is against the spirit of disinterested inquiry. It does not matter what people believe in philosophy -- we want to know if the beliefs are true, and if the beliefs ae warranted. The identity of your inspirational guru is of zero importance. Moreover, one can't make newbie mistakes all over the place and claim to knowledgeable about a subject. Once you've gotten a handle on the fundamental issues in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, you will likely make a similar assessment.

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." -- Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -- Isaiah 5:20

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Klaatu
Aspirant
Avatar

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

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20
Posted 10/16/04 - 09:43 AM:
quote post
#29
Thank you Ikiru. I am surprised to discover that my 'existence' was a matter of 'volitional choice'. Hopefully, I have already made it (or am I perhaps a 'suicidal being'?). But to me it seems I am living just fine. Come to think of it, I can't figure out for the life of me when this choice was made (obviously it was made at some time since I'm still alive, duh). I must of made it by being rational, sometime after I chose to be rational by means of rational deduction. Must of been when I was a little baby, and I first decided to gain 'knowledge' er, I think. Perhaps I should ask my mother about it...

Can anybody help me out, I am also trying to discover why, given the fact that man is an animal who is endowed with a tool for reason, why he necessarily loses the urge to survive. Where is the reasonable link here? Why does the fact that he can make a choice reduce his actions and his mind to a series of choices?

JHBowden wrote:

You are familiar with the law of the excluded middle, no? Either properties exist or they don't. The view quoted above states a token is an instance of a certain type just in case someone's concept applies to the token. Nothing innovative about it, this is class nominalism, a close cousin of predicate nominalism. Under this view, for a proton to have charge is for someone to apply their concept "charge" to the token. It implies that unnamed undiscovered scientific properties do not exist. You will be hard-pressed to find many arguments in defense of the external world which state pterodactyls were undifferentiated, structureless blobs before homo sapiens thought of them. Again, one would know all of this by reading an introductory text about metaphysics.


And coincidentally, the action of man imparting structure to undifferentiated blobs, fits perfectly into Rand's plot for her book, where human beings may also share in this "blobbiness", ripe and ready to be exterminated by 'rational' individuals.
Ikiru
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 13, 2004
Location: Northeast US

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 138
Posted 10/16/04 - 09:48 AM:
quote post
#30
JHBowden wrote:
Ikiru--

Rand is not considered a philosopher by philosophers not because philosophers disagree with her views. Disagreement is common in philosophy. Rand had not only stated erroneous things about other philosophers, but more importantly, did not even understand fundamental issues. When I encounter Objectivists online claiming to be philosophically literate, I'm reminded of crackpots in other fields that insist pi is a rational number, life never evolved, the space of the universe is Euclidean, etc., despite all reason and evidence to the contrary. While some note Objectivism has the features of a cult, it is more like a scam like Amway, the dupes this time being individuals without any solid philosophical background.
That's wonderful, but there are no facts in this paragraph ... just opinions. I could go around calling Kantian philosophy a cult-like scam and people dumbasses for believing it, but then I really haven't proven my case. Really, I've never proclaimed myself to be an objectivist, but I'm not going to arbitrarily slam their beliefs because they stated 'erroneous things about other philosophers'. Erroneous how? In what way?

A rationalist says Reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge. Many empiricists, take Quine for instance, have rejected the a priori character of mathematics, ethics, logic, in addition to denying the analytic/synthetic distinction. However, to proclaim oneself as a defender of Reason after doing so indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of epistemology.

You are familiar with the law of the excluded middle, no? Either properties exist or they don't. The view quoted above states a token is an instance of a certain type just in case someone's concept applies to the token. Nothing innovative about it, this is class nominalism, a close cousin of predicate nominalism. Under this view, for a proton to have charge is for someone to apply their concept "charge" to the token. It implies that unnamed undiscovered scientific properties do not exist. You will be hard-pressed to find many arguments in defense of the external world which state pterodactyls were undifferentiated, structureless blobs before homo sapiens thought of them. Again, one would know all of this by reading an introductory text about metaphysics.
I understand how you came to the conclusion that objectivism supports class nominalism.

nominalism wrote:
The doctrine holding that abstract concepts, general terms, or universals have no independent existence but exist only as names.
The answer is that although Objectivism might sound like nominalism . . . because it accepts that universals are concepts held in the mind. However, un-named, undiscovered scientific properties do not cease to exist, because the universe is an independent from man's mind. Man's mind uses sensory data to gather information on those concepts, but whether or not man discovers that information, the universe will not cease to be.

Objectivism wrote:
Objectivism maintains that existence exists independently of consciousness, and that the mind's function is to grasp the identity of what exists. This position, known as realism, or the primacy of existence, is opposed to idealism, or the primacy of consciousness, which holds that the objects of knowledge are dependent in some way on the knower—that reality is constituted by or relative to our own minds.
Can we know whether capitalism is just a priori? Can we evaluate its performance a priori? If not, we evaluate how capitalism functions and its peformance relative to other systems by appropriately evaluating the evidence. In addition, Rand never came to terms with whether rights are conventional or a priori in basis. Once again, Rand's "philosophy" is incoherent to the point of foolery.

Rand wrote:
The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A - and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.

What is the disease? You speak often of what is "accepted," what is "believed," and so forth. This is not conducive to clear thinking. That followers of Objectivism believe not only faithfully, but blindly, is what is against the spirit of disinterested inquiry. It does not matter what people believe in philosophy -- we want to know if the beliefs are true, and if the beliefs ae warranted. The identity of your inspirational guru is of zero importance. Moreover, one can't make newbie mistakes all over the place and claim to knowledgeable about a subject. Once you've gotten a handle on the fundamental issues in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, you will likely make a similar assessment.
Well again, that's your opinion. But I think that you and the creator of the thread could stand well from picking up Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Please, before you attack again, at least have an understanding of some objectivist principles. I am not saying that in a condecending way, but I think its unfair to impartially judge a theory based upon admitted biases. I do not have a very large background when it comes to Kantian theory, and even through Rand viciously rejects it, it will not stop me from reading more of Kant's works to form my own opinion. I own the communist manifesto, even though almost all of Rand's works were formed as an objection to socialism.

I think that you believe I am some sort of objectivist preacher, looking down on your beliefs, believing myself to be above and beyond all philisophical critique. In truth, I really don't care! I'm just trying to defend a theory I believe is well-founded from your attacks.
Download thread as

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.