Rand Critics

[Xray]

Hitler was German.

Xray,

I am curious. This is a premise in a syllogism in your post.

Is this statement an objective fact for you?

Michael

Hitler was Austrian by birth, and later became a German citizen.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hitler was Austrian by birth, and later became a German citizen.

Is this a statement of objective facts?

Michael

[Xray]

Hitler was Austrian by birth, and later became a German citizen.

Is this a statement of objective facts?

Michael

Do you know of any facts which are not objective? From the point of logic, "objective" in "objective fact" is redundant. But I suppose you used "objective" for emphasis here.

To answer your question: yes it is a statement of facts.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To answer your question: yes it is a statement of facts.

Xray,

How do you know facts are being presented? What makes them facts?

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> Perhaps she relied heavily on commentators...[it seems] she did not spend the effort required to get much from CPR directly. Her description in that paragraph is one appalling falsehood after another. Claiming that Kant did not define his terms in CPR is like saying the character Monk does not straighten things. [stephen]

1. I don't want to get in an extended debate so I'll simply make two quick points: First, it's a common fallacy peculiar to those with an academic bent or background, that only original sources are valuable, reliable, or present the truth.

My view is often the opposite: I would get much more (and much more accurately) out of an encyclopedia article (including in some cases a professional one such as the Oxford and Cambridge encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophy) than I would by trying to read original source works of some thinkers.

Essentialize unless you have unlimited time, expect to live to 200, and have the willingness to learn (and learn well) all the foreign languages the sources were written in.

This is also related to the U. of Chicago "Great Books" fallacy. Often those books are not very great, not very clear, full of fallacies.

I'm going to reverse the academic dictum "go the primary sources" and say "go the (worthwhile) secondary sources."

2. As far as "non-definition" is concerned, perhaps the real point is not that no definitions were present, but that they were foolish or arbitrary or wrong. One can say loosely that someone did not define their terms in the sense that they did not define properly. In fact, that usage is common.

Read Rand more charitably, like you would any great thinker, like you perhaps? do with Kant!

...I sometimes get the sense that you -- like so many on this list -- are itching for a nit to pick. One reason I don't frequent this list much any more: Exasperation.

[kiaer.ts]

If I release a penny in this gravity it will fall at 32 ft....etc - myself you etc

But you don't "own" this truth. Stating a truth subject to proof/disproof is no relation of ownership.

Scientists discussing the laws of gravity don't "own" the facts either.

Any individual mind that fully grasps and integrates a truth owns it. Knowledge must be earned and can be earned only be individual effort.

Why does this notion upset you?

It does not upset me - I pointed out its fallacy.

You can gain and possess knowledge about facts, but the facts (defining truth here as something to be a fact), exist independently of whether you know about them or not.

You don't "own" those facts anymore than you own the sky above you.

Facts are realities independent of the mind. Mental recognitions or statements of fact are truths. There are no truths without minds to apprehend them. "Something to be a fact" is not even a complete sentence, let alone a proper definition. Fact (literally "deed") is metaphysical and truth is epistemological.

[Reidy]

This thread started out with Walker's observation that most people discovered Rand when they were college age or in some cases younger. This is true in my informal observation but not very interesting. That's the age when people are likeliest to take an interest in ideas; younger than that, they aren't up to it; older, they're pursuing a career, raising a family, watching their finances and so forth. You could say this about any thinker. What's different about Rand is that so many people stay with her after that age. When I was in school ca. 40 years ago a lot of my contemporaries took an interest in Marcuse, Fanon, etc. or in Hermann Hesse. They're pretty much forgotten now, and I don't know anyone who stuck with them into adulthood. A decade or two earlier Sartre would have been the case in point, and Freud before that. Everybody knows who Freud was and has at least a sketchy idea of what he thought, but non-professionals don't actively pursue the interest.

The What Rand Read list shows that after she left school she read about as much, off the job, as the average intellectually active adult and nowhere near as much as a professional scholar. It also shows that, like most of us, she favored political readings that confirmed what she already believed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

...I sometimes get the sense that you -- like so many on this list -- are itching for a nit to pick. One reason I don't frequent this list much any more: Exasperation.

Hi Phil!

Michael

[Hazard]

I went on Amazon and read the preview for "The Ayn Rand Cult" by Jeff Walker which struck me at its mention that the most passionate Objectivists became Objectivists when they were young and did so with an incredible zeal. (I am 17 and that is exactly what happened to me).

My father told me: one side of a debate will probably sound right until the opposition presents its case. So far, i've only had the Rand side of the debate.

I would appreciate a recommendation of where I should start reading, or even your own disagreements with Objectivism.

Hazard,

Your father's advice is excellent. "Audiatur at altera pars" applies not only in the courtroom, but every time one wants to get the compelete picture of an issue.

In a nutshell:

1. Objectivism for me has been like water to a man lost in the desert.

What exactly was it you were philosophically thirsting for?

2. Finding it so appealing, I almost slipped back into a state of blind obedience to the Objectivist philosophy (contradicting its very nature)

Do do believe Objectivsm encourages independent thinking? If yes, in what way?

3. To "check my premise" I would like to be exposed to Rand's critics. (I just can't fathom why someone, after reading her books, would not become an Objectivist)

To check one's premises is an excellent advice by Rand. This involves checking her own premises too. That's where I would start.

Xray,

I had multiple issues of "blank outs" (to use the Galt terminology) in my life philosophy at the time, but it was all really a combination of my reaching intellectual maturity at the time that I was reading ideas that were actually rational. So it wasn't that I found something that I was looking for, it was that I found something that I hadn't realized that I wanted very badly.

Yes, I believe Objectivity encourages independent thinking. There is no other form of thinking than independent thinking, no one can think for anyone else. The closest thing to "dependent thinking" is a volition that abdicates one's own judgement for the judgement of someone else.

Jordan

[Barbara Branden]

Stephen: "Thanks for the link to 'What Ayn Rand Read.' It is a worthy project, and I hope they stick with it."

It is indeed a worthy project. But there is a problem with citing her library as a source for what Rand read. I very much doubt that she completed her reading of Thomas Szasz' book, and I know she didn't read both her two Thomas Wolfe books, but only dipped into them. Further, a number of the books in her library were gifts -- often from their authors -- so one cannor know if she read them or not. For ihstance, I am reasonably certain she didn't read all four of Bennett Cerf's books.

Barbara

[Xray]

I went on Amazon and read the preview for "The Ayn Rand Cult" by Jeff Walker which struck me at its mention that the most passionate Objectivists became Objectivists when they were young and did so with an incredible zeal. (I am 17 and that is exactly what happened to me).

My father told me: one side of a debate will probably sound right until the opposition presents its case. So far, i've only had the Rand side of the debate.

I would appreciate a recommendation of where I should start reading, or even your own disagreements with Objectivism.

Hazard,

Your father's advice is excellent. "Audiatur at altera pars" applies not only in the courtroom, but every time one wants to get the compelete picture of an issue.

In a nutshell:

1. Objectivism for me has been like water to a man lost in the desert.

What exactly was it you were philosophically thirsting for?

2. Finding it so appealing, I almost slipped back into a state of blind obedience to the Objectivist philosophy (contradicting its very nature)

Do do believe Objectivsm encourages independent thinking? If yes, in what way?

3. To "check my premise" I would like to be exposed to Rand's critics. (I just can't fathom why someone, after reading her books, would not become an Objectivist)

To check one's premises is an excellent advice by Rand. This involves checking her own premises too. That's where I would start.

Xray,

I had multiple issues of "blank outs" (to use the Galt terminology) in my life philosophy at the time, but it was all really a combination of my reaching intellectual maturity at the time that I was reading ideas that were actually rational. So it wasn't that I found something that I was looking for, it was that I found something that I hadn't realized that I wanted very badly.

Yes, I believe Objectivity encourages independent thinking. There is no other form of thinking than independent thinking, no one can think for anyone else. The closest thing to "dependent thinking" is a volition that abdicates one's own judgement for the judgement of someone else.

Jordan

But isn't accepting Rand's value judgements ecaxtly that: abdicating one's own judgement fo the judgement of someone else?

How does this list of cardinal values and virtues gel with independent thinking?

Rand's cardinal values: "reason, purpose, self-esteem."

Rands' cardinal virtues: "rationality, productiveness, pride".

So per Rand, these values and virtues have to be the every objectivist's cardinal values and virtues. Are they yours too?

Edited June 12, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

You stated:

"Rand's cardinal values: 'reason, purpose, self-esteem.'

Rands' cardinal virtues: 'rationality, productiveness [sic], pride'. "

I believe that the crazy Russian lady said that these are the proper values qua man for man to achieve his most productive existence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen: "Thanks for the link to 'What Ayn Rand Read.' It is a worthy project, and I hope they stick with it."

It is indeed a worthy project. But there is a problem with citing her library as a source for what Rand read. I very much doubt that she completed her reading of Thomas Szasz' book, and I know she didn't read both her two Thomas Wolfe books, but only dipped into them. Further, a number of the books in her library were gifts -- often from their authors -- so one cannor know if she read them or not. For ihstance, I am reasonably certain she didn't read all four of Bennett Cerf's books.

Barbara

Barbara,

This post went into limbo somehow. It is now recovered.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Stephen: "Thanks for the link to 'What Ayn Rand Read.' It is a worthy project, and I hope they stick with it."

It is indeed a worthy project. But there is a problem with citing her library as a source for what Rand read. I very much doubt that she completed her reading of Thomas Szasz' book, and I know she didn't read both her two Thomas Wolfe books, but only dipped into them. Further, a number of the books in her library were gifts -- often from their authors -- so one cannor know if she read them or not. For ihstance, I am reasonably certain she didn't read all four of Bennett Cerf's books.

Barbara

Barbara,

This post went into limbo somehow. It is now recovered.

Michael

At the Ford Hall Forum she said she hadn't had much exposure to Szasz, but what she had read was very interesting.

--Brant

[Hazard]

But isn't accepting Rand's value judgements ecaxtly that: abdicating one's own judgement fo the judgement of someone else?

No. What on earth makes you think that she suggests using another's judgement? Have you read her books?

How does this list of cardinal values and virtues gel with independent thinking?

Rand's cardinal values: "reason, purpose, self-esteem."

Rands' cardinal virtues: "rationality, productiveness, pride".

So per Rand, these values and virtues have to be the every objectivist's cardinal values and virtues. Are they yours too?

If I agree with Rand through my own independent reasoning, I am not using her logic as a basis for my own. I am using my logic to come to the same conclusion.

If I tell you that 2+2=4 and you agree with me, does that mean that you are abdicating your judgement for mine? No, not if you figure it out for yourself too.

Jordan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jordan,

LOL...

It is inspiring to see you thinking for yourself.

Apparently for Xray, thinking for yourself means agreeing with her instead of Rand.

I don't think it has occurred to her yet that thinking for oneself on a fundamental level does not entail agreement or disagreement with anyone. All it means is groking what one encounters to the best of one's ability, irrespective of where the "encountered whatever" is found or who it came from.

Michael

[Xray]

How does this list of cardinal values and virtues gel with independent thinking?

Rand's cardinal values: "reason, purpose, self-esteem."

Rands' cardinal virtues: "rationality, productiveness, pride".

So per Rand, these values and virtues have to be the every objectivist's cardinal values and virtues. Are they yours too?

If I agree with Rand through my own independent reasoning, I am not using her logic as a basis for my own. I am using my logic to come to the same conclusion.

Have you really, or do you merely accept at face value what she said?

If I tell you that 2+2=4 and you agree with me, does that mean that you are abdicating your judgement for mine? No, not if you figure it out for yourself too.

Jordan

You don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference: It's not about facts subject to proof and disproof, but about alleged objective values and virtues existing. It is about an artificially constructed category "Man" in denial of individual entity identity.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Rand on axioms:

"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality,

which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into

component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the

fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no

proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest." (Rand)

In recalling the phrase, "check your premises", this poses a very

interesting question. If the base premise is an "axiom" and is not subject

to proof or disproof, all derivative conclusions, being a logical

reflection of that "axiom", are not subject to proof or disproof either? So,

if effect, the axiom idea as an absolute and self evident truth is a defacto

declaration that no argument is subject to proof or disproof. So, what's the

point of any argument after logically inferring no proof or disproof is

possible???

Of course, the problem is once again a matter of definition. A axiom IS NOT

as "self evident absolute." It is simply something that is usually believed

to be true by many; such as the axiom, the earth is flat, believed by most

in the distant past. In other words, Rand's foundation of epistemology is

fatally flawed from the outset.

As Rand ignored the concept of individual identity in deference to non

identity category, in parallel thinking, she ignores the process of entity

identity by mentally abstracting by set of differences. An individual may be

"directly perceived" by the sense of sight, but the process of identity is

by the mental abstracting by difference as described above.

What is not directly perceived such as an electron is known to exist by the

same method of mentally abstracting by set of differentiating

characteristics. Since this is the universal natural law of learning, the

principle applies one hundred percent of the time.

Not recognizing this natural law by which all knowledge is acquired, Rand

took "entity identity" as a given, but not determined by the process of

abstracting by difference. In the deference to category, leaving finite

entity identity out of her thinking equation, she set the category, "Man" as

an "entity". From there, after ignoring individual identity and all the

volitional variations of valuing that go with it, she proposed a set of

"universal values" for the categorical "Man." Of course, the set of

"objective and universal value" coincidentally happened to be exactly like

her set of subjectivel personal values.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Xray

[Guyau]

Rand on axioms:

"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality,

which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into

component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the

fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no

proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest." (Rand)

In recalling the phrase, "check your premises", this poses a very

interesting question. If the base premise is an "axiom" and is not subject

to proof or disproof, all derivative conclusions, being a logical

reflection of that "axiom", are not subject to proof or disproof either? So,

if effect, the axiom idea as an absolute and self evident truth is a defacto

declaration that no argument is subject to proof or disproof. So, what's the

point of any argument after logically inferring no proof or disproof is

possible???

Angela, you might like to consider

Checking Rand’s Axioms;

Evidence of Necessary Existence, by Tibor Machan;

Lennox on Axioms and Their Validation;

Existence is Independent Individuality, by Peter Chriss.

—Stephen

[Robert Campbell]

1. I don't want to get in an extended debate so I'll simply make two quick points: First, it's a common fallacy peculiar to those with an academic bent or background, that only original sources are valuable, reliable, or present the truth.

My view is often the opposite: I would get much more (and much more accurately) out of an encyclopedia article (including in some cases a professional one such as the Oxford and Cambridge encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophy) than I would by trying to read original source works of some thinkers.

Essentialize unless you have unlimited time, expect to live to 200, and have the willingness to learn (and learn well) all the foreign languages the sources were written in.

Phil,

It's simple.

If you're going to take on a philosopher, you read what the philosopher wrote.

If you're going to attribute the importance to a philosopher that Ayn Rand did to Immanuel Kant, your obligation to read his works grows exponentially.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Rand on axioms:

"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality,

which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into

component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the

fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no

proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest." (Rand)

In recalling the phrase, "check your premises", this poses a very

interesting question. If the base premise is an "axiom" and is not subject

to proof or disproof, all derivative conclusions, being a logical

reflection of that "axiom", are not subject to proof or disproof either? So,

if effect, the axiom idea as an absolute and self evident truth is a defacto

declaration that no argument is subject to proof or disproof. So, what's the

point of any argument after logically inferring no proof or disproof is

possible???

Of course, the problem is once again a matter of definition. A axiom IS NOT

as "self evident absolute." It is simply something that is usually believed

to be true by many; such as the axiom, the earth is flat, believed by most

in the distant past. In other words, Rand's foundation of epistemology is

fatally flawed from the outset.

"The earth is flat" is not an axiom. It never was. If you think it is/was you know nothing of axiomatic premises as explicated in Objectivism.

Things can be disproved, but since this is not a court of law, they cannot be proven. You have confirming evidence and theories. That's all. From epistemology all you get is logical inferences to ethics and then politics/economics. You can find much to criticize here qua Objectivism, especially when you try to proceed off basic principles into the real world and people.

Of course all this happens in the context of axiomatic knowledge, whether one is aware of it or not. You cannot go outside reality for anything whatsoever. There's nothing there. That doesn't mean you can't bump into things out of ignorance or irrationality. You can't say I don't have to consider this or that because I don't or can't "prove" axioms. You don't drive your SUV and five children onto the railroad tracks and stop in front of the oncoming train because you're the victim of Objectivist axioms and can't "prove" there is a train coming.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

As Rand ignored the concept of individual identity in deference to non

identity category, in parallel thinking, she ignores the process of entity

identity by mentally abstracting by set of differences. An individual may be

"directly perceived" by the sense of sight, but the process of identity is

by the mental abstracting by difference as described above.

What is not directly perceived such as an electron is known to exist by the

same method of mentally abstracting by set of differentiating

characteristics. Since this is the universal natural law of learning, the

principle applies one hundred percent of the time.

Not recognizing this natural law by which all knowledge is acquired, Rand

took "entity identity" as a given, but not determined by the process of

abstracting by difference. In the deference to category, leaving finite

entity identity out of her thinking equation, she set the category, "Man" as

an "entity". From there, after ignoring individual identity and all the

volitional variations of valuing that go with it, she proposed a set of

"universal values" for the categorical "Man." Of course, the set of

"objective and universal value" coincidentally happened to be exactly like

her set of subjectivel personal values.

Oh, men are different from each other, but man is common to all men. (The man in men--and women, natch.) Derivatively I am a man, but we don't have to go there (and a woman is a [wo]man!). It's no big deal now that Rand wasn't much of an empiricist as long as we know that and what that means.

--Brant

Edited June 23, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Dragonfly]

1. I don't want to get in an extended debate so I'll simply make two quick points: First, it's a common fallacy peculiar to those with an academic bent or background, that only original sources are valuable, reliable, or present the truth.

My view is often the opposite: I would get much more (and much more accurately) out of an encyclopedia article (including in some cases a professional one such as the Oxford and Cambridge encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophy) than I would by trying to read original source works of some thinkers.

Essentialize unless you have unlimited time, expect to live to 200, and have the willingness to learn (and learn well) all the foreign languages the sources were written in.

Phil,

It's simple.

If you're going to take on a philosopher, you read what the philosopher wrote.

If you're going to attribute the importance to a philosopher that Ayn Rand did to Immanuel Kant, your obligation to read his works grows exponentially.

Would Objectivists agree with the notion that you can get much more (and much more accurately) out of an encyclopedia article about Objectivism than by reading Rand's works? I suspect the answer will in most cases be negative. So what's sauce for the goose...

[Jonathan]

Would Objectivists agree with the notion that you can get much more (and much more accurately) out of an encyclopedia article about Objectivism than by reading Rand's works?

Only if the encyclopedia article was edited by TheValliants® and it made numerous references to PARC, or if it was edited by Mayhew or some other officially approved Objectivist who had been given the authority to change Rand's words, or to write completely new sentences and put them into her mouth, to represent what Official Objectivsts have decided that Rand meant to say as opposed to what she actually did say.

J

[Xray]

You don't drive your SUV and five children onto the railroad tracks and stop in front of the oncoming train because you're the victim of Objectivist axioms and can't "prove" there is a train coming. --Brant

So you would not exactly recommend applying Objectivst axioms to reality? I agree with you on that.

["The earth is flat" is not an axiom. It never was. If you think it is/was you know nothing of axiomatic premises as explicated in Objectivism.

Of course "The earth is flat" is an axiom - i. e. accepted as true [in that case, in the distant past] without proof as the basis for the argument.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Xray