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

sepia
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2004

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 32

Posted 10/22/04 - 07:03 AM:	#51
Huh. I didn't realize that Rand was considered a philosopher either. I just thought her pro-individualistic views infused into her works were shaped by her childhood in a prohibitively communist society. But then again, I was never intrigued by her enough to delve into her bio. However, her books I've read were a pleasure...relatively enlightened versions of romance novels.

JHBowden
I love you guys!

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

Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1434

Posted 10/22/04 - 07:04 PM:	#52
Archimedes-- Rand is venerated as a deity by vocal cultists. Meanwhile, our friends here at the philosophy cafe, along with professional philosophers, ignore her. This state of affairs left our initial inquirer nonplussed. Whether people like it or not, Rand made colossal errors during her fanatic attacks on real philosophers and did not understand basic philosophical issues. Both of these reasons explain why Rand's contribution to philosophy was a grand nothing. Now, I agree with a lot of Rand's vision. I prefer excellence over incompetence. I find communism to be a horrible system. There is a certain "magic" proud people have that self-hating jellyfish do not. However, philosophy is about thinking, not having a cool vision of the world. Expecting Rand to be considered a philosopher after she made a career of newbie mistakes and false, clumsy attacks on other philosophers isn't realistic. The cultlike characteristics of self-proclaimed "Objectivists" (glorification of a leader, automatic denunciations of unbelievers as "evil," veneration of sacred texts, preaching of a doomsday, zeal to convert others, etc.) are warning bells for prudent, clear-thinking individuals. For most of your post, you stated Rand's writings were filled with rhetoric that did not hash out philosophical problems. You also stated that Rand was unfamiliar with basic literature. Of course, I agree -- this is precisely why she isn't considered a philosopher. While literature departments may have a taste for the contradictory and the mystical, Anglo-American philosophy tends to respect science, logic, and common-sense. On the peripheral stuff: Properties -- either they exist or they do not. I mentioned this to a previous poster and got a poor response about how we learn about the world through the senses. I pointed out realists can argue that we may establish the existence of properties a posteriori. One may have evidence electrons have spin properties, for instance. Morality -- Rand never specified if she advocated a teleological or deontological system. If good outcomes are basic in the ethical system, then rights are dependent upon them. Not only do we not have a deontology in this case, Hannibal Lecter problems are created for egoism, as you mentioned. The a priori -- the term a priori is often used to describe knowledge that is not justified by observations. Take the equation, 5 + 7= 12. Could it be falsified by observation? Suppose a biologist looked under a microscope and counted five organisms on the left side of his slide and seven organisms on the other side. After glancing away, the biologist recounts and finds 13. While the scientist may suggest he miscounted, or an organism reproduced, or that he counted the same one twice the second time, he will never argue that 5+7 = 13. One may argue that a priori knowledge is justified by reason like Swinburne and Chisholm, or one might suggest that some of our knowledge is a priori precisely because it cannot be altered by observation, e.g. C.I. Lewis. Regardless if a priori knowledge is based on reason or expresses shared linguistic conventions, that a knower has such knowledge does not imply "mysticism" nor a concomitant belief in it.
"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)

Justus
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 419

Posted 10/22/04 - 10:16 PM:	#53
Philosopher or not, she was a great thinker. Whether or not she was able to prove her theory to the liking of present day intellectuals is irrelevant. What she has achieved is a movement that will seek to perfect her ideas to stand up to all arguments. I agree that Rand wasn't perfectly representing the ideas of past and present intellectuals but the points she had to make were very relevant and sincere points to be made. Whilst her Philosophy is in its infancy, it will be picked up by new intellectuals who will perfect it.
"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!

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

Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1434

Posted 10/23/04 - 07:34 AM:	#54
Dr. Phil is a great thinker by your standards. He has contributed nothing of philosophical importance, though he is very relevant and sincere. While his "philosophy" of life may be in its infancy, future intellectuals will flesh out his system. Forget Carnap, Hempel, and Quine. Dr. Phil is the wave of the future.
"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)

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands

Total Topics: 61
Total Posts: 2372

Posted 10/23/04 - 07:54 AM:	#55
Ikiru wrote: 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. I always wonder about that argument. Does one need to taste shit to know you don't like it?
Obama is humping the pump in an effort to re-inflate an economy that looks more like a balloon with a 55 caliber bullet hole in it. - Joe Bageant

Dont Know
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 11, 2003
Location: Maine

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 425

Posted 10/23/04 - 08:09 AM:	#56
jaoman wrote: Can someone here give me an intro to Objectivism, or be so kind as to provide some useful links? It's strange. I've recently come upon a group of people, as well as a few articles, which proclaim Ayn Rand to be god, or all but (conveniently, informing little as to the details of her philosophy); yet, I've never heard of her here, nor is there a post for Objectivism in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I'm a smidgen puzzled by this. Shes not a philosopher, shes just a writer. If she were considered a philosopher then she has never had an original idea so shes not a very good one edit: I don't want to sound to hard on her, she is a good writer, just not a philosopher.
"As industry and the arts spread and flower, the scorned cultivator, burdened with taxes necessary for the maintenance of luxury and condemned to spend his life between labor and hunger, abandons his fields to go to the cities in search of the bread he ought to carry there." - Rousseau

Justus
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 419

Posted 10/23/04 - 10:57 AM:	#57
JHBowden wrote: Dr. Phil is a great thinker by your standards. He has contributed nothing of philosophical importance, though he is very relevant and sincere. While his "philosophy" of life may be in its infancy, future intellectuals will flesh out his system. Forget Carnap, Hempel, and Quine. Dr. Phil is the wave of the future. Ass.
"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!

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

Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1434

Posted 10/23/04 - 11:09 AM:	#58

"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)

nspeds
Nozickean

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 194

Posted 10/23/04 - 11:32 AM:	#59
JHBowden wrote: Dr. Phil is a great thinker by your standards. He has contributed nothing of philosophical importance, though he is very relevant and sincere. While his "philosophy" of life may be in its infancy, future intellectuals will flesh out his system. Forget Carnap, Hempel, and Quine. Dr. Phil is the wave of the future. Ouch!
Online Journal

darkcrow
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego

Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 4256

Posted 10/23/04 - 11:55 AM:	#60
Unisonus wrote: 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. Does that mean you don’t believe there is any epistemic function to rhetoric?
"To the success of our hopeless task."

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.