Interesting article on Ayn Rand

[mhaze]

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?<< much good stuff snipped>>

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.

I heard once that the chief villian in the book Atlas Shrugged wasn't the evil government morons, or corrupt capitalists in bed with them, but Dagny Tabbert. Because she was the last to change.

This would seem to put the brakes on your direction of thought, if one considers character development and self realization as integral to plot.

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.

Right, because these issues are obvious from the point of view of the scientific method, which pretty much defines what science is. So they can't be ducked or dodged around.

I might argue that Occam's Razor applies, thus, this is pseudo scientific babble, in large part, or that the fraction which is such, is not distinguishable from that which is not, and the assertions made cannot be evaluated scientifically.

So while you have argued that Rand's books can like a virus, infect the gullible and lead them to wrong methods of thinking, I argue that a belief in EP, can be nothing but faith based, with untestable theories and vague hypotheses. Interesting speculation, but something that could infect poeple like a virus, and lead them to wrong methods of thinking.



Or I could just quote Dawkins. No, wait....already did that:

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.

.....Rand is a stick-in-the-mud protestant work-ethic prig....

Yes, I guess that darn stick-in-the-mud protestant work-ethic-priggishness with which we built the Apollo program and went to the Moon is just out of style these days.

Darn those stick-in-the-mud-work-ethic-prigs.

They need to get with the program.

No...wait. Then we looters couldn't steal their goodies.....hmmm....

 

[Skeptic]

Darn those stick-in-the-mud-work-ethic-prigs...

Sorry, I should have clarified. I didn't mean to imply such folks are bad in any way! Indeed, Rand's heroes are heroes precisely because such qualities are good qualities (up to a point, of course -- like every other good quality -- but I digress).

My point is that according to Rand's own principles, such folks should have been the "bad guys", compared to the self-centered barracudas around them, who should have been the "good guys". And yet she -- like most of us -- admires them, and condemns the barracudas.

She does cartwheels in order to try and convince us how the self-sacrifising moral folks are the "really" selfish ones, but that's about as convincing as Plato's claim that a certain ancient Greek king, when burned alive in a cauldron by his enemies, was "really" just as happy as he was when he ruled in peace, because his soul was equally just and clean.

I don't think Plato really believed that, and I don't think Rand really believes her own claims about the virtues of selfishness, either.

 

[mhaze]

Sorry, I should have clarified. I didn't mean to imply such folks are bad in any way! Indeed, Rand's heroes are heroes precisely because such qualities are good qualities (up to a point, of course -- like every other good quality -- but I digress).

My point is that according to Rand's own principles, such folks should have been the "bad guys", compared to the self-centered barracudas around them, who should have been the "good guys". And yet she -- like most of us -- admires them, and condemns the barracudas.

She does cartwheels in order to try and convince us how the self-sacrifising moral folks are the "really" selfish ones, but that's about as convincing as Plato's claim that a certain ancient Greek king, when burned alive in a cauldron by his enemies, was "really" just as happy as he was when he ruled in peace, because his soul was equally just and clean.

I don't think Plato really believed that, and I don't think Rand really believes her own claims about the virtues of selfishness, either.

Man, I have NO idea where you are coming from or where you got those ideas, derivative theories sliced and diced like mortgage tracts it would seem, exemplified with zombies of Plato rising from the cooking pot.

You seem to have some generalizations about idealized Rand "hero characters", and you seem to refer back to one or two of Rand's books or selected parts of it. You have described something that might have been the left wheel well of a Cadillac, instead of a Cadillac.

But I digress. Neither did I assert they were bad, those nasty and greedy capitalists, as long as us looters could scheme a way to keep stealing from them without their getting too agitated. They have their place, you know, as long as we keep them in their place.

 

[Joey McGee]

Right, because these issues are obvious from the point of view of the scientific method, which pretty much defines what science is. So they can't be ducked or dodged around.

I might argue that Occam's Razor applies, thus, this is pseudo scientific babble, in large part, or that the fraction which is such, is not distinguishable from that which is not, and the assertions made cannot be evaluated scientifically.

This is just one of hundreds of papers explaining EP controversies if anyone is interested in trying to debunk the debunkers.

So while you have argued that Rand's books can like a virus, infect the gullible and lead them to wrong methods of thinking, I argue that a belief in EP, can be nothing but faith based, with untestable theories and vague hypotheses.

Interesting speculation, but something that could infect poeple like a virus, and lead them to wrong methods of thinking.

Anything has the chance to do that. There are no philosophy of science arguments against EP that hold water. You just have to do the work to figure that out. See Stephen Jay Gould's ridiculous strawmandering.

Or I could just quote Dawkins. No, wait....already did that:

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.

Yes your possession of a consciousness and a prefrontal cortex certainly leaves you with some important responsibilities.

 

[Joey McGee]

The selfish gene really is the best metaphor for the natural process. If you think about it, the first replicators ultimately had to be singular minded in a sense. Our diversification led to the competition of various levels of replicators, genes and memes etc. But it's only a metaphor, in reality, things that can happen happen. Nature is formed out of bizarre coincidences and lucky strikes. We have too much nature in us to be considered as beyond primates.

This is the limitation of the philosophy in my eyes. It doesn't follow close enough to the actual observations of human nature and the universe. It doesn't promote a naturalistic enough philosophy to be taken seriously so that's why it's not taught academically. It appears that she focused on one aspect of naturalism and made a philosophy of it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's a very interesting essay on Ayn Rand and how her background forged her philosophy Here. What's everyone think of it?

I read one of the biographies the article mentions, "Ayn Rand and the World She Made". I got the impression Rand was overly influenced by a narrow slice of the world. IE, she drew her opinions from a pittance of evidence that was very big to her. You can imagine being moderately well off, having that taken away then immigrating from a more underdeveloped Russia and being wowed by the city of New York and then Hollywood. It was probably easy for Rand to infer causality where there was only coincidence and association.


Despite not really being an insightful economics guru, just having the facade of being one, her little clique of self centered, it's OK to be selfish and greedy, following made Rand into some kind of hero. They clearly liked the message, and belonging to the clique.

 

[mhaze]

The selfish gene really is the best metaphor for the natural process. If you think about it, the first replicators ultimately had to be singular minded in a sense. Our diversification led to the competition of various levels of replicators, genes and memes etc. But it's only a metaphor, in reality, things that can happen happen. Nature is formed out of bizarre coincidences and lucky strikes. We have too much nature in us to be considered as beyond primates.

This is the limitation of the philosophy in my eyes. It doesn't follow close enough to the actual observations of human nature and the universe. It doesn't promote a naturalistic enough philosophy to be taken seriously so that's why it's not taught academically. It appears that she focused on one aspect of naturalism and made a philosophy of it.

Bull. I could argue just as well socialogically, that the expanding frontiers of America over it's some five centuries of colonization gave a competitive advantage to survival of individualists, and thus this came to be viewed as a desirable trait, within our culture.

That is in contradiction to societies where individualism was a direct threat to their survival, usually this was due to the nature of the process of producing food. Typically "rice cultures", where planting and growing consisted of many tiny steps at exact intervals in the seasons. These cultures include ancient Egypt, and many sections of Asia including China.

This sociological and historical approach yields a greater understanding and thus knowledge, instead of ignorance. Prattling about "the selfish gene" does not.

Further, I don't even know that you've got what Dawkins thought right, let along it's possible application - if any, which is dubious - to the subject at hand, essentially Ayn Rand's worldview. Dawkins, from the Selfish Gene:

if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.
​

More precisely, here is what Dawkins said on the subject of altruism (p. 180):

It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or the other, nor to speculate over its possible memic evolution. The point I am making now is that, even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight-our capacity to simulate the future in imagination-could save us from the worst selfish excesses of the blind replicators. We have at least the mental equipment to foster our longterm selfish interests rather than merely our short-term selfish interests. We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a 'conspiracy of doves', and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination.
​

For the Rand point of view, I'll use Yaron Brooks, who is head of some group of Rand studies, talking about where he thinks altruism comes from, and what it's utility in society historical has been.

Dawkins, (and Schemer) have the naive faith of a progressive liberal in the wonders of self sacrifice, and Brooks has a skeptical view on the subject. Brooks has to his advantage, the historical realities of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and many others...all of whom used the concept of altruism in the methods to achieve their goals. End result: Hundreds of millions murdered.

EP is not on your side. The naive, progressive and liberal views of the above quotes are similar to yours, but in the sections I read, he does not seem to stretch the rubber band from EP to political views.

I read one of the biographies the article mentions, "Ayn Rand and the World She Made". I got the impression Rand was overly influenced by a narrow slice of the world. IE, she drew her opinions from a pittance of evidence that was very big to her. You can imagine being moderately well off, having that taken away then immigrating from a more underdeveloped Russia and being wowed by the city of New York and then Hollywood. It was probably easy for Rand to infer causality where there was only coincidence and association.


Despite not really being an insightful economics guru, just having the facade of being one, her little clique of self centered, it's OK to be selfish and greedy, following made Rand into some kind of hero. They clearly liked the message, and belonging to the clique.

Sure it was easy for Rand to infer causality where there was only coincidence and association.

It was just coincidence that tens of millions of Ukrainians starved after Stalin gave his orders to starve them. Collectivist thinking under the Communist regime had nothing to do with this. Just chance association of events in the stream of history.

 

[mhaze]

An error, change my references to "Shermer" in the prior post to "Dawkins".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
Sure it was easy for Rand to infer causality where there was only coincidence and association.

It was just coincidence that tens of millions of Ukrainians starved after Stalin gave his orders to starve them. Collectivist thinking under the Communist regime had nothing to do with this. Just chance association of events in the stream of history.

Looks like you bought Rand's unsupported premises as well. And, like so many others, you see causality that is not supported by the evidence.

Rand's position was not collectivism vs the free market, Objectivism is Libertarian fundamentalism vs even the most minimally regulated free market. And totalitarianism vs anarchy are political systems, not economic systems. There are plenty of examples of totalitarian governments with capitalist economic systems in the world.

 

[mhaze]

.....Sure it was easy for Rand to infer causality where there was only coincidence and association.

It was just coincidence that tens of millions of Ukrainians starved after Stalin gave his orders to starve them. Collectivist thinking under the Communist regime had nothing to do with this. Just chance association of events in the stream of history.

..... And, like so many others, you see causality that is not supported by the evidence......

wow....

 

[mhaze]

This is just one of hundreds of papers explaining EP controversies if anyone is interested in trying to debunk the debunkers.....

This paper is not very impressive. Not at all, I am afraid. Let's illustrate with one of the conclusions that the authors reach concerning EP:

Evolutionary psychologists also use evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, comparative biology, and ethology to elucidate some aspects of an otherwise scientifically uncertain ancestral past. For example, the paleontological evidence is rife with ancient caches of skulls and skeletons showing patterned lethal injuries, corresponding in size and shape to ancient weapons discovered in the vicinity. When combined with cave art depictions of fighting and many other sources of evidence, the cumulative findings yield reasonable inferences that human warfare was a potent hostile force of nature for human ancestors, that males were far more often perpetrators and victims of homicide than females, and that the majority of ancestral attackers were right handed (Duntley & Buss, 2008).

​

This is either (A) circuituous reasoning (B) idiotically obvious statement and in either case doesn't represent a contribution to science, let alone penetrating insight.

Cavemen were brutal.

DUHHHH!!!!

More insultingly this is just a poor rendering of a complex subject well discussed in anthropology. "Scientifically uncertain ancestral past?" In this (and other examples that can be picked from this paper) there is no new valuable contribution from labeling the method of analysis "Evolutionary Psychology" and proceeding to spend countless hours on it.

That paper sucks bigtime.

 

[Joey McGee]

Bull.

I could argue just as well socialogically, that the expanding frontiers of America over it's some five centuries of colonization gave a competitive advantage to survival of individualists, and thus this came to be viewed as a desirable trait, within our culture.

That is in contradiction to societies where individualism was a direct threat to their survival, usually this was due to the nature of the process of producing food. Typically "rice cultures", where planting and growing consisted of many tiny steps at exact intervals in the seasons. These cultures include ancient Egypt, and many sections of Asia including China.

Are you saying that the political spectrum has naturalistic origins in the evolutionary process? You don't say!

This sociological and historical approach yields a greater understanding and thus knowledge, instead of ignorance. Prattling about "the selfish gene" does not.

Actually you can still understand that under the metaphor if you think clearly.

Dawkins, (and Schemer) have the naive faith of a progressive liberal in the wonders of self sacrifice

and Brooks has a skeptical view on the subject. Brooks has to his advantage, the historical realities of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and many others...all of whom used the concept of altruism in the methods to achieve their goals. End result: Hundreds of millions murdered.

works as good here as it does against atheism

EP is not on your side. The naive, progressive and liberal views of the above quotes are similar to yours, but in the sections I read, he does not seem to stretch the rubber band from EP to political views.

You're missing the point, it's about debunking rand's view of human nature objectiviely and scientifically. It has nothing to do with EP supporting a liberal viewpoint. Shermer uses EP to support his Libertarian viewpoint, even wrote a book on it. But ask Shermer if Rand had an accurate view of human nature. Rand didn't even live to see the birth of EP it's not as though I'm critiquing her for not understanding it.

 

[Joey McGee]

This paper is not very impressive. Not at all, I am afraid. Let's illustrate with one of the conclusions that the authors reach concerning EP:

Evolutionary psychologists also use evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, comparative biology, and ethology to elucidate some aspects of an otherwise scientifically uncertain ancestral past. For example, the paleontological evidence is rife with ancient caches of skulls and skeletons showing patterned lethal injuries, corresponding in size and shape to ancient weapons discovered in the vicinity. When combined with cave art depictions of fighting and many other sources of evidence, the cumulative findings yield reasonable inferences that human warfare was a potent hostile force of nature for human ancestors, that males were far more often perpetrators and victims of homicide than females, and that the majority of ancestral attackers were right handed (Duntley & Buss, 2008).

​

This is either (A) circuituous reasoning (B) idiotically obvious statement and in either case doesn't represent a contribution to science, let alone penetrating insight.

Cavemen were brutal.

DUHHHH!!!!

More insultingly this is just a poor rendering of a complex subject well discussed in anthropology. "Scientifically uncertain ancestral past?" In this (and other examples that can be picked from this paper) there is no new valuable contribution from labeling the method of analysis "Evolutionary Psychology" and proceeding to spend countless hours on it.

That paper sucks bigtime.

lol, you've debunked AGW and EP you should be out there writing for the masses.

 

[mhaze]

.....You're missing the point, it's about debunking rand's view of human nature objectiviely and scientifically. ....

that hasn't been done, and can't be done, in my opinion.

Unless you started with a misframing (purposeful) or misunderstanding (unintentional) of the Rand position, then proceeded with logic to reach the conclusion wished for originally.

In either case, the pitfall comes when you start to define your terms, then assess the position of the writer on those terms, and then critique said positions. All you'll find is that the reality is that the terms were precisely defined, and the positions naturally follow. There's room for disagreement and so forth, but you will no more "debunk rand's view of human nature objectively and scientifically" than you would do a similar job on Kant, Spinoza, or any of a cast of historical characters.

Hell, why don't you start by Debunking Shakespeare Scientifically? After that feat is accomplished, Rand would be a snap. All that you need to do is scientifically and objectively debunk capitalism.

 

[Joey McGee]

that hasn't been done, and can't be done, in my opinion.

Unless you started with a misframing (purposeful) or misunderstanding (unintentional) of the Rand position, then proceeded with logic to reach the conclusion wished for originally.

In either case, the pitfall comes when you start to define your terms, then assess the position of the writer on those terms, and then critique said positions. All you'll find is that the reality is that the terms were precisely defined, and the positions naturally follow. There's room for disagreement and so forth, but you will no more "debunk rand's view of human nature objectively and scientifically" than you would do a similar job on Kant, Spinoza, or any of a cast of historical characters.

Hell, why don't you start by Debunking Shakespeare Scientifically? After that feat is accomplished, Rand would be a snap.

None of this matters. If you make claims that can be falsified, you can be scientifically debunked. You could perhaps argue that the interpretation is wrong in specific cases, but that's why there are books and articles and debates about it.

All that you need to do is scientifically and objectively debunk capitalism.

That's assuming anyone that would criticize her view of human nature are anti-capitalist? Many of the people who disagree with her in this area are Libertarians.

 

[Mycroft]

Looks like you bought Rand's unsupported premises as well. And, like so many others, you see causality that is not supported by the evidence.

Rand's position was not collectivism vs the free market, Objectivism is Libertarian fundamentalism vs even the most minimally regulated free market. And totalitarianism vs anarchy are political systems, not economic systems. There are plenty of examples of totalitarian governments with capitalist economic systems in the world.

I think Libertarian Fundamentalism is a pretty good description of Objectivism, but I think her writings, at least what I've read, very much put collectivism versus the free market. Only I think when she says "collectivism" she really means "communism", as "collectivism" could cover all kinds of governments she doesn't describe. Fascism, for example.

 

[mhaze]

I think Libertarian Fundamentalism is a pretty good description of Objectivism, but I think her writings, at least what I've read, very much put collectivism versus the free market. Only I think when she says "collectivism" she really means "communism", as "collectivism" could cover all kinds of governments she doesn't describe. Fascism, for example.

No. this is clearly seen in the recent Atlas Shrugged movie. Collectivism is shown in America rather arbitrarily in small groups scheming. For example a trade association scheming against some capitalist in conjunction with a government regulatory agency, and gets the "Anti Dog Eat Dog Rule" established. Under a cloak of altruism are the actions of total looters.

So she looks at the issue of collectivism in the abstract, maybe worse when it is embodied in a government as communism, but evil when it is used to advantage by collectivists regardless of where they may be found. In this movie, political parties are left unmentioned, only the actions which signify the methods and thought patterns of collectivism are thus indicated.

Which is why I laughed all the way through the movie - it more or less describes what is going on right now.

 

[mhaze]

None of this matters. If you make claims that can be falsified, you can be scientifically debunked. You could perhaps argue that the interpretation is wrong in specific cases, but that's why there are books and articles and debates about it.
....

No, there exist varieties of debunking other than debunking by way of testing a null hypothesis or using the scientific method. For example, law practice commonly debunks things that are claimed, both in and out of court, using rules of evidence, hearsay and procedure. Then there is straight logical analysis.

I've stated that you are not going to "scientifically debunk Ayn Rand" and that's clearly an easily defensible position.

....assuming anyone that would criticize her view of human nature are anti-capitalist? Many of the people who disagree with her in this area are Libertarians.

NO, For the assertion ( not A then B ) if it is established that (not A) is true, where in reality varieties of A and B exist, we have

If not A.101 then (A.[not 101] OR B[any])

instead of

B true,

and the error lies in the mistaken premise that A is a singular thing.

 

[Joey McGee]

No, there exist varieties of debunking other than debunking by way of testing a null hypothesis or using the scientific method. For example, law practice commonly debunks things that are claimed, both in and out of court, using rules of evidence, hearsay and procedure. Then there is straight logical analysis.

I've stated that you are not going to "scientifically debunk Ayn Rand" and that's clearly an easily defensible position.

This is your naive understanding of modern EP based on a lack of research into the arguments. You can't use philosophical ideas to disprove EP anymore than you can to disprove evolutionary theory itself, anymore than you can prove God through the Kalam Cosmological argument.

NO, For the assertion ( not A then B ) if it is established that (not A) is true, where in reality varieties of A and B exist, we have

If not A.101 then (A.[not 101] OR B[any])

instead of

B true,

and the error lies in the mistaken premise that A is a singular thing.

Remember, you're talking to mere mortals easily fooled by junk science than can be dismissed out of hand with simple ideas. This is way too profound.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think Libertarian Fundamentalism is a pretty good description of Objectivism, but I think her writings, at least what I've read, very much put collectivism versus the free market. Only I think when she says "collectivism" she really means "communism", as "collectivism" could cover all kinds of governments she doesn't describe. Fascism, for example.

""Collectivism" vs the free market does not preclude Libertarianism fundamentalism. I agree communism clearly played a key role in forming her philosophy.

But Rand frequently said government regulation distorted the free market. That is the Lib fundy position.