Ayn Rand ?

[kestertaylor]

Just to interject with a little bit of an answer based on the OP, I thought I'd jump in and say yes! Ayn Rand was in fact, a bit player in my road to atheism. Her criticism of the concept of unconditional love was part of what brought me to the conclusion that, if the Christian God did in fact exist, by human standards, he was almost certainly evil. I found a lot to like and admire in Atlas Shrugged, such as promoting pragmatism as a way to determine nonreligious morality, as well as a focus on personal responsibility. I did also, however, find her "everyone except me is evil" attitude rather dogmatic and dismissive, and that did and does bother me, as does her (in my view naïve) implied assertion that laissez-faire capitalism is a true meritocracy. I also rather mislike how much (what I have seen of) the Ayn Rand Foundation has come to resemble a religious organization.

But I do agree with the OP; I see no reason either to not credit her where credit is due, nor to whitewash areas where she's been wrong.

 

[barrymore]

So to be clear here, are you claiming Rand's idea of total absolute laissez faire really would work if only all the real interference in the markets stopped? That's just not supported by the historical evidence. It's a fantasy.

I am not claiming any such thing. I am claiming Greenspan was in no way, shape or form pursuing laissez-faire policies at the Fed. Therefore, using Greenspan as evidence that laissez-faire did or did not work is a no-go.

I will also make the claim that we have never seen true laissez-faire economic system, so your claim that it is not supported by historical evidence is a no-go as well. What people, institutions, time periods are you referring to?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

As a professional philosopher *snip*

Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a *bulls@#!* artist!
Comicus: *Grumble*...
Dole Office Clerk: Did you bulls@#! last week?
Comicus: No.
Dole Office Clerk: Did you *try* to bulls@#! last week?
Comicus: Yes!

 

[Trent Wray]

"Who is Monkey Ghost?"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Ad Hominem fallacy is committed here. The topic is not the person but the ideas. (As one who knew Ayn Rand well, I also disagree with that claim about her, but that's not the point.)

On the ideas: reason relies on sensory perception, and the accurate use of logic. Sensory perception cannot be inaccurate or in error (this Objectivist/Aristotelian tenet I defend at length in my forthcoming book How We Know). One can mess up with the conceptual processing of things--as in, uh, committing an Ad Hominem or equivocating on "perception"--because how and whether one reasons is up to one's choice. Error exists where things are not physiologically determined, which is at the conceptual level.

It's not an ad hom fallacy if it is a factual and relevant statement.

It's ignorant to not recognize human sensory perception is wrought with imperfections. Your "Objectivist/Aristotelian tenet" that "Sensory perception cannot be inaccurate or in error" is easily demonstrated to be the fallacy. It goes beyond an error in conceptual processing because much of that incoming data is hardwired to be misinterpreted. In fact, it is only in the conceptualization where you can overcome the hardwired errors of perception.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To elaborate on my above post, consider phantom limb pain after an amputation. Those nerve endings are firing. The brain perceives the impulses to be coming from the original length of the nerve. The brain is not aware the end of the nerve is no longer there. So the brain perceives pain in the limb that is missing.

But you can trick the brain with a mirror. You can cause the brain to think the limb it sees in the mirror is the one that is missing. By this technique, people have been able to successfully trick the brain into relaxing the phantom limb which relieves the pain in many cases.

This is one example, but there are many many more ways to demonstrate your perception does not function like a camera or recording device.

 

[Chris L]

Obviously the senses can be fooled, otherwise James Randi (and every other professional magician) would out of a job.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Rand's bizarre deification of 'reason' . . ." I don't find anything bizarre about holding that reason is what makes us human, or that reason must never be sacrificed to feelings.

It is also ignorant to think "feeling" and "reason" are somehow magically separate entities in the brain. Look at the research which has been done that demonstrates young children and recently a study suggests even infants have a genetically determined, physical component that results in our moral conclusions. You may think you are 'reasoning' when in reality your reasoning is inevitably impacted by your innate sense of right and wrong.


I've not seen this original research yet but I have seen other research showing evidence young children act on a sense of right and wrong that is not explained by learning.
Babies know the difference between good and evil at six months, study reveals

In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to 'good' helpful characters - and rejected unhelpful, 'naughty' ones.
In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a 'naughty' puppet, some babies went further - and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head.

 

[MontagK505]

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.

You might want to read “Judgment Day” by Nathaniel Brandon if you want to get a viewpoint on what it was like in the “collective” (her inner circle)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am not claiming any such thing. I am claiming Greenspan was in no way, shape or form pursuing laissez-faire policies at the Fed. Therefore, using Greenspan as evidence that laissez-faire did or did not work is a no-go.

I will also make the claim that we have never seen true laissez-faire economic system, so your claim that it is not supported by historical evidence is a no-go as well. What people, institutions, time periods are you referring to?

One needn't experience 100% laissez faire system to see it won't work. That's like saying flunking several math classes is not an indication of how you'll do if you take all math classes.

As for Greenspan, you are misunderstanding what I said. I said he expressed a failure of the ideas from Rand he believed in. He was very explicit about that in a speech he gave after the economic collapse that occurred at the end of his watch. He specifically said he believed the market forces would have led the big banks to act in their self interest and that would also be in the self interest of the shareholders. But in reality, the self interest turned out to only be the self interest of a few individuals at the top, and the shareholders were the big losers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You might want to read “Judgment Day” by Nathaniel Brandon if you want to get a viewpoint on what it was like in the “collective” (her inner circle)

The biography I'm almost at the end of includes more than sufficient details about Brandon, his wife, his girlfriend besides Rand, Rand's reaction to his rejection of her sexually and so on and so on. I don't think this author is pulling any punches about Rand's real world.

I thought the next thing I should read should be something more favorable to Rand just to be sure I am getting a balanced view.

 

[barrymore]

One needn't experience 100% laissez faire system to see it won't work. That's like saying flunking several math classes is not an indication of how you'll do if you take all math classes.

Whatever you say. Tell us and prove why it won't work if you are so sure of yourself. Give some examples of a "laissez-faire"-lite economy.

As for Greenspan, you are misunderstanding what I said. I said he expressed a failure of the ideas from Rand he believed in. He was very explicit about that in a speech he gave after the economic collapse that occurred at the end of his watch. He specifically said he believed the market forces would have led the big banks to act in their self interest and that would also be in the self interest of the shareholders. But in reality, the self interest turned out to only be the self interest of a few individuals at the top, and the shareholders were the big losers.

Who cares what Greenspan says? Religious people claim all the time that they are deeply religious, but as we all know, religion is largely fashionable and hardly anyone lives their day-to-day lives in a religious manner. Just because Greenspan says he is an objectivist does not mean his actions confirm this. I presented evidence for this several posts back. If you disagree, please refute the points that I made.

 

[kestertaylor]

It is also ignorant to think "feeling" and "reason" are somehow magically separate entities in the brain. Look at the research which has been done that demonstrates young children and recently a study suggests even infants have a genetically determined, physical component that results in our moral conclusions. You may think you are 'reasoning' when in reality your reasoning is inevitably impacted by your innate sense of right and wrong.

I don't think anyone said anything about reason and feelings being magically separated, nor did anyone claim some sense of morality is innate in us. I'll of course agree that when people say they're going with their "gut," what they're actually doing is a shortcut based on their innate morality and reasoning work they've already done in similar circumstances, and not accessing some special logic center located in their abdomen.

Do you honestly advocate people making decisions emotionally, without employing conscious reason to them? Because that's where "crimes of passion" and really stupid relationship moves come from. I don't get the impression you actually WOULD advocate that, but it sounds to me like you're straw-manning Rand here when you would agree with her actual position on reason.

 

[Steven Howard]

The Ad Hominem fallacy is committed here. The topic is not the person but the ideas. (As one who knew Ayn Rand well, I also disagree with that claim about her, but that's not the point.)

... says the man who started his first post with an appeal to authority and throws in another one here. As I'm sure you know in your capacity as a professional philosopher, appeal to authority is also a form of argument ad hominem.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

On the ideas: reason relies on sensory perception, and the accurate use of logic. Sensory perception cannot be inaccurate or in error (this Objectivist/Aristotelian tenet I defend at length in my forthcoming book How We Know).

The "Ask Ayn Rand" parody quoted below (from memory) will not need to be defended at length in any forthcoming book on How We Know We Don't Know Everything We Think We Know.

Dear Ayn:

I agree with Objectionable Philosophy that reality must be as we perceive it, else it would be confusing. My friend says that doesn't follow, and whenever I press the point he turns inside out and vanishes. What can I say to convince him?

Sincerely,
Confused

Dear Sincerely:

Your friend is obviously a solipsist. My advice is to buy yourself a new friend.

Objectively,
Ayn

 

[kestertaylor]

I don't think anyone said anything about reason and feelings being magically separated, nor did anyone claim some sense of morality is innate in us. .

D'oh! This should've read, "ISN'T" innate in us.

Carry on.

 

[dudalb]

My Favorite quote on Ayn Rand:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

-John Rogers

I also like the comment that Objectivism is sort of a Fundamentalist Religion for Athiests.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Binswanger, sir, your philosophy lacks reality, because for one big thing it is a closed system as though she could anticipate all criticisms and new ideas!
Why do you put any more credence into her bizarre philosophy than into that of Yeshua, her fellow cult leader, sir?
She contemned Kant without fathoming him and also was part Kantian herself. She,as others here note, did not study much philosophy and distorted what she did. We rationalists no more need her for good ideas than we do any holy book, sir! Philosophers had already objurgated egoism as a failed god.
How that intelligent John Hospers and you and others can follow her illuminates the power of faith- the we just say so of credulity.
Mark and Trent, my friends and others, thanks for continuing this needed thread in order to expose the sophistry of libertarianism in general and Objectivism in particular!
She led me to naturalism, rationalism and skepticism but Michael Shermer and Walker note well her irrationalism. Again, she resembles Yeshua - hypocrite!
Binswanger, well, then compose a book illustrating what you take as our errors, sir. Oh, that is impossible,eh?

 

[HBinswanger]

"Obviously the senses can be fooled, otherwise James Randi (and every other professional magician) would out of a job."

The *senses* are not the conclusion your intellect draws from what you see. The error is in the conclusion not in the *seeing*. The senses do not *interpret* only respond to the incident energy and automatic neural processing as they must.

 

[HBinswanger]

Why did I give my credentials as "a professional philosopher"? Two reasons, neither constituting an Appeal to Authority:

1. The original post was from someone who made a big point of the fact that he had taught philosophy as a graduate student.

2. Many assertions in this thread have been to the effect that Ayn Rand was *patently* inane, not philosophically serious, and, in effect, any person at all educated in philosophy would see that. That made it relevant to counter that claim with my own case. So it was testimony from a credentialed philosopher (Ph.D. Columbia University, 1973), that rebutted the testimony by the earlier poster. I have been careful *not* to commit the Appeal to Authority by injecting into the discussion, for the first time, the actual ideas in question, for you all to judge for yourselves. Same with my sample of her nonfiction writing: I was saying, "Don't take my word for it, look at the writing."

Let's get away from the personal attacks. Unless I missed something, the only tenet of Objectivism I listed that has been criticized is the doctrine that sensory perception doesn't make mistakes. This, I grant you, is a topic that does need discussion. I tried to give a quick support for it. But it's only one of about 10 revolutionary ideas I cited. Is it the only thing that people demur from? And isn't the whole list rather, uh, impressive? Isn't it much more contentful and pro-reason than what previous posts painted Objectivism as being?