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

Archimedes
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 10/23/04 - 06:26 PM:	#61
JHBowden wrote: 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. We ignore her because (much like khunian science), she does not address any of the agreed upon problems in our defined areas of interests. She's not the only person to make gross errors of generalization regarding philosophers. In fact I am absolutely disgusted with many philosophers because they do the same. But because they often address currently defined problems, they sometimes get discussed--even when the discussion is worthless. I'm not sure which is worse. The cult aspect of objectivism is a red herring though. Pythagoreanism was a cult too, but still made valuable contributions. I thought Rand studied philosophy in Russia (I don't know this for a fact, just thought somewhere I read or heard that). She was supposedly disgusted with it (who could blame her--ever here of a good russian philosopher?) and decided to be a writer (Russia has a much better history of important writers than philosophers). Either way, its clear she did not get a good grounding in philosophy. 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. There's no question, that if Rand wanted to be taken seriously (as a philosopher), she should have been more conscientious about getting a background in the appropriate readings and taken on some of the serious problems philosophers wrestled with--or at least knew WHY they were considered problems. This is what I call "being charitable to the argument." The fact that she liked the cult worship, and that "objectivists" exhibit cultish like behavior is irrelevent though. Just look at Peter Singer among ethicists. If I can be frank, his stuff is just shit. But his work is refered to as gospel among ethicists. 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. Actually, Rand hated the mystical, and loved science and logic. "Common-sense" is simply an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned. 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. While she may not specify directly, there's no question to her disgust of deontological systems, and further her advocacy of self-preservation is very consistent with a teleological system. But why must these be the necessary distinctions for studying moral philosophy? Are these the most important? If so, why? Why should we adhere to this idea of a moral patient and a moral agent. They seem reasonable concepts, but there may be better concepts, or more relevant ones. As far as I can tell, these distinctions within moral philosophy are used because they are there (i.e. someone came up with them). I think it is more important to justify using such concepts or making such distinctions. The appropriate way to derive the concepts used in studying morality is to find out which distinctions are relevant, and use those. Those I just mentioned could be the most relevant concepts and distinctions, but I haven't heard an argument as to why--other than the outcome some like to see. 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. For my part C.I. Lewis was an idiot. And all the coherentists and conventionists are delusional as well. Knowledge based on a convention is simply not knowledge.After years of being mired in epistemology, I've concluded that knowledge can only be gained by learning methods (Short of being God him/her self, or having it imbued in you by God/Gods--but then how could you determine its reliability?). Reliable learning methods only come from reason, logic, mathmatically derived terms etc. These are the only appropriate a priori methods. Yeah I know there are philosophers who disagree, but I haven't heard a good explanation that doesn't at some point require you to take something on faith, or authority, or convention etc. As far as studying Ayn Rand as a philosoher, it may be important if only to stop people from treating her as one. But I must note, she is no worse, (and probably better) than any moral philosopher out there. And if it turns out that some of her ideas form the basis of a good moral philosophy, should we not credit her? I'd like to write a book titled the following "They're not philosophers" In the book would be: Rousseau Marx Tolstoy Hemingway Mailer Ginsberg Rand Chomsky Proust and there are more if there's room in the book. But this is somewhat a waste of time as I am much more interested in using Kolmogorov complexity theory to study issues in epistemology and educational psychology. I've enjoyed this little discussion. Thanks.

Justus
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 419

Posted 10/23/04 - 06:45 PM:	#62
Well, I'm finding that philosophy is an apocryphal system of studying man's mind. Denying someone's beliefs because they don't fit one's preordained way of thinking is an irrational way to conduct oneself. False intellectualism, individuals who deny the possibility of anything, is arrogant. From what I can tell, it seems Ayn Rand is simply hated because she went against the "intellectual norm." It's hard to believe that even intellectuals are that simple minded.
"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

Dont Know
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 425

Posted 10/23/04 - 06:49 PM:	#63
Archimedes wrote: I'd like to write a book titled the following "They're not philosophers" In the book would be: Rousseau Marx Tolstoy Hemingway Mailer Ginsberg Rand Chomsky Proust and there are more if there's room in the book. But this is somewhat a waste of time as I am much more interested in using Kolmogorov complexity theory to study issues in epistemology and educational psychology. I've enjoyed this little discussion. Thanks. If you are claiming Rousseau is not a philosopher then you also have to drop Sarte and Dostoevsky and the rest of the X movement. I'm not saying I disagree, it's just, he was smarter then them and called them on their stupidity in their own time. Marx? man, just because he was wrong doesn't mean much, he was a great philosopher, at the very least he was an Hegelian enforcer. edit: In protest I'm going on a Rousseau sig binge
"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

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 - 10:59 PM:	#64
Archimedes -- Our initial poster asked why Rand is not respected among philosophers today in addition to our friends here at philosophyforums.com. I defended the argument that Rand is not respected because she did not understand fundamental ideas, made blatantly false attacks on other philosophers, and acted in a manner which is against the spirit of disinterested inquiry. When I disagree with a writer like C.I. Lewis, I do so because evaluate the arguments presented as lacking, or at least inferior to an existing alternative. This is not the modus operandi of the devotees of "Objectivism." They "philosophize" by attacking the people they disagree with. Even in your last post, you called C.I. Lewis, a very careful philosopher in the pragmatist tradition, an "idiot," and referred to people who defend other positions as "delusional." Justus defends Rand's philosophical positions by calling those who conclude Rand's knowledge of philosophy to be lacking as "simple minded." Regardless of how wrong they ended up being, I would never do this to the people I currently work with in physics. Philosophers behave the same way; we're both in the business of investigating, not slandering our colleagues. Blindly proselytizing for a goofy cult is not regardful, disciplined inquiry. When we add the newbie mistakes and Rand's conspicuous deficit of understanding concerning other philosophers, the explanation for the lack of popularity of "Objectivism" among reasonable people becomes obvious.
"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)

Rhodus
Intermezzo

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 20, 2004
Location: Hic

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 603

Posted 10/23/04 - 11:22 PM:	#65
It appears that the discussion is this. Justus says that Ayn Rand thinks differently from acceptable thought in philosophy and isn't accepted for that reason. Mostly everyone else says that Ayn Rand thinks incorrectly (and therefore indeed differently). A lot of pseudo-philosophy follows this pattern of defense. If a different kind of thinking should not be considered to be incorrectly, I fear it must be shown in some way or another.

JohnGalt
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2004

Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 661

Posted 10/24/04 - 03:37 AM:	#66
It sounds to me that philosophy has become a popularity contest. If someone completely rejects "established" philosphy then she is not to be taken seriously. But if she panders to the beliefs of today's "philosophers" she will then be accepted. I thought philosphy required a person to set aside all biased thoughts. The bias among the philosophy community is that she does not accept their beliefs. Rand illustrated this very well in her writing. The majority accepted what they believed as common-sense fact. But her characters (John Galt, Howard Roark, etc) completely blew off the majority's beliefs. As a result they were not taken seriously (Howard Roark in particluar for those who have read The Fountainhead) even though they were far more enlightened than the majority. The Fountainhead is a perfect example of this. All the established architects only considered it art if your design was a copy of something from a prior age (Greek, Gothic, architecture). This can be likened to modern philosophers. They only accept something as "philosophy" if it coincides with what they consider to be philosophy.

Klaatu
Aspirant

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

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/24/04 - 09:30 AM:	#67
People, please remember. This argument is not about whether Ayn Rand is 'A philosopher". Its about whether or not she is respected by professional philosophers, and why. As to whether or not she is a philosopher, maybe she could be one depending on how loosely you use the term. She certainly made some philosophical 'statements'. If Jesus, Dostoevsky, Hemingway were philosophers, well then she is one too. But with all these people, the title of 'philosopher' is secondary and the label of 'novelist', 'cult-leader', 'advocate', is primary.