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

Klaatu
Aspirant

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

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/16/04 - 09:54 AM:	#31
Ikiru wrote: 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. Hence, the universals exist prior to concepts, as a property of the universe.

JHBowden
I love you guys!

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

Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1434

Posted 10/16/04 - 10:49 AM:	#32
Ikiru -- I'm stating that Objectivism isn't real philosophy. Almost all young people who have recently discovered the discipline of philosophy through the writings of Ayn Rand do not know this. Like finding out Santa isn't real, you'll get over it. Since you brought him up, Kant argued that every man was an end in himself, argued against absolutism and ecclesiasticism, advocated a liberal legal system and the rule of law, defended the sanctity of private property, and defended the freedom of the will. Rand and her followers in contrast have blamed Kant for everything from poor pieces of artwork to Fascism and Communism. That's a pretty damn big mistake for "philosophers" to make, y'think? Actual philosophers incidentally are not impressed by this lazy, cultlike behavior. Do properties exist or not? How we find out about properties is not the question; many realists like D.M. Armstrong argue that the reality of different properties can be established a posteriori. Again, Rand and her confused "Objectivist" followers have nothing intelligent to say about whether properties like mass, spin, charge, etc. exist or not. Inferring ethical principles from tautologies is another instance where Rand is lost. Rand only asserted that men have rights; as you can see above, she did nothing to justify her claim. Do men have rights because rights lead to good worldly consequences? Then we no longer have a deontological system built on right. People who defend deontological systems say either the principles are self-evident (i.e. knowable a priori), employ some sort of formalism (the principle satisfies some universal law known a priori), or use some form of contractarianism (Locke, Rawls etc.). Again, Rand and her Objectivist followers can "believe" whatever they want, but if their beliefs have no warrant, people will continue not to take them seriously.
"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

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

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 138

Posted 10/16/04 - 11:30 AM:	#33
I'm stating that Objectivism isn't real philosophy. Almost all young people who have recently discovered the discipline of philosophy through the writings of Ayn Rand do not know this. Like finding out Santa isn't real, you'll get over it. JH, you will never understand anything properly if you continue to throw out biased, ill-informed opinions based on your belief in your own superior intelligence. At best, you will be a slave to your own dogma, simliarly to the conservatives we argue against on the politics forum. I will not discuss this futher, obviously this is spiraling down into nothing more than me receiving insults from someone who has perminantly decided that Rand is nothing more than a cult figureheard. Find, that's your opinion, I am only urging you to go out and research it for yourself -- a pretty unbiased solution honestly -- because it sounds like your biggest problem with Rand is that she challenged the philosophers you worship with! But i'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who is completely unwilling to listen.

JHBowden
I love you guys!

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

Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1434

Posted 10/16/04 - 12:45 PM:	#34
Ikiru -- You will not discuss this further because deep down, you know I am correct. I demonstrated not only that Rand did not have a handle on basic philosophy, she made baseless attacks against other philosophers. Like astrology is not considered astronomy, it is now obvious to all why Objectivism is not considered philosophy. Taking my criticism of Objectivism personally, as if I attacked a venerated, inerrant cult leader, is a good sign that it is time to abandon ship. Rand's incoherence, in contrast, isn't going to hurt anyone's cherished beliefs as long as the newbie mistakes remain. While you guys might irrirate the campus Marxists, you won't have any luck against well-informed individuals like myself. I could pick up a work by Rand I haven't read, such as For the New Intellectual, and we can discuss it chapter by chapter right here at philosophyforums.com. Whaddya say?
"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

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

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/16/04 - 12:54 PM:	#35
Ikiru wrote: JH, you will never understand anything properly if you continue to throw out biased, ill-informed opinions based on your belief in your own superior intelligence. At best, you will be a slave to your own dogma, simliarly to the conservatives we argue against on the politics forum. I will not discuss this futher, obviously this is spiraling down into nothing more than me receiving insults from someone who has perminantly decided that Rand is nothing more than a cult figureheard. Find, that's your opinion, I am only urging you to go out and research it for yourself -- a pretty unbiased solution honestly -- because it sounds like your biggest problem with Rand is that she challenged the philosophers you worship with! But i'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who is completely unwilling to listen. Yeah! Thats right, JHBowden I think, is corrupted by whim-worshipping evil philosophers. Clearly, JHBowden should read more Objectivist books. His little make-believe problems are so stupid you should not even concern yourself with them. He worships bad philosophers, that disagree with Rand -> therefore -> he is wrong. Don't waste your time with this guy. He has chosen death over life. JHBowden, you don't know enough about Objectivism to say anything about it. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IN A CONDESCENDING WAY. Your arguments mean nothing to me because you obviously know nothing. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IN A CONDESCENDING WAY. JHBowden is wrong because he OBVIOUSLY is doing nothing more than expressing his opinion of himself that he is far more intelligent!! btw, I AM NOT SAYING THIS IN A CONDESCENDING WAY.

Ikiru
Graduate

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

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 138

Posted 10/16/04 - 01:44 PM:	#36
Klaatu wrote: Yeah! Thats right, JHBowden I think, is corrupted by whim-worshipping evil philosophers. Clearly, JHBowden should read more Objectivist books. His little make-believe problems are so stupid you should not even concern yourself with them. He worships bad philosophers, that disagree with Rand -> therefore -> he is wrong. Don't waste your time with this guy. He has chosen death over life. Never said that, never attacked JH's philosophy, I don't even know what he believes in. I don't believe JH is stupid or evil. JHBowden, you don't know enough about Objectivism to say anything about it. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IN A CONDESCENDING WAY. What's wrong with that? I don't know enought about flying an airplane to objectively criticise a pilot. All I was accusing of JH of was the same thing. Know all the facts before you accuse someone, this isn't the Salem Witch Trials. I'm sorry that perhaps Rand said something which hurt your feelings, but thats not a reason to burn her at the stake. Your arguments mean nothing to me because you obviously know nothing. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IN A CONDESCENDING WAY. I attempt to rationally refute JH's arguments with facts and quotes about objectivism. I did not merely say that he 'knew' nothing. JHBowden is wrong because he OBVIOUSLY is doing nothing more than expressing his opinion of himself that he is far more intelligent!! btw, I AM NOT SAYING THIS IN A CONDESCENDING WAY. Well I apologize for taking the comment that what I believe in amounts to 'believing in Santa Claus' as a non-rational insult. BTW, I stated that I was not trying to be condescending because I was trying to have a civil debate with JH, and he did have some very poignant arguments to refute objectivism. Unfortnately I believe that most of them were subjected to his biased opinion of it being a 'cult', instead of factual evidence. But I did not want, nor do I believe that this is a result of JH being unintelligent or psuedo-intelligent, just mistaken. Hence my comment of being 'non-condescending'. --COMMENTS REMOVED -- I'm not going to lower myself to your level. JH -- Taking my criticism of Objectivism personally, as if I attacked a venerated, inerrant cult leader, is a good sign that it is time to abandqon ship. Rand's incoherence, in contrast, isn't going to hurt anyone's cherished beliefs as long as the newbie mistakes remain. While you guys might irrirate the campus Marxists, you won't have any luck against well-informed individuals like myself. I don't take your attack on Objectivism personally. I take your attack on me personally, I tried to be civil -- but obviously, as in Klaatu's case included, there is no real room for reason or unbiased opinion on these boards. The funniest thing is, I don't even tout myself as an Objectivist, I'm just familiar with the ideology. So your attacks that I'm worshipping some dead cult figure are relatively meaningless ... I personally just dislike when people bring out that 'Santa' remark -- as if everything you say is SO self evident and everyone who disagrees with you is ALWAYS wrong. That type of philosophy is what I have a problem with -- it does not get anyone anywhere. I could pick up a work by Rand I haven't read, such as For the New Intellectual, and we can discuss it chapter by chapter right here at philosophyforums.com. Whaddya say I think that this is an excellent idea. I know that I am going to take some heat for this, but I really don't have the time. I am already committed myself to reading Aristotle's Ethics for the Philosophy Forums book club, in addition to four jobs and finishing my 5th year at college for my second degree, I really can't spare any more time than just commenting on these boards. If you want to pick up Philosophy: Who needs it, or the virtue of selfishness (I've already read) maybe we can start posting some stuff on it. Thanks for the attempt though, I appreciate it. (I still recommend you pick up the books though, I mean hey, at worst you'll have even stronger arguments to refute objectivism, maybe you'll even convince me)

Klaatu
Aspirant

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

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/16/04 - 02:15 PM:	#37
Ikiru wrote: BTW, I stated that I was not trying to be condescending because I was trying to have a civil debate with JH, and he did have some very poignant arguments to refute objectivism. Unfortnately I believe that most of them were subjected to his biased opinion of it being a 'cult', instead of factual evidence. But I did not want, nor do I believe that this is a result of JH being unintelligent or psuedo-intelligent, just mistaken. Hence my comment of being 'non-condescending'. So you attacked his understanding of Objectivism instead. Am I wrong? My points that I include in my sardonic paragraphs, whether or not you understand it- is that just because you say you're not being condescending does not make it so. You frankly have no way of knowing how many Objectivism books Bowden has read, on the contrary it seems he is rather familiar with its principles to bring up the points he did. Especially, the fact that you assume he is acting out of biases! Jesus, how do you know he is not perfectly well justified in his biases? Ikiru wrote: 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.. -there it is. I don't take your attack on Objectivism personally. I take your attack on me personally, I tried to be civil -- but obviously, as in Klaatu's case included, there is no real room for reason or unbiased opinion on these boards. I don't believe you were civil, thats the thing. You started the personal attacks when you started to talk about JHBowden, and the creator of the thread, and what they know. Thats a personal attack. Besides, I'm mostly making fun of Objectivists and their ideas, if it makes you feel better, and not yourself.

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 10/16/04 - 02:27 PM:	#38
Justus wrote: To say that man is not guided by reason is self-defeating. You could not come to such a statement without REASON. Indeed, but that is to say only that we are using reason in this particular instance. It is not to say that we are fundamentally guided by reason. Therefore it is not self-defeating to say that we are not guided by reason just because we are using reason to assert the very thing that is being asserted.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 10/16/04 - 02:30 PM:	#39
On Ayn Rand, I bought a copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and on reading a chapter I promptly put the book under a rather large pile of crap. It wouldn't be hard to sell me on the merits of capitalism, since I advocate it anyway, but she failed miserably.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

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

Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1537

Posted 10/16/04 - 02:46 PM:	#40
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. Isn't there a difference between properties of objects, and properties as in abstractions?
"...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

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.