Ayn Rand speaks to Mike Wallace, 1959

[ponderingturtle]

Well, if you're saying "infinite" can have multiple meanings at the same time depending on what you're trying to prove, I'm afraid I'm going to have to bail out of the argument at that point. Your math is evidently stronger than mine

I just took enough 300 level physics classes and the math needed to get into them to understand that when you get results such as this in models you can have multiple results.

(I get lost in the weeds after elementary algebra), so if you think you can prove that infinity divided by infinity can be a number or zero or infinity, I'll take your word for it. But when you do that, I think the discussion becomes meaningless.

I was not the one who started the debate with physics, just seems to be the one following this debate who wanted to clarify that mathematically not all infinities are equal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This reminds me of a story a friend of mine mentioned. It was a mixture of grad students of physics and philosophy. Two of the physics grad students got into a serious argument over a particular point of physics. The philosophy grad students took it to mean that they would likely not be friends anymore as when you get into that kind of argument in philosophy circles you often never speak to each other again.

The point that physics is a science and so at least one of them is provably wrong did not seem to occur to them.

Not sure if it is relevant here but and interesting data point to consider

 

[RandFan]

How is "much of this" ad hominem when you asked about her so-called scholarship. Having to deal with this nonsense bothers me. I take the time to support a point of contention and it's stupidly dismissed as ad hominem (Oh, wait, is that ad hominem now). God.

That is actually a fair cop. I appologize.

It's so infuriating dealing with people who know nothing and then bearing to hear them cite logical fallacies in latin. On a scale of annoying it ranks above would-be grammar cop who misspells grammar with an 'e' but below Rand fan who doesn't understand Rand (which is in turn, below third-rate magician who thinks he's more clever than he is).

Likely true. Good for you.

 

[Cain]

That is actually a fair cop. I appologize.

Likely true. Good for you.

I hate it even more when get all agreeable and reasonable. You did this in another thread awhile ago and it bothered me. Argh.

 

[EGarrett]

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.

In that particular case, "the water is hot" is not a proposition. The word "hot" doesn't have enough meaning.

 

[EGarrett]

Likely unforced donations, the same thing you would depend on if you say needed urgent medical care and could not afford it or food if you could not afford that.

Such a thing could work, but you would need a very unselfish society which her ideas do not seem to encourage. Look at the potlatch as an example of profound giving.

That seems like a major weakness in her philosophy. The military needs a massive amount of money. The police aren't cheap either.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That seems like a major weakness in her philosophy. The military needs a massive amount of money. The police aren't cheap either.

Does she ever admit that problem?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Then what happens when an object with more mass bumps into it?

Any object with more mass couldn't bump into it. It would already be inside it, because the black hole would be the size of the entire universe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Any object with more mass couldn't bump into it. It would already be inside it, because the black hole would be the size of the entire universe.

Error, thought experiment you are not limited by what exists or could exist in the universe. It is a valid question.

 

[mhaze]

A few gaping holes? Why is it that almost the only people who take Rand seriously as a philosopher tend to find her politics and ethics attractive? Why is it that people first exposed to her metaphysics and epistemology do not have a tendency to experience any "aha!" moment.



How about basing a review of Rawls' _Theory of Justice_, arguably the most important political philosophy in the last 100 years, on a review she read in the NYT? What if I said she had a HABIT of forming opinions on important philosophers based on secondary rather than primary readings. Or a tantrum she threw at John Hospers because he dared to criticize her work in her presence at an academic symposium he set up to promote her work. This is the sort of thing that happens at symposiums and Rand was too weak-minded to handle it. Or how about her lying to followers about the whole Branden affair? Or maybe the fact her philosophy is largely supported by a pop-psychology she essentially made up. Notable claims include the notion that homosexuality, in addition to being "disgusting" is based on "psychological corruptions," and a woman cannot be president because her proper role is "hero worship."

I believe that I have read all of Ayn Rand's works, with the exception of some of the personal letters. The discussion about why a woman could never be president was interesting, I would disagree with it.

However, I do not recall any assertion made by her that that homosexuality, in addition to being "disgusting" is based on "psychological corruptions,". Can you substantiate that?

Of course, we are here discussing attitudes from the 1960s, a time when homosexuality was a clinical psychiatric diagnosis. No matter. She was certainly radical for her time and quite opposed to many of the contemporary social views of that era.

Can you substantiate that above statement? If so, please provide a reference.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Error, thought experiment you are not limited by what exists or could exist in the universe. It is a valid question.

If the singularity occupies the entire universe what could possibly bump into it?

 

[mhaze]

I believe that I have read all of Ayn Rand's works, with the exception of some of the personal letters. The discussion about why a woman could never be president was interesting, I would disagree with it.

However, I do not recall any assertion made by her that that homosexuality, in addition to being "disgusting" is based on "psychological corruptions,". Can you substantiate that?

Of course, we are here discussing attitudes from the 1960s, a time when homosexuality was a clinical psychiatric diagnosis. No matter. She was certainly radical for her time and quite opposed to many of the contemporary social views of that era.

Can you substantiate that above statement? If so, please provide a reference.

Never mind! A quick google leads me to Wikipedia and I quote below. You will note the differences explicitly stated between her political views and her personal views. Bold is mine. It would appear that contrary to your assertions, she was a supporter of individual rights, and unlike most others of her era - extended that to include homosexuals.

Moral views

In 1971, Rand published The New Left, a collection of essays which directly attacked the feminist and sexual liberation movements, including the gay rights movement. She called them "hideous" for their demand for what she considered "special privileges" from the government. She also addressed homosexuality directly, writing that "[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print." ("The Age of Envy")
In response to questions from the audience at the two Ford Hall Forum lectures she gave at Northeastern University, Rand explained her stance in more detail. In her 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults." (Ayn Rand Answers, p. 18) In 1971, Rand repeated this stance, then explained that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting." [1]

Political views

Despite the vigor and rancor in her moral views about homosexuality, Rand took a much more tolerant view of the legal rights of homosexuals. She endorsed rights that protect gays from discrimination by the government, but rejected the right to be protected from discrimination in the private sector. The basis of this conclusion was not related to her feelings about homosexuality, but rather a product of her stance on property rights being primary over civil rights. Rand supported the right of an owner of private property to discriminate, even on a basis, such as racism, that she condemned as immoral.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That seems like a major weakness in her philosophy. The military needs a massive amount of money. The police aren't cheap either.

Well, our military's incredibly huge cost is partly due to having a "defense" policy of being able to "project" forces in foreign theaters without any compromise to national defense.

We like to invade places as a matter of national policy. Most European countries don't set that goal, so they spend less.

 

[mhaze]

The subject of altruism is a difficult one, often misunderstood, but it is none the less an important part of Rand's work. I have taken the liberty to quote below a from "The Virtue of Selfishness", chapter 3: Ethics of Emergencies. It is a sample of perhaps a dozen expositions of the concepts, so it is by no means complete.

A “selfless,” “disinterested” love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is indifferent to that which one values.

Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dan*gerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would re*quire. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference be*tween Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.

The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would re*quire. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference be*tween Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.

Strawman emphasized.

 

[RandFan]

Strawman emphasized.

I'm genuinely confused. Why is it a strawman? Wouldn't spending a fortune on a single person be selfish when so many others could be more likely helped?

 

[hgc]

I'm genuinely confused. Why is it a strawman? Wouldn't spending a fortune on a single person be selfish when so many others could be more likely helped?

It's a strawman in this case from being the result of the conflating real life with formalized rules of logic. The practice of altruism won't follow the precise parameters laid out for it in abstract philosophising. So just because the absurd case being presented may not come to pass, it does not invalidate the reality of altruism. Actual observation and analysis of the data is so much more fruitful than philosphy.

 

[RandFan]

It's a strawman in this case from being the result of the conflating real life with formalized rules of logic. The practice of altruism won't follow the precise parameters laid out for it in abstract philosophising. So just because the absurd case being presented may not come to pass, it does not invalidate the reality of altruism. Actual observation and analysis of the data is so much more fruitful than philosphy.

Thanks.

I find the premise that altruism is somehow outside of the bounds of logic, dubious. Also, I'm not sure that the hypothetical has anything to do with what might or might not come to pass but I can think of many real life examples. The point of the hypothetical, it seems to me, is to show how the concept of altruism is self contradictory and problematic.

Let me give you my own example. How do rich people live extravagant lives while so many suffer? I suppose if they are heartless bastards then it is easy. But what about Barbara Streisand or Rosie O'Donnell? This isn't meant as a sleight against them. It's an honest and sincere question. I take them at their words that they care for the welfare of others. Yet I remember the words of Oscar Shindler, had he sold his watch he could have saved more people. Why don't people who have so much money and care so much about others sacrifice everything beyond their own necessities to save others and reduce suffering in the world? Is it realistic to expect liberals to live on far less and give more? What do liberals value?

If I've missed something then I ask your patience. I'll seriously consider your points.

RandFan

 

[ImaginalDisc]

RandFan,

Altruism is not logical, it doesn't have to be. Altruism is a behavior social animals have evolved. It's as much as part of being human as having hands and a frontal lobe. Altruism is a natural behavior in which the fitness of the group is increased with some cost to the individual. Most of us are altruistic to at least some degree, doing something for others that costs us something. The reward is a sense of satisfaction. It's a very effective evolutionary trick our genes have played on us, and we, with our fairly advanced minds, have hijacked the vessel of altruism our genes were using and have begun to apply it to people with little to no relation to us.

If I consciously choose to perform an altruistic act of my own will, deriving satisfaction from it, who is Rand to object? My resources are mine to do with as I please. We're strongly inclined, partly for evolutionary reasons, to help our loved ones, our friends, and our communities before we help perfect strangers, but I can neither see anything wrong with that, nor can I see Rand's alleged compulsion in "the ethics of altruism" that appears to require us to apply some sort of Utilitarian rubric to our altruistic actions.

 

[RandFan]

Altruism is not logical, it doesn't have to be.

?

Altruism is a behavior social animals have evolved. It's as much as part of being human as having hands and a frontal lobe. Altruism is a natural behavior in which the fitness of the group is increased with some cost to the individual. Most of us are altruistic to at least some degree, doing something for others that costs us something. The reward is a sense of satisfaction. It's a very effective evolutionary trick our genes have played on us, and we, with our fairly advanced minds, have hijacked the vessel of altruism our genes were using and have begun to apply it to people with little to no relation to us.

Yeah, that's my understanding. I'm not sure how your opening proposition follows from this. Social anthropologists use logic to study and understand behavior. Ethics is a branch of philosophy. I'm at a loss as to how ethics suddenly is outside of logic. My philosophy teacher never told me that. I never read that from Singer or Kant. On the contrary, ethics appears to be quite suitable to logic and reason. It's not absolute. It's often not empirical but behavior can be observed. Inference can be drawn from those observations. Brains can be scanned.

If I consciously choose to perform an altruistic act of my own will, deriving satisfaction from it, who is Rand to object? My resources are mine to do with as I please. We're strongly inclined, partly for evolutionary reasons, to help our loved ones, our friends, and our communities before we help perfect strangers, but I can neither see anything wrong with that, nor can I see Rand's alleged compulsion in "the ethics of altruism" that appears to require us to apply some sort of Utilitarian rubric to our altruistic actions.

With all due respect, I think you clearly miss Rand's point. Of course you are free to do with your resources as you please. Rand is making an argument as to why altruism is problematic regardless of the reasons. Your examples bear this out. Perhaps we might choose one philosophy over another. We are capable of reason and some might argue that we have free will. If this is true then perhaps there is utility in choosing objectivist over altruism. Perhaps altruism is problematic as is demonstrated by the examples.