The Funniest Rand-Bash I Have Read In A Long Time


Recommended Posts

The Funniest Rand-Bash I Have Read In A Long Time

I read this thing and started cracking up. And the more I read, the funnier it got. Then the tears came. This guy skirts around a truth here and there about salesmanship, but he distorts Rand's message so much that it is comical. And when he rebuts, what he rebuts has nothing to do with Rand, but his misunderstanding instead.

He actually sounds like a Marxist at a few moments, except he's a sales instructor.

I guess this is a case where we can make a new philosophical identification: imbroglio is not a tool of cognition.

:)

Here ya' go, folks:

Top 10 Reasons Ayn Rand was Dead Wrong

September 16, 2010

By Geoffrey James

BNET

From the article:

The philosophy, called "Objectivism," came from the hack writer Ayn Rand, whose disciple is Alan Greenspan, architect of the great recession.

Here are the reasons without the James's comments on them.

1. Laissez-Faire capitalism doesn't work.

2. Reason has real-world limitations.

3. Ayn Rand was a emotional nut case.

4. Her philosophy is devoid of gratitude.

5. Reality is NOT an objective absolute.

6. Howard Roark was a lousy architect.

7. Facts do NOT trump feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears.

8. Every man does NOT exist for his own sake.

9. Reading Rand creates instant jackasses.

10. Rand is the CEOs' favorite philosopher.

And this guy seems to believe this represents Rand's thinking and/or rebuttal to her thinking.

I won't start in analyzing his statements because that is a rabbit hole of errors that goes nowhere, but will suck up a lot of time. So I'll just to let the reader judge for himself.

Read the full article. It's hard to think it can be worse than the above, but it is.

You just can't make this stuff up.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoffrey James is clearly a moron. His diatribe is definitely good for a laugh or two. On the other hand, proving that it’s impossible to write a thousand plus word article and not say something that’s true, consider his reason #9: “Reading Rand creates instant jackasses.”

Reading OL or any number of alternate Objectivist webforums, I don’t see how anyone can take issue with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the full article. It's hard to think it can be worse than the above, but it is.

You just can't make this stuff up.

It was only worth a skim. His spellchecker must be on the fritz, hoi-polloi is wrong right at the end.

reason #9: “Reading Rand creates instant jackasses.”

Reading OL or any number of alternate Objectivist webforums, I don’t see how anyone can take issue with that.

Ah, but that's largely an internet phenomenon, it's not specific or unique to O-land. I believe this cogently explains it:

Theory.jpg

Besides, instant jackasses? By his own admission it took one OL member a decade plus to "integrate the philosophy", which I take to mean to develop his dearly beloved online persona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reason #9: “Reading Rand creates instant jackasses.”

Reading OL or any number of alternate Objectivist webforums, I don’t see how anyone can take issue with that.

Ah, but that's largely an internet phenomenon, it's not specific or unique to O-land. I believe this cogently explains it:

Theory.jpg

Besides, instant jackasses? By his own admission it took one OL member a decade plus to "integrate the philosophy", which I take to mean to develop his dearly beloved online persona.

Clearly, John Gabriel is a genius. I'm quite sure Einstein would have been impressed.

"Instant jackass" strikes me as accurate. It's my observation that Objectivist jackassery tends to be the early incarnation of the typical Randian. You know, going around saying "A is A" every time someone disagrees with you, as if that proved your case. Thankfully, the symptoms tend to diminish somewhat as the Objectivist begins to move toward a higher level of integration. Eventually, you learn to just condemn everyone as morally corrupt and retire to your skyscraper penthouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

What I find especially funny about this list is that several of the titles alone are blatant logical fallacies.

3. Ayn Rand was a emotional nut case.

Argumentum Ad Hominem.

5. Reality is NOT an objective absolute.

Stolen Concept.

6. Howard Roark was a lousy architect.

Both irrelevant and a Context-Drop. Roark was a fictional character intended to embody a specific code of ethics. He wasn't meant to be an example of a real life architect.

7. Facts do NOT trump feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears.

Stolen Concept.

9. Reading Rand creates instant jackasses.

Ad Hominem. Also an example of unrepresentative sampling. Quite a few Objectivists are jackasses. But not all of them are.

10. Rand is the CEOs' favorite philosopher.

Hidden Premise 1: All CEO's have the same taste in literature. This premise is empirically false.

Hidden Premise 2: All CEO's actually want a genuine free market and hence support Rand. This premise is empirically false; you're more likely to find a CEO that wants to have best buddies in the Senate rather than laissez-faire.

Hidden Premise 3: All CEO's are evil (empirically false; some are and some aren't) and thus Rand is evil (this is Guilt By Association, more informally known as Reductio Ad Hitlerum). Or vice-versa, Rand is evil and her philosophies made CEO's evil (which in turn makes the argument circular because these arguments are meant to prove that Rand is evil).

Merely from the titles of the arguments alone we have at least 10 fallacious arguments!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now