Ayn Rand ?

[Trent Wray]

Ayn Rand might be a bit deeper thinker than you give her credit for. Just look at your post. Five paragraphs and every one starts with "I." "I,I,I,I," give us a break. (I think I missed one).

Great observation

Mark, you are the right way Corrigan!
D'rok,those matters are right on! However, she was such a hypocrite! And she didn't see individual greatness in most people!
Oh, " Atlas " as a science-fiction movie without all the obtuse philosophy could be fine.
Anjelique Jolie, atheist, want to play Dagny.

I am liking this idea, except I'd replace AJ with Annie Parisse. And yep, I'm sticking with that choice

 

[Chris L]

"Get back to us after you read Galt's 60 plus page radio address. "

Not a problem. As a Robert Heinlein fan, I'm used to self indulgent lectures.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

At first I was all like, "Yeah! Why should I have to pay for anyone else's goods and services? If the poor can't carry their own weight, let them die!"

Then I was like, "Hang on a second... I'm poor. I'll need some services and goods and the charity of others..."

 

[barrymore]

You state those points as if they are axioms that are self-evidently true to any rational being. By doing so you a) imitate Rand's methodology, and b) reveal that she is not a philosopher.

You also commit argumentum ad populum, as if the truth of Rand's assertions had any relevance to the number of believers.

Uh, no--try again. I was not arguing the merits of her philosophy. I was pointing out that people tend to agree with many tenets of objectivism in the abstract, yet when they are associated with Rand people vehemently argue against them and usually resort to criticizing her writing style.

I could care less about defending Rand herself or her voluminous novels, but any writer above a minimum quality deserves a fair and rational discussion concerning their ideas irrespective of the way they are presented. After all, I could call Critique of Pure Reason **** and leave it at that.

I explicitly stated that I dislike Rand because of her philosophy rather than writing style. Can you read for comprehension?

I find her philosophy to be utterly worthless. Want me to expand?

Of course. What kind of argument is "it's worthless"? Whoop-de-do. We all hold ourselves to a higher standard here to at least lay out a coherent argument. Do you agree?

I feel that her theories promote the concept of social darwinism, a bankrupt philosophy based on a total misunderstanding of something that has nothing to do with morality. I find her ideas to be selfish in the extreme and I find the idea that people should haul themselves up on their own merits and those who do not do so are all lazy slobs who deserve to die shocking and disgusting.

Well said, and I agree. Someone said on this thread or another one that it is a philosophy for the management class, which I agree with as well. Way too focused on commercial success and industrial-age definitions of productivity.

I also find her opinion that if someone is struggling, people will just lend a hand out of the goodness of their hearts without being made to by teh evul gubmint to be laughable in it's idiocy and naivety, in much the same way that the "let's all pull together chaps" ideas of Communism are.

I agree that it is idealistic to think that people will help each other out of the goodness of their hearts, but IMO, no ethical framework has resolved this. It is not self-evident to me that people should be forced to be magnanimous to others, if that is what you are getting at.

I also find it hilarious when Libertarians can't see that those two things are exactly the same.

Do not agree. Anarchy is the default state of nature so any modifications to that must essentially be justified by some kind of ethical framework. Thus, any ethical framework will always have rich language concerning the individual since that is the building block. All frameworks that lead to communism will still have strong flavors of individuality, but not other way around. It is asymmetric, and that is why they are not the same. I am interested in hearing your thoughts if you disagree with this analysis.

But I do agree that both sides can be over idealistic, but that can be said for any party really.

 

[D'rok]

Uh, no--try again. I was not arguing the merits of her philosophy.

Then you shouldn't have said this:

This is a shame because I think we can almost all agree on many of her points:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am near the end of the audio book, Ayn Rand and the World She Made. I've not read her fiction. But the biography is fascinating.

I watched her interview with Phil Donahue (5 parts viewable on Youtube) from 1974 the other night. More fascinating stuff.

Here's part 1:


You all can find the rest from there. It isn't until part four that the interview gets testy. As soon as atheism is brought up, people get upset, including Donahue. I'd love to discuss the matter with Donahue since his fallacies are not confronted in the Rand interview.

The biography mentions other interviews so I plan to watch them as well.


Rand has some reasonable rational ideas, but was influenced by the communist revolution in Russia and it is clear that distorted her view of the nature of humankind. In the Donahue interview she expresses a belief we own all the third world's natural resources because Western corporations paid to develop the infrastructure to recover the resources. That's like saying if someone pays to have a well drilled they agree they owe the driller for the cost of all the water they use once the well is in service.

The cult that developed around Rand was/is something else. It's an excuse for self indulgence so no wonder it attracted a following. But it pisses me off that Alan Greenspan who was in Rand's inner circle adopted her warped ideas and was involved in the recent economy tanking because he had the power and influence. He was like a conned ignorant sap, saying how misled he'd been believing the self interest of CEOs and their ilk would translate into protecting the interests of the stock holders. What a jerk.

It proved I and my fellow Progressives who don't trust the corporate decision makers and believe we need REGULATED capitalism were right. Regulation does not have to equate to directing the companies' business. It just needs to keep the a-holes honest.

 

[barrymore]

Then you shouldn't have said this:

I will be more exact: the amount of direct opposition to Randian ideas that have I have read on the board greatly exaggerates the actual opposition to these same ideas in an abstract context.

Not saying everybody agrees 100% with Rand on them, or even that i do (I don't), but there is more agreement than disagreement over them.

If you disagree, please point out the ones you think are contrary to the overall philosophy of JREF'ers (true JREF'ers, not the fundies).

--Rationality & the importance of dispassionate analysis
--Productivity
--Individuality and Individual freedom
--Individual principles and rationally sticking to them
--The individual as a hero & aspiring to greatness

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am not sure you understand the difference between philosophy and dogma.


Philosophy: all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts

Dogma: something held as an established opinion

Very different, would you not say?

At some point it is possible one's 'learned' concepts become dogma as new evidence fails to be considered. Rand was very dogmatic, to the point she just refused to discuss anything with people who disagreed with her.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I will be more exact: the amount of direct opposition to Randian ideas that have I have read on the board greatly exaggerates the actual opposition to these same ideas in an abstract context.

Not saying everybody agrees 100% with Rand on them, or even that i do (I don't), but there is more agreement than disagreement over them.

If you disagree, please point out the ones you think are contrary to the overall philosophy of JREF'ers (true JREF'ers, not the fundies).

--Rationality & the importance of dispassionate analysis
--Productivity
--Individuality and Individual freedom
--Individual principles and rationally sticking to them
--The individual as a hero & aspiring to greatness

I don't think you'd find much agreement among skeptics or any other large group of people with Rand's philosophy that people with less skill and/or intelligence are leeches with nothing worth contributing to society.

 

[barrymore]

The cult that developed around Rand was/is something else. It's an excuse for self indulgence so no wonder it attracted a following. But it pisses me off that Alan Greenspan who was in Rand's inner circle adopted her warped ideas and was involved in the recent economy tanking because he had the power and influence. He was like a conned ignorant sap, saying how misled he'd been believing the self interest of CEOs and their ilk would translate into protecting the interests of the stock holders. What a jerk.

It proved I and my fellow Progressives who don't trust the corporate decision makers and believe we need REGULATED capitalism were right. Regulation does not have to equate to directing the companies' business. It just needs to keep the a-holes honest.

Don't break your arm from patting yourself on the back!

I do not want any leader following an objectivist philosophy, but it can hardly be said that Greenspan did. It is akin to Stalin claiming he was communist. Neither followed their ideologies faithfully, and its not apparent that it would even be desirable for that to happen; but in terms of Greenspan, his unfaithful following (or interpretation, to put it nicely) certainly put us in a world of hurt.

Objectivists have essentially disowned him, which I suspect is because he partly gives them a bad name since he is associated with the philosophy, but more importantly, he clearly did not embody the philosophy. Being a Fed Chairman is the most egregious contradiction. Rand wanted the Gold Standard without the Fed I believe; at the very least, she did not want the gov't interfering with free markets (which is not uniquely objectivist, but objectivists seem to be pretty adamant about it and one would think that a staunch follower such as Greenspan would toe the line). But more importantly, he meddled in ways that are decidedly un-free market-like from keeping the interest rates low resulting in excessive credit to encouraging Congress to inflate the housing sector, etc. This is not objectivist nor is it free market in general.

Here is a piece written about Objectivism & Greenspan:

http://www.redpills.org/?p=352

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do think Rand did have some rational ideas, well worth consideration. She pointed out some obvious things we don't seem to often have the courage to confront. For example, she noted how much we spend on education of the severely mentally disabled while not spending much public funds on the gifted.

Of course that is true in early education, but Rand neglected to consider grants for the gifted which are available at the advanced education levels like universities.

Then there is her idea we should be free to voluntarily support the poor, but we shouldn't be required to by government. I have mixed feelings about this part of her philosophy. It would seem there needs to be a baseline which society doesn't let the neediest among us fall below. I'd love to ask Rand about our socialist system of police and fire services in light of her philosophy. And if you think public police and fire services are a good idea, then what about libraries, education and medical care?

There are just so many caveats to a totally self serving philosophy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't break your arm from patting yourself on the back!

I do not want any leader following an objectivist philosophy, but it can hardly be said that Greenspan did. It is akin to Stalin claiming he was communist. Neither followed their ideologies faithfully, and its not apparent that it would even be desirable for that to happen; but in terms of Greenspan, his unfaithful following (or interpretation, to put it nicely) certainly put us in a world of hurt.

Objectivists have essentially disowned him, which I suspect is because he partly gives them a bad name since he is associated with the philosophy, but more importantly, he clearly did not embody the philosophy. Being a Fed Chairman is the most egregious contradiction. Rand wanted the Gold Standard without the Fed I believe; at the very least, she did not want the gov't interfering with free markets (which is not uniquely objectivist, but objectivists seem to be pretty adamant about it and one would think that a staunch follower such as Greenspan would toe the line). But more importantly, he meddled in ways that are decidedly un-free market-like from keeping the interest rates low resulting in excessive credit to encouraging Congress to inflate the housing sector, etc. This is not objectivist nor is it free market in general.

Here is a piece written about Objectivism & Greenspan:

http://www.redpills.org/?p=352

Greensapn himself admitted to his disappointment regarding the failure of Rand's market philosophy. Greenspan was in her social circle. And he himself said her ideas failed.

I'll comment on your link after I have time to read it. But my first comment is, it was written in 2007. Greenspan admitted to disappointment in Rand's ideas in 2008 after the greedy actions of a few resulted in the economy tanking for the many.

 

[barrymore]

I don't think you'd find much agreement among skeptics or any other large group of people with Rand's philosophy that people with less skill and/or intelligence are leeches with nothing worth contributing to society.

I agree completely. Which one of those 5 points I outlined addresses that? None hopefully, because I specifically left it out. I find that most here are agreeable on much of the philosophy besides the whole social darwinism / dog-eat-dog point.

Here is what Rand says herself:

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

Nos 1 & 2 are full-blown skeptic tenets. No.4, in practice, is as well--with only slight disagreement on the margin about what the state's role is in economics.

Now No 3 seems to be the sticking point. Now, I will say that people opportunistically use it to **** over people and over-hype themselves. However, as written, it seems well-aligned with skeptic philosophy, especially when compared to religion and the supernatural which almost universally concentrate on sacrificing yourself for something "greater". Where No 3 falls short is in its application to decency, empathy, and altruism. This certainly is not a trivial point--in fact it is a major point as how we interact and relate with others defines our life on a day-to-day basis.

But even with that disagreement it does not warrant to me a wholesale throwing out of the philosophy when 85% of it closely aligns with what skeptics hold near and dear.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Alan Shrugged: Greenspan, Ayn Rand and Their God That Failed

I don't know much about this web group, but I loved the blog title. And this blog entry points to the Greenspan admission I was talking about. Note, Greenspan's comments were in 2008.

 

[barrymore]

I do think Rand did have some rational ideas, well worth consideration. She pointed out some obvious things we don't seem to often have the courage to confront. For example, she noted how much we spend on education of the severely mentally disabled while not spending much public funds on the gifted.

Of course that is true in early education, but Rand neglected to consider grants for the gifted which are available at the advanced education levels like universities.

Then there is her idea we should be free to voluntarily support the poor, but we shouldn't be required to by government. I have mixed feelings about this part of her philosophy. It would seem there needs to be a baseline which society doesn't let the neediest among us fall below. I'd love to ask Rand about our socialist system of police and fire services in light of her philosophy. And if you think public police and fire services are a good idea, then what about libraries, education and medical care?

There are just so many caveats to a totally self serving philosophy.

As you noted earlier her philosophies were shaped by her experience in communist Russia. That certainly influenced a swing to the complete other side of the spectrum.

IMO, Her philosophies are the bare-bones needs for society: protection of the individual, letting people live relatively free of physical and mental coercion from others, aspiring to maximize our talents and focusing on the great feats to what humans are capable of. I think all of these can be greatly refined and added to, but overall they provide a good jumping off point.

Greensapn himself admitted to his disappointment regarding the failure of Rand's market philosophy. Greenspan was in her social circle. And he himself said her ideas failed.

I'll comment on your link after I have time to read it. But my first comment is, it was written in 2007. Greenspan admitted to disappointment in Rand's ideas in 2008 after the greedy actions of a few resulted in the economy tanking for the many.

Well it does not matter that the article was written in 2007 because it was retrospective on his term as Fed governor which ended several years before that.

But my main point is that he did not follow objectivist economic principles. I have never seen any coherent argument that he did other than to use it as a thinly-veiled attack against objectivism due to his prior involvement with Rand. But it is disingenuous to claim that Greenspan's failures equated to the failures of objectivism. Especially since objectivist economics can be assaulted in a much more rigorous and measured manner.

 

[barrymore]

Alan Shrugged: Greenspan, Ayn Rand and Their God That Failed

I don't know much about this web group, but I loved the blog title. And this blog entry points to the Greenspan admission I was talking about. Note, Greenspan's comments were in 2008.

I understand what Greenspan said, but an objective (without the -ist) analysis of his actions is more important.

The article that you posted only deals with regulation of banks and derivatives. Yes, he ushered in an area of deregulation. Yes, this had an effect. And yes, this could fall under consistency with objectivist economics. For legislation, see: Financial Services Modernization Act ('99) and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act ('00)

Not mentioned in the article: One thing he also pushed for was the repealing of portions of Glass-Steagall which allowed commercial banks to own investment banks, which had an effect as well. See: Gramm-Beach-Lilley.

However, there are a couple things to note, which are decidedly anti free market and/or result in great distortions:
1.) Congress, Clinton, Bush & Greenspan himself were distorting the economy in other areas with increased regulations. The most egregious was the Community Reinvestment Act, which threw money at people who did not deserve it and essentially planted the seeds for the housing bubble. In general, Fannie & Freddie were encouraged to give out money to anyone and everyone so that the American dream of owning a home could be fulfilled.
2.) Basel I/II accords: without getting into the boring details, these risks frameworks were supposed to allow for more streamlined risk management and less transaction costs for all parties involved. But what really happened was it reduced capital requirements for banks (banks could lever up more), terrible models for measuring risk (esp. market risk through VaR), and other regulations that banks could hide behind to perform financial engineering tricks. Basel is an international framework (through Bank for International Settlements), but championed by Greenspan as it pertained to US.
and finally, the big kahuna:
3.) the fed funds rate. If we are talking pure objectivist economics (laissez-faire), the fed funds rate and the mechanism through which the fed sets it decidedly violates their tenets. However, let's back off a bit from the ideological case. Even then, Greenspan ABUSED it. He kept the FFR (until the financial crisis, which is obviously in Bernanke's hands now) at an unprecedented (low) level for an unprecedented length of time. This was disastrous and distortive for 2 reasons: first, people did not learn their lessons from the tech crash. They did not feel much pain or change their habits. In fact, even though a great many people lost money in the equity markets, they could make up the gap in lost funds by being able to borrow at an incredibly cheap rate. Which leads to the second effect: housing went crazy because people could buy whatever they wanted for basically interest free at the time. Housing was huge--Congress wanted it, Bush & Clinton wanted it, Greenspan wanted it--so by keeping the FFR low, mortgage rates stayed low. Housing prices took off, people felt richer because they could reverse mortgage or take out equity. Combine that with wholesale fraud in the mortgage industry (or at the very least, imprudence and terrible management), and money was flowing to everyone and anyone! This would never gotten nearly out of hand had Greenspace raised the price of money at a quicker pace. But he kept it low for far too long, and it resulted in great market distortions.

So, all in all, people who want to peg Greenspan as an objectivist like to point to derivative deregulation, but if you look at the pudding, there is more than enough proof that he meddled in the economy much more than a true laissez-faire proponent would and should.

 

[Senex]

"Get back to us after you read Galt's 60 plus page radio address. "

Not a problem. As a Robert Heinlein fan, I'm used to self indulgent lectures.

I read Stranger in a Strange Land. You have no idea what you're in for.

 

[Senex]

Then I was like, "Hang on a second... I'm poor. I'll need some services and goods and the charity of others..."

Suck it up and get a job!

 

[D'rok]

I will be more exact: the amount of direct opposition to Randian ideas that have I have read on the board greatly exaggerates the actual opposition to these same ideas in an abstract context.

Not saying everybody agrees 100% with Rand on them, or even that i do (I don't), but there is more agreement than disagreement over them.

If you disagree, please point out the ones you think are contrary to the overall philosophy of JREF'ers (true JREF'ers, not the fundies).

--Rationality & the importance of dispassionate analysis
--Productivity
--Individuality and Individual freedom
--Individual principles and rationally sticking to them
--The individual as a hero & aspiring to greatness

I have no idea what the overall philosophy of JREFers is or if such a thing even exists. But even if every last one of us agreed with Rand, that would be completely irrelevant to the truth of her assertions or the value of her ideas. If JREFers were all or mostly all Randians, why would'nt that say something uncomplimentary about the quality of JREFer thought, rather something complimentary about Rand's thought? And even if Rand mimicked some of the philosophical conclusions that JREFers value from other sources, why is it hypocritical to oppose Rand's pathetic caricatures of those conclusions?


What Rand is is a caricature of actual philosophy. She takes the arguments of Kant, Nietzsche, Aristotle and even Plato, whom she despises, and totemizes them.

Reason was the royal rule of the soul for Plato, but Plato paid due notice to honour-seeking, spiritdeness, passion, eros, etc. and to the people who were driven by those things at the expense of reason. Who were those people? At the level of archetype, it's Achilles. At the level of civil society, they were Gorgias, Thrasymachus, Callicles, Alcibiades, etc. - the wealthy, driven, successful, high-achievers of Athens; the men whose passion and ambition drove them to lead armies, to make speeches, to satisfy their appetites to the full extent of their skill. Men who would not be bound by the needs of lesser Athenians. Men to whom justice is the advantage of the stronger. John Galt, in other words, and all men like him who are driven, not by reason, but by ambition, honour, and eros. Men who Plato wanted to contain, to manage, and to orient towards civic virtue.

In opposing the philosophy of the Athenian Galts, Plato, through Socrates, stated their arguments in the strongest form he could and then made his case against them. This is showing your work in philosophy. What does Rand do? Simply assert with clumsy and juvenile prose that Achilles, not Socrates, was the rational one. She doesn't do philosophy. She totemizes reason in an absurd and contradictory caricature.

Kant also priveleged reason, but he, like Plato and unlike Rand, showed his work and made his arguments. Without getting into the details, he argued for a categorical imperative that applied to humanity, where each person was an end rather than a mere means. This imposes a duty on everyone to treat everyone else as ends in themselves. It is a communitarian duty. What does Rand do with this? Totemize the categorical imperative into a duty of the individual to himself over the community, without even making an attempt to address, much less refute Kant. Not philosophy.

And, of course, Nietzsche elevated the individual will over the herd. He too wanted to re-inject Achilles into fully Platonized, Christianized western civilization. But to get into the ways in which Rand totemizes and trivializes Nietzsche would take far longer than I have the patience for here. I've already thought about Ayn Rand too much today. Same goes for her treatment of Enlightenment rationalists like Locke and Adam Smith.

Rand was not a philosopher. She was an intellectually impoverished, second-rate novelist. Not because she took the ideas of philosophers and tried to re-cast them in the form that she preferred, but because she did so by assertion and without showing her work, and without justifying the illogic and absurdity of her conclusions. She was a sophist.

 

[cj.23]

I've been reading about Objectivism today. Poor old Rand seems to get a lot of slagging off, and I can't really see why. The few Rand adherents i have met strike me as intelligent, decent folks with a useful perspective. In fact I have a lot of time for objectivity. Does RandFan stil lost here? He is a thoroughly sensible and very intelligent kind of guy, with a coherent philosophical position as far as I can tell? Anyway time to read the thread... but I must say the vehement abuse hurled at Rand may one day force me to actually read her properly, just to understand!

cj x