|
Forum: General Stuff Topic: Ayn Rand started by: thibodeaux Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 21 2010,16:42
Recently I came across < this >, where some conservative writers or some such had a public spat. What's interesting is the way the blogger and his commenters sneer at the girl as "Randian."First of all, I'm not sure what they think is "Randian" about someone who describes herself as a "social conservative of a Burkean bent." But mostly I wonder: what did Rand think, say, write, or do, that makes people hate her so? I mean, this is her philosophy as famously stated standing one foot: QUOTE 1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality 2. Epistemology: Reason 3. Ethics: Self-interest 4. Politics: Capitalism If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.” I guess I'm just a mindless Randroid. I can't see what's so awful about that. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 21 2010,17:46
I've never understood the people who use "Randian" as a sleight. I've stopped trying and just call them hippies.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 21 2010,18:06
The only of those that I can think people would judge poorly on their own is the whole self-interest/egoism aspect of her philosophy. Sure, it's a descendant of the invisible hand, but being a bit self-absorbed.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 21 2010,18:23
Well, but so what? She doesn't advocate hurting other people; the opposite, in fact.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 21 2010,18:25
1. Reality isn't objective, mainly because the statement is near nonsense because "reality" is a bitch to define. Even if you do, there's no way I'll believe there's only one, true way to interpret the universe around you. Definitively proving the objectivity of some observation is tricky at best.QUOTE As Rand wrote, "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time... In short: yes, it can. I bet she'd also believe a subatomic particle can't be in two places at once. 2. QUOTE For anything that cannot be directly observed, a process of "proof" identifying the basis in reality of the claimed item of knowledge is necessary to establish its truth. She's just shut off access to her entire right brain with the requirement of needing concrete knowledge. Species survived quite some time before developing self-consciousness or conscious thought. The problem is that conscious, logical, objective thinking is really, really fucking slow. And as any statistician worth a good goddamn will tell you, the thing you refer to as "knowledge" is as subjective as anything. 3. On self-interest... QUOTE The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values. No, it's not. Even biologists accept a thing called "altruistic behaviour." Humans are just slightly refined apes. Human history is replete with examples of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others, ill-planned or otherwise. On ethics... QUOTE "To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem." Says who? Reason can be warped and twisted to the point of absurdity. As long as you can survive in your environment with your brand of logic, you win, reason or no. Purpose? Are you fist-fucking me? You need purpose to live? If your defined purpose is "make sure I don't die until natural causes kick in," then yeah, I guess you need purpose. But if you consciously need to will yourself to carry on existing, then maybe you need some psychological repair work or medication. Self-esteem isn't necessary at all if your "objective" definition of "living" is "breathing with functioning organs." I know plenty of human doormats. 4. Capitalism works because it's brutally objective; it's all about the cash & everyone knows it. Purely capitalist economies get eerily close to being something that resembles an organic, evolving, "living" thing. Being as how it's so black & white (e.g., you got the cash/idea/thing of value or you don't), it fits in perfectly with the rest of her half-brained philosophy. She reminds me of the apparently psychic hard-ass nuns that used to ruler-slap my knuckles in grade school for thinking in ways they didn't like. Not saying or actually doing anything, mind you, just thinking. Ayn Rand seems to be arguing "man = god." No. Fucking. Way. I didn't buy "Jesus = god" back then; just replacing the left-hand side of that equation ain't going to work. Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 21 2010,19:06
I think you're cherry-picking quotes and being deliberately obtuse. First, she wrote a lot of these things in the 60s and before; we know a lot more about physics and psychology now than she did. I think the general principle of her philosophy is: the universe operates according to certain rules, and humans are able to observe the universe and deduce these rules. That's the very foundation of science on which, I presume, most of your objections are based.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 21 2010,19:23
Definitively knowing the actual rules by which things operate is damn near impossible, which is why what was knowledge a thousand years ago can be a fucking joke now. Hell, what you know changes everyday. How can you declare objectivity when you can't ever be sure you've gotten the 100% undiluted truth?If you run test X a million times and get result Y, is that a guarantee that on the 1,000,001st run of the same test, you'll get Y? < David Hume and I think not >. Science relies entirely on being advertised as deterministic, repeatable, and predictable. Science looks to be a gamble. Albeit a fucking much, much better bet than believing ETs built the pyramids or other such bullshit. I'm not advocating that well-proven scientific theories are going to be upended anytime soon, but I can certainly imagine circumstances under which fundamental rules like gravity can be bent or broken. Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 21 2010,19:38
QUOTE The survival of the fixed Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 21 2010,19:44
QUOTE Capitalism works because it's brutally objective; it's all about the cash & everyone knows it. That's not entirely accurate. I mean it is, but it's not. The spirit of this statement presumes a zero sum game, i.e. 'in order for me to get more someone else must get less.' But that's not the case. The total available value increases over time, and a good capitalist will work not just for their own benefit but in order to help increase the value of the market as a whole in a seemingly altruistic manner to someone who only sees the zero-sum game option. Yes, it's all about the cash, but often helping others with their cash also helps you with yours. Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 22 2010,08:30
You can sort of manufacture value by transforming useful abstract ideas into profitable inventions.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 22 2010,09:00
Sort of? That's a huge factor in the growth of economies throughout history. Sure, finding new resources is good, too, but finding new things to do with those resources is so much more valuable.But I've dragged us away from Rand. Sorry, I'll shush now. |