Interesting article on Ayn Rand

[Joey McGee]

Because that would simply be engaging in ad hominem attacks between two posters on an internet forum. That, also, would fall into the category of approaches which perpetuate ignorance.

If you don't like the phrase "rabid hatred" it make no difference to me, pick some other phrase as you wish. It will still be a discussion of a perpetuated set of negative myths about Rand, almost entirely by the left, and in the style and manner of political propaganda.

But one factor to consider, is that since I have mentioned this as propaganda, the emotive effectiveness of the propagandic method then fails because it is revealed as such. That leaves us where?

I have only made two claims relevant to the conversation and provided evidence for both. There's nothing to attack me with because you're not even seeing the point clearly!

1) She is wrong about human nature. As evidence I referred to evolutionary psychology specifically Bryan Caplan's takedown. Part 1. Part 2.

2) This is why people hate her, generally. I have offered as evidence the comment sections on general articles about her. The general angle is that she screws people up by feeding them wrong ideas about humanity. That's just my opinion, it would take some research to decide for yourself.

So really, you have nothing to argue with me about. You have resorted to talking about general unfairness in dialog. Take a specific claim I have made, show how I'm wrong, don't resort to "polemics are mean" and "you're bloviating"

 

[mhaze]

I have only made two claims relevant to the conversation and provided evidence for both. There's nothing to attack me with because you're not even seeing the point clearly!

1) She is wrong about human nature. As evidence I referred to evolutionary psychology specifically Bryan Caplan's takedown. Part 1. Part 2. .....

Except I already covered this issue earlier, when I noted that a large thing which had a cult as a tiny part was not correctly defined as the tiny part which was the cult (reference Cher). Caplan refers to Heller's book, and I understand it is a quite good book. But it is focused on a tiny part of things, you see....the "Ayn Rand cult in New York up until 1968 or so". And Caplan would likely not refer to his analysis as a "takedown", or if so, only of a tiny part of Rand's thinking and it's application to her affair with Brandon.

But since you like to provide comments to blogs as evidence, here ya go...from the comments on Caplan...

The evo-psych psycho-babble is just a pseudo-explanation, basic "it is what it is" folk wisdom re-stated in pop-science form. One would think that Professor Caplan, with his prestigious economics PhD and world-class training in rigorous thinking, would want to avoid that type of babble.

......This is why people hate her, generally. I have offered as evidence the comment sections on general articles about her. The general angle is that she screws people up by feeding them wrong ideas about humanity. That's just my opinion, it would take some research to decide for yourself.
....

I have really no idea what evidence some unstated "comment sections on general articles" comprises. Would it perhaps be this comment, from Caplan's article?

...the rage shown by some recent "liberal" reviewers reflects their fear that she has struck at the moral foundation of collectivism in a way that many other libertarians or conservatives have missed. Or, more colloquially, she's "got their number." How else to explain the extraordinary level of rage against her. If her arguments did not strike a chord, then they would not bother. A cascade of ad hominems against her is not very convincing.

 

[Joey McGee]

But since you like to provide comments to blogs as evidence

As evidence for what average people think of her only! *facepalm*

here ya go...from the comments on Caplan...

The evo-psych psycho-babble is just a pseudo-explanation, basic "it is what it is" folk wisdom re-stated in pop-science form. One would think that Professor Caplan, with his prestigious economics PhD and world-class training in rigorous thinking, would want to avoid that type of babble.

So what, the philosophers have always frothed at the mouth over EP, so do many famous biologists. But I've got Richard Dawkins on my side, nothing I think contradicts a single thing he has said. I'll use that argument from authority readily. Here he talks with one of the top EPs about why everyone froths at the mouth and hits themselves with their wrists over EP

I have really no idea what evidence some unstated "comment sections on general articles" comprises.

Easy. This is what I would do. Find articles on Ayn Rand from a variety of major publications. Fox to MSNBC. Pick only those with over 200 comments. Sort by popularity. Take the pulse of what the popular view of Ayn Rand is. This obviously doesn't prove anything about her, but that's not the point of me talking about it.

Would it perhaps be this comment, from Caplan's article?

...the rage shown by some recent "liberal" reviewers reflects their fear that she has struck at the moral foundation of collectivism in a way that many other libertarians or conservatives have missed. Or, more colloquially, she's "got their number." How else to explain the extraordinary level of rage against her. If her arguments did not strike a chord, then they would not bother. A cascade of ad hominems against her is not very convincing.

Yes, you have found someone else engaging in the same fallacies as you, well done.

 

[mhaze]

.....the philosophers have always frothed at the mouth over EP, so do many famous biologists. But I've got Richard Dawkins on my side, nothing I think contradicts a single thing he has said. I'll use that argument from authority readily. Here he talks with one of the top EPs about why everyone froths at the mouth and hits themselves with their wrists over EP....

No you don't have Dawkins on your side, just like you didn't have Shermer on your side. First of all, you have presumed that evolutionary psychology was on your side, and that it was opposed to Rand. But Caplan didn't say exactly that. He just noted that her actions in having an affair and justifying it by way of her philosophy were opposed to those concepts of EP. Which is one reason I noted the comment:

The evo-psych psycho-babble is just a pseudo-explanation, basic "it is what it is" folk wisdom re-stated in pop-science form. One would think that Professor Caplan, with his prestigious economics PhD and world-class training in rigorous thinking, would want to avoid that type of babble.
​

Since you like comments, here is another one that is relevant...it argues that there is more commonality than dissonance between Dawkins and Rand (I've already noted this is true with Shermer and Rand).

I'm a huge fan of Richard Dawkins. He is by far the most well written scientist I have had the pleasure to read. He is ruthlessly rational but in some respects he annoys the heck out of me. His most recent book, "The Ancestor's Tale" includes a lot of Bush/USA bashing and he routinely praises socialistic/altrustic government policy, while admitting that biologically it leads to disaster. This is what annoys me about him.

Objectivist Ethics is not the same as Darwinism, but there is a harmony between them. Mainly because Objectivist Ethics begins by recognizing the biological fact that life is conditional, and then proceeds to explore the special way man survives (his mind), and that man differs from other organisms because he creates wealth rather than expropriating it from other sources.

​

And here is a comment from Dawkins that is relevant:

COLLINS: Do humans have a different moral significance than cows in general?
DAWKINS: Humans have more moral responsibility perhaps, because they are capable of reasoning.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-8,00.html#ixzz1LgMuX0en
​

​

.........Easy. This is what I would do. Find articles on Ayn Rand from a variety of major publications. Fox to MSNBC. Pick only those with over 200 comments. Sort by popularity. Take the pulse of what the popular view of Ayn Rand is. This obviously doesn't prove anything about her, but that's not the point of me talking about it.

...Which would likely be more an indicator of the partial success of the liberal propaganda on Rand, thus polemical, than actual intelligent analysis. But still that would only define an argument from current popularity.

.........Yes, you have found someone else engaging in the same fallacies as you, well done.

It isn't hard at all to find such comments, because the frothing at the mouth by liberals is so obvious on this subject. There isn't any fallacy in noting this insanity, and commenting on it. It kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[Joey McGee]

No you don't have Dawkins on your side, just like you didn't have Shermer on your side. First of all, you have presumed that evolutionary psychology was on your side, and that it was opposed to Rand. But Caplan didn't say exactly that.

He did.

As Rand says, "[F]acts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher." I give her a lot of credit for emphasizing that human beings are potentially rational animals. But she evaded (yes, evaded!) the fact that human beings are invariably animals - and paid the price.

And it doesn't matter there are hundreds of articles and several books that cover the exact same issues with her work. I'm simply pointing out that they exist, decide for yourself if you care enough to look for them.

Everything else is your opinion which I appreciate you sharing but I do not agree with due to my study of the facts about reality. Since you seem to think AGW is a liberal scam, I'm sure the gallery will take your interpretations with a grain of salt.

 

[mhaze]

He did.....

Did not. Previous post covered this issue. Of course "more commonality than dissonance" does not mean you could not choose to focus on the dissonance, or that section which promoted your political views. But to do this you must..

1. narrow the time frame to the 1960s cult phenomena
2. narrow the scope of Rand's ideas down to what supports your theory
3. locate authors on EP that are supportive
4. proceed to bash all related "Randian concepts" based on 1,2, and 3

At this point though, that's YOUR ideas, not those of Shermer or Dawkins or Caplin. You have essentially, extended the scope of their commentary.

....it doesn't matter there are hundreds of articles and several books that cover the exact same issues with her work. I'm simply pointing out that they exist, decide for yourself if you care enough to look for them. ....

Argument from irrefutable theory of evidence somewhere unstated as to where or what.

I'm right and somewhere there is proof you just have to go find it.

....Since you seem to think AGW is a liberal scam, I'm sure the gallery will take your interpretations with a grain of salt.

They will simply ascribe your comment as ad hominem attack. That would be points subtracted in debate, not added.

 

[Joey McGee]

Did not. Previous post covered this issue. Of course "more commonality than dissonance" does not mean you could not choose to focus on the dissonance, or that section which promoted your political views. But to do this you must...

1. narrow the time frame to the 1960s cult phenomena

1. 
   I personally disagree that there isn't cult-like behavior happening today because of her way of thinking and writing. I really just say, I may be wrong, decide for yourself.
   

   narrow the scope of Rand's ideas down to what supports your theory

   I admitted that I'm just trying to give my opinion and getting mired down in proving it may not help matters. It would require a large amount of research from many angles. Interested parties should be corroborating the evidence I would provide anyway...
   

   locate authors on EP that are supportive

   Well we'd have Shermer who accepts EP that likes Shermer so I just give my opinion most people don't even accept EP anyway what's the point of trying to get people to accept one single point on it.
   

   proceed to bash all related "Randian concepts" based on 1,2, and 3

Whoa whoa whoa, not at all, I've always said she's got lots of positive aspects. Man we are talking about her all the time you have to respect her accomplishments.

At this point though, that's YOUR ideas, not those of Shermer or Dawkins or Caplin. You have essentially, extended the scope of their commentary.

No I used Shermer as a source for the cult-like aspects and blatantly used Dawkins as an argument from authority on EP (of course linking to a 1 hour interview with David Buss for anyone who wants to examine the evidence)

Argument from irrefutable theory of evidence somewhere unstated as to where or what.

I'm right and somewhere there is proof you just have to go find it.

I'm plainly not saying this. I'm clearly saying make up your own mind the evidence is so easy to find and irrefutable in my mind, if you search for it and you don't find it, go ahead and refute me. It's a very simple concept and you would be corroborating your own evidence anyway.

They will simply ascribe your comment as ad hominem attack. That would be points subtracted in debate, not added.

It sounds brutal maybe, but you're clearly biased against liberals while talking about them being biased about rand?

 

[mhaze]

I personally disagree that there isn't cult-like behavior happening today because of her way of thinking and writing.....

I'm certain there is cult-like behavior centered around Shermer and EP. I really just say, I may be wrong, decide for yourself. I admit I'm just trying to give my opinion and .....

...Well we'd have Shermer who accepts EP that likes Shermer so I just give my opinion most people don't even accept EP anyway what's the point of trying to get people to accept one single point on it. ....

....Why do you think Rand would have been opposed to EP? I think quite the opposite. But wait....going down this road we'd be back at my first question, which was to compare Shermer and Rand's concepts. Never mind, you don't want to do that.

.....It sounds brutal maybe, but you're clearly biased against liberals while talking about them being biased about rand?

What was brutal was what Rand saw occurring with the socialists and communists (Reference Stalin and Ukraine), and when she saw similar collectivist trends in the US in "progressive" modes of thought, she spoke out quick clearly against them. Thus, progressive American socialists think of her as an enemy, because she was their enemy. There's no reason to duck and dodge that. Nobody is going to refute it.

 

[Joey McGee]

I'm certain there is cult-like behavior centered around Shermer and EP. I really just say, I may be wrong, decide for yourself. I admit I'm just trying to give my opinion and .....

There possibly is.

....Why do you think Rand would have been opposed to EP? I think quite the opposite. But wait....going down this road we'd be back at my first question, which was to compare Shermer and Rand's concepts. Never mind, you don't want to do that.

Because of her view of "human instinct". I Already said that you could compare them all you want, Ayn is dead, Shermer was probably an evangelist at the time, I don't see the point of comparing them.

What was brutal was what Rand saw occurring with the socialists and communists (Reference Stalin and Ukraine), and when she saw similar collectivist trends in the US in "progressive" modes of thought, she spoke out quick clearly against them. Thus, progressive American socialists think of her as an enemy, because she was their enemy. There's no reason to duck and dodge that. Nobody is going to refute it.

I'm not denying there are political aspects, it's too complex a subject I suppose for some. You should refrain from denying that you are biased...

Anyway, agree to disagree. Ayn Rand would have probably come around on a lot of stuff if she didn't die. It's just an interesting story.

 

[mhaze]

There possibly is.
Because of her view of "human instinct". .....

Which I suggest you do not understand, and possibly your reference (I think it was Shermer) may not also. The dichotomy that is suggested does not seem logical.

This may be of interest re Rand and EP:

http://ayn-rand.info/cth--1679-I_Hum_Nature.aspx

 

[Joey McGee]

Which I suggest you do not understand, and possibly your reference (I think it was Shermer) may not also. The dichotomy that is suggested does not seem logical.

This may be of interest re Rand and EP:

http://ayn-rand.info/cth--1679-I_Hum_Nature.aspx

From the article

I am not competent to judge the discipline’s details

Great, we can disregard everything you say because EP is not rocket science, it is as clear as day. Unless you listen to the critics without hearing the rebuttals from EPs in which case you will become very confused by a bunch of confused philosophers and territorial biologists.

anyone can see that it tries to explain human nature and social behavior while denying free will

The only free will a naturalist has to deny is free will that is beyond cause. Really now, it's insane to imagine that free will is the one phenomenon in the universe that is beyond cause, unless you are not a materialist monist for some unfathomable reason We can have most of things we like about free will, science doesn't destroy them, it's ok buddy, you can relax. Consciousness and free will are more or less a series of tricks that have evolved that's the point in case you missed it.

His all-too-frequent equation of short-term gain with rational self-interest muddies his discussions of selfishness and altruism.

That was the punchline? Not much of a skeptic.

And then the final paragraph basically says, "maybe he's right, this was interesting, good night and good luck"

 

[mhaze]

From the article

Great, we can disregard everything you say because EP is not rocket science, it is as clear as day. Unless you listen to the critics without hearing the rebuttals from EPs in which case you will become very confused by a bunch of confused philosophers and territorial biologists.

The only free will a naturalist has to deny is free will that is beyond cause. Really now, it's insane to imagine that free will is the one phenomenon in the universe that is beyond cause, unless you are not a materialist monist for some unfathomable reason We can have most of things we like about free will, science doesn't destroy them, it's ok buddy, you can relax. Consciousness and free will are more or less a series of tricks that have evolved that's the point in case you missed it.

That was the punchline? Not much of a skeptic.

And then the final paragraph basically says, "maybe he's right, this was interesting, good night and good luck"

The central issue he raised:

Here, then, is the key puzzle. If natural selection has so constructed human nature that men act in their own self-interest (or occasionally in the interest of their propagation), why has natural selection also led men to establish a moral standard contradicting human nature? Ridley cites naturalist George Williams as stating the paradox: “‘How could maximizing selfishness [via natural selection] produce an organism capable of often advocating, and occasionally practicing, charity towards strangers and even towards animals?’”

​

The assertion he ends with:

If Ridley has not found the basis of human morality, he has at any rate provided additional tools for its discovery. If he has not demonstrated the roots of men’s hostility to individualism, he has demonstrated that philosophical and psychological explanations of such hostility need to rest on a foundation of biology and anthropology.

​

Note that here is some guy from the Rand operation, suggesting a EP origin for the "vile hatred" we have been discussing. Which is indeed interesting.

Does not look then like Randians are opposed to EP. Maybe some are, I don't know. I'm sure also, that some wild claims in EP won't bear scientific scrutiny and others do not constitute testable hypotheses, therefore they are not even scientific paradymns but just speculation.

 

[Joey McGee]

The central issue he raised:

Here, then, is the key puzzle. If natural selection has so constructed human nature that men act in their own self-interest (or occasionally in the interest of their propagation), why has natural selection also led men to establish a moral standard contradicting human nature? Ridley cites naturalist George Williams as stating the paradox: “‘How could maximizing selfishness [via natural selection] produce an organism capable of often advocating, and occasionally practicing, charity towards strangers and even towards animals?’”​

The perfect analogy for this really is the selfish gene. If we have "replicators" which include genes and any method by which nature can reliably pass on evolved traits such as epigenetics and memes, than there are deep levels of explanation and research required to tease out those phenomenon properly for analysis. That part can be very hard. But we can make predictions and test outcomes in EP. They compete against each other and create altruism which goes against nature. We ought to strive to live the opposite the way nature operates in many ways. Ya'll ought to read the updated "The Selfish Gene" to really get it.
​

The assertion he ends with:

If Ridley has not found the basis of human morality, he has at any rate provided additional tools for its discovery. If he has not demonstrated the roots of men’s hostility to individualism, he has demonstrated that philosophical and psychological explanations of such hostility need to rest on a foundation of biology and anthropology.

​

Note that here is some guy from the Rand operation, suggesting a EP origin for the "vile hatred" we have been discussing. Which is indeed interesting.

Yes I thought so.

Does not look then like Randians are opposed to EP. Maybe some are, I don't know. I'm sure also, that some wild claims in EP won't bear scientific scrutiny and others do not constitute testable hypotheses, therefore they are not even scientific paradymns but just speculation.

I simply challenge everyone to read the rebuttals to the rebuttals when available.

 

[leftysergeant]

But the fossil record shows that selfishness had little to do with our potential for survival, but rather altruism.

Love makes us fit for survival.

Beauty makes us fit for survival.

Being a nasty, brutal bad-ass may allow individuals to survive, but in the long run, it could lead to our extinction.
The existance of so many ancient remains of severly disabled people who clearly lived a long time with those disabilities shows that we are designed to live in collectives in which individuals cared about each other.

The typical Randian "hero"in the ice ages would have been whacked up side the head for hogging community resources and all the chicks would be trying to mate with the little nebbish who always seemed to have a little extra food to share.

 

[Joey McGee]

One decent analogy, not that this would apply to the politcal philosophy, just to the science, could be the bonobos and the chimps. separated by a mere million years in evolution, to contrast their differences the bonobos basically have sex to alleviate any conceivable social tension or boredom with the females running the society. The chipanzees go to war and tear enemy chimps limb from limb over hours and hours... Apparently they got separated physically and they adapted differently to suit whatever new pressures were there. I think this is a lesson to humanity to build good environments based on the best science. And hurry and take over development of public spaces get rid of this ugly nonsense.

 

[mhaze]

Note that here is some guy from the Rand operation, suggesting a EP origin for the "vile hatred" we have been discussing. Which is indeed interesting.

Yes I thought so..

But that doesn't mean I agree with that concept, and neither does it mean that ascribing a label "EP origin" is a correct descriptive phrase, nor does it mean that it is supported by reality, or that testing could establish this as fact or not.

So, yeah, this kind of talk largely is fanciful speculation, and cannot be considered scientific. Which could mean that it is a field of knowledge that one could study, and actually learn nothing.

I could describe behavior in a set of four dogs, and embellish it, and draw parallels to human behavior in a dozen directions, and do it in a very convincing manner. But it would be just for fun, a sort of pontificating BS. About at the fourth beer level. That is not knowledge, but I wager you that I could fool 30 out of 30 people with it.

Which is a way of poking fun at some people who take their own BS too seriously.

 

[Joey McGee]

So, yeah, this kind of talk largely is fanciful speculation, and cannot be considered scientific. Which could mean that it is a field of knowledge that one could study, and actually learn nothing.

I can't believe you are saying this without having read a textbook or read a series of papers explaining the controversies from the EPs perspective. It's a gigantic new field of course there will be mistakes it's science. It's ok though they've got your number.

 

[Skeptic]

Long, long ago, the writer of Job already asked: how can it be that good people suffer, and bad people prosper? Why be moral, when it is more profitable to be egoistic? How one resolves the conflict between self-interest and morality?

Plato tried to show that if you are moral, you will be happiest egoistically -- because, taking care of your soul, nothing else matters to your happiness, even if you are burned alive for telling the truth. Rand tried to show that if you are an egoist, you will act morally, no matter how sorely tempted, since telling the truth (for example) is always the most "realistic" thing to do, because by lying I create "self-deception" and thus hurt myself.

But it just doesn't work, no matter what point you start with -- if only because, as Adeimantus already told Socrates, if selfishness is my guide, it is surely far better to appear moral and caring and just, than to actually be moral and caring and just. If I act in such a dishonest way I might deceive you about the truth, but I am not deceiving myself; so Rand's attempt to hang morality on the self-interest of not deceiving oneself simply doesn't work.

(The result of Rand's philosophy of selfishness, by the way is those worthless books about "self-esteem" and "being one's own best friend", which teach people, not to be honest, but to "make people believe in them"; not to be hard-working or skillful, but to "project a winning image". A vulgarisation of Rand's philosophy -- or merely a more consistent version of it?)

Hobbes was closer to the truth in saying that one reason people act morally is because they fear punishment from someone -- like the government -- which is stronger than them. Aristotle was closer to the truth in noting that another reason people act morally is because they are trained to do so from childhood, and that this is an important part of education. But no matter which side you start with -- Plato or Rand -- mere logic and analysis cannot get you from either selfishness to morality, or from morality to selfishness.

Why, then, did Rand offer this philosophy? The key to understanding Rand is to underestand that she deceived herself. Rand is not an egoist -- she only thinks she is. Her heroes always are pure Kantians, prigs, protestants, who always act, when dealing with each other, according to the highest principles of self-sacrifice and honesty.

Rand thinks the act this way because of her philosophy of selfishness, with all its disgusting conclusions about the vast majority of humanity being relegated to the category of subhuman "looters" who may be killed off with impunity. But in reality when it comes to their actual behavior, as opposed to their annoying, boring and indeed disgusting speeches about "why I am doing this", Rand's heroes inevitably act in a way that is the very opposite of what Rand's philosophy of selfishness recommends.

None of her heroes ever try to act like the losers who try to follow those "selfishness manuals" are supposed to act. They never bother with a "winning image" or "being one's own best friend". They act according to pure Kantian morality: impossibly principle-respecting, truth-speaking, straight-and-narrow, doing-it-the-hard way prigs.

Rand is a stick-in-the-mud protestant work-ethic prig, a hard-boiled Kantian, who only thinks she is an egoist. That is the secret to understanding her.

 

[easycruise]

The perfect analogy for this really is the selfish gene. Ya'll ought to read the updated "The Selfish Gene" to really get it.

Think of it this way, she started a cult, a very sick cult. People are instinctively extremely punishing towards such people.

The reason people hate her and the reason it's "pathological" is she screwed up the way people thought.

Pure Alinsky tactics. Nicely done. ""Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.""

You are especially good at the "polarizing" part.

....Why do you think Rand would have been opposed to EP? I think quite the opposite. But wait....going down this road we'd be back at my first question, which was to compare Shermer and Rand's concepts. Never mind, you don't want to do that.

Yes, because that would entail Shermer's appreciation of Rand's thinking is similar to Rand's appreciation of a serial killer's thinking. Can't go there, dontcha know! lol.

What was brutal was what Rand saw occurring with the socialists and communists (Reference Stalin and Ukraine), and when she saw similar collectivist trends in the US in "progressive" modes of thought, she spoke out quick clearly against them. Thus, progressive American socialists think of her as an enemy, because she was their enemy. There's no reason to duck and dodge that. Nobody is going to refute it.

Bingo! Leftists completely ignore Rand's critical thinking skills and perform knee-jerk demonization instead, as witnessed right there on this thread, among many, many other places on the web.

Certainly a lot of people (and I'm not saying this applies to you specifically) dislike Rand because someone suggested they should, and don't have the vaguest idea what or why or how.

Another bingo! Well done!

Given that this is a forum oriented toward critical thinking....

Some of us do try, others not so much.

 

[easycruise]

Rand thinks the act this way because of her philosophy of selfishness, with all its disgusting conclusions about the vast majority of humanity being relegated to the category of subhuman "looters" who may be killed off with impunity.

You are yet another one on this thread who does not know who the "looters" really are and it undermines your whole argument. Read her books and then come back and see us, OK?

What is hilarious to me is that the Rand bashers believe the sarcastic saying of "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is actually true and is not sarcasm!