My idea of hell is being stuck in an elevator with a Randian, a motivational speaker, and an in-your-face atheist--with the PTL Club being piped in over the sound system--and after having had a few big cups of coffee.
But, really, being stuck with the Randian would be punishment enough.
I go to a wedding with my lovely spouse. It's her college friends, so I know no one. I mean to quickly befriend the bartender, as I've spotted a bottle of The Balvenie, 12 years behind the bar. We are seated next to two of her friends, the convo drifts to what I'm studying, I mumble something about philosophy and before I can excuse myself to the bar, my wife's friend says to her husband, "oh, honey, you've been reading philosophy lately! Who's that lady you like so much?" I wince, I know what's coming, but I'm in denial. Inside, I'm saying "Please say de Beauvior, or Addams or Nussbaum." No such luck. "Oh, Ayn Rand! She's just so right about everything." Thank the Maker for The Balvenie, because I was stuck listening to that dreck for 6 hours...and thank you, SteveG, because I've been trying to explain what's wrong with Rand for years to my spouse and never quite got it across, until she read that first paragraph.
What I don't get is:
1. Why can't we push the community to levels of greater excellence? Certainly, if we did level the playing field more (better standards of living, better education, etc.) we would discover more people who are simply talented, dedicated, etc., and fewer people who just got lucky. I'm firmly in the camp of, "The best band in the world is one you've never heard". Why? Because we don't necessarily reward excellence. However, we will always pay for fluff. This seems a far better way to sort out true excellence from having a clever manager or agent. And at the same time, more people would be "good", and I'd be willing to bet even the number of truly excellent would increase. There's in all likelihood a would-be phenomenal mathematician starving right now in Africa. But he or she will be dead before having ever had the opportunity to show that to the world.
2. They're focusing on a very limited definition of excellence. They're focusing on what makes you a profitable person in a given society, and not a good person living in the world. Where were the endorsement deals for Teresa of Calcutta? Where's the air Ghandi? "I only wear Gucci robes, because everything else isn't fit for your Grandmother who will come back as a slug." I'd wear those. An MG on a pair of pants is just as good as a CK.
Of course, I think much of the "heroic" notion in all of this comes from our mythological roots. If you could sow like a biznatch then you were bound to earn the ire of a Goddess, etc. And yeah, you'll get hosed in the end, but boy-howdy-doodie that was some awesome sewing. We want people to be jealous of us, and we're envious of those who earn that jealousy. But for every choice you make there is an opportunity that is now gone. What good is there in being an awesome doctor/lawyer/actor/writer, if you also wind up being a piece-of-shit husband, a lousy father, and an all around asshole in the process?
Not to toot the horn of virtue, but it does seem you aren't developing the "right" sorts of things, and that's why you have to pay people to be around you. And is that really a life worth envying? You are perfectly capable of envying the success, talent, work, etc., but pitying the person. And in such cases, that's precisely what you should do. I praise Hemingway for what he accomplished. I do not envy being an alcoholic jerk.
Excellent post, Steve.
Although I must confess, I've never found anything "insightful, interesting, and funny" in Nietzsche.
Hear, hear!
Nicely put about the relationship between Nietzsche and Rand. One fundamentally insightful thing about Nietzsche that the egotists never get (and that is absent from Rand entirely) is that the Overman a) is not human (humanity must be overcome, leaped over, etc. for the Overman to emerge), and b) due to eternal recurrance, will not come. Anyone who thinks he is the overman because he's at the top of the corporate ladder hasn't got a clue.
Excellent post.
Ohmygod I have never heard it said better. Kudos. If I thought you had a spiritual streak I'd say "PREACH!"
But instead I will just note this post and forward it to any Randian I meet, forever. Please never take it down. Ever.
I share the dread. Can't think of a worse fate for a plane ride or wedding bar sesion. You know, there seems to be far fewer campus Ayn Rand clubs than in my undergrad days. So that's good. I must say, though, that watching the bio-documentary film "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life" made me decide she was an interesting person. It didn't change my mind about her philosophy, just made her seem a more interesting person.
I do want to help poor Aristotle out a bit. Steve mentioned that Rand's philosophy, particularly her idolizing of the "great man" was reminiscent of Aristotle. In workin out this observation he pointed out that the great people, in Aristotle's system, are those that come closest to realizing the form of the species.
While that is fair, there is an equivocation here vis-a-vis the comparison to Rand. For Aristotle the telos for humans is virtue, and his account of virtue seems to include the very kind of moderation and balance that Steve talks about in his post. So "great" for Aristotle doesn't mean the overacheiving, groundbreaking geniuses and billionaires that Rand is talking about.
[ok, sure, Aristotle does, following his predecessor Plato, rank the intellectual above everyone else, so he's not free of his elitist tendencies to be sure].
Nietzsche had a better mustache, too.
I had a more detailed analysis planned, but the comments box wasn't working earlier, and now I'm too tired.
"jack of all trades, master of none," and conclude that the masters don't know jack.
But they encourage him to climb the bean stock.
Nell B. Byers writes that Jack is "a fellow who makes what would not be thought of as a prudent investment; who is not above trickery in outwitting the giant's wife; who steals the giant's treasures; and who, having killed the giant, lives with his mother happily ever afterward in affluence"
William Mayne claims that Jack "went up to another land where he had no right to be, and set out to steal things from the giant, or ogre"
Maybe we need a tale about the Jack who remained grounded.
Very much enjoyed that and quite agree, although I more commonly get "Oh I'm a bit of a philosopher too" And then insert a couple of hours of rambling on about reasonably incoherent gibberish like spirituality of some kind or another.
Hi Steve, I've never read Rand, though I have had the misfortune of arguing with a couple of her followers, so I'm sympathetic to your criticisms.
Still, I'm not so sympathetic with your broader attack on the perfectionist values. Call me crazy, but I really would prefer lopsided greatness to generalized competence. (I think that excellence has 'increasing marginal utility', in this sense.) I don't see any justification for calling my values here "irrational". Quite the opposite, in fact: we all recognize the remarkable value of the lives of Beethoven, Gandhi, etc. The perfectionist can account for this most easily. Anti-perfectionists, on the other hand, need to tell some complicated story about how it's only particular aspects of their lives that we should approve of, and that their lives as a whole were most lamentable. This seems implausible on the face of it, and the extra epicycles are surely a rational cost for the theory.
I don't see that any of this has any necessary connection with Randian egoism, though. If excellence is objectively valuable, then we should also seek to nourish it in others -- and that means helping out C. Ewing's "would-be phenomenal mathematician starving right now in Africa." (The difference is that I'd encourage our hypothetical genius to focus on developing her mathematical talent, rather than just becoming a comfortable middle-class mom.)
I'd like to see you debunk the philosophy by actually addressing the axioms of Objectivism. I have yet to see a logical deconstruction of Objectivism. It's always the same old cliche attacks that really don't convince me one way or the other.
Steve,
I'm kind of a philosopher myself (Ph.D. 2007 from a major program), and I happen to like Ayn Rand very much. I don't think it's because it rationalizes my place in society. As an adjunct professor who makes less than $20,000 a year, there's not much of a position to rationalize. It's also not one that is conducive to my believing that I'm a superior human specimen, even though yes, I do manage to get laid.
One of the things I learned in my education as a "kind of philosopher" is that I shouldn't make serious comments about philosophers I haven't read. I especially shouldn't speculate about the psychology of people who like to read those philosophers. Yet your post provides no evidence of ever having read (much) Ayn Rand, save perhaps for secondary commentary. If you had, you'd realize that she does not object to caring for others.
What she does object to is people who regard sacrifice to others as a kind of moral virtue. And she thinks that nobody should ever sacrifice, whether they are specimens of human excellence or not. Even the meekest adjunct professor has a right to pursue his happiness, and shouldn't sacrifice it, even to those above him with tenure. Mutatis mutandis for the meekest plumbers, whom Ayn Rand thought were usually of greater productive virtue than most tenured professors. See the character of Eddie Willers in Atlas Shrugged (which I'm positive you haven't read).
-Kind of a Philosopher
Dear Anonymous,
You refer to the axioms of Objectivism and ask that detractors of Ms. Rand present logical attacks against her. In truth however, there is nothing to attack, and ridicule seems much more fitting. Perhaps had Ms. Rand ever bothered to construct arguments, present axioms, or really do anything of rigor, her detractors would have a better chance of fulfilling your request.
It is striking how attractive one can make an absurdities seem when one writes fiction. And yes, I know Ms. Rand dribbled out some "essays", but it strikes me that brilliant people have ridiculed them enough. And I shall withhold.
Appeals to anonymous authorities notwithstanding, where was that logical deconstruction again?
My post in reply to yours:
Steve Gimbel is a philosopher at Gettysburg College who says that he is "just a bleeding heart, mediocre philosopher who will never achieve greatness". And I am willing to take his word for it. Not content with just being a "mediocre philosopher," Gimbel decides to write up a post that not only attempts to justify his mediocrity but also launch an attack on human excellence itself--in his post titled "Is Human Excellence a Mark of Mental Illness."
Of course, in order to spew his caustic verbiage, he quite appropriately chose as his target the perfect exemplar and champion of human excellence--Ayn Rand.
His caricature of Rand says that her celebration of egoism is most attractive to "upper-middle class white male[s] of above average means and intelligence," because it allows them to stroke their own ego and provide a rationalization for not being an empathetic individual. I'll let this uneducated absurdity pass without comment since it does not apply to an Indian like myself.
His attack on Ayn Rand's conception of the ethic of rational egoism boils down to this inanity attributed to Objectivists:
Accoring to Gimbel, an Objectivist believes that "caring about others is actually going to harm others. If only I think about nothing but myself, I'm doing the best for everyone else because the rest will become better. My selfishness is the tide that raises all boats, so it would be immoral of me to be moral. Hence, I can relax and be a jerk who never helps anyone because only jerks never help anyone truly help anyone." [bold mine]
First, an Objectivist is not "selfish" because he believes it is the best way of "doing the best [for] everyone else because the rest will become better."
An Objectivist does not justify the ethic of self-interest on the grounds that it is good for everyone else. That is altruism worded differently!
An Objectivist identifies self-interest as the only moral and ethical code proper to *free* men, i.e., men free from obligations to another that is not accepted voluntarily. An Objectivist holds that human beings are not sacrificial animals, that no one must be forced or obligated to sacrifice their own values and happiness for another, that each man has the right to be free, pursue values and happiness, and determine his own goals and the means to achieving them. This involves trade to mutual benefit but never the sacrifice of one for the benefit of another.
Second, note how the mediocre philosopher commits a fallacy that Rand termed as the "fallacy of the frozen abstraction." The fallacy is in substituting a particular concrete or concept in the place of a wider class to which it belongs.
Gimbel says that an Objectivist who embraces rational self-interest does so as a justification for "not being an empathetic individual." Further, Gimbel asserts that an Objectivist believes that it would be "immoral" of him to help anyone and therefore decides to
Further, Gimbel asserts that an Objectivist believes that it would be "immoral" of him to help anyone and therefore decides to be "a jerk who never helps anyone."
The frozen abstractions here is the concept of altruism; the only kind of act that Gimbel considers "moral" is the altruistic type of action. In other words, altruism is substituted for morality when in fact altruism is only one type of moral code just as egoism is a type of moral code.
In Gimbel's view, to "help anyone" must necessarily be moral and therefore an Objectivist--by apparently choosing not to help anyone--is necessarily being immoral. Since an Objectivist rejects altruistic actions, he must therefore be "a jerk." Thus, according to Gimbel, to be "empathetic" is to be altruistic and anti-self-interest, to "help anyone" is to be moral, to be an Objectivist is to be "a jerk."
The only kind of action offered as moral, i.e., empathy and helping behavior, is regarded as being exclusively under the domain of altruism. In other words, in Gimbel's mediocre mind, the notion of a rational egoist being empathetic and helping someone whom he values is an impossibility, a contradiction of ethical codes.
After his wildly off-target attack on rational egoism, Gimbel turns his attention to attacking human excellence in general, partly in an attempt to justify his own mediocrity and partly because Objectivism--as Rand described it--is a philosophy dedicated to the glory and celebration of man.
Gimbel questions "whether it actually is true that excellent people are, in fact, better people." Then, he answers himself by stating "that those who achieve excellence are the last ones we would want to serve as models of lives well-lived." He justification for this view is to point out the many examples of famous athletes, scholars, businessmen, and political leaders who are pathetic spouses, parents, or teachers.
He argues that excellence requires a focused dedication on some one aspect of life at a very costly expense of other areas of one's life; that is, to be a great athlete is to be a negligent parent, to be a superbly successful entrepreneur/businessman is to be derelict in your other roles as a human being, etc.
Therefore, he says, "Excellence in one area seems to have deleterious effects in others, meaning that this naive picture of human excellence that the Randians hold is worrisome."
This is his defense for (his own) mediocrity--that he'd rather be a jack of all trades and the master of none. However, in the same breath, he also says that he is glad that there are people who pursue great levels of excellence: He is glad that there are "doctors who work all night and day to develop life-saving measures, civil rights activists who gave their bodies and lives in leading the charge for equality, artists who suffered to create great beauty." But, he is also glad that he is not one of them.
In Randian terms, Gimbel is glad that there a
In Randian terms, Gimbel is glad that there are Prime Movers, Atlases, the men of superior ability and excellence who drive the world; but, he contends that their drive is "pathological," "irrational," and a "mental illness." Despite that, the pathology of these great Atlases does not deter Gimbel from coming along for the ride; he is very content at resting on Atlas' shoulders and hoping they don't shrug.
The false dichotomy that Gimbel serves up is this: either one achieves excellence in one area and is pathetic in practically every other area of life, or he is simply mildly competent at everything, and therefore, more rational.
First, it should be obvious that these two alternatives are not exhaustive in any sense. Excellence is one area of life does not automatically translate into a failure in every other; excellence is no area of life does not automatically translate into mild competence in every field.
Second, the Randian notion of excellence and perfection is primarily not material, physical, or existential, but primarily moral--excellence in moral virtue. Rand did not regard superior athletes, uber-rich businessmen, great geniuses of science as de facto exemplars of her notion of heroism and excellence by virtue of their physical and material accomplishments.
As an example, in Atlas Shrugged, Robert Stadler is presented as a man of great scientific genius and superior intelligence; yet, he is a vilified character who represents the worst kind of immorality (as a betrayer of values--anti-life) and is despised by the novel's heroes.
Noumenal Self gives another example of what the Objectivist notion of moral excellence implies. In his comment to Gimbel's post, Noumenal Self states:
"Even the meekest adjunct professor has a right to pursue his happiness, and shouldn’t sacrifice it, even to those above him with tenure. Mutatis mutandis for the meekest plumbers, whom Ayn Rand thought were usually of greater productive virtue than most tenured professors. See the character of Eddie Willers in Atlas Shrugged."
In sum, Gimbel tries very hard to justify his own mediocrity by launching an attack at human excellence in general and the excellence exemplified and defined by Ayn Rand. However, in an inescapable irony, his own self-confessed mediocrity and defense of it becomes his argument's greatest weakness.
Omg... It's happening... I'm in the elevator with Randians...
For some reason I used to possess a copy of "Objectivist Epistemology." One time during grad school a friend and I decided to read it. Near the opening, after some pretty silly history of philosophy, she stated that some propositions are basic and can only be shown ostensively. Case in point: "existence exists." What did she mean by existence? She instructed the reader to wave his hands about the room, indicating what existence was. So now, whenever I need to explain the concept of existence, I wave my arms about, and the matter becomes transparently clear.
Dear Curious,
You seemed to have missed my point. I'm not entirely sure what a "logical deconstruction" is. But the point of my post what that to mount a successful critique there must be an argument that one is critiquing. And Ms. Rand never supplied anything worthy of the name. Again, fiction is not philosophy.
In lieu of mentioning all of Ms. Rand's critics I will menion just one: Nozick. I mention him because I find it telling that even a pro-capitalist libertarian would attack her.
To Ergo,
I didn't finish reading your post. I quickly became lost either in the "deep philosophy" or in the dogmatism, I'm not sure which. But one thing you said absolutley cannot pass without comment: the fallacy of the frozen abstraction.
Such a thing is not original to Ms. Rand. Veterans of introduction to logic would recognize this as an invalid argument from analogy. Why Ms. Rand would choose to give a very basic concept such a ridiculous name "the fallacy of the frozen abstraction" is what is at issue. Seriously, the fallacy of the frozen abstraction? That is like something out of Lord of the Rings.
My suggestion, of course, is that Ms. Rand was never really in control of her language or her argumentation. Further, that giving grandiose names to basic concepts is a way of covering up philosophical inferiority.
I think you should get your "fallacies" straight. The fallacy of an invalid analogy (also known as the fallacy of a weak analogy) refers to an analogy presented that is not strong enough to support the derived conclusion. Being an analogy, it necessarily implies an argument from the similarities between two things.
The fallacy of the frozen abstraction refers not to a weak argument from similarity but to an entirely conflated *substitution* of a particular concrete or concept in the place of the wider abstraction to which it belongs.
The fallacy in the post is identified explicitly in my comment. I shall not comment any further here; so, I'll let you have the last word.
From Kind of: "What she does object to is people who regard sacrifice to others as a kind of moral virtue. And she thinks that nobody should ever sacrifice, whether they are specimens of human excellence or not. Even the meekest adjunct professor has a right to pursue his happiness, and shouldn't sacrifice it, even to those above him with tenure."
Is sacrifice then immoral? Or is it merely undesirable? Also, what if you are as Kant would say (I'm paraphrasing here) a person of such a nature as to be inclined to sacrifice, to follow the moral imperative without need for argument, convincing, etc.? What if you are, by your very nature, saintly? There seems no necessary connection between sacrifice and giving up one's happiness. Some people get more joy from sacrificing for the good of their child than they do from their own pleasures. Christmas comes to mind, at least in Hanno's appreciation of it.
And, indeed, we do often see sacrifice as respectable, even admirable. There are people who sacrifice for freedom, doctors who sacrifice a more profitable practice in order to aid those who would not otherwise receive aid, and people who take low paying professorships because they think the education of their students is more important than their bank account. Hume seems to have a valid point here. To ask, "But what is that to me?" steals all value from this. Self-interest, if it be enlightened or otherwise, does seem to take away any respectability, and disable us from looking at such an action as respectable.
Which brings me up to my final question. Bentham seems right. One can only count for one. So how do you count for more than one? In short: why is your happiness more important than anyone else's? It doesn't seem like it can be the case.
Quite. Is self-interest always short for financial self-interest? If not, how does one then define it? In a (very, very, very wide, admittedly) sense every act is one of self-interest, which rather sucks the meaning out of it as used by Randians/Libertarians/Objectionables. If I want to self-sacrifice, is it still self-sacrifice?
Also, I can very much imagine a Rand-reading businessman being interrupted from a passage on treating people as Ends and not Means to take a call from Human Resources.
Possibly related, certainly funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y...h?
v=yNKoH84ioz0
David:
Perhaps, to steal from Kant, it is more along the lines of "merely" being self-interested. That is,if the ultimate determinate of whether or not you perform an action is entirely dependent on whether or not you get something out of it. Thus, if the impetus to act stems from, "But what is that to me?", and nothing could otherwise convince you to act. In short: be honest with your maxim. If the enjoyment or personal interest is merely coincidental, then that would seem to be perfectly permissible, and from a virtue standpoint, even desirable. Indeed, even Hume wants you to get a kick out of it.
Did that make sense? The problem is that we are far more complex beings than anyone really wants to deal with on theoretical terms, because our complexity always winds up complicating the issue.
C. Ewing, we need to get clear on what "sacrifice" means. It cannot mean simply giving up one thing for another thing. If I pay $2 to buy a loaf of bread to make lunch, have I "sacrificed" that $2? Obviously no, if the concept is to have any meaning. The bread was more valuable to me than the $2. Otherwise I wouldn't have bought it.
Giving up a lower value for a higher value is called a *gain*. 'Sacrifice' is giving up a higher value and receiving a lower (or no) value in return.
Giving up a 'comfortable' life to fight for freedom in the face of a dictatorship is not (necessarily) a sacrifice. Political freedom is a high value, one that is necessary to pursuing and achieving a great many other values.
My baby daughter brings a lot of joy to my life; she is a high value to me. If I go hungry to be able to feed her, is that a 'sacrifice'? No. If I go hungry in order to feed some unknown baby in a faraway country, is that a sacrifice? Yes.
David, it is not the case that whatever one 'wants' to do is ipso facto in one's self-interest. Psychological egoism is nonsense. A great many people 'want' to do many very self-destructive things. They frequently sacrifice health, safety and longevity for momentary pleasures (real or imagined). Rand's definition of self-interest is based on what is objectively valuable to a person's life -- which includes art, human relationships, and a great many other things besides wealth.
By the way, Steve Gimbel, I'm "kind of" a philosopher myself, B.A. and M.A. philosophy from a top Canadian University. Of course, now I'm just an "upper-middle class white male of above average means and intelligence."
What I can't stand is sitting next to sneering self-important philosophy professors on airplanes. The kind that likes to pretentiously pontificate at length on a thinker they've never really read. It's an embarrassing spectacle.
jcasey, you *do* understand that the essence of "ostensive definition" does in fact involve 'waving one's arms' -- don't you? (If not, I could, umm, 'point' you to a philosophical dictionary if you'd like.)
Warning: Long
Rand's definition of self-interest is based on what is objectively valuable to a person's life -- which includes art, human relationships, and a great many other things besides wealth.
Define objectively valuable. Especially seeing as how art and relationships tend to be far more subjective in our valuations of them. Indeed, wealth seems to be one thing clearly objective in its value, because we can actually put a number to it.
The value you have for your child does not seem objective at all. You cannot argue for why you love your child and place such great value on her. Many parents give up their children or put their own interests above their child's. What sort of argument are you going to construct to convince them to do otherwise? I would honestly like to read that if you have it on hand.
Art, while many people will try to evaluate it objectively in terms of if it was done "well" or if it was "good", do not necessarily place their own value upon it via these criteria. We are far more prone to collect art, read literature, watch movies, etc., which we enjoy. What we "like" is what we then truly value, and I can ramble on about Kevin Smith all day long, but if you don't like his work, even if I can teach you to appreciate it on an objective basis, it will not necessarily make you like it. So you may well never watch Chasing Amy again, nor purchase it.
it is not the case that whatever one 'wants' to do is ipso facto in one's self-interest. Psychological egoism is nonsense.
Then what form of egoism are you wanting to discuss? Also, when one speaks of "self-interest" this is precisely what many people will mean. They are doing something simply because the "self" has an "interest" in said endeavor. If you want to go with a different definition, then you should clarify it. So, yes, ipso facto, it is the case. Eo ipso (of wanting) it becomes self-interest.
Apparently, using Latin phrases makes for a better argument. Thanks for the heads up on that one.
'Sacrifice' is giving up a higher value and receiving a lower (or no) value in return.
But this does not seem to always suit the cases in which we use the word. A person may give up their life for a cause, thinking the cause was far more valuable than their own life, but we still call it a sacrifice. Parents sacrifice many things, which would make them personally happier right now, in order to hopefully benefit the child, even if it is a gamble on what will eventually work out in the child's best interest at some point in the future.
Your definition is useful in some cases, but does not cover all instances in which we use the word. If I sacrifice going out with the boys because I think it will be better for my relationship, I may well be valuing my relationship more than a night of drinking beer, but people may still say I made a (small) sacrifice for the relationship.
Perhaps, when
C Ewing, you ask some fair questions. Rather than expend thousands of words rehashing in a comments section what already exists in published form, I would point you to "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff for a comprehensive treatment of her philosophy, and "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: the Virtuous Egoist" by Tara Smith, recently published by Cambridge University Press. If you ever go to annual east coast APA get-together, you might also want to check out the Ayn Rand Society meetings.
As a 'teaser' re Smith's book, consider this excerpt of a review from Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews: "Those who think of Ayn Rand as the icon of callow youths rather than a serious moral philosopher are unlikely to recognize the Rand whom Smith presents to us. Drawing on Rand's novels, lectures, essays, and letters, Smith shows that her ethical theory is a form of naturalistic eudaimonism, which shares some features with the Aristotelian virtue ethics of Hursthouse and Foot, but differs from them in its unapologetic ethical egoism. This egoism is, however, as Smith argues, non-predatory and can accommodate helping others, genuine friendship, and even in certain circumstances risking one's life for another."
Of course, no one is under any obligation to read anything about Rand; but then they should also remain silent about her. Those who, like Steve Gimbel, choose to comment at length about Rand while knowing nothing about her actual ideas only display their igorance, and open themselves up to a charge of professional malpractice.
C.Ewing, obviously I cannot sketch out and properly defend all of Rand's ethics in a comments section, but let me at least indicate to you some of Rand's actual views regarding the questions you raise.
Regarding Rand's definition of "objective value", Rand reconceptualizes value theory according to the following trichotomy: intrinsic (existing in reality apart from a mind), subjective (existing in a mind independent from reality), and objective. This latter denotes a specific relationship between a mind and reality, one in which a mental construct is formed, based on, and tied to reality. For more details on the precise nature of this relationship according to Rand's theory, you'd have to see her theory of concepts(and in fact, Rand's ethical theory is tightly connected to her epistemology).
Yes, I'm fully aware that what Rand calls "intrinsic", mainstream philosophers call "objective". She had to recategorize and reconceptualized the field to make room for her theory. Yes, I'm fully aware I've only provided the barest sketchiest outlines of her position, but that's all I can (and am willing to) do in a comments section.
Objective values are values that promote the life, survival, and flourishing of man -- as recognized and grasped by the mind of an individual man. Rand does not mean bare physical survival. The vast bulk of her ethics is aimed at what
(contd.) The vast bulk of her ethics is aimed at what's needed to preserve/protect/promote man's conceptual faculty.
Within broad categories of objective value, Rand holds that many concrete values are *optional*. Being involved in productive work is an objective value, objectively necessary to preserving a man's life. But it is entirely optional whether a given man likes medicine more than business, or teaching more than selling. The operative principle is the 'some but any' principle, i.e. it's an objective value to have some productive career -- but it can be any productive career. (And you might be interested to know that in Rand's view, the value derived from a career is largely mental/psychological; the material side is only one part of it. And 'maximizing financial income' is not part of it.)
This applies to art as well. Rand holds that art is absolutely essential for human survival, because of the role it plays in nurturing and preserving the conceptual faculty (see her book "The Romantic Manifesto" for details). Within certain broad parameters, however, which particular art-works I like and which you like is entirely optional.
Re children, unfortunately I'm not aware of any comprehensive treatment of the topic that I could point you to, but having or not having children is morally optional in Rand's ethics. Children can be a great source of joy (and there are objective psychological reasons for this), but that doesn't mean that it's necessary for everyone to seek to have them. Others may find they get more enjoyment from a career which precludes them from having children.
Re psychological egoism, it's true that all deliberate human actions are *motivated*, but the key ethical question is: what is the nature of that motivation? Egoistic or altruistic? To say that whatever I choose is beneficial to my life and survival simply *because* I chose it, is false.
Re 'sacrifice', yes, it's true that a great many people use many concepts in many contradictory and incoherent ways. That's why it's important for philosophy to clarify and define concepts properly. (Yes, Rand puts a high premium on doing just that; no, she has nothing in common with linguistic analysts.) If you're going to start using 'sacrifice' to refer to cases where you give up a lesser value to achiever a higher value, where does it end? Why then can I not say that buying a loaf of bread means 'sacrificing' $2? Then every human action becomes a 'sacrifice', since one is always foregoing something, and the term 'sacrifice' loses any real meaning.
Hi Steve, I've never read Rand, though I have had the misfortune of arguing with a couple of her followers, so I'm sympathetic to your criticisms.
With all due respect to Ergo, this is about the most exhaustive summation of the anti-Randian position I've seen in a long time.
Steve,
Before you post these diatribes, and smear philosophers you know little or nothing about, why don't you actually read their work?
There is plenty of non-fiction on Rand's philosophy.
I highly recommend the following books to anyone interested in knowing what Rand's philosophy *actually* is:
Allan Gotthelf. On Ayn Rand.
(An excellent primer on Objectivism by a world-class Aristotle scholar).
Tara Smith. Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality.
(A work on Ayn Rand's value theory by a Professor at the University of Texas at Austin).
Tara Smith. Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist.
(A work on Ayn Rand's system of ethics).
Leonard Peikoff. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
(A systematic presentation of her entire philosophy).
You should at least have the decency to know what Rand's positions really are, rather than attacking a caricature. And if you still do not agree, you should have the honesty to offer real arguments, not just snide ad hominem attacks.
Hi Seerak, I've never read L. Ron Hubbard, though I have had the misfortune of arguing with a couple of his followers.
You follow what I'm saying? Like Justice Potter said about hardcore porn, hardcore crazy is hard to define, but "I know it when I see it." Plus I have also had the misfortune of having read a little Rand. With Rand, a little goes a looooong way.
Just a grotesque and disheartening appeal to mediocraty. Quite pathetic,I'm afraid.
You know, I hate to do this because grammar flame wars are beneath me; however, if you want to decry mediocrity, do have the good sense to SPELL IT CORRECTLY.
The goal of Objectivism is to apply the philosophy to all aspects of one's life; to pursue and achieve excellence on ALL levels, not to excel in one facet of life at the expense of the rest. It's about integrating one's mind and body, and living one's life to the best of one's ability, no matter what level that ability may be. It provides tools of cognition that help one to order the mind and understand the context and hierarchy of knowledge, the purpose of emotions, and the best way to achieve happiness and success in life, based on the requirements of reality and the nature of a human being.
It is s benevolent philosophy that teaches that one's happiness is not achieved at the expense of the happiness of another person. A value taken at the expense of another is not a value at all. In fact the initiation of force against another is the greatest crime in Objectivism. Rather, it is the trading of values between rational men that benefits all men, and each individual is free to choose his own values and live by them to the extent that this pursuit does not harm another individual.
We'll have a good culture when philosophy depts have replaced professional frauds and incompetents like Gimbel with Objectivists. Despite four years in a philosophy dept and continued contact with its newer profs, Ive yet to hear a technically competent reading of Rand. Gimbel is a nihilist soul-mate to the morally subhuman guards in the Nazi death camps. I have only moral contempt for the suffering his rejection of selfishness has caused him.
For those whose minds are active: Rand explicitly advocated morality as a guide to one's life as a whole. She frequently ridiculed the Pragmatist concern with parts out-of-context of a whole. Her selfishness is a "new theory of egoism," invalidating all attempts to imply she's merely restated a traditional theory. Comparing Rand to Nietzsche and Social Darwinism is a definition by non-essentials.
Rand's theory and practice of reasoning has no important similarity to the intellectual chaos of contemporary, mainstream philosophy. Its the difference between Newton's concrete-based, hierarchical induction of the Laws of Motion vs. the arbitrariness of String Theory, between Newton's "I will frame no [arbitrary] hypotheses" and Einstein's science as "free creations of the mind."
You can slip down the Postmodernist rabbit hole but, as 60s bluesrocker extraordinaire, Johnny Winter, sang it, "Reality's sneakin' up on you. It's gonna get you wherever you go."
When I point out something to my cat, he looks at my finger, much like those who reject ostensive definitiions of axiomatic concepts for a miasma of floating abstractions. Speaking of mental illness, psychiatrist Louis Sass, in _Madness And Modernism_, blames the increase in schizophrenia to Kant's "rational" subjectivism in which the concrete universe fades in importance. This certainly explains the Existentialist prof who told me that he'd like to kill "someone, anyone."
This has been a Philosophical/Cultural Update.
Gimbel is a nihilist soul-mate to the morally subhuman guards in the Nazi death camps.
I'm sorry, but that is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time!
nihilist soulmate to subhuman nazi guards. wow. just because he's not a randian? but the best part, Steve, is that you're also a postmodernist. take that!! 
Would "nihilist soulmate" be considered an oxymoron?
I love Ayn Rand and admire her ideas, so it pains me to see Steve Gimbell's opinion of "randians" vindicated by insufferable trolls and dilletantes (with the exception of "kind of a philosopher"). I wouldn't want to be stuck on a plane with most of these folks, either.
Gimbel is a nihilist soul-mate to the morally subhuman guards in the Nazi death camps.
Ummm...I hereby accuse Steve Gimbell of posing as a randian on his own website. Your caricature lacks subtlety, sir.
"I hereby accuse Steve Gimbell of posing as a randian on his own website."
Such an accusation would carry more weight if Gimbel was not on vacation!
Rather, it is the trading of values between rational men that benefits all men, and each individual is free to choose his own values and live by them to the extent that this pursuit does not harm another individual.
So, it's sort of Millian?
It provides tools of cognition
What are these tools?
With Rand, a little goes a looooong way.
So, Rand is like antibiotic ointment? Just a dab is enough?
that help one to order the mind and understand the context and hierarchy of knowledge, the purpose of emotions, and the best way to achieve happiness and success in life, based on the requirements of reality and the nature of a human being.
That sounds eerily like the Dharma.
to pursue and achieve excellence on ALL levels, not to excel in one facet of life at the expense of the rest. It's about integrating one's mind and body, and living one's life to the best of one's ability, no matter what level that ability may be.
That sounds very Greek to me for some reason.
This is the difficulty I'm having with our Randians here. Your vague poetical flourishes, no matter how impassioned, really do nothing to benefit our understanding. The references are helpful, but you really can just leave it at that. Those who want to pursue this are then free to do so, and those who don't are perfectly content to let this die. As such, this thread no longer serves a purpose, save perhaps to amuse Hanno. But so many things amuse Hanno, one more is really superfluous.
It seems that identifying Nazi deathcamp guards as nihilists has struck a chord among some posters.
Yes, consistent nihilists can't have soulmates. They're dead (or watching a sleazily evasive, C-SPAN2 discussion with Mailer and Grass).
One nihilist here evades references to technical concepts by claiming that Objectivism has merely vague poetical flourishes. One cannot argue with nihilists because they merely seek a grave. One can only identify their rationalizations of evasion and provide a rational alternative to those who value their own lives.
"One cannot argue with nihilists because they merely seek a grave."
First, what species of nihilist are we speaking of? Nietzschean nihilism? Existential nihilism? Antifoundationalism?
In the first case, the nihilist does not seek a grave, but seeks to live according to a certain style, to create oneself as apart from the several contingencies that form us as Man. The Nietzschean nihilist seeks to destroy; she seeks the death of Man. Nietzschean nihilism rejects any foundation for values and meaning, but it does not "seek a grave."
Existential nihilism sees existence as a condemnation; we must exist, we cannot choose it. It is a wholesale rejection of any teleological explanation of the world in which we live. Our existence becomes unbearable because we discover that the world, with its values and foundations, its manifold systems of meaning, is pointless and empty. Though this recognition frees us from those contingencies, we are, as Sartre intoned, condemned to be free. It might seem at this point, that we begin to seek the grave, as you say. Not so, according to Camus, who says life is its own reason for living. Camus, however, does worry about nihilism and argues that a collapse into it leads to horrifying ends. However, we are still not "seeking a grave."
Antifoundationalism simply says that as Nietzschean nihilism forces us to a crisis by removing the grounds for, well, everything, the way that we overcome our contingencies is to recognize them as what they are: constructs, tools that we create to negotiate our way through the world. Rorty wrote extensively on this topic in "Contingency. Irony, and Solidarity," advocating a style of living he called "strong poetry," but which is really just a sort of ho-hum nihilism. Leave to we Americans to take something generations of philosophers have struggled with and make it banal. Yet, there is still no seeking of the grave.
Nihilism need not seek a grave, but it may well result in many others finding theirs.
pm asks about the type of nihilism. Balderdash! Humbug! Foolery! What is the meaning of is? This is the empiricist complexity-worship identified by Rand, a rationalization of evading principles via an exclusive focus upon concretes. I listened to four years of philosophy profs use that same method in a deliberate, systematic, conscious attempt to dis-integrate the minds of their students. Using Rand's philosophy and its stress upon the methods of conceptualizing, I kept my mind laser-focused upon their principles.
Nihilism, in principle, is the hatred of values and reason. The fact that some advocates may not have been consistent is irrelevant. Nihilism is the worship of death. Look at icons of modern "art" like The Scream, Urinal, and Bergman's movies. The Nazi death camps are the necessary end of nihilism. The culture of 1920s and 1930s Germany is our, American , culture now. The same ideas are taught in our schools, regardless of differences in style. Kant, Hegel, Freud, subjectivism, moral relativism, skepticism, etc. The nihilists must be driven from their cultural leadership with a rational alternative.
BTW, the rise of religion is the conventional response to nihilism. People need a rational, third alternative. See: Atlas Shrugged.
Hmmm... and yet, SteveG does not worship death, does not hate value, and does not hate reason. And neither does c.ewing.
That would make them... let me see... using my reasoning, here...not nihilists.
Actually, the notion of hating value is inconsistent, as hate implies value. So lets be more consistent: nihilism is the belief in the absence of value, to which people respond in different ways, but I doubt any such response can be consistent. In fact, I doubt that there are any true nihilists. No, alas, it is not the hatred of reason and value that leads to concentration camps. It is twisted reason and twisted value.
"a rationalization of evading principles via an exclusive focus upon concretes"
In other words, calling Randians on their bullshit via factual claims.
One more thing:
"Kant, Hegel, Freud, subjectivism, moral relativism, skepticism, etc"
Nothing in this rambling, incoherent list resembles any system of thought that, one, could cohere, and two, would represent anything close to nihilism.
Now, as bad as some 'followers' of Rand are, let us not all go tar them all with the idiocy of of Herr Grossman. Somethings are so stupid, they are unique. Like a movie so bad, it becomes amusing, let us merely be amused, and let this thread die a natural death.
Oh wait! There I go worshipping death!
True. Perhaps the overgeneralization was a bit much. I suppose their viewpoint deserves as much consideration as any other.
One nihilist here evades references to technical concepts by claiming that Objectivism has merely vague poetical flourishes.
I honestly can't tell if I should be amused by Stephen Grossman is simply being funny or if there is some sincerity in his posts. The following assumes adamant sincerity, and should only be read in that context:
I have never claimed, nor would I ever claim to be a nihilist. I have not put forth anything here that could be construed as nihilism by any person adequately versed in the English language.
"Your vague poetical flourishes" (personal quote) obviously refers to "your" (the poster's or posters', this is a possessive pronoun after all) "vague poetical flourishes", and as such makes no comment upon Rand or her work in any form or fashion. Additionally, I've never evaded anything. I've asked for clarification on occasion, but have never evaded.
Hanno:
One of the rare occasions when we totally concur.
Like a movie so bad, it becomes amusing
There is a word we elitist types use for this: awesome. It is actually the second definition of "awesome". It also applies to AC/DC, as well as much of B-Horror.
C. Ewing claims Rand's philosophy of Objectivism "sounds eerily like the Dharma."
If you drop a lot of contexts. Memorizing out-of-context claims is destructive to the mind's contact w/reality.
Stephen Grossman:
If you drop a lot of contexts.
I'm not aware of Rand's paradigm so I'm not privy to said contexts. I can only use what is presented. I'm human like that.
Memorizing out-of-context claims is destructive to the mind's contact w/reality.
Are you claiming I've memorized an out-of-context claim or are you forewarning me so that I don't make that mistake in the future? Also, I could use the word "dharma" to adequately describe what was being stated, so I'm only being inaccurate within a given context. If I were being a smartass I'd ask you to define reality and show that my mind has contact with it, but I'm not in a particularly smartass mood right now. Besides, it wouldn't be Right Speech.
C. Ewing claims Rand's philosophy of Objectivism "sounds eerily like the Dharma."
C. Ewing's claim was in regards to a particular statement within a particular post, and not in regards to Rand's Objectivism. You really should read the post before commenting on it, and not take it out-of-context. That was a genuine statement, and not intended to be a slight or witty. It really is counterproductive to do so.
I'm telling you guys...if we could just get rid of the Body Thetans clinging to our bodies, we'd be clear of spirit and mind and thus able to understand the wisdom of Rand. And Cruise.
I think SteveG is Xenu in disguise!
Disclaimer: I do NOT believe SteveG is an ancient evil alien, nor do I believe Randians are Scientologists. I wouldn't insult Scientologists like that. Raelians, maybe.
Hanno says hate implies value but should study Kant's moral nihilism in which he formally splits values and morality by claiming that values destroy moral sublimity, ie, sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, and that he can have no respect for any interests, ie, values. Germany was the center of Kants influence. Nazis were the most fervent advocates of sacrifice in Weimer Germany. Thus the death camps, the consistent embodiment of sacrifice, from which no one gained any value. Near war's end, Hitler diverted urgently needed war supplies to the camps. No one's interest was served, ie, Kant, the leading intellectual influence among todays intellectuals.
The game is up. Rand has identified the polite, academic destruction of knowledge and values. The game is up.
I am Anonymous of "Hanno says hate..."
================================
Me
"a rationalization of evading principles via an exclusive focus upon concretes"
pm
In other words, calling Randians on their bullshit via factual claims.
Rand rejects your reality/mind split or, as its often called, empiricism/rationalism. The alternative to evading principles is not facts but facts organized into principles. Unorganized facts and arbitrary principles are equally intellectual junk. The modernist/nihilist game is up. You nihilists have been (oh, the horror, the horror) categorized. Your facts have been organized into the principle of nihilism and your floating abstractions have been reduced to the concretes of self-destruction.
Grossman
"Kant, Hegel, Freud, subjectivism, moral relativism, skepticism, etc"
pm
Nothing in this rambling, incoherent list resembles any system of thought that, one, could cohere, and two, would represent anything close to nihilism
==========
I like blue, red and purple but i dont like color. This is a pervasive method of modernist/nihilist intellectuals. They evade finding the One in the Many by analyzing the Many into a virtual infinity of sub-Manys. Thus they can tell themselves and their victims that they are not destructive by a conceptually disintegrated concern with the out-of-context concretes of destruction. Eg, the foreign policy nihilists who point to the different concretes of the pre-WW2 appeasement of Nazism, from the concretes of today's appeasement of Islam. The method has been identified by Rand. The game is up.
Nihilism is the destruction and hatred of values and reason and the concretes on my list are how it is done. The method of evading the One in the Many is, eg, to focus on a scholarly history of many non-essential interpretations of Freud, all while evading his essential claim that values and knowledge are products of a self-destructive subjectivity.
Your minds are crap. You cant focus. Drink yourself silly and shoot yourself. You have no absolute values or certainty. Why not suicide? Oh, you have a duty to suffer. And when Germans heard this crap from their intellectuals and then heard Hitler say, "Trust your emotions, your instincts or whatever you call them. Never trust your knowledge," they know who to follow.
And what, after all, is multiculturalism, feminism, diversity, postmodernism, modern "art," altruism, socialism, and environmentalism but applications of Kantian nihilism?
It must be horrible to be a modernist, like a turd in a cosmic toilet that can never be flushed, a sort of metaphysical No Exit. You like my metaphors, burrowing below your rationalizations to your damaged subconscious? The game is up. No compassion, no mercy. Only justice.
Back to Aristotle and forward with Rand.
nihilist pragmatist:
I love Ayn Rand and admire her ideas, so it pains me to see Steve Gimbell's opinion of "randians" vindicated by insufferable trolls and dilletantes
--------------------------------------------------
-----
Evidence of this alleged vindication?
Whats the most basic idea of Rand you admire?
I shudder in anticipation...
Mr. Grossman, Ayn Rand deserves better than your clownish imitations of argument and wackadoo jargon-vomit. Don't you get it? YOU are the vindication I spoke of. Every gibberized regurgitation of randian rhetoric you let spill on this website is further vindication of everything professional philosophers say about...well, people like you.
For the record, I think Rand makes new and important claims in value-theory and I think her defenses of individualism and egoism should be taken more seriously. I think philosophers should pay more attention to some of her better essays (e.g., off the top of my head, "Causality vs Duty" and "Faith and Force").
Yes, Gimbel's feeble attack on randian "excellence" is probably too stupid to rebut. And yes, he probably hasn't really given Rand enough consideration. These are the same ill-read potshots we've seen for decades: all of them violate the principle of charity, which tells us (among other things) not to cherry-pick what we dislike until we address the real substance of a claim.
So please, Mr. Grossman (assuming you're a real person and not some shrill impersonation of a "randian" nutcase) do yourself and your side a favor: stop talking. The less of you we hear, the better the odds become for Rand's ideas getting a fair reception.
"Nihilists! F*ck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
-- Walter Sobchak, The Big Lebowski
nihilist pragmatist says he likes some (out-of-context) parts of Rand's system. He doesnt, however, like my application of her system. But, as he says, he's a pragmatist, ie, conceptually disintegrated. As CS Peirce said, "Things are getting less dreamy." Perhaps thats why he provides no evidence.
Brock says (tongue in cheek) National Socialism is an ethos. Actually, its not. Its a rationalization for nihilism which was never systemized into an ideology. However, the nihilists in the "Big Lebowski" _are_ funny, like those here.
Maybe the best line was from the Big Lebowski himself, "The Revolution is over. The bums lost." I tacked that onto a bulletin board in a university sociology dept. Second best line: (after the bad guys piss on his rug), Jeff Bridges says, "It pulled the room together." This movie will, someday, be shown in university philosophy depts as symbolizing the end of the Kantian era in philosophy. Jeff Bridges is freakin' awesome, dude!
This is a complicated case, Maude. A lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what-have-yous, a lot of strands to keep in my head, man. Lot of strands in old Duder’s head.
The Dude (Jeff Bridges), “The Big Lebowski”
This movie will, someday, be shown in university philosophy depts as symbolizing the end of the Kantian era in philosophy.
Objectivists watch movies in entirely different ways than normal people.
Maybe the best line was from the Big Lebowski himself, "The Revolution is over. The bums lost."
I bet Stephen Grossman thinks that Henry Potter was the hero of It's a Wonderful Life.
The sophisticated intellectuals (BARF) here seem to have a bit of difficulty in recognizing satire and sarcasm. Maybe there's something wrong with modern thought...You think? You people are as dumb as doorknobs. Have you ever considered making a Three Stooges movie? "Kant Slips on a Banana Peel." Yuks galore!
Normal people?! I thought you pinheads likes non-conformism!
Isn't another strident Randian going to come on and start arguing with Mr Grossman? That's always fun.
David calls for reinforcements from the enemy. He must be a liberal.
C. Ewing blathers, "if we did level the playing field more (better standards of living, better education, etc.) we would discover more people who are simply talented, dedicated, etc."
Your nihilist leveling is not to raise the incompetent but to destroy the competent. That's altruism. A communist world without Homer, Sophocles, Praxilites, Aristotle, Bacon, Newton, Jefferson, Edison, Faraday, Hugo, Rockefeller, Ford, Einstein, Gates, etc. is your ideal. Everyone will get free tuition at the Al Gore Institute of Advanced Study.
No, I've spent too much time arguing with Randians to really bother anymore. However, many times I've had the pleasure of another Randian intrude in the argument to take my place (forcibly!) and fight with someone who they share an ideology with ('what Rand meant to say/You clearly don't understand Rand' etc). It's the same with any intensely held ideology - you can substitute Rand with Jesus or Marx or Kurt Cobain. I wouldn't like to give the impression that such JPF/PFJ moments are the centre of my life, but they do provide amusement along the way.
John Kenneth Galbraith's summation works pretty well for me: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
Stephen Grossman, says, "Everyone will get free tuition at the Al Gore Institute of Advanced Study."
Precisely. I'm glad we're on the same page. Everyone is invited to the party!
Bravo!
You might also point out that Nietzsche's critique of Kant is fun and ultimately unsubstantial, whereas Rand's critique of Kant is just unsubstantial.
David, Fool e (a rap singer?!) and Jared make arbitrary claims, without even invalid evidence. This is in the grand Kantian tradition of, "I have denied knowledge therefore, to make room for faith." The arbitrary is as if nothin has been said. Your minds are chaos.
Existence exists and consciousness does not control it. All the pseudo-intelletual blather here is an absurd attempt to evade the existence of existence. Its a search for death, not a practical guide to life.
And speaking of His Majesty, Al Gore, a science(!) teacher who provides leftist global warming propaganda to her students recently told me that she uses a lesson plan devised by Gore. Al Gore, inventor of the Internet, educator, the list goes on. Where (and when) will it end?
Proud Carbonite
Your claim that I "make arbitrary claims, without even invalid evidence" is itself an arbitary claim etc.
"Where (and when) will it end?"
You are in torment, clearly. Nothing else explains your ramblings and rantings on here. Not to worry - you live in a society with freely available guns, so can end your pain at the time and place of your choosing.
Now I see. I've been wrong all along. I thought Objectivists and Randians (the salient difference being that the latter, like Grossman, want to snuggle and suckle on momma Ayn's lap) were most like Scientologists or Raelians. But those folk can still function in society.
Clearly, the Grossman's of the world are beneficiaries of the liberalism of myself and others. He's able to post his ramblings from a computer provided to him at the sanitarium. So Randians are most like Gene Ray of Time Cube fame.
Um, Grossman? If "[e]xistence exists and consciousness does not control it" you might want to consider that your personal feelings on carbon emissions might not be in line with reality. And I'd suspect that after "four years in a philosophy dept" where you couldn't seem to follow your professors (your ears plugged with wadded up pages of "Atlas Shrugged", no doubt) you didn't have time to toss in a minor in atmospheric science, or chemical engineering, or meteorology, or physics, or anything that might lend you any weapons to use in that fight. But wait...you said:
---
Rand's theory and practice of reasoning has no important similarity to the intellectual chaos of contemporary, mainstream philosophy. Its[sic] the difference between Newton's concrete-based, hierarchical induction of the Laws of Motion vs. the arbitrariness of String Theory, between Newton's "I will frame no [arbitrary] hypotheses" and Einstein's science as "free creations of the mind."
---
So modern science is problematic for you anyway, right? I mean, you're an Objectivist, so you're more comfortable with Newton's "concrete-based" laws than with the complex math and probability analysis that composes physics post-1904 (I mean QM and its offshoots not Relativity, for those keeping score at home). Though I suspect old Isaac, were he around, would take a look at the evidence in a careful, deliberate manner and still be able to draw the correct conclusions about the effect of carbon emissions on climate warming - something well beyond your meager abilities.
Keep on commenting, Grossman. You're satisfying one of the primary goals of SteveG's blog - spreading the word of Comedism.
Steven Grossman-
Read "The Genealogy of Morals" and "Beyond Good and Evil". I don't have the books in front of me right now, but if you look in the index of the Kaufmann translations you'll see "Kant" with all the section references. Read those again after having read both books judiciously. Then go ahead and read at least the "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics" and "Groundwork towards a Metaphysics of Morals" by Kant, any translation. You will notice that Nietzsche only looks at the conclusions of Kant's arguments and mocks attempts to understand them (my favorite is BGE 11 where Nietzsche points out the "vermorge eins vermorgens"). Don't get me wrong: I love Nietzsche and spend much of my time studying him.
As for Ms. Rand, the only thing of her's I read was a "summary" of her "philosophy" by a man whose name I forget. The first two propositions were meant to confront Kantian reason; that much was explicit. I don't remember them, because they made no sense.
Again, bravo Steve G from those of us who spend our time studying real philosophy!
David, in a valid application of Kant's nihilist hatred of his own mind, and also in apparent ignorance of the Greek discovery of the logical fallacy of ignorance, demands evidence for his lack of evidence. However, one cannot prove a negative (outside a context of evidence). This epistemological destroyer, having nothing to say, demands proof that he has nothing to say. He's confused because he thought that I would engage with the scholarship of skepticism, as if the proper function of the mind was to find sophisticated justifications of its own alleged impotence. Eg, the typical article in the typical philosophy jrl.
However, there is no evidence that David has said anything. And where there is no evidence, the rational have nothing to say. Not so, the irrational, as a listen to the babblings of mental patients, modern "artists," socialists, and mainstream philosophy profs will confirm.
David's rejection of "any intensely held ideology" is close to honestly identifying the basic issue, reason vs. evasion. Our modernist/nihilist culture is guided by what Rand called the "Holy Wish," the desire that one's emotions control reality. Reason, however, tells one that reality is real and that one's particular emotions may or may not be an appripriate response to the requirements of man's life and happiness. The subjectivist does not care. His emotions are the framework of such reasoning as he does and he becomes murderously angry when reality will not bend to his will. He does not want to accept responsibility for the disasters resulting from his evasions so he rationalizes. This is where modernist/nihilist culture comes in. It tells him in a myriad of ways that there is no reality, that man's mind is impotent and that destruction for the sake of destruction is a moral duty and, morever, is "sophisticated."
America destroyed the military arm of nihilism in WW2 but left its intellectual leadership unidentified. Fortunately, Ayn Rand has completed the job and all that remains is mopping up.
Porter rejects knowledge induced from concrete reality for complexity and probability, ie, the mentality of non-Western man who has not even identified that he has a mind. Complexity and probability, of course, are valid concepts when induced from observation.
While modern science knows more individual facts than was known around Newton's time, scientific method has split from the concrete at its basis. Anything may be hypothesized in within a framework of identityless and causeless events. And so, as Einstein said, "The more I know, the less I know." Newton's Aristotelian context of Identity and causality and concrete-based knowledge has been left far behind. Nowadays, concrete reality comes in only to test the consequences of the arbitrary, reducing science to religion. If the tribe throws a virgin into the volcano, will the rains water our crops? If reality is basically vibrating strings, what will we observe? In both cases, the observation of reality is not the start of knowledge. And this is in physics. The less said about those Kantian/Marxist abortions, the social sciences, the better. I must report, however, that one leading college, a woman's college, Simmons?, abolished its sociology dept. One "sociologist" told me that the lack of equality caused the VA Tech murders. I asked why a Marxist hypothesis should even be considered. The conversation ended in a huff. They want epistemological effects without
epistemological causes. They dont want to reduce complex abstractions back down the hierarchical chain to their root (or its lack) in the first abstraction, from observation. Thus the postmodern rejection of rational hierarchy for circular reasoning in which one can arbitrarily step into an argument at any point and leave at any point (with sufficiently obscure scholarship ,of course). See Kant's _CPR_ for the Form of Obscurity.
Ugh. I'm a little concerned that I seem to have been on your mind so much. I shall have to have a shower after this post.
My dear boy, I never made a claim, let alone failed to provide evidence (valid or not) for the claim. You made a wrongful claim about me ('liberal...reinforcement') and I pointed out it was wrongful.
'David's rejection of "any intensely held ideology"'
I find it fun to see people who to all intents and purposes completely agree have a big scene over some relatively minor disagreement about whoever it is they've chosen to do their thinking for them. You find it fun to completely ignore what people have said and attribute them a position which you can then argue with, right? That's good. It's good you're having fun.
However, if your purpose here is serious, may I suggest regularly wiping the froth from your monitor, so you can read what actual words people have said and thus engage with them in something approaching a meaningful manner? Either that or perhaps place a mirror over your screen, so you can alternately shout at/masturbate over your reflection whilst leaving us to get on with the washing up?
David says he never made a claim. My point, exactly. He retreats to the nihilist zero point of Zen No Mind, the only possible effect of Kantian nihilism.
Reason is man's basic method of survival, guiding us in the production of food, shelter and clothing, etc. But reason works volitionally and thus we need to identify and control it. The more control, the more we facts we can integrate into one focus. The wider the focus, the more we can transform the elements of nature for human life. We might be aware that sand can be bagged for ballast or can be transformed into microprocessors.
Rand has solved the problem of universals and another Objectivist, Leonard Peikoff ,solved the problem of induction.
Jared, why are you comparing Kant and Nietzsche?
Stephen Grossman-
Because Nietzsche makes the comparison himself. And Peikoff (that's the name I forgot) made the Rand-Kant comparison; hence my first remark, that Nietzsche's inadequate refutation of Kant is fun whereas Rand's isn't much for philosophers to think about.
In any case, I'm finished with this conversation: you write as if you are seriously deranged.
-Jared
Jared is an intellectual fraud, with nothing except worthless scholarship and personal attacks. Rand has won the philosophical battle. Kantian nihilism has dug its own grave.
David makes stupid look like a step upwards. You people are dodos. Extinct.
David makes a joke remark, a simple light-hearted observation, about how he's wondering if, as he has seen so often in these 'conversations', another Randian is going to come and start arguing with Stephen. Because he finds such squabbling amusing.
Stephen decides David is calling for reinforcement from the Randians, and so must be a liberal.
David says, no, you've got me quite wrong. I just enjoy watching this sort of squabbling, and points out that, though in his experience he's seen it mostly amongst Randians, it's certainly not confined to them, though it might be said to afflict a certain type of person, as portrayed in the People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front scenes in Monty Python's Life Of Brian.
In front of a stunned audience, and with his sleeves rolled up, Stephen somehow pulls from his arse the idea that David has just made an arbitary claim and didn't offer evidence.
David points out that no, he didn't, that it was simply an informal observation of/from personal experience. He further points out the ironically ironic fact that Stephen's assertion of David's arbitary claim/no evidence is actually itself an arbitary claim with no evidence, thus making Stephen guilty of the accusation he falsely put to David.
Determined not to pay any attention whatsoever to what is being said and to put words in the mouths of those he is baiting so he can make the world fit his ideology and trot out his pre-prepared 'answers', Stephen decides that 1) David's 'no I didn't say that' is some sort of extreme skepticism and 2) that David has rejected 'any intensely held ideology'.
Momentarily amused by Stephen's insistence on banging square pegs into round holes, David sees how Stephen values Facts and Reality, and tries to acquaint Stephen with the Facts of the matter and Reality of the situation by pointing out he didn't make a claim (and so, not making a claim, didn't need to offer evidence for it). He also notes that he never rejected 'any intensely held ideology'.
Having accepted David didn't reject 'any intensely held ideology', Stephen now decides that he never said David hade made a claim. He also blathers on about reason.
David is too tired to be truly impressed by Stephen's 180 flip, but points out that reason is not man's basic means of survival and that, if anything, violence is. Reason is one thing among many, all important if not equally so. David goes to bed.
"Jared is an intellectual fraud, with nothing except worthless scholarship and personal attacks."
Ahahahahahahaha ahahahahaha hahahaha hahahaha ahahah ahahaha hahahaha
[pause for breath]
ahahahaha hahahaha ahahahaha ahahahah ahahaha ahahaha ahahaha ahahaha ahaha
HA!
Thankyou, Stephen. You made my evening.
i'd ask the looming nietzschean query: why should we admire the normal or the rational? - might this just be another way of stating our admiration for the mediocre and the fearful?
bukowski writes: "If you're going to try, go all the way. Otherwise don't even start. This could mean losing girlfriends, wives, relatives, jobs, and maybe your mind. It could mean not eating for three or four days. It could mean freezing on a park bench. It could mean jail. It could mean derision. It could mean mockery, isolation. Isolation is the gift. All the others are a test of your endurance. Of how much you really want to do it. And you'll do it, despite rejection in the worst odds. And it will be better than anything else you can imagine. If you're going to try, go all the way. There is no other feeling like that. You will be alone with the gods. And the nights will flame with fire. You will ride life straight to perfect laughter. It's the only good fight there is."
I have not seen any better paragraph than the following of Ayn Rand:
"The economic value of a man
’s work is determined, on free market, by a single principle: by VOLUNTARY consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return. He cannot expect to receive values without trading commensurate values in return. The sole criterion of what is commensurate, in this context, is the free, voluntary, uncoerced judgement of the traders."
I don
’t see any reason why people oppose Ayn Rand, unless they are those who damn man, success, creation of wealth as evil. Please don’t forget that it is business taxes that are used to build roads and hospitals. So long live business!
The problem with this Rand passage is that there are so many conditionals in it that just don't pan out in the real world. IF "voluntary labor" is possible; IF we can figure out what "commensurate values" are; IF traders are capable of making "free, voluntary, uncoerced judgments."
In the real world of 24/7 in-your-face marketing manipulation, corporate lobbying, extortion, and espionage, globalization's neo-imperialistic exploitation of foreign trading markets and its give-a-shit attitude toward their domestic economies and ecosystems, and the continuing decline of blue collar legal rights and wages in the U.S., Rand's observation seems irrelevant at best, pompously stupid at worst--as does (forgive me)approvingly quoting it.
Commenting by HaloScan
