So far you have presented a rather scatter gun attack against Rand. I call it “attack” because of the language used which is quite inflammatory. I have not yet found any criticisms of her philosophy (from you)--other than a couple of vague generalities impossible to address. If you come up with any I will be glad to tackle them.
I include here (at the end of this post) a summary of her philosophy so that we can work from a common blueprint rather than wasting time on arguing the philosophy of some other person or group. I do not mean you to be limited to this briefest of summaries, of course. Should you have a rational objection to any objectivist premise that is indeed representative of her philosophy, then please supply the quote in her own words so we may examine your premises.
we can then ascertain whether you have any valid arguments against the validity of objectivism as a philosophy.
I hope you will understand why I am trying to keep the personal attacks separate so that they may be addressed more accurately. Mixing personal attacks with philosophical dispute simply contaminates both polemics and makes it impossible to rationally examine either case. Obviously, the fact that Einstein sometimes forgot to wear his shoes does not prove or disprove relativity nor does the fact of Tchaikovsky’s homosexuality inform the value of his musical genius.
While I wait for any sincere arguments against the philosophy of objectivism I will list your charges against her character--to be addressed later. Please do not take my previous reference to “kneejerk” as a personal accusation. If you reread my remark, it did not single you out in any way.
I have read through your last two posts and have lifted the actual statements against her character. They may be reported as follows:
“you are castigating religion and then subcribing to a cult, IMO.”
You appear to accuse me of subscribing to a cult. So far as I know I have never subscribed to a cult. Have I said I subscribe to a cult?
This first statement is about me so I will merely acknowledge the accusation and dismiss it as incorrect while I address your important points against the character of Ayn Rand.
“like all cult leaders Rand had a superiority complex, when in fact she was just a sad psychologically ill person who made life hell for people. She had a hellish childhood. Fits.”
1. Rand was the leader of a cult.
2. Rand had a superiority complex.
3. Rand was a sad person.
4. Rand was psychologically ill.
5. Rand made life Hell for people.
6. Rand had a Hellish childhood.
7. Rand had fits.
“Her talk of objectivism is pure psychobable, not unlike all other's who proclaim some superior understanding. If you want surperior understanding I would stick to Bertrand Russell and Steven Pinker (now there was superior understanding) who recently pointed out there is less violence today than at any time in history. Now that is important.”
“Her talk of objectivism is pure psychobabble” is too vague for me to address. I simply note that such comments are too meaningless to dignify any effort at more than a cursory response such as I have just given.
“We are just worms, including Rand, squirming around in the mud with a few insights here and there. Nothing more.”
This is your own philosophy, Koan, and I will leave it for you to defend, if you wish. Suffice it to say, it is not a philosophical premise attributable to Rand. You may find her opinion of man and attack it is you wish by reading her books and representing fairly what she says over and over in her own words.
“And Knee jerk? Hardly, knee jerk, how about 50 years of hard core looking and studying. As Russell said. I found nothing and neither did Rand.|”
This again is a personal claim. And I wish to restrict my comments to objectivism or to Ayn Rand.
“I am a very hard core liberal and in my group Ayn Rand is seen as a cruel joke. A sociopath who ran a cult, was as mean as a junk yard dog and had a bankrupt philosophy.“
8. You and some hard core liberals are contemptuous of either Rand or her philosophy or both.
9. Rand was a sociopath. (Probably we can deal with this under your "psychologically ill" contention--and perhaps the "superiority complex" accusation, as well)
10. Rand was extremely mean.
11. Her philosophy went bankrupt.
There are two new biographies on Rand which tell how she made her followers consult with her not only about their marriages, but even the movies they wanted to see. So much for individual freedom she espoused. And she saw the common man as vermin. The common man or woman is usually just uneducated; and no one is vermin.
She convinced one of her followers (20 years her junior) to sleep with her and convinced his wife and her husband to go along with it. It went on for 14 years. Objectivism is a fantasy, not possible.
12. Rand made her followers consult with her about such things as their marriage and movies to see.
13. Point “12” above does not comport with her advocacy of individual freedom.
14. She saw the common man as vermin.
15. She slept with a married man (was adulterous) for a number of years.
I have done my best to summarize your points and I have identified your words from which I take these points. Does this fairly cover all your objections to the character of Ayn Rand? I would like to address those accusations but I invite you first to let it all out and to make an exhaustive disclosure. Clearly there is no value in buttressing your points with repetitive synonyms. “Mean” is understandable…and nasty, spiteful, etc. do not present separate arguments.
I will wait before responding to your character points, as I do not wish to be dragged into a yes but and ok but sort of endless and feckless dialogue. All great people have characters. I would prefer to have all your animosity toward Ayn Rand on the table. Later, if you wish to discuss perceived problems with objectivism, we can do that. If (or when) you are done with the character stuff (the hard core liberals I run with think she is as mean as a junk yard dog), then I will address those resentments as outlined in the 15 points above. But I will wait to see where you are at.
“…If marriage is to achieve its possibilities, husbands and wives must learn to understand that whatever the law may say, in their private lives they must be free.”
“there must be no interference with mutual freedom; there must be the most complete physical and mental intimacy; and there must be a certain similarity in regard to standards of values…“
_________________________________________________________________________________
The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962.
by Ayn Rand
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
Metaphysics Objective Reality
Epistemology Reason
Ethics Self-interest
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.”
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
Copyright © 1962 by Times-Mirror Co. |
