John Oliver goes to far. Attacks Ayn Rand

[mumblethrax]

I'm willing to concede every thing you've said about Rand and her work for sake of argument and still think Wolsey's statement is not at all helpful to human progress. It's that kind of thinking that assumes there is some universal truth about human nature and that we should find the good and get rid of the bad that can and often does leads to censorship (I don't for a moment think you are advocating censorship). For myself I prefer no prior restraint. No predetermining what are and are not good ideas. In the long run I trust the market place of ideas. It's a lousy system fraught with error and reversal but still the best there is.

Wolsey's statement implies nothing at all about censorship, nor about "predetermining" good ideas, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up. It's simply an observation that people get invested in ideas, and have a very hard time rejecting them once so invested, and this is especially true of political ideology. Before you hop on the train, understand that getting off is very, very difficult.

And of course we should find the good and get rid of the bad. This is generally much more difficult in philosophy than it is in science, but it's not remotely difficult in the case of Ayn Rand.

To live an examined life one must be willing to consider different points of view.

Yes. Considering different points of view does not imply adopting different points of view, nor does it imply an extraordinary reluctance to reject ideas that have been shown to be so badly flawed as Rand's. Which is what I'm talking about here.

Finally, as for Rand, given the excesses of communism and the idea that individual liberty is secondary to the good of society I think her message was important. JMHO.

The whole of western philosophy is lousy with the importance of the individual. Since you'll find this message all over the place (I mean, you just quoted MLK saying the same thing), and since some people do not advocate the importance of the individual to exclusion of everything else, I'm not sure why you find Rand important as a messenger. Who cares that Ayn Rand dutifully repeated uncontroversial truisms in addition to outright falsehoods? That's no reason to pay her any attention at all. Maybe she hated Mondays, too.

 

[Beerina]

Zomg this thread is about Randfan defending his lady. Just because he's changed stripes doesn't mean he doesn't want her.

He wants her even more than he wants to be with Ann Coulter, and you know he wants to be with Ann Coulter.

 

[RandFan]

Wolsey's statement implies nothing at all about censorship, nor about "predetermining" good ideas, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up.

"Be careful of what you put in your head" most certainly could be construed as avoiding certain thoughts and ideas. The censorial instinct has a long history dating back to the destruction of the Library at Alexandria and up through to the likes of Sara Palin. Book burning was not unheard of in the 20th century.

So, when you say to avoid what you put in your head, when it comes to Rand, I'm wondering how one goes about that without prior determining her ideas are something to be avoided all together. If your argument is, "okay, you've read her book but it's badly written tripe now move on to better literature and better argued ideas", then I can better reconcile Wolsey's quote.

Perhaps it is due to my upbringing as a Mormon. Mormon's are taught to avoid reading certain types of literature and most certainly to avoid philosophy. Mormon's refer to philosophy derisively as "the philosophies of men". Watching R rated movies can keep you from attending your child's wedding. Reading books critical of Mormon leaders can get you excommunicated. Mormon's are hardly alone. Many evangelicals warn their members to avoid subversive materials. Evangelical boycotts have actually had some success. Now, while that's not an indictment of Wosley, his words certainly could play into that perspective. Wosley's quote sounds an awful lot like the brain dead "read only the good and the virtuous things" crap I grew up with.

The whole of western philosophy is lousy with the importance of the individual.

That did not prevent the rise of totalitarianism masquerading as Marxism. Do I think Rand was necessary to prevent totalitarianism spreading to modern liberal democracies? In hind sight no. Then again I don't think any particular individual is so important. One could say MLK's words or the words of any civil rights leader were not necessary to advance the cause of human dignity and the importance of all individuals.

That's no reason to pay her any attention at all.

Fair enough. I don't agree but I appreciate your perspective and better understand your argument I think.

 

[RandFan]

Zomg this thread is about Randfan defending his lady. Just because he's changed stripes doesn't mean he doesn't want her.

He wants her even more than he wants to be with Ann Coulter, and you know he wants to be with Ann Coulter.

Both are well deserving of heaping amounts of criticism but I accept the spirit of your post.

 

[MontagK505]

My biggest problem with Rand has little to do with her ideology and a lot to do with her being a crappy fiction writer.
Her attempts,after Atlas Shrugged was publsihed, to make the fact her charecters are one dimensonal into a virtue are pretty amusing;
Frankly, as far as libertarian oriented fiction goes, Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" is much better then Rand's work.

Heinlein does make reference to John Galt as a secret persona of Mycroft Holmes, the computer that oversaw the resistance movement.

 

[MontagK505]

Agreed! I think her truisms are true sometimes, and have value as concepts for that truth. But as you point out, they break down in the real world, which is also true for her entire objectivist philosophy.

I have an acquaintance who considers himself a true conservative, and he's hotly against any government involvement in health care. I once asked him, "well what should happen to an elderly person who has no money and gets sick?"

He just said "I don't know".
His ideology told him government health care was wrong, yet he also understood that letting the old and sick just die was also wrong. He couldn't reconcile this contradiction in a way that didn't make him feel impure.

As I wrote above, all isms fall apart if you strictly adhere to them. The best societies mix it all together and choose what results in the best outcome.

The Objectivist response would be: "If you wish to help them, no one will stop you." Of course that also implies, if you get sick, then no one will be forced to help you.

 

[MontagK505]

That's probably true, but it does matter how quickly an -ism falls apart. We aren't talking about fiddly difficulties of finer points of practical implementation here--the problem with Rand is that she falls on her face right out of the gate. She makes howlingly bad logical errors in constructing her arguments, which can be refuted from the armchair. It's true that her ideas don't work in the real world, but they also don't work on paper. They just don't work anywhere.

And I'm unclear on why people don't just walk away from her after noticing that. There's always this desire to find the good in her junk philosophy. Maybe it has to do with sunk costs--people invest time, energy and emotion in this stuff, and walking away with nothing to show for it means that it was all wasted. But, of course, it was wasted whether people choose to acknowledge it or not.

It's obvious the unwashed herd aren't as smart as you. Get over it.
Seriously, there are worse writers than Rand (Dan Brown), bad thinkers everywhere, (some of them tenured professors). Rand said things that inspired people to treat their own lives as important. Yes, most of her ideas, good and bad, have been presented by earlier thinkers. So what? 99% of the poop on this forum is recycled from others. So what? As I said before a lot of the negative reaction goes way beyond her short comings.

 

[MontagK505]

Well in the Fountainhead, she expressed total disdain for certain kinds of art, such as folk music or "twentieth century" music. Her claim was that certain art was intrinsically great, and that popular art was chosen for its value to the collective. Hence, beautiful homes like what Roark designed were scoffed at by the masses, when they were the only real aesthetic worth looking at.

But the contradiction is that if money equals value, then what Howard Roark designed was worthless since no one wanted to pay him for any of it.

One of the most irritating things about Rand's ideas about art is her habit of making moral judgements about other people based on what kind of art they liked. Other people do this as well, but she seemed to have a more virulent form. In her own way she was just as opinionated on these issues as any hard core fundamentalist.

 

[mumblethrax]

"Be careful of what you put in your head" most certainly could be construed as avoiding certain thoughts and ideas.

No, I don't think it can be so construed. In any case, neither of these constitute censorship. There's just no reason to grandstand about "prior restraint" here.

So, when you say to avoid what you put in your head, when it comes to Rand[...]

But I didn't say that.

It's the second part that I wanted to draw attention to--the difficulty involved in letting go completely of ideas, once closely held, that you've already determined are badly flawed. Which is often on display when it comes to political ideologies--Marxists, when convinced of the inadequacy of Marxism, want to develop neo-Marxism. We always seem to want to rehabilitate our political views, or our political idols, rather than simply giving up on them. I think that's why people want to say that Rand had useful ideas, even if they have to clutch at straws to come up with examples.

Do I think Rand was necessary to prevent totalitarianism spreading to modern liberal democracies? In hind sight no. Then again I don't think any particular individual is so important. One could say MLK's words or the words of any civil rights leader were not necessary to advance the cause of human dignity and the importance of all individuals.

One probably could say that, but one could also point to specific, important contributions that MLK made.

What specific, important contributions did Rand make?

What I asked anyone to do earlier was to come up with a single case where Rand contributed a new idea that wasn't junk philosophy. Telling me that she emphasized the importance of the individual doesn't do that, since that's not a new idea. It's not even a new emphasis. It's exactly the edifice of Lockean liberalism that the whole country is inescapably built on--it's in the damn water.

 

[MontagK505]

No, I don't think it can be so construed. In any case, neither of these constitute censorship. There's just no reason to grandstand about "prior restraint" here.


But I didn't say that.

It's the second part that I wanted to draw attention to--the difficulty involved in letting go completely of ideas, once closely held, that you've already determined are badly flawed. Which is often on display when it comes to political ideologies--Marxists, when convinced of the inadequacy of Marxism, want to develop neo-Marxism. We always seem to want to rehabilitate our political views, or our political idols, rather than simply giving up on them. I think that's why people want to say that Rand had useful ideas, even if they have to clutch at straws to come up with examples.


One probably could say that, but one could also point to specific, important contributions that MLK made.
What specific, important contributions did Rand make?

What I asked anyone to do earlier was to come up with a single case where Rand contributed a new idea that wasn't junk philosophy. Telling me that she emphasized the importance of the individual doesn't do that, since that's not a new idea. It's not even a new emphasis. It's exactly the edifice of Lockean liberalism that the whole country is inescapably built on--it's in the damn water.

The clinging to bad argument idea could apply to the careers of many professors of philosophy. This is news?

Most of MLK's ideas are not original with him. Why is he not being criticized for his lack of originality?

What doesn't get addressed is her poop stays in print. Why is that? Why does a hack writer who has been dead for 32 yrs have the kind of influence Rand does? Are all her readers brain dead?

 

[BenBurch]

Zomg this thread is about Randfan defending his lady. Just because he's changed stripes doesn't mean he doesn't want her.

He wants her even more than he wants to be with Ann Coulter, and you know he wants to be with Ann Coulter.

Ann isn't into the kinks I am, so no interest here.*

 

[RandFan]

No, I don't think it can be so construed. In any case, neither of these constitute censorship. There's just no reason to grandstand about "prior restraint" here.

I'm most interested in the message that you want to convey rather than what I construed you to say. The principle of charity would dictate that I consider your argument in its best possible light. I'm more than willing to let it go but I have to take exception to your point about grandstanding. I cannot reconcile the quote from Wolsey and what you are now saying. I'm not grandstanding. I'm trying to make a point.

So, when you say to avoid what you put in your head, when it comes to Rand, I'm wondering how one goes about that without prior determining her ideas are something to be avoided all together.

But I didn't say that.

My apologies. I should have said, "when you quoted Wosley as saying 'be very careful about what you put into your head'" while referencing Rand.

He did not say, "be careful what ideologies you accept". That might have been what he meant and that might be what you meant but putting stuff into your head, is to me, to expose yourself to ideas. Good or bad, right or wrong. Not only can it be construed thusly it is the most parsimonious reading of the quote. Perhaps additional context would change my mind but as it is I think it really is an awful quote even given the principle of charity. It's not a quote I would use that's for sure.

It's the second part that I wanted to draw attention to--the difficulty involved in letting go completely of ideas, once closely held, that you've already determined are badly flawed. Which is often on display when it comes to political ideologies--Marxists, when convinced of the inadequacy of Marxism, want to develop neo-Marxism. We always seem to want to rehabilitate our political views, or our political idols, rather than simply giving up on them.

I find this reasonable. Why don't we focus on this and move on?

 

[mumblethrax]

Seriously, there are worse writers than Rand (Dan Brown), bad thinkers everywhere, (some of them tenured professors).

The existence of bad thinkers elsewhere is not a good reason to overlook this particular bad thinker's failings.

Rand said things that inspired people to treat their own lives as important. Yes, most of her ideas, good and bad, have been presented by earlier thinkers. So what?

So usually when we talk about a noteworthy philosopher, we're talking about somebody who contributed new ideas to philosophy. Even if they're just footnotes to or criticisms of the work of others.

If the only thing she did was inspire some people to treat their own lives as important, she belongs in the self-help section with the other motivational speakers.

99% of the poop on this forum is recycled from others. So what? As I said before a lot of the negative reaction goes way beyond her short comings.

Ayn Rand isn't just some anonymous and particularly unpleasant nerd on the internet. Did you watch the video at the start of the thread?

 

[mumblethrax]

I'm most interested in the message that you want to convey rather than what I construed you to say. The principle of charity would dictate that I consider your argument in its best possible light. I'm more than willing to let it go but I have to take exception to your point about grandstanding. I cannot reconcile the quote from Wolsey and what you are now saying. I'm not grandstanding. I'm trying to make a point.

Read this in the least charitable light you like, and there's still no reason to talk about prior restraint, because I am not an agent of the state. Giving someone advice, even if it's advice that you strongly object to, can never be censorship, and you're just diminishing the meaning of the word to say that it is.

He did not say, "be careful what ideologies you accept". That might have been what he meant and that might be what you meant but putting stuff into your head, is to me, to expose yourself to ideas. Good or bad, right or wrong. Not only can it be construed thusly it is the most parsimonious reading of the quote.

I don't think "be careful" can ever be read as "avoid", and I'm not sure why you think it can. "Be careful about who you date" doesn't mean "avoid dating."

 

[Cain]

Someone posted the following short-story on a forum, which I believe he found in the comments at Gawker. It was probably copy-pasted there. Of course Ayn Rand does not take her "moral principles" to their logical conclusion, so some Randians would probably object:

I was shooting heroin and reading "The Fountainhead" in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

"Bad news, detective. We got a situation."

"What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?"

"Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars' worth of bitcoins."

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. "What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?"

"Not yet. But mark my words: we're going to figure out who did this and we're going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so."

"Easy, chief," I said. "Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair."

He laughed. "That's why you're the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins."

"Don't worry," I said. "I'm on it."

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

"Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®" I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. "Nobody move unless you want to!" They didn't.

"Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?" No one spoke up.

"Come on," I said. "Don't you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?"

It didn't seem like they did.

"Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I'm just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters."

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn't care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

"Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®" I yelled.

Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

"Stop right there!" I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

I was losing him. "Listen, I'll pay you to stop!" I yelled. "What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I'll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn 'Bob Barr '08' extra-large long-sleeved men's T-shirt!"

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

"All right, all right!" the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. "I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins."

"Why'd you do it?" I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

"Because I was afraid."

"Afraid?"

"Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers," he said. "I'm a central banker."

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

"Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street," I said. "No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you'll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom."

He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think "be careful" can ever be read as "avoid"..."

Even without the Mormon indoctrination that constantly admonished me to "be careful" when it came to avoiding certain materials, IMO, that's the only way it can be read. I don't even know what it would mean otherwise.

"Be careful about who you date" doesn't mean "avoid dating."

Be careful what you read doesn't mean avoid reading. To avoid dating bad people you have to first decide they are bad people. You have to judge the person before you date them. Once you've dated them you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. You can stop dating them further but the date has already happened.

Once you read something you cannot unread it anymore than you can "unring the bell". Once you read something it's already in your head. The only way to be careful about putting something in your head is to not read it in the first place.

What else can "putting something in your head" mean?

 

[Unabogie]

Someone posted the following short-story on a forum, which I believe he found in the comments at Gawker. It was probably copy-pasted there. Of course Ayn Rand does not take her "moral principles" to their logical conclusion, so some Randians would probably object:

I was shooting heroin and reading "The Fountainhead" in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

"Bad news, detective. We got a situation."

"What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?"

"Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars' worth of bitcoins."

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. "What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?"

"Not yet. But mark my words: we're going to figure out who did this and we're going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so."

"Easy, chief," I said. "Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair."

He laughed. "That's why you're the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins."

"Don't worry," I said. "I'm on it."

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

"Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®" I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. "Nobody move unless you want to!" They didn't.

"Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?" No one spoke up.

"Come on," I said. "Don't you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?"

It didn't seem like they did.

"Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I'm just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters."

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn't care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

"Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®" I yelled.

Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

"Stop right there!" I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

I was losing him. "Listen, I'll pay you to stop!" I yelled. "What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I'll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn 'Bob Barr '08' extra-large long-sleeved men's T-shirt!"

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

"All right, all right!" the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. "I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins."

"Why'd you do it?" I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

"Because I was afraid."

"Afraid?"

"Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers," he said. "I'm a central banker."

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

"Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street," I said. "No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you'll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom."

He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

Seriously good stuff! Yours?

 

[TragicMonkey]

What else can "putting something in your head" mean?

Well, there are a couple of kinds of piercing. Not for the squeamish. Or those who are careless with zippers.

 

[MontagK505]

The existence of bad thinkers elsewhere is not a good reason to overlook this particular bad thinker's failings.

Ayn Rand isn't just some anonymous and particularly unpleasant nerd on the internet. Did you watch the video at the start of the thread?

Yes. Was I supposed to see horns and a pitchfork?

 

[mumblethrax]

Once you've dated them you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Dude. Gross.

The only way to be careful about putting something in your head is to not read it in the first place.

Exactly. Reviews don't exist.

I don't really care to finely parse a throwaway quote--I've already told you why I brought it up, and you already have all the context you need to know I was probably talking about political philosophies.