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

Ikiru
Graduate

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

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 138

Posted 10/16/04 - 03:43 PM:	#41
Klaatu wrote: 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? JH wrote: 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. Dictionary.com wrote: Bias: An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice. I don't think that these are rational arguments, so I am cannot justify his bias. Besides, I don't believe that having a 'bias' towards anything is a particularly healthy attitude for an intellectual. 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. Ok that explains it ... when I said But I think that you and the creator of the thread could stand well from picking up Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. you thought I meant something a little more harsh than what I really meant. No, honestly I just meant to bring it to both user's attentions, and I'm not trying to 'sell' objectivist books either. It really wasn't meant as, hey dumbass read this before you speak. Which is what I meant by non-condescending. I apologize for the misunderstanding, I'm really not that much of an ass. To be quite honest, some of what JH said really made me think that I need to brush up on some more metaphysics and epistemological theory. But I will still defend my stance.

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 - 03:51 PM:	#42
Unisonus wrote: Isn't there a difference between properties of objects, and properties as in abstractions? I'm inclined to say no. What do you think?
"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)

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 - 04:05 PM:	#43
Klaatu -- Thanks for the support, bro.
"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 - 04:28 PM:	#44
Ikiru wrote: I don't think that these are rational arguments, so I am cannot justify his bias. Besides, I don't believe that having a 'bias' towards anything is a particularly healthy attitude for an intellectual. Originally Posted by Dictionary.com Bias: An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice. Thats a secondary or third definition. Biases are not necessarily unfair. It does help to have biases, when they are fair. Its a matter of convenience. For instance, we are biased against astrologers, conspiracy theorists, UFO enthusiasts, or Nazis. Its ok for us to hold certain prejudices, when history in general shows us to be right. Ok that explains it ... when I said you thought I meant something a little more harsh than what I really meant. No, honestly I just meant to bring it to both user's attentions, and I'm not trying to 'sell' objectivist books either. It really wasn't meant as, hey dumbass read this before you speak. Which is what I meant by non-condescending. I apologize for the misunderstanding, I'm really not that much of an ass. Unfortunately, that post did set off many of my warning bells-much of it in association with Objectivism. But if you did not really mean what you said, then fine. To be quite honest, some of what JH said really made me think that I need to brush up on some more metaphysics and epistemological theory. But I will still defend my stance. Fine, just defend it. Its best for us all. But seriously, Most credible philosophers think the same as us here on the board. Its not just because she's out of the mainstream- as if philosophers all agreed with each other! The only excuse that she and her followers could come up with for why they were not taken seriously, is that the forces of evil are aligned against them. And there's plenty of hardcore literature you can find that might easily make you think twice about Objectivism. Objectivism is very tricky because Rand is a very powerful writer and she repeats many things that are plainly true, or that you plainly want to believe are true (I was a bit taken in as a lad). The only problem is, the conclusions that she makes, especially about human behavior, simply come out of nowhere- and can have disastrous consequences.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5135

Posted 10/16/04 - 04:44 PM:	#45
http://forums.philosophyforums.com...t.php?p=162354&postcount=9
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Klaatu
Aspirant

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

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/16/04 - 05:56 PM:	#46
180 Proof wrote: http://forums.philosophyforums.com...t.php?p=162354&postcount=9 Ahh, good times. here's my favorite: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=5642

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5135

Posted 10/16/04 - 06:35 PM:	#47
Klaatu wrote: Ahh, good times. here's my favorite: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=5642
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

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

Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1537

Posted 10/16/04 - 08:56 PM:	#48
Filter wrote: And what is it with you objectivists? Every discussion I have had with one of your clan ends up with me being referred to a book, rather than the poster explaining the pertinent point in his/her own words. I find this rather objectionable (chortle chortle), and wonder if it is indolence or lack of understanding that ails your tribe. Poor poor filter. This always makes me chuckle: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
"...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

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

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

Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1537

Posted 10/16/04 - 09:15 PM:	#49
I'm inclined to say no. What do you think? I would be hard-pressed to say that properties as we know them exist extramentally, it would be just as difficult to say that they don't exist extramentally at all.
"...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

Archimedes
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 10/22/04 - 06:28 AM:	#50
JHBowden wrote: 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. In the modern sense no. But Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and most ancient philosophers attempted to develop a philosophy of living (much like Ayn Rand did). Today we call them ideologies instead. We still talk of Pythagoreanism and Platonism (which lifted its most basic ideas from pythagoreanism) today, but they are studied in a very different way now. With the collapse of logical positivism, and the resulting linguistic turn (hoping to make sense of this failure through language), such large scale ideologies based on philosophical fundamentals have fallen out of favor (no one wants to be proven wrong so devastatingly again). I should mention that Existentialism is also a response to the failure of logical positivism, and to the European depression over two world wars. JHBowden wrote: Ikiru -- 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. I think what she was railing against was the eventual development of Kant's Analytic/Synthetic A Priori/A Posteriori distinctions. She sees everything he writes through this lens (in my opinion) It is true that since these distinctions, Philosophy has been divided rather severely. However, I am surprised that she did not read Quine's Two Dogma's of Empiricism. This paper argues strongly (some would say refutes) against such distinctions. But given her angst toward the value of the philosophy of language (which ironically I think she was ahead of her time, and right to criticize--but for the wrong reasons), she probably thought it was not relevant. JHBowden wrote: Ikiru -- 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. I don't understand your argument here, or what you are even arguing. A posteriori simply means "through experience." Which would mean some type of contact through our senses. JHBowden wrote: Ikiru -- Again, Rand and her confused "Objectivist" followers have nothing intelligent to say about whether properties like mass, spin, charge, etc. exist or not. I agree here. Ayn Rand doesn't see that some of her claims about existence aren't that simple. How is it that numbers exist? That's why Kant made the distinctions he did. So he could claim different ways of existing. However, maybe they don't need to exist. They are simply a corectness relation. Theoretical constructs as those you mention above may or may not exist like observables, but they must fit a correctness relation with other "observed" properties, and so they are more instrumental than actual. But one could then ask, why does something observed have a greater claim to existence than a theoretical construct. Isn't an observation just the recognition of some form of a pattern? Couldn't our eyes be decieving us? This severely disturbs Ayn Rand. She wants to insist that "what is, is." And for practical purposes she could be just fine. Sadly, many philosophers today take one problem and decide to junk a whole system in favor of some contradictory, or mystical one. I think this is what bothers Rand--and why she is not so interested in these tough little philosophical problems. JHBowden wrote: Ikiru -- 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. Actually, the above quote does an injustice to Ayn Rand. Before she makes such a claim as above, she develops a theory of value. In fact a better theory than any philosopher I've seen. Rights come from values, and values are what is essential for a being to exist (i.e. we value that which sustains us, or makes us healthy) Thus, food is a value to all biological organisms, since all biological life (at least as defined today) needs fuel to maintain existence. What an organism values depends on the environment that surrounds it, and what keeps it living in that environment. There is one basic right, from which all others are derived (as best as I can tell from her writings--which I've read very little), and that is the right to exist. Thus, you have the right to feed yourself and protect yourself. From there you have the right to develop your internal capabilities to further your effectiveness to feed and protect yourself. She doesn't really tackle conundrums very much (such as, do I have a right to eat my neighbor since it provides fuel for me and furthers my existence?), and this is disappointing. I think she could be on to something, but it needs to be worked out more thoroughly. It is certainly better than any a priori idea NOT based on a tautology. In fact any a priori idea NOT based on a tautology somewhere involves myticism for its justification.

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.