Ayn Rand speaks to Mike Wallace, 1959

[hgc]

The problem is not that there can't be both an unstoppable force and an immovable object, but that neither has ever been demonstrated, or to my knowledge, hypothesized with any promise. Sure, you may fancy at some level of abstraction that there aren't paradoxes in nature, but then that's just a tautology. Human experience does not encompass all of nature anyway, only some part of it. Human experience and imagination may indeed contain paradoxes.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The problem is not that there can't be both an unstoppable force and an immovable object, but that neither has ever been demonstrated, or to my knowledge, hypothesized with any promise. Sure, you may fancy at some level of abstraction that there aren't paradoxes in nature, but then that's just a tautology. Human experience does not encompass all of nature anyway, only some part of it. Human experience and imagination may indeed contain paradoxes.

Your casual disregard for paradoxes of abstract, language-dependent, constructs has angered The Invisible Pink Unicorn, MHHNBS.

 

[Complexity]

I've noticed from earlier threads that Ayn Rand is a divisive topic on this forum - many respect her philosophy, and many others hate her philosophy.

From my own thinking and reading, I've decided that people who hate her philosophy either haven't read her works thoughtfully, don't understand what she is saying, or understand what she is saying and choose to act in a manner contrary to what she advocates.

Members of the first group don't have a basis for an opinion.

Members of the second group should keep on trying.

Members of the third group are people I'd rather not know.

Many will insist that there is another group, but I don't think I've encountered anyone that doesn't belong in one of the first three.

I've no intention of arguing with people about this (or much else) - just stating my position.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I've noticed from earlier threads that Ayn Rand is a divisive topic on this forum - many respect her philosophy, and many others hate her philosophy.

From my own thinking and reading, I've decided that people who hate her philosophy either haven't read her works thoughtfully, don't understand what she is saying, or understand what she is saying and choose to act in a manner contrary to what she advocates.

Members of the first group don't have a basis for an opinion.

Members of the second group should keep on trying.

Members of the third group are people I'd rather not know.

Many will insist that there is another group, but I don't think I've encountered anyone that doesn't belong in one of the first three.

I've no intention of arguing with people about this (or much else) - just stating my position.

Or, they have read her works, understand them, and think they're drivel. Let's just keep that possibility on the table rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[mumblethrax]

Presuming that the third group you've described "acts in a manner contrary to what she advocates" do so because they think she was in desperate need of an enema, are you saying that you can ignore any of Rand's copious critics because you don't like them?

I'm not surprised you've elected not to defend this position--it's an untenable ad hominem.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Complexity,

I think many of Rand's views are solid ones. I think she makes valid and intersting points. My problems with Rand started when I read the Virtue of Selfishness. To me she goes too far with what she labels "rational, irrational, moral, immoral". This was the point where I was able to look at her work more objectively. One does not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is much of great substance and wisdom in Rand's work. This does not exclude her from being dogmatic and dare I say, wrong in some respects.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Complexity,

I think many of Rand's views are solid ones. I think she makes valid and intersting points. My problems with Rand started when I read the Virtue of Selfishness. To me she goes too far with what she labels "rational, irrational, moral, immoral". This was the point where I was able to look at her work more objectively. One does not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is much of great substance and wisdom in Rand's work. This does not exclude her from being dogmatic and dare I say, wrong in some respects.

I think she suffers from the problem of having a really nice hammer. She developed a system of philosophy that handles some problems very well. Naturally, she was inclined to apply it to all problems indiscriminantly.

 

[drkitten]

Perhaps. I'm not convinced, but then again, I'm no physicist. But what Rand was saying was that a proposition and the negation of that proposition can not both be true at the same time.

Yes. And in saying so, she's so deeply wrong that she will need several hours of staged decompression before she can get to "right."

As a simple example, is the water in my bathtub "hot"?

The water in my bathtub is hot. If you put your hand in it, you will feel the warmth. You might even scald yourself.

The water in my bathtub is not, however, hot. I'm using it (and an external heater) at the moment to boil lots and lots of eggs and it's nowhere near hot yet.

Yes, that's an argument from ambiguity. But since any proposition is inherently contextually-bound, any proposition -- and any argument -- will inherently be ambiguous. If your scheme of "logic" requires unambiguity in order to work -- or includes it as a premise -- then your scheme of logic is fundamentally broken.

Not by coincidence, Rand's scheme of logic and Rand's philosophy are fundamentally broken.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I think she suffers from the problem of having a really nice hammer. She developed a system of philosophy that handles some problems very well. Naturally, she was inclined to apply it to all problems indiscriminantly.

A brilliant observation! I like it!

 

[drkitten]

Well, you're sort of avoiding the point of the question.

It is a valid answer to a question to point out that the question, as posed, is too badly phrased to admit of a conventional answer.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is not a yes/no question, despite its grammatical form.

If your logic does not admit this (as Rand's does not), your logic is fundamentally broken.

 

[drkitten]

I've noticed from earlier threads that Ayn Rand is a divisive topic on this forum - many respect her philosophy, and many others hate her philosophy.

From my own thinking and reading, I've decided that people who hate her philosophy either haven't read her works thoughtfully, don't understand what she is saying, or understand what she is saying and choose to act in a manner contrary to what she advocates.

Members of the first group don't have a basis for an opinion.

Members of the second group should keep on trying.

Members of the third group are people I'd rather not know.

Just because you'd rather not know me doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that Rand is right.

I'm sure that there are people who could have written the exact same paragraphs above, except that the name of the author would have been Adolph Hitler.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Just because you'd rather not know me doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that Rand is right.

I'm sure that there are people who could have written the exact same paragraphs above, except that the name of the author would have been Adolph Hitler.

I call Godwin. You lose.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Double post.

 

[BPSCG]

I have to go out, but in the meantime, to those who say there can be both an immovable object and an irresistible force, contemplate the implications for F=MA if that were indeed true.

 

[hgc]

I've noticed from earlier threads that Ayn Rand is a divisive topic on this forum - many respect her philosophy, and many others hate her philosophy.

From my own thinking and reading, I've decided that people who hate her philosophy either haven't read her works thoughtfully, don't understand what she is saying, or understand what she is saying and choose to act in a manner contrary to what she advocates.

Members of the first group don't have a basis for an opinion.

Members of the second group should keep on trying.

Members of the third group are people I'd rather not know.

Many will insist that there is another group, but I don't think I've encountered anyone that doesn't belong in one of the first three.

I've no intention of arguing with people about this (or much else) - just stating my position.

Can any of the rhetoriticians here provide the Latin for Argument from sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting "I can't heeeeeeear you!"

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have to go out, but in the meantime, to those who say there can be both an immovable object and an irresistible force, contemplate the implications for F=MA if that were indeed true.

As F is dP/dt, so it would impart an infinite amount of momentum, the immovable object would have an infinite mass.

So the correct answer is it depends on the quality of the relative infinities, and you can contrive what sort of infinities they each are to get what ever results you want.

Look at unit area delta functions and such(they have infinite hight and no width but have a specific area). So in this case you are setting up a situation of competing limits.

 

[firecoins]

Sorry but Ayn Rand is a joke.

Are you going to give a proper argument or you just uping your post count?

 

[strathmeyer]

Are you going to give a proper argument or you just uping your post count?

Sorry but thinkingaboutit is a joke.

 

[EGarrett]

I was a little too vague. Rand also doesn't support people being guilty for not helping others. She believes people should help others because they want to- it's a strange distinction.

Strange, but subtle and accurate given her philosophy. Not that I've done much reading of her yet.

Really? I believe you support redistribution of wealth (welfare, etc). You don't believe that's forcing people to give something up for the sake of others?

Well, this'll be another strange and subtle distinction, but as I said earlier, to get a great amount of happiness, we need others to help us form an efficient society with efficient technology. Welfare can help others to rejoin and contribute to that society. To that extent, since we get something out of it, it isn't necessarily a sacrifice. So I support welfare when we can determine with reasonable certainty that it will be used for people who will contribute to society.

But of course, the next question is...do I believe in forcing people to do so, even if it is a non-sacrifice? It's an interesting question, because while the choice may be ultimately beneficial to everyone, many people might not see that far ahead and would not want to give the money. I suppose you can't force someone to do something that will benefit them if they can't see how and they don't want to.

I think that if you undid the government system of welfare, but allowed businesses to offer people something similar in exchange for some manner of exclusive access to them once they get on their feet, we might be able to do away with welfare and privatize it.

 

[hgc]

Strange, but subtle and accurate given her philosophy. Not that I've done much reading of her yet.

Well, this'll be another strange and subtle distinction, but as I said earlier, to get a great amount of happiness, we need others to help us form an efficient society with efficient technology. Welfare can help others to rejoin and contribute to that society. To that extent, since we get something out of it, it isn't necessarily a sacrifice. So I support welfare when we can determine with reasonable certainty that it will be used for people who will contribute to society.

But of course, the next question is...do I believe in forcing people to do so, even if it is a non-sacrifice? It's an interesting question, because while the choice may be ultimately beneficial to everyone, many people might not see that far ahead and would not want to give the money. I suppose you can't force someone to do something that will benefit them if they can't see how and they don't want to.

I think that if you undid the government system of welfare, but allowed businesses to offer people something similar in exchange for exclusive access to them once they get on their feet, we might be able to do away with welfare and privatize it.

Living in civilized society means submitting to force. No way around it. Hopefully the force is not put into practice against you as long as you're operating within the rules (In other words, are the rules reliable and predictable?). And hopefully the rules are fair and just. This includes the contribution to the public weal by individuals and business entities by means of taxes, fees, etc. Never heard of a society that operated differently.