Interesting article on Ayn Rand

[Guybrush Threepwood]

So self sufficiency means making decisions based on grounds which cannot be explained? Except for 'I went to college, so I know'

Thanks for the extract from Atlas Shrugged, I've been reading these threads, and wishing I hadn't lost my copy, so I could go back and read it, having seen that, I'm better off without it.

 

[mhaze]

So self sufficiency means making decisions based on grounds which cannot be explained? Except for 'I went to college, so I know'

Thanks for the extract from Atlas Shrugged, I've been reading these threads, and wishing I hadn't lost my copy, so I could go back and read it, having seen that, I'm better off without it.

Thanks for giving me a good laugh.

The clip concerns decision making by the "engineering method" which indeed is the core of teaching of an engineering curriculum. I wouldn't say that a first year out of graduate engineer was so qualified, or a student, to make a choice such as this concerning metallurgy and selection of an alloy, but neither is this assertion made in the text. Dagny is portrayed as having the required experience and knowledge.

And you may have missed the section where Dagny says she has read the reports and analysis...so rather than it being "grounds which cannot be explained" her view is exactly the opposite.

What is asserted is a quiet confidence, based on studying a problem, reaching a conclusion, and intending to carry it out.....against the fear and uncertainty of an ignorant mind that takes refuge in vague group consensus.

We could say then, that an intellectual self sufficiency is illustrated, and contrasted with overt intellectual dependency. Take from it whatever you wish...

 

[DavidJames]

Okay, here's an example of why these threads are nigh impossible......but you both are quite lost on this one.

Here is one of the many reasons why I've begun to lose interest in this forum. People with a highly inflated sense of their own intellect.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

We could say then, that an intellectual self sufficiency is illustrated, and contrasted with overt intellectual dependency. Take from it whatever you wish...

The self suffiency that makes her champion a perpetual motion machine later in the book?

 

[EGarrett]

So self sufficiency means making decisions based on grounds which cannot be explained? Except for 'I went to college, so I know'

Thanks for the extract from Atlas Shrugged, I've been reading these threads, and wishing I hadn't lost my copy, so I could go back and read it, having seen that, I'm better off without it.

Again, you missed his point entirely. Dagny made her decision herself based on her own reasoning and knowledge. That's why she said it will be cheaper and last longer. Pay attention to what mhaze posted to you. He went into greater depth.

Here is one of the many reasons why I've begun to lose interest in this forum. People with a highly inflated sense of their own intellect.

You removed the entire body of the post, which explained the exact reasons why I said what I did. Thus, your post is a complete waste of time.

 

[Earthborn]

"Self-sufficiency" as Rand would use it means applying your own mind to figure out how to achieve your own happiness.

I know Rand liked to redefine words to mean things that are the complete opposite of how they are commonly understood. Heck, her philosophy was called Objectivism, because she wanted some of her subjective opinions to be objective reality; and she could only achieve that by redefining objectivity.

Of course words can mean many different things at once, but some definitions are going to be crazier than others. "Self-sufficiency" as you claim Rand would use it is just not what it means.

There are many different ways a person might claim to be self-sufficient in some ways. For example a person might claim to be self-sufficient when it comes to energy needs by having solar panels on his/her roof. Or a country could claim to be self-sufficient by growing all its own food. In all those cases, becoming "self-sufficient" means that one in some ways stops receiving support from others, and the manager of a large business can't do that and remain successful.

 

[Earthborn]

Dagny made her decision herself based on her own reasoning and knowledge.

... and the information provided to her by the person who is trying to sell it, instead of independent scientific research. If someone claimed "based on her own reasoning and knowledge" that someone built a free energy machine by having read the report the inventor wrote, and no relevant expert thought the thing was worth considering, then we would think she is stupid and not at all heroic for making "her own decision". If something really is the greatest thing ever put on the market, then one should be able to convince the experts. If the experts are not convinced, there is a good chance that the information provided by the person selling the stuff is flawed.

What makes Dagny qualified to make such a decision anyway? Did she study materials science in between her engineering classes? Or does she just happen to have all relevant knowledge to everything she encounters in her life?

 

[Earthborn]

Your opinions noted. Of course you should have qualified them that way, instead of stating them as absolutes, but many people make this mistake.

I rarely make that mistake. In the rare cases that I state something as a fact instead of an opinion, it is because I am pretty darn sure it a fact and not merely my opinion. My opinion may even be that I am against it.

And your opinion is true where that is so stated in law or unwritten understanding in a state, the first being true of communism, the second of totalitarian regimes.

... and third every other country in the world. In every country that has ever existed, governments have set limits to what a person can do with what they "own". All governments have regulations that make it possible for the government to take property away for the "greater good" (which is whatever the government decides it is), though most are nice enough to provide some compensation. Some countries even consist entirely of land taken away from others by government force, which the government has chopped up into properties for new owners that were considered a greater benefit to the state. The USA is one of those.

Yet where the Constitution states otherwise, such in the USA, your statement is false.

A constitution stating that Carl Sagan had a dragon in his garage doesn't make it true. Governments can put all sorts of things into their constitutions; they may have regulations to make sure not every whim makes it into the constitution, but they also never put anything in unless it benefits the state.

 

[Skeptic]

Yes, mhaze, indeed. In Rand's fictional world, Dangy's actions in this case are self-sufficient and brave. And since Rand is writing the novel, she can make it the case that things turn out all right -- that despite all adversary, Dangy turns out to be correct because she just has the truth. But, in any actual world, her actions would be a case of crass irresponsibility: throwing away the science and ignoring the grave risk of death and injury to countless others so as to save one's business.

I could just as easily write a novel where the protagonist sets up a dictatorial government that abolishes all private property -- and, because I am writing it, it turns out that everything works fine and indeed a selfless, friendly utopia is achieved, despite all the "greeders" who say it would lead to concentration camps, because, you know, those "greeders" have a "philosophy of death" and just want to keep their worthless material things instead of the higher goals of equality, but cannot compete with the protagonist's superior worldview.

But what kind of evidence is that for communism? None whatever.

Rand's novels are, in a sense, circular reasoning: they claim objectivism works better in the real world based on a fictional world Rand creates where objectivism, unsurprisingly, wins in the end. And that's before we go into the entire issue of whether her heroes are in fact acting based on their own philosophy or merely are Kantians in disguise.

 

[mhaze]

... and the information provided to her by the person who is trying to sell it, instead of independent scientific research. If someone claimed "based on her own reasoning and knowledge" that someone built a free energy machine by having read the report the inventor wrote, and no relevant expert thought the thing was worth considering, then we would think she is stupid and not at all heroic for making "her own decision". If something really is the greatest thing ever put on the market, then one should be able to convince the experts. If the experts are not convinced, there is a good chance that the information provided by the person selling the stuff is flawed.

What makes Dagny qualified to make such a decision anyway? Did she study materials science in between her engineering classes? Or does she just happen to have all relevant knowledge to everything she encounters in her life?

Skeptic got it, of course it's because Rand wrote the novel and the character is presented as competent.

But you ask a question to which one perspective is relevant, which I bolded.

Dagny could not have cared less. She had reviewed the problem, examined the evidence, reached a conclusion and acted upon it.

Rand was trying to make a point there.

It is in fact a point that you've ducked and dodged. You know, that darn issue of self-sufficiency?

Darn those facts. Darn them, they are so inconvenient.

 

[mhaze]

I rarely make that mistake. In the rare cases that I state something as a fact instead of an opinion, it is because I am pretty darn sure it a fact and not merely my opinion. My opinion may even be that I am against it.

... and third every other country in the world. In every country that has ever existed, governments have set limits to what a person can do with what they "own". All governments have regulations that make it possible for the government to take property away for the "greater good" (which is whatever the government decides it is), though most are nice enough to provide some compensation. Some countries even consist entirely of land taken away from others by government force, which the government has chopped up into properties for new owners that were considered a greater benefit to the state. The USA is one of those....

I'll refer this to my buddy the constitutional law professor, he'll have a good laugh.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, mhaze, indeed. In Rand's fictional world, Dangy's actions in this case are self-sufficient and brave. And since Rand is writing the novel, she can make it the case that things turn out all right -- that despite all adversary, Dangy turns out to be correct because she just has the truth. But, in any actual world, her actions would be a case of crass irresponsibility: throwing away the science and ignoring the grave risk of death and injury to countless others so as to save one's business. .....

LOL. Except Dagny didn't throw away any science whatsoever.

It's curious how on this thread, there are extraordinarily wrong things being repeated over and over.

But this stems from sheer ignorance of the plotline, which can be considered (as you understand) to be factual. It is what it is, as it was written. In this context, "throwing away the science" is factually incorrect.

You can of course argue that James Taggert was right, and that Dagny should have consulted .... the State Science Institute.

(Hint: That's a trap).

.....Rand's novels are, in a sense, circular reasoning: they claim objectivism works better in the real world based on a fictional world Rand creates where objectivism....

I don't know of where this claim is made or where it may be inferred in any of the novels.

Can you point me to it?

 

[EGarrett]

I know Rand liked to redefine words to mean things that are the complete opposite of how they are commonly understood. Heck, her philosophy was called Objectivism, because she wanted some of her subjective opinions to be objective reality; and she could only achieve that by redefining objectivity.

Of course words can mean many different things at once, but some definitions are going to be crazier than others. "Self-sufficiency" as you claim Rand would use it is just not what it means.

Really? So self-sufficiency, means living as a hermit, completely off the land?

http://www.google.com/search?q=self...r.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=668845393480168f&pf=p&pdl=300

Notice how many references are to young people graduating from college and moving out of the house. So yes, surviving on your own WITHIN society is quite a normal definition of self-sufficient. You ruin your claims by overstating them.

There are many different ways a person might claim to be self-sufficient in some ways. For example a person might claim to be self-sufficient when it comes to energy needs by having solar panels on his/her roof. Or a country could claim to be self-sufficient by growing all its own food. In all those cases, becoming "self-sufficient" means that one in some ways stops receiving support from others, and the manager of a large business can't do that and remain successful.

Exactly, so your attempted redefinition of the term was pointless. Relying on your own mind is a perfectly fine use of the term. Do you have any other tangents that will completely ignore what mhaze was trying to tell you?

... and the information provided to her by the person who is trying to sell it, instead of independent scientific research. If someone claimed "based on her own reasoning and knowledge" that someone built a free energy machine by having read the report the inventor wrote, and no relevant expert thought the thing was worth considering, then we would think she is stupid and not at all heroic for making "her own decision". If something really is the greatest thing ever put on the market, then one should be able to convince the experts. If the experts are not convinced, there is a good chance that the information provided by the person selling the stuff is flawed.

What makes Dagny qualified to make such a decision anyway? Did she study materials science in between her engineering classes? Or does she just happen to have all relevant knowledge to everything she encounters in her life?

Do you honestly not understand the point or are you just purposefully trolling the thread? People are trying to explain to you exactly what Ayn Rand's ideal person would be. Using perfectly reasonable terms. It is not a hermit living alone in the woods like Ralph Waldo Emerson. It is not someone who only makes correct decisions (which is the Windmill you seem to be fighting in your above reply by pointing out that you think Dagny Taggart made a wrong decision later in the book) ...it is someone who takes responsibility for their own life and relies on their own mind to evaluate everything and to try to find out the best path to follow...whatever that path to best happiness may be.

Do you understand this?

 

[EGarrett]

Okay, Skeptic gets it. Thank Jeebus.

Yes, mhaze, indeed. In Rand's fictional world, Dangy's actions in this case are self-sufficient and brave. And since Rand is writing the novel, she can make it the case that things turn out all right -- that despite all adversary, Dangy turns out to be correct because she just has the truth. But, in any actual world, her actions would be a case of crass irresponsibility: throwing away the science and ignoring the grave risk of death and injury to countless others so as to save one's business.

What about the countless people who would see their lives improved if Taggart's decision turned out to be correct? What about the countless people who would be injured if a flaw was discovered in the steel that was being popularly used by railroads (this happens quite often and results in car and product recalls)? The only people who would be safe, in that case, would be Taggart's customers, since they don't just automatically follow the methods that everyone else uses. And keep in mind that she didn't make this decision haphazardly. She was educated and did her research.

If every train manufacturer was like Taggart, structurally-flawed designs would be much less likely to occur, and if the most efficient solutions would be much more likely to be found. It may end up that they all decide to use standard steel, but that would be fine. Because we aren't harmed by the additional diligence.

This same principle is true in countless other areas. If everyone took an extra minute to question important decisions, dictators would have a LOT more trouble taking power. They couldn't just tell people what to believe, they'd actually have to try to convince them. Furthermore, and I think this is deliciously ironic, the Wisdom of Crowds phenomenon, where large groups of people can decisions that are effectively superhuman in accuracy compared to one person, can only work when each person in the group functions independently of the others. So the theory that Rand championed is actually also the most efficient method for collective reasoning as well.

I could just as easily write a novel where the protagonist sets up a dictatorial government that abolishes all private property -- and, because I am writing it, it turns out that everything works fine and indeed a selfless, friendly utopia is achieved, despite all the "greeders" who say it would lead to concentration camps, because, you know, those "greeders" have a "philosophy of death" and just want to keep their worthless material things instead of the higher goals of equality, but cannot compete with the protagonist's superior worldview.

But what kind of evidence is that for communism? None whatever.

Rand's novels are, in a sense, circular reasoning: they claim objectivism works better in the real world based on a fictional world Rand creates where objectivism, unsurprisingly, wins in the end. And that's before we go into the entire issue of whether her heroes are in fact acting based on their own philosophy or merely are Kantians in disguise.

No one is arguing that Taggart's decision was good because it turned out okay at the end of the book. That's ridiculous.

 

[mhaze]

Okay, Skeptic gets it. Thank Jeebus...... she didn't make this decision haphazardly. She was educated and did her research......

Plus of course, Dagny was a woman in a world of men. So who would think she could be competent at anything, especially something like alloy selection and the engineering method? She didn't know her proper place, and talked back to her superiors.

Wait....when was AS written?

 

[mhaze]

The self suffiency that makes her champion a perpetual motion machine later in the book?

hahahaha....you could use some of Skeptic's reasoning here.

The machine that you refer to in the book, quite nicely works. Just as nicely as dilithium crystals work in StarTrek.

This is what is called a "fiction book". And yes, it is intellectual self suffiency that causes her to examine the machine, look into it's physics, examine the uses and risks, and reach a opinion about it.

Now, does that mean that the character Dagny "champions" the machine?

Nope.

You think that the character of Dagny is presented as caring what other peoples' OPINION OF the power generator was, and there is in that, another verification of Ayn Rand's world view. Why in the world would Dagny be portrayed as caring?

AS on Google books online.

Italics is Dagny Taggart.

"So you're doing research work of your own?"
"That's right.
"For what purpose?"
"For my own pleasure."
"What do you intend to do, if you discover something of scientific importance or commercial value? Do you intend to put it to some public use?"
"I don't know. I don't think so."
"Haven't you any desire to be of service to humanity?"
"I don't speak that kind of language, Miss taggart. I don't think you do, either."
She laughed. "I think we'll get along together, you and I".

 

[Earthborn]

Really? So self-sufficiency, means living as a hermit, completely off the land?

No, that is just the most extreme form of self-sufficiency that is physically possible for a human (it still means being dependent on one's environment). It is possible for a person to be more or less self-sufficient, and the higher one climbs on the social pyramid, the less self-sufficient one becomes and the more one relies on others.

Notice how many references are to young people graduating from college and moving out of the house. So yes, surviving on your own WITHIN society is quite a normal definition of self-sufficient. You ruin your claims by overstating them.

If not being paid for by one's parents is what self-sufficiency means, then it is hardly anything special or heroic.

Relying on your own mind is a perfectly fine use of the term.

Debatable, and I don't think that was what easycruise was referring that prompted my response. I think easycruise was talking about financial self sufficiency like those students you mention, but those Randian heroes aren't in any way financially independent from the worker's they pay; those workers are helping them make their money.

People are trying to explain to you exactly what Ayn Rand's ideal person would be. Using perfectly reasonable terms. It is not a hermit living alone in the woods like Ralph Waldo Emerson.

I understand that. I just object to calling those ideal persons "self-sufficient" since they rely on so many others in so many ways. I also believe the point of Atlas Shrugged is that these people are so amazingly self sufficient in every way that society needs them more then they need society... I don't how see that can be true of heads of big industries.

...it is someone who takes responsibility for their own life and relies on their own mind to evaluate everything and to try to find out the best path to follow...whatever that path to best happiness may be.

Do you understand this?

I am fairly sure I understand it just fine. I just think it is huey. One's "mind" (if one insists on using such psycho-analytic terminology) contains ideas and knowledge from a large social environment. I fail to see how one can one can use their own mind with the exclusion of other minds. I also fail to see why trying to so is desirable. I'm pretty sure most of humanity's achievements are the result of people not relying purely on their own mind, but by different minds working together.

 

[Earthborn]

She was educated and did her research.

So she says, but in her research she only used the information by the guy who tries to sell the stuff, and she does not show she was educated in the relevant field of expertise. Moreover, there is no reason to assume the "best metallurgical authorities" were not educated and did not do their research; and they are the relevant experts in the matter.

If every train manufacturer was like Taggart, structurally-flawed designs would be much less likely to occur, and if the most efficient solutions would be much more likely to be found.

By not following the advice by the relevant scientific authorities and doing the opposite of what they recommend? I fail to see how that can possibly lead to less problems. Please explain how that would work.

Because we aren't harmed by the additional diligence.

Seems that this would lead to less diligence, not more.

Furthermore, and I think this is deliciously ironic, the Wisdom of Crowds phenomenon, where large groups of people can decisions that are effectively superhuman in accuracy compared to one person, can only work when each person in the group functions independently of the others.

It seems like you are thinking of a specific experiment or scientific finding, so it would be nice if you show us a link.

 

[mhaze]

So she says, but in her research she only used the information by the guy who tries to sell the stuff, and she does not show she was educated in the relevant field of expertise. Moreover, there is no reason to assume the "best metallurgical authorities" were not educated and did not do their research; and they are the relevant experts in the matter.

By not following the advice by the relevant scientific authorities and doing the opposite of what they recommend? I fail to see how that can possibly lead to less problems. Please explain how that would work.

Seems that this would lead to less diligence, not more.....

Again, you express your own OPINION, without noting the context. The plotline of AS embodies your exact opinion in James Taggert and others, and pits against it, the innovative method of Hank Reardan and Dagny Taggert.

While we understand that you are expressing your opinion as to what is right, it's important to note that these concepts and concerns of yours are given considerable exposure and coverage in the book.

 

[Skeptic]

What about the countless people who would see their lives improved if Taggart's decision turned out to be correct?

What if my communist utopia really worked? What about all those people who are hurt by capitalism and my hero saved from it?

In Rand, the good part isn't original and the original part is no good. When her characters (as they usually do) act honestly, bravely, etc., their act in a way already clearly recognized as moral, where the objectivist philosophy is just tacked-on: e.g., that objectivists will not lie because it is against their "real" self-interest, an idea as old as Plato simply dressed up with the word "selfishness" added.

When they really do act in an objectivist manner -- taking care of their own self-interest and the hell with the evil government's regulations, scientific worry-warts about safety, etc. -- they act in a way that is, in fact, grossly immoral, and only turns out to the best in Rand's fictional world (which inter alia includes free-energy devices.)

I might as well write a novel with Stalin as the hero: tack on a communist explanation for common virtues (he never lies because he believes in sharing, and lying means refusing to share the truth, so communism is the "real reason" people don't lie) and create a fictional world where the communist immoral acts (gulags, etc.) just happen to work: everybody comes out of them truly reformed, happy, and properly re-educated.