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

ying
I ♥ Scepticism

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1485

Posted 10/24/04 - 07:52 PM:	#81
nspeds wrote: No, there has to be an entirely new set of paradigms or a pre-existing set that rejects core paradigms to the point where a new convention is born. Moreover, is such an event occurred, we would not be able to refer to this practice as "philosophy"; you would be suffering from the "semantic sting". ND Those anomalies I was talking about are observations who don't match the established paradigm. When those anomalies pile up, it shows us that our paradigm isn't sufficient anymore (the 1st step to a paradigmshift). I'm talking about kuhnian paradigms, I'm not sure what you are talking about. For there to be normative science (or philosophy), there has to be one established and accepted paradigm, a framework of ideas that binds the community. I have a feeling we aren't communicating on the same wavelength... And what is the "semantic sting"? I've never heard of it (I'm not a philosophy student. I'm self-educated when it comes to philosophy and psychology). BTW, I've never read anything from or about Ayn Rand, I was going off at Archimedes, since I didn't get how a paradigmshift (or a kuhnian revolution as he called it) could occur when there is no paradigm to shift
*"I determined nothing."* -Sceptical expression

nspeds
Nozickean

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 194

Posted 10/24/04 - 08:11 PM:	#82
ying wrote: Those anomalies I was talking about are observations who don't match the established paradigm. When those anomalies pile up, it shows us that our paradigm isn't sufficient anymore (the 1st step to a paradigmshift). I'm talking about kuhnian paradigms, I'm not sure what you are talking about. For there to be normative science (or philosophy), there has to be one established and accepted paradigm, a framework of ideas that binds the community. I have a feeling we aren't communicating on the same wavelength... And what is the "semantic sting"? I've never heard of it (I'm not a philosophy student. I'm self-educated when it comes to philosophy and psychology). You are quite correct about the wavelength analysis. I am referring to Ronald Dworkin's analysis of the method of interpretation and the transformation of practices over time. The semantic sting occurs when individuals misinterpret a concept because they do not refer to it properly (in terms of linguistics), but continue to argue off of that (mis)interpretive concept. When I say paradigms, I am essentially talking about the values and concepts that hold a convention to its practice. For example, in courtesy, we can all agree "that taking off our hats for ladies walking in the room" is an established paradigm. However, over time, the paradigms of courtesy will transform as society makes the practice more efficient. Moreover, once all the paradigms have completely shifted, would it be proper to still refer to this practice, linguistically, as "courtesy"? No. In the same way, perhaps Ayn Rand abandons the conventional paradigmatic scheme in her works and this is why it does not fit the conventional linguistic connotation of "Philosophy". I do not think that individuals dislike Ayn Rand because she is different, but rather because she abandons all paradigms of philosophy but still continues to advertize herself as a philosopher. It is one thing to be different, ie. analytic, synthetic, modern, post-modern, teleological, deontological, however, I do not think individuals from any of those categories have had the audacity to refer to other individuals in other categories as "non-Philosopers". For one to refer to Ayn Rand as a "non-philosopher" compels me to think that her writings are not only different but that they perhaps abandon the conventional paradigms, and thus, philosophy as a whole.
Online Journal

JHBowden
I love you guys!

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

Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1434

Posted 10/25/04 - 06:06 AM:	#83
You guys are making this too complicated. Suppose a self-proclaimed physicist began lambasting Einstein for defending Newton's system of the world and subsequently recommended we accept Heisenberg's theories of general and special relativity. The person wouldn't be pushing "another paradigm," since they would be flat out wrong. The same thing applies with ideas. If a self-proclaimed physicist tells me, "Maxwell's equations show that there are positive and negative masses, which imply that ...." I know that they simply do not understand the Maxwell equations. Now suppose our "physicist," when challenged on his astonishing claims, refused to defend them. In response, he asserted that he claims are true by virtue of his guru saying the claims were true, so other physicists just didn't "like" her. Is this man a physicist? Can we call what he is practicing "physics?" Obviously not. The analogous case holds with Objectivism and philosophy. Objectivism isn't another "paradigm" of philosophy; it relates to philosophy like astrology relates to astronomy.
"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)

Archimedes
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 10/25/04 - 07:32 AM:	#84
I guess I should have been more careful earlier. Philosophy, has MANY subdisciplines. There is no ONE philosophy, as objectivists seem to believe in the posts here. Each subdiscipline DOES have a general paradigm--with smaller skirmishes taking place. A good example of that are the philosophers I work with in Philosophy of Science, Logic, and Epistemology. Almost without exception, they find work in moral (ethical) theory of low quality. But they have more interest in their own work to mess around with moral theory. My point about a paradigmatic shift is that all the problems we have now in moral theory (that remain unsolved), could change by trying some different ideas concerning the basis of morality. Ayn Rand has something attractive to me, in that she wants to base morality on a tautology. If there is an appropriate tautology for which to do this, AND it can be extended into a full fledged theory, that would be very interesting. But until someone in moral theory wants to try it out, or take it on, it won't happen. The easiest way for this to happen is to incorporate it into a well known unsolved problem in moral theory. This forces people to listen. I'm not a moral theorist, so I don't see where or how this will happen. I suppose an "objectivist" could study philosophy and become a moral theorist, and then just develop the theory from the ground up fighting off all comers using sound arguments. If the arguments are sound and they can pin their detractors' arguments to be contradictory, dogmatic, equivical etc. It would be very hard to ignore. I'm not willing to accept Bowden's charge that Rand is simply wrong. Especially since he hasn't read her. It might be the case that Objectivist followers are wrong on philosophy, but that shouldn't affect our belief on Ayn Rand's work. As I stated earlier, Ayn Rand did not help her cause (to be considered as a philosopher), by generalizing against all other philosophers, but she still may have a decent philosophical theory tucked in her work. The question is whether or not the reward for digging is worth the effort. BTW, Jacques Derrida died on friday--cleary a NON-philosopher who unfortunately found interest among some philosophers. If philosphers can find interest in this pathetic chap, I can certianly believe that its possible for philosophers to find interest in Rand. But if her work turns out to be as detrimental to philosophy as Derrida, God help us.

Archimedes
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/25/04 - 09:01 AM:	#85
If you are an objectivist and want the "philosophy" (which more properly should be called an ideology) of Ayn Rand to be taken seriously within philosophy. 1. Don't support the cultish nature that currently exists within objectivism. Accept arguments based on logic not on who makes them, or where they are directed--Ironically this is what Ayn Rand stated, but failed to do in some cases. Don't assume that outsiders are blind to the truth. 2. Be intellectually honest to yourself and to the arguments put to you. If an argument against your position fails on a technical matter (not relevant to the core issue), but could be right if properly argued, examine it seriously (by yourself if you prefer). 2a. If someone makes a bad argument somewhere, don't assume all their arguments are bad. From what I can tell, Rand does this with Hume, and probably Kant as well. 3. Take others seriously until they show themselves to be irrational. This requires proper use of 2. 4. Instead of whining about non-acceptance, find the support for their non-interest in Rand. Then show that such a support is unwarranted. e.g. DHBowden thinks Rand makes serious philosophical errors. You need to demonstrate this to be a) incorrect, or b) inconsequential to her "relevant" work. If you can't do a) or b), you need to seriously consider why you accept what she says. Maybe it just needs some minor modification, or maybe it is unsalvagable. If you are unwilling to accept this as a possibility you suffer from dogmatism, and I think that goes against what Ayn Rand says you should do. 5. Get a good grounding in philosophy. At the very least, read Simon Blackburn's "Think" for an introduction to the issues in philosophy. Read A.C. Grayling's Philosophy 1 and Philosophy 2. Each subdiscipline within philosophy is broken down and the major issues outlined. You don't need to read every section, but you should read the sections on philosophical logic, epistemology, methodology and science, metaphysics, and probably moral theory and aesthetics (since that's where Ayn Rand seems to have something to say). There's a whole section on Kant in Philosophy 2. Go through that thoroughly and decide for yourself whether or not Rand understands him. Each section at the end has additional readings if you find you need more (which you usually do when you take something very seriously). NOTE: Philosophers DO take issues seriously which may be dubious. But you need to make sure they aren't important before you toss them aside; be prepared to ague why they are unimportant. I think there is a lot of brain drain from philosophy because students have to sit through hours and hours of seminars examining dubious issues. 6. Publish work in refereed journals that use Rand's ideas. Academic disciplines discuss what's being published. If articles are published that make use of, or examine those ideas, the discipline will be forced to face them. Further, conferences will begin to have speakers who defend and attack them. If the ideas are good, they will survive the attack. Its very possible that invective may come forward against those ideas. If it can be shown (which is usually easy against an invective argument) that they are not logical or relevant more interest will accrue to your position. 7. Don't stick to a label. You may find that you have to drop the "objectivist" label. I find that the more work you do seriously, the harder it is to find a good label describing what you do. Project your interest regardless of where it leads. For example, my graduate work is in a philosophy department, but my degree will be in mathematical logic. Given where most people find me interesting, I will probably be employed in a psychology or education department. Do I care what I'm called? As long as it isn't disparaging no. I'm interested in my research and its efficacy. Isn't this consistent with at least part of Ayn Rand's ideology? Finally, I may have titled this advice wrong. What is most important is for you AND those you argue with, to discover the best ideology. That could mean dropping objectivism altogether, or modifying it. So your goal shouldn't be to get others to adopt objectivism proper, but to seriously attack current issues from that viewpoint in the hope of morphing it into the best ideology possible. Now, there is the possibility that Objectivism is simply the most perfect ideology possible, but at least be open to the possibility that it isn't. Otherwise you are simply proselytizing. This is no different that being a religion, with Ayn Rand as the almighty arbiter interpreted by the leaders of objectivism Good luck

Rhodus
Intermezzo

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

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 603

Posted 10/25/04 - 11:04 AM:	#86
Good posts, Archimedes. Glad to have you here.

Justus
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 419

Posted 10/25/04 - 11:17 AM:	#87
I never said objectivism wasn't wrong. I'm just curious as to why when someone thinks up a new way of thinking and people absolutely hate it. Of course, if she thought like previous philosophers, she would reach the conclusions that they reached but the fact is SHE DIDN'T think like other philosophers. Does that make her stupid and irrelevant? No, it just makes her different. I'm finding that philosophy can be an erroneous subject to study because there seems to be no truth at all. There's evidence that can support anyone's case and when it comes to something as VAST as the human mind, it's impossible to say what the truth is. This seems to be more of a battle of who can package their beliefs the best. Actually, there's no winning in philosophy. It's just a constant argumentation over the core subconscious beliefs and mechanisms of human beings. Objectivists tend to promote observation and reason, subjectivists promote feelings and perception, mystics promote divine intuition, and skeptics promote complete cynicism. Everyone of these ways of thinking have their own merit and they all have their own version of the truth and it seems impossible that any real truth can be agreed on when you have so many different views about reality. However, stating Objectivism is the same as Astrology is a really low-belt hit. I find it quite inappropriate in the realm of idea exchange.
"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 10/25/04 - 01:41 PM:	#88
Whether philosophy is a error-ridden and/or unvaluable subject is something I may or may not have the answer to. I do know that if someone tells me that John Locke was Chinese, they are making an error of fact. I do know if someone insists without reason that Quine's writing on the foundations of mathematics is causing dictatorship in Burma, we have a right to be skeptical. I do know if someone claims a nominalist defends an ontology of properties and particulars while a realist defends an ontology of particulars alone, they do not understand the subject matter. Whether this person is different or normal, likeable or irritating, has nothing to do with the situation. Now, perhaps Quine's mathematical writings are causing dictatorship in Burma and I am mistaken. But we don't know this simply because someone's ideological guru says it is so. If we are not going to justify our assertions, we are worse than the astrologer that asserts that Boston will win three titles this year (SuperBowl, World Series, White House) because of the way Jupiter's moons are positioned. At least the astrologer provides a justification, albeit a crappy one. Though I am philosophically well-read, I have not read every work by Ms. Rand. If "Objectivists" insist on keeping controversy with me, I recommend they take me up on my offer to read and discuss one of Rand's works together. For the New Intellectual and Philosophy: Who Needs It look relevant for our purposes, since it looks like both philosophical history and ideas are discussed. I'll have to be provided with time to purchase the material, but if you guys really want to get something out of a discussion with me, this is the way to proceed.
"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)

Jason0
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 76

Posted 10/25/04 - 02:25 PM:	#89
peeks head out of trenches to check if coast is clear JHBowden: I'm no Randroid but I'd be happy to do a Critique o' Rand with you. Perhaps someone could suggest one of her works to look at, or one of the books you mentioned could work too. quickly dives back into trenches

nspeds
Nozickean

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 194

Posted 10/25/04 - 04:22 PM:	#90
Archimedes wrote: BTW, Jacques Derrida died on friday--cleary a NON-philosopher who unfortunately found interest among some philosophers. If philosphers can find interest in this pathetic chap, I can certianly believe that its possible for philosophers to find interest in Rand. But if her work turns out to be as detrimental to philosophy as Derrida, God help us. I beg to differ. In fact, I was recently having a discussion about this with my professor to which he concluded that Mr. Derrida was disliked because he posed a threat to analytic philosophy. He considers Mr. Derrida to be a philosopher, nonetheless, and his allowance for difference does not extend to Ayn Rand. There are various degrees of "differences" in certain subjects. For example, I could propose an entirely different ethical theory, but it would still be considered philosophy (though deontologists and teleologists would oppose such a categorization). In the context of Ayn Rand, however, she does not create a "sub-branch" of philosophy nor does she create a "sub-branch" of a "sub-branch", she simply created something entirely different, which should not be conflated into the category of philosphy. That is like my writing a book in Pre-Calculus, categorizing it as "Philosophy", and to anyone who argues that it isn't philosophy, I respond "It is different and that is the predicate of your opposition." I am just trying to clarify on the varying degrees of difference; my claim that Ayn Rand is on an entirely different plane of "difference" was just used to facilitate my argument. Whether the above is true is dependent on the coherency and cogency of JHBowden's post. ND
Online Journal

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.