Ayn Rand ?

[W.D.Clinger]

From there the arguments continue to center around who "deserves" what.

Will Munny^WP gave the definitive answer to that.

After all, we're discussing a philosopher whose major works include novels and screenplays.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the benefit of the lurkers (hey wait a second "another false assumption?" You're trying to pull a fast one on me. I have no previous false assumptions on my record.) I have a neurobiology guru called Steve Novella. He kicks your imaginary guru's ass. ....

So you call neurobiology, Woo, but you have a neurobiologist you respect?

Your conversation is drifting into useless drivel.

 

[Senex]

So you call neurobiology, Woo, but you have a neurobiologist you respect?

Your conversation is drifting into useless drivel.

Yeah, but he is a bricks and mortar kind of fellow. I could poke him with a stick if I was of a mind to.

Where's your guy? Your guy is keeping company with my supermodel girlfriend

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll take that as, you have no point and nothing on topic to say, Senex.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Amazing that you totally bypassed the point of my example and instead addressed the example.

Um, when you make a point by way of example, and the example makes no sense whatsoever, it's quite reasonable that someone point this out. What's amazing is that you think otherwise.

Here was your point, verbatim: "Some people recognize how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in. Others believe their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant."

These sentences immediately preceded your example, which was: "I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the "domino effect". But he was wrong. It was and is the corruption in Russia and China that prevent their populations from emerging as free societies."

Quite clearly you're offering up your "wrong" father as an example of someone who "believe(s) their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant." Leaving you the more evolved role of one who "recognize(s) how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in."

The problem is, as I pointed out, your father was not wrong, and most certainly not for the completely nonsensical reason you gave. And so it's a pointless example. Which is my point.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

I've not claimed that one can legislate away racism. It takes legislation and time and other factors like educating children to be tolerant. The issue is how far can you take the philosophy of private property rights, not how do you make society more moral. [Second snide comment denigrating your reading skills withheld.]

Sigh. It's good that you withheld that comment denigrating UncaYimmy's reading skills, seeing as how every single word he wrote was germane to the Rand Paul discrimination imbroglio. Which you raised.

You think far too highly of yourself. And your tunnel vision prevents you from seeing how petulant and silly you can be.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Um, when you make a point by way of example, and the example makes no sense whatsoever, it's quite reasonable that someone point this out. What's amazing is that you think otherwise.

Um, when you use an example to make a point, the discussion is ABOUT THE POINT, NOT ABOUT THE EXAMPLE.

Here was your point, verbatim: "Some people recognize how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in. Others believe their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant."

These sentences immediately preceded your example, which was: "I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the "domino effect". But he was wrong. It was and is the corruption in Russia and China that prevent their populations from emerging as free societies."

Quite clearly you're offering up your "wrong" father as an example of someone who "believe(s) their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant." Leaving you the more evolved role of one who "recognize(s) how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in."

The problem is, as I pointed out, your father was not wrong, and most certainly not for the completely nonsensical reason you gave. And so it's a pointless example. Which is my point.

The problem is, if you want to talk about the validity of the Red Menace, forum protocol is to start a new thread, not hijack one which is about the philosophy of Ayn Rand.


Getting back to the point I made, Rand was also awed by the buildings in NYC when she arrived there. This also affected her view that capitalism was wholly responsible for the success in the US. But many things were responsible for the success in the US at the turn of the century. The country was relatively new. It wasn't burdened with thousands of years of society, history, and all the baggage that existed in Europe and Russia at the time. It's easy to attribute cause to capitalism and ignore all the other contributing factors. But such a conclusion negatively affects one's "rational" thinking.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sigh. It's good that you withheld that comment denigrating UncaYimmy's reading skills, seeing as how every single word he wrote was germane to the Rand Paul discrimination imbroglio. Which you raised.

You think far too highly of yourself. And your tunnel vision prevents you from seeing how petulant and silly you can be.

Generally, if a reply is to a straw man and misses the point of what one is replying to, reading skills underlie the event.

 

[Beerina]

Getting back to the point I made, Rand was also awed by the buildings in NYC when she arrived there. This also affected her view that capitalism was wholly responsible for the success in the US. But many things were responsible for the success in the US at the turn of the century. The country was relatively new. It wasn't burdened with thousands of years of society, history, and all the baggage that existed in Europe and Russia at the time. It's easy to attribute cause to capitalism and ignore all the other contributing factors. But such a conclusion negatively affects one's "rational" thinking.

And that the new huge buildings are no longer built in the US but other nations with faster growing economies suggests...what?

You have lots of money, where are you gonna invest? In a society well down the road to quasi-collapse like Europe? Or the new, throbbing economies on the edge of the old, declining power?


And to address your point, yes, of course there are myriad things that affect this or that, and sorting through them is difficult, especially when they are part of a complex thing that's hard to test experimentally.

One good place to look is at similar areas with vast differences: North vs. South Korea. Haiti vs. Dominican Republic. Hong Kong and Taiwan vs. the rest of China.

The last of those is especially instructive because China is moving towards Hong Kong, rather than Hong Kong being ripped back into the Chinese dictatorship. As they move to more economic freedom, their wealth and quality of life, for everybody, is growing by leaps and bounds.

Exactly as good old capitalist theory predicts. Capitalism, as derivative of freedom, properly understood.



And, of course, the whole libertarian/objectivist/anarcho-capitalist axis suggests, loudly, that the proper view of politics is not north/south or east/west, but rather freedom/control. Especially in the realm of economics. Hence dictatorships (especially over economics, ala communism) flop, be they communist or heavy-handed socialism or some right-wind dictatorship, or some failed state (or semi-failed, as in Mexico) where the governments are lousy with corruption.

In all cases, you cannot make economic moves without being stopped by officials, who expect the kickbacks to get out of the way. Those two extremes, deemed "right" and "left" wing by standard politics, are bundled into the same group under libertarian-style thinking and the bundling similarity is the exact thing that induces them to be terrible economies.

Theory. Prediction. Result. You know. Things skeptics love.

 

[Piggy]

I love coming in at page 6 of an Ayn Rand thread.

It seems to make no difference at all whatever I've missed.

All I can say about Rand is that she had no choice but to convey her philosophy in fiction.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Generally, if a reply is to a straw man and misses the point of what one is replying to, reading skills underlie the event.

He he, great stuff. I think you should learn a bit more about the straw man fallacy before continuing. It's quite straightforward, so there's really no excuse for botching its application the way you just did.

Though I suspect you'll just keep digging.

 

[Steven Howard]

I love coming in at page 6 of an Ayn Rand thread.

It seems to make no difference at all whatever I've missed.

There's always the over-under on when somebody brings up William Hickman (geni, in Post 128).

And the inevitable link to The Fountainhead, starring Skull Force (me, just now).

 

[kestertaylor]

He he, great stuff. I think you should learn a bit more about the straw man fallacy before continuing. It's quite straightforward, so there's really no excuse for botching its application the way you just did.

Though I suspect you'll just keep digging.

Unless a straw man fallacy is something other than misrepresenting someone's position and then knocking it down and claiming victory, you straw-manned Skeptic Ginger. Because when you take an example out of context, say it fails to effectively make a point it's not trying to, and then declaring victory, that's what you're doing.

Either that or you genuinely didn't get the post.

 

[kestertaylor]

And that the new huge buildings are no longer built in the US but other nations with faster growing economies suggests...what?

You have lots of money, where are you gonna invest? In a society well down the road to quasi-collapse like Europe? Or the new, throbbing economies on the edge of the old, declining power?


And to address your point, yes, of course there are myriad things that affect this or that, and sorting through them is difficult, especially when they are part of a complex thing that's hard to test experimentally.

One good place to look is at similar areas with vast differences: North vs. South Korea. Haiti vs. Dominican Republic. Hong Kong and Taiwan vs. the rest of China.

The last of those is especially instructive because China is moving towards Hong Kong, rather than Hong Kong being ripped back into the Chinese dictatorship. As they move to more economic freedom, their wealth and quality of life, for everybody, is growing by leaps and bounds.

Once again, you cherry pick places where you see a win for capitalism, as Ginger pointed out, and summarily dismiss examples that show when it fails by claiming--without evidence--that the best place to look is where you've just happened to cherry pick. Not to mention you ignored every single other possibility for why the skyscrapers are going up in the developing world other than a heaping dose of good ol' pure capitalism. The hilarious thing is, most of us here who are anti-Laissez Faire can and will readily agree with you that communist countries damned well need more economic freedom! We're not anti-Ayn Rand because we're pro-communism or socialism. Pure socialism is just as big a fail. But that's not what this thread about. It's about Ayn Rand.

 

[drkitten]

Please provide more detail. Which Nobel prizes were awarded for showing "desire, emotion and knowledge" cannot be separated? Who were the recipients and what was their work?

Start with Daniel Kahneman (Economics, 2002), who showed exmpirically that your desire and expectation for something to be true influenced your knowledge/belief that it was true (and more accurately, your assessment of the probability that it was true).

Judgement Under Uncertainty (Cambridge 1982) is a good introduction to his work.

Herbert Simon (Economics 1978) is another relevant example.

 

[RobRoy]

Getting back to the point I made, Rand was also awed by the buildings in NYC when she arrived there. This also affected her view that capitalism was wholly responsible for the success in the US. But many things were responsible for the success in the US at the turn of the century. The country was relatively new. It wasn't burdened with thousands of years of society, history, and all the baggage that existed in Europe and Russia at the time. It's easy to attribute cause to capitalism and ignore all the other contributing factors. But such a conclusion negatively affects one's "rational" thinking.

I find this to be the most apt description of Rand. When I first read her, as with many it seems, in high school, it seemed fascinating. I started with The Fountainhead at a teacher's suggestion, and then moved on from there, reading most of her fiction including Atlas Shrugged (although not John Galt's speech, blech!). I was reasonably young and naive and her thoughts on the subject of economy and world view appealed and made sense. To some extent they still do, but Rand is extremely black and white in her world view, and there just isn't such a thing as "pure" capitalism or the "pure" individual.

But as a pipe dream of the individual standing against the institution of society, it is extremely appealing. Even the fantastical Utopian conclusion of Atlas Shrugged is appealing. Every few years, I break out the book and read it again for fun just for these reasons. Unfortunately, it's completely unrealistic and untenable as Rand provides it.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Unless a straw man fallacy is something other than misrepresenting someone's position and then knocking it down and claiming victory, you straw-manned Skeptic Ginger. Because when you take an example out of context, say it fails to effectively make a point it's not trying to, and then declaring victory, that's what you're doing.

Either that or you genuinely didn't get the post.

Kind of annoying when people join an argument mid-stream and have no idea what in hell they're talking about.

Or maybe you could explain, clearly, how I "straw-manned" Skeptic Ginger. What was her original argument and what exactly was the straw man I addressed instead? Please be very specific, with quotes and whatnot, or kindly shut your yap.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Start with Daniel Kahneman (Economics, 2002), who showed exmpirically that your desire and expectation for something to be true influenced your knowledge/belief that it was true (and more accurately, your assessment of the probability that it was true).

Judgement Under Uncertainty (Cambridge 1982) is a good introduction to his work.

Herbert Simon (Economics 1978) is another relevant example.

Allow me to refresh your memory.

1. The topic was neurobiology and neurological science.
2. With respect to neuroscience and its impact on philosophical thought, the specific claim was "Nobel prizes have been won for showing that these aspects of cognition (desire, emotion, and knowledge) cannot, in fact, be separated."

And now you back up your claim by presenting a Nobel prize winning study in behavioral economics, which was purely observational and had absolutely nothing to do with neurobiology or neuroscience whatsoever? Are you for real?

You're either very dishonest or very, um, confused. Better to just say "ok, I pulled that Nobel prize crap out of thin air". Stop digging and move on.

 

[Senex]

I love coming in at page 6 of an Ayn Rand thread.

It seems to make no difference at all whatever I've missed.

All I can say about Rand is that she had no choice but to convey her philosophy in fiction.

Same old same old --except I've now been employed. hehehehe....Screw the lazy unemployed bastards

 

[drkitten]

Allow me to refresh your memory.

My memory needs no refreshing, but perhaps your understanding of Kahneman's work does.

And now you back up your claim by presenting a Nobel prize winning study in behavioral economics,

Nope. I don't. Although I would understand this comment if you'd never read a word of (or about) Dr. K.