Libertarians Need Objectivism

[sjw]

Shayne:

Are you calling her a "hack" philosopher, or, a "hack" writer?

Adam

Philosopher.

Shayne

Okay, so she's a philosopher after all.

--Brant

pulling teeth

Now you're acting like a teenager.

Rand was hopelessly arrogant and immune from rational criticism -- not coincidentally, just like her best followers are. If you want to describe someone like that as "philosopher" that's your business, but in my book a philosopher loves truth more than they do anything else, including their own ego. Indeed, any love they have for their ego comes through their love for truth, not the other way around, as it was with Rand.

Is my criticism too harsh? I'm observing the results of her efforts to teach philosophy, at the actual Frankenstein she created in the Objectivist "movement." The effect proceeds from the cause, and the cause was her own arrogance. Objectivism has failed, utterly. And due to its inherent arrogance, there is nothing to salvage in it unless one is prepared to demolish it first. It cannot be reclaimed as David Kelly tried to do, as a whole philosophy, it can only be mercilessly ripped to pieces, keeping the good parts and throwing the bad into the trash bin.

Shayne

Edited June 23, 2011 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

You seem to have a philosopher-on-a-hill attitude, Shayne, but that Rand doesn't measure up to that hardly means most philosophers do. Do you call those others philosophers--not! too?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Is my criticism too harsh? I'm observing the results of her efforts to teach philosophy, at the actual Frankenstein she created in the Objectivist "movement." The effect proceeds from the cause, and the cause was her own arrogance. Objectivism has failed, utterly. And due to its inherent arrogance, there is nothing to salvage in it unless one is prepared to demolish it first. It cannot be reclaimed as David Kelly tried to do, as a whole philosophy, it can only be mercilessly ripped to pieces, keeping the good parts and throwing the bad into the trash bin.

Shayne

Harsh but just.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

It is clearly a pejorative evaluation and demeans Ayn.

I fail to understand why you chose that word, or, why you, as Brant pointed out attempt to paint her with a negative broad brush.

Adam

I mean to demean her qua system-building philosopher. She had no rational system. She hacked it together. It was a mish-mash of good and bad ideas. Now, qua generator of some good philosophic ideas, she was great. Qua fiction-writer, she was a genius. But qua creator of a philosophic system, she was an arrogant hack.

I don't mean to demean her in any other respect than that she did not build a systematic rational philosophy like she thought she did. In fact, she was not even capable of doing that given her level of intellectual development as a thinker, and evidently, she was also completely oblivious to the fact that she was not capable. In this respect, Rand exhibited stereotypical teenage arrogance par excellence, as do many of her followers.

Shayne

[sjw]

You seem to have a philosopher-on-a-hill attitude, Shayne, but that Rand doesn't measure up to that hardly means most philosophers do. Do you call those others philosophers--not! too?

--Brant

Aristotle -- true philosopher. David Hume -- true philosopher. John Locke -- true philosopher. Ayn Rand -- writer of fiction.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne:

Are you calling her a "hack" philosopher, or, a "hack" writer?

Adam

Philosopher.

Shayne

Okay, so she's a philosopher after all.

--Brant

pulling teeth

Now you're acting like a teenager.

Rand was hopelessly arrogant and immune from rational criticism -- not coincidentally, just like her best followers are. If you want to describe someone like that as "philosopher" that's your business, but in my book a philosopher loves truth more than they do anything else, including their own ego. Indeed, any love they have for their ego comes through their love for truth, not the other way around, as it was with Rand.

Is my criticism too harsh? I'm observing the results of her efforts to teach philosophy, at the actual Frankenstein she created in the Objectivist "movement." The effect proceeds from the cause, and the cause was her own arrogance. Objectivism has failed, utterly. And due to its inherent arrogance, there is nothing to salvage in it unless one is prepared to demolish it first. It cannot be reclaimed as David Kelly tried to do, as a whole philosophy, it can only be mercilessly ripped to pieces, keeping the good parts and throwing the bad into the trash bin.

Shayne

This would be interesting as a well researched book. Usually such a book might be cited in a discussion such as this. It doesn't exist, of course, but an honest researcher researching such a book might discover a contrary conclusion or a more nuanced one. For instance, suppose Rand had measured up to what you think she should have been: do you think the world would now be appreciably better?

Regardless, the argument is whether Rand was or was not a philosopher, not how good or bad a philosopher she was. You're saying she was so bad she wasn't even one. I'm saying I'm pretty much done with a discussion positing the idea that if water isn't wet enough it isn't water, never was water, could never have been water and that it doesn't matter that if you get it on your skin that your skin gets wet.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

You seem to have a philosopher-on-a-hill attitude, Shayne, but that Rand doesn't measure up to that hardly means most philosophers do. Do you call those others philosophers--not! too?

--Brant

Aristotle -- true philosopher. David Hume -- true philosopher. John Locke -- true philosopher. Ayn Rand -- writer of fiction.

Shayne

One more thing, here: here's what you've accomplished with this little, worthless, arguable-arguable not denigration of the one person just about everybody who is here is here because of--you'll be skipped; you'll be ignored. You're the first one I've ever read you've come up with this Ayn Rand wasn't a philosopher stuff. There's a lot of she was a terrible philosopher or a pop-philosopher or a joke of a philosopher, etc., etc. "Philosopher" is a huge category and you've come up with not one good reason to exclude her from that category except she was bad, bad, bad. What an insult to everyone who thinks she's a philosopher worth admiring for whatever reason and are here on OL for that reason. We're supposed to show her the door? We're supposed to rip Rand out of our psycho-epistemologies? Her ideas? Objectivism itself? If you were to start your own Internet site with that as a working premise, who would show up and stick around? You don't seem to begin to understand how utterly you've marginalized yourself, here, there, anywhere--and for what?

--Brant

[sjw]

One more thing, here: here's what you've accomplished with this little, worthless, arguable-arguable not denigration of the one person just about everybody who is here is here because of--you'll be skipped; you'll be ignored. You're the first one I've ever read you've come up with this Ayn Rand wasn't a philosopher stuff. There's a lot of she was a terrible philosopher or a pop-philosopher or a joke of a philosopher, etc., etc. "Philosopher" is a huge category and you've come up with not one good reason to exclude her from that category except she was bad, bad, bad. What an insult to everyone who thinks she's a philosopher worth admiring for whatever reason and are here on OL for that reason. We're supposed to show her the door? We're supposed to rip Rand out of our psycho-epistemologies? Her ideas? Objectivism itself? If you were to start your own Internet site with that as a working premise, who would show up and stick around? You don't seem to begin to understand how utterly you've marginalized yourself, here, there, anywhere--and for what?

--Brant

I can only understand about half of this. You seem not to be paying attention. I say that qua system-building philosopher, she wasn't one. Qua someone with philosophical thoughts, she had them, some of them very good. But "buyer beware" concerning her "system."

You want to quibble about whether the word "philosopher" should be tacked on to this or that. Well in a fast and loose sense of the word that you seem to want to use, Rand is a philosopher, I'm a philosopher, George H. Smith is a philosopher, and you are a philosopher. But in the use of the word in which we confer it real meaning and gravity, Rand wasn't in the class of true "lover of wisdom", as were Aristotle, Locke, Hume (and probably some other good philosophers that I haven't read as well). She loved herself, and her vision of man as heroic by her standards, more than truth.

Now, you want to stamp your feet and claim it isn't so, but you know very well that it is so, so you quibble me about the meaning of the word "philosopher." This talk about me "marginalizing" myself is more of the same. If one loves truth more than fitting in, then marginalizing is utterly irrelevant. What should be your focus is whether I am right or wrong, not whether some monkey or other is going to be mad at me for stating the truth.

Shayne

[sjw]

It is certainly true that Rand's heroic vision of man included that he should pursue truth. But, perhaps as an occupational hazard of being a writer of fiction, she actually valued the object she created -- the vision qua vision, not qua end -- higher than the meaning of the vision itself. Being a productive genius, she substantially participated in making real in herself the vision she projected, but she did not participate in the whole vision, which includes primacy of existence over consciousness and the primary love of truth that entails.

Through her virtues, she unchained the minds of many, but through her lack of commitment to her own values, she rechained many of them to their own narcissism. There is much value to be gained from Rand, but only by being selective and critical. And my criticisms in this thread get to what I think is the root of how one should be critical of her.

Shayne

[anthony]

She loved herself, and her vision of man as heroic by her standards, more than truth.

Shayne

Shayne,

Excuse me, but you could only have arrived at this conclusion via her personal (can I call them?) 'shenanigans'.

Hardly through her ad-libbed words, and never through her teaching.

You recall: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason, and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

This, as many other references, indicates her hierarchy - Man, not as supremely heroic figure 'in vacuo', but heroic BECAUSE he seeks the truth.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

I did not say they aren't a problem for Aristotle. I said that Aristotle's problems aren't problems for Rand. She never endorsed his efforts on these topics.

Aristotle did not think checking was necessary. Therefore everything he did was flawed or potentially flawed. His work lacked quality control.

And not just Aristotle, either. Most of the Greek philosophers shared this fault. Except for Archimedes. He demonstrated that his stuff worked in public.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Excuse me, but you could only have arrived at this conclusion via her personal (can I call them?) 'shenanigans'.

"I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that therefore it does not really exist." --David Hume

And as I said, Rand fostered arrogance.

Shayne

[sjw]

I did not say they aren't a problem for Aristotle. I said that Aristotle's problems aren't problems for Rand. She never endorsed his efforts on these topics.

Aristotle did not think checking was necessary. Therefore everything he did was flawed or potentially flawed. His work lacked quality control.

And not just Aristotle, either. Most of the Greek philosophers shared this fault. Except for Archimedes. He demonstrated that his stuff worked in public.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Aristotle developed a whole system of formal deductive logic. Where was the lack of quality control there? Do we even know what works were written when? Perhaps his earlier works were written when he wasn't as developed as he was when he wrote his better works.

Shayne

[anthony]

Excuse me, but you could only have arrived at this conclusion via her personal (can I call them?) 'shenanigans'.

"I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that therefore it does not really exist." --David Hume

And as I said, Rand fostered arrogance.

Shayne

Not exactly shy and retiring statements, either.

Arrogance is tricky, as you know - one man's pride in achievement, is another's arrogance.

Is it then, earning any degree of certainty, that you (and Hume) dislike?

Does one have to understand and be familiar with every school of thought, to finally graduate to "pardonable arrogance."?

Anyway, I'd not have thought you were a proponent of humility.

[sjw]

Not exactly shy and retiring statements, either.

Arrogance is tricky, as you know - one man's pride in achievement, is another's arrogance.

Is it then, earning any degree of certainty, that you (and Hume) dislike?

Does one have to understand and be familiar with every school of thought, to finally graduate to "pardonable arrogance."?

Anyway, I'd not have thought you were a proponent of humility.

In broad terms I agree with Ayn Rand regarding the concepts of arrogance, humility, and certainty. No I'm not anti-certainty, and no I'm not a proponent of humility as a virtue. (And incidentally, I think Hume was only opposed to the religious brand of certainty).

But you've missed the point entirely.

Shayne

[anthony]

But you've missed the point entirely.

Shayne

Not for the first time.

What is the "argument that has escaped" Rand's, (and my)"investigation", then?

[Xray]

I don't mean to demean her in any other respect than that she did not build a systematic rational philosophy like she thought she did. In fact, she was not even capable of doing that given her level of intellectual development as a thinker, and evidently, she was also completely oblivious to the fact that she was not capable. In this respect, Rand exhibited stereotypical teenage arrogance par excellence, as do many of her followers.

It would be interesting to see Jeff Riggenbach comment on what you have written above.

In his book In Praise of Decadence, p. 55, JR wrote:

Jeff Riggenbach: "Aside from a brief monograph on her theory of concepts, and perhaps a dozen essys on various issues in ethics, aesthetics, and political theory, Rand never produced any formal philosophical writing of any sort at all."

Edited June 23, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

This article about John Allison and BB&T also mentions Yaron Brook:

He [Yaron Brook] also says it’s unfortunate that Mr. Greenspan continues to be associated with Ms. Rand. While the two were close in the 1960s and ’70s, Mr. Greenspan abandoned objectivism decades ago, he says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/business/02bbt.html?pagewanted=1&%2360&%2362&%2359;!--Undefined%20dynamic%20function%20data_sanitationlib::sanitize_string:1%20called--&%2359;

Is that true? I always thought Greenspan was a Randian for a much longer time after that.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

One more thing, here: here's what you've accomplished with this little, worthless, arguable-arguable not denigration of the one person just about everybody who is here is here because of--you'll be skipped; you'll be ignored. You're the first one I've ever read you've come up with this Ayn Rand wasn't a philosopher stuff. There's a lot of she was a terrible philosopher or a pop-philosopher or a joke of a philosopher, etc., etc. "Philosopher" is a huge category and you've come up with not one good reason to exclude her from that category except she was bad, bad, bad. What an insult to everyone who thinks she's a philosopher worth admiring for whatever reason and are here on OL for that reason. We're supposed to show her the door? We're supposed to rip Rand out of our psycho-epistemologies? Her ideas? Objectivism itself? If you were to start your own Internet site with that as a working premise, who would show up and stick around? You don't seem to begin to understand how utterly you've marginalized yourself, here, there, anywhere--and for what?

--Brant

I can only understand about half of this. You seem not to be paying attention. I say that qua system-building philosopher, she wasn't one. Qua someone with philosophical thoughts, she had them, some of them very good. But "buyer beware" concerning her "system."

You want to quibble about whether the word "philosopher" should be tacked on to this or that. Well in a fast and loose sense of the word that you seem to want to use, Rand is a philosopher, I'm a philosopher, George H. Smith is a philosopher, and you are a philosopher. But in the use of the word in which we confer it real meaning and gravity, Rand wasn't in the class of true "lover of wisdom", as were Aristotle, Locke, Hume (and probably some other good philosophers that I haven't read as well). She loved herself, and her vision of man as heroic by her standards, more than truth.

Now, you want to stamp your feet and claim it isn't so, but you know very well that it is so, so you quibble me about the meaning of the word "philosopher." This talk about me "marginalizing" myself is more of the same. If one loves truth more than fitting in, then marginalizing is utterly irrelevant. What should be your focus is whether I am right or wrong, not whether some monkey or other is going to be mad at me for stating the truth.

Shayne

Now it's "system building" that makes one a philosopher or not. And shouldn't the "buyer beware" apply to anyone's system? And she didn't build a system?!?! You started out by saying she wasn't a philosopher then you said she was a "hack" philosopher finally getting you on the same page with virtually everyone else--not about the "hack," but the philosopher thingy except you can't stop arguing for a position you properly abandoned. Or did you? I can come with a raft of right-on Rand criticisms with the best of her critics and have, but this Rand-wasn't-a-philosopher crap is just telling me all that sort of stuff wasn't really worth thinking about in the first place. Ayn Rand, WTF was that? Never heard of her. That's how my bio. should read today if only I hadn't the mis-fortune to have read her books? If she wasn't a philosopher she didn't write philosophy. Right?

--Brant

[sjw]

Now it's "system building" that makes one a philosopher or not.

No, that's just more arrogant presumptions on your part.

And she didn't build a system?!?!

A "system" that doesn't work isn't a system. But evidently, in your world, when a two-year-old learns that 2 + 2 is 4, then he's a mathematician. As I said, go ahead and use words this way if you want. That's not how I use them. In order to be an actual "system builder," you can't just hack it together, it has to be a competent job. If your 10-year-old kid tore your plumbing apart, would you call him a plumber? Probably.

You started out by saying she wasn't a philosopher then you said she was a "hack" philosopher finally getting you on the same page with virtually everyone else--not about the "hack," but the philosopher thingy except you can't stop arguing for a position you properly abandoned. Or did you? I can come with a raft of right-on Rand criticisms with the best of her critics and have, but this Rand-wasn't-a-philosopher crap is just telling me all that sort of stuff wasn't really worth thinking about in the first place. Ayn Rand, WTF was that? Never heard of her. That's how my bio. should read today if only I hadn't the mis-fortune to have read her books? If she wasn't a philosopher she didn't write philosophy. Right?

--Brant

You just want something to rant and rave about. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, nor do you need to know given your purposes here.

Shayne

Edited June 23, 2011 by sjw

[sjw]

Brant's purpose: ad hominem. He fervently believes that Objectivism is a system, I say it isn't one, and rather than actually debate it, he lapses into a religious rant aimed squarely at discrediting the messenger.

Bad form Brant, really bad form.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Brant's purpose: ad hominem. He fervently believes that Objectivism is a system, I say it isn't one, and rather than actually debate it, he lapses into a religious rant aimed squarely at discrediting the messenger.

Bad form Brant, really bad form.

Shayne

You keep slip-sliding away. The only thing from you that really got me going was the cheap remark about Rand not being a philosopher. As for a system, yes or no, a debate about that is only a little more interesting, but please, go ahead and make your case that the non-philosopher built a non-philosophical system and explain why such a proposition would be of any interest to anybody. Rand would probably disagree with me since she was of the mind that if you were to pull any one gear out it would either destroy the gear-puller or stop working. These types of metaphors will likely take us into Isabel Paterson-land.

--Brant

[sjw]

You keep slip-sliding away. The only thing from you that really got me going was the cheap remark about Rand not being a philosopher.

The only thing that got you spun up is that you presumed to know what I meant and then you've been sticking to that presumption ever since even though I elaborated very early on to Selene.

Pathetic teenage behavior on your part. Act your age.

As for a system, yes or no, a debate about that is only a little more interesting, but please, go ahead and make your case that the non-philosopher built a non-philosophical system and explain why such a proposition would be of any interest to anybody. Rand would probably disagree with me since she was of the mind that if you were to pull any one gear out it would either destroy the gear-puller or stop working. These types of metaphors will likely take us into Isabel Paterson-land.

--Brant

You don't care if I argue this way or that and make a solid case, all you care is if you think you've got easy fish to shoot in a barrel. As it turned out, you were all excited because you thought you had an easy target, but it turned out that all you had was your own presumptions. Get over it.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I presumed you meant what you wrote.

--Brant

do I get a full head of hair with that "teenager" thing?

[sjw]

I presumed you meant what you wrote.

No, you presumed I meant what you understood/understand.

Anyway, if you wanted to have a productive conversation, you'd be exploring just what it means or should mean to say that someone is a "philosopher." You don't want to do that, which is fine. Instead, you want to act like a punk, which is not fine.

Shayne