Additional thought on Ayn Rand May 3, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, language and lit.trackback
I received multiple critiques of my shot at Ayn Rand, which of course was half the point of the comment in the first place. I’m tempted to respond with a full-blown critique of Objectivism as a philosophy, but I suspect that would be only interesting to me.
So I’ll confine myself to one observation: anyone who still holds Capitalism as an inherent good hasn’t been paying attention.
We would love to hear your “full-blown critique of Objectivism as a philosophy.” (P.S. Don’t forget to use facts!!!)
I suspect your criticism of “Objectivism as a philosophy” will be more of your criticisms of your own cursory familiarity with Objectivism in particular and philosophy in general.
This seems evident right from your observation in the above post. No proper Objectivist holds “Capitalism as an inherent good.” I will let you figure out why your observation is not an accurate view of Objectivists, and what is the Objectivist view of capitalism.
On a related note, do you have any formal training in philosophy? Any critique of Objectivism must begin at the basic premises–what Aristotle termed as axioms. I’d be amused to see you handle Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology.
I object to Ayn Rand not because of her philosophical commitments, but because she does excruciatingly painful things to my language of choice. Also, she has troll minions, apparently.
It is easy to disparage that which you have been told is worthless. If you are serious about ideas I rcomend that you read her works especially Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and if you are really really serious read her nonfiction works and judge for yourself.
Boy, does she ever have trolls! I don’t get this many random comments on almost any other topic.
I thought the point of posting one’s ideas was to share and to discuss them openly. I guess this just goes to show that respect for others and etiquette are not a given.
The attempts by Rod, Ergo, and Ralph to lend a helpful hand in pointing out ways to better understand Rand’s ideas have only been met with contempt and scorn. If you really wanted to know what a troll was, maybe you shouldn’t be looking towards those who offer their help but instead at those who use slander as means for arguments.
Yup, ’cause “don’t forget to use facts” was clearly intended to be helpful.
Also, if I say “I didn’t like ‘Bringing Up Baby’ because of its antifeminist elements,” responding with “oh, you just didn’t understand it” is not an attempt to discuss ideas openly.
Just sayin’.
Metaphysics and epistemology are for people with too much time on their hands and not enough connection to the real world.
Try THAT on for size, trolls!
“Don’t forget to use facts” wasn’t intended to be confrontational – I just wanted to encourage concrete ideas so that we could engage in a rational debate on Objectivism. Statements like “anyone who still holds Capitalism as an inherent good hasn’t been paying attention” are foggy and impossible to refute.
Incidentally, in the example of ‘Bringing Up Baby,’ I would suggest that neither statements (‘I didn’t like it because of its antifeminist elements’ Vs. ‘you didn’t understand it’) are an attempt to discuss ideas openly, since neither contains ideas really. Opinions are worthless unless they’re backed by facts.
luaphacim – I disagree with your statement regarding metaphysics and epistemology. Nothing is more important than ideas. Everything we do is based on ideas, whether conscious or not, and whether right or wrong (which becomes apparent in the results of what we do). We don’t need to be philosophers – but we need to have a strong grasp of reality and be able to defend our convictions rationally.
Tee hee — a nibble! Now to set the line…
All I’m saying, Rod, is that I would be willing to bet that you don’t spend 70 hours a week using a shovel to clean concrete away from the edges of a freshly laid highway. People who do useful things like that generally have more important things on their mind than the metaphysics and epistemology of objectivism. (For example, when they’ll be able to sneak five minutes for a quick lunch, when they’ll be able to see their families next, how they’ll be able to survive through the off-season, whether they’re going to have to stop working and build a header to the highway if it looks like it’s going to rain, and so forth.)
But if you want an epistemological argument, how about this one?
From the time you developed nerve endings in your mother’s womb, you have been in thrall to your experience and your biological impulses. Whether you like it or not, you can understand nothing that is not based in your own experience. Even your attempts to impose your objectivist framework on the world around you are dependent on experience. You must rely on metaphoric language and conceptualizations to describe the world, because without the metaphors you have collected during your life, you have no way of understanding anything.
Philosophy is ivory tower, we don’t have free will, and….wow, HERE are some original arguments that have never been refuted!
Objectivism is based entirely on reason. Reason, like math, is pure and can be learned and applied by all people, independent of their backgrounds (e.g. cultural), experience, genetics, etc. Therefore, I would argue that your statement that we can understand nothing not based in our own experience is irrelevant (since the application of reason opens the same experiences to all of us).
I’ll concede the existence of self-determinism (not genetic or environmental), in that one’s actions are determined by one’s ideas and values – but this doesn’t confine our experience or ability to learn as you’ve described it.
The insatiable troll, no longer content with nibbling around the edges of such delectable morsels, swallows the bait completely, then arches its spiny back and howls at the roof of the pitch-black, guano-filled cave for MORRRRRRRRRRRRE!
Reason itself depends on metaphorical constructions and thus can never be external or “pure,” any more than mathematics (another metaphor-based set of constructions) can be. Some principles of reason and mathematics can be applied cross-culturally, but that simply indicates that certain elements of experience are shared by a cross-section of humanity. It certainly does not entail the existence of external universals.
The troll-baiter hunches over with glee in a distant corner of the cave, savoring the bestial grunts and howls that echo from the craggy cavern walls. He wonders how long he can continue to buy such an entertaining show with such philosophical pittances.
MOAR!!!
I had more I wanted to say, but, hey, pedagogy paper plus Social D equals less time for blogging and trying to balance out Luaphacim’s troll-baiting with a bit of… oh, I dunno, I guess sort of a bad-baiter/good-baiter routine.
;)
The existence of reason as an external universal is evident – even in your argument (you’re using it).
Given the same premises and facts, we arrive at the same conclusions: this is reason. It doesn’t exist? Where is your evidence? The burden of proof lies with you.
I challenge you to not use reason when you make your argument (even annoying, skeptical “how do you the spoon exists?” arguments need reason).
“Reason itself depends on metaphorical constructions and thus can never be external or “pure,” any more than mathematics (another metaphor-based set of constructions) can be. Some principles of reason and mathematics can be applied cross-culturally, but that simply indicates that certain elements of experience are shared by a cross-section of humanity. It certainly does not entail the existence of external universals”
And you make this claim to knowledge based on your… intuition? Revelation? You are attempting to use reason to refute reason.
Reason does not depend on “metaphorical constructs” it rests on sensory perception and non-contradictory identification of reality: i.e., logical conclusions based on sensory evidence of the universe, which serve as the basis of one’s mental contents. Your ideas are valid if they correspond with reality and are sucessfully checked against each other for internal consistency.
The troll-baiter begins to tire of his sport. His prey is so predictable… throw them a few paltry scraps, and they go into an ecstatic frenzy of ludicrously confident conclusions. He ponders returning home; his lawn needs a good mowing.
Perhaps we should go through this step by step for increased comprehensibility.
1.) Everything I know has a foundation in my own sensory perceptions. This applies not only to my notions of pain and pleasure, but also to more abstract notions like right and wrong. (For instance, negative sensory perceptions — whuppin’s — follow my unjust treatment of my little sister; thus, I come to perceive injustice as “evil.”)
2.) Since my ability to know anything is tied, first and foremost, to my sensory perceptions, then it follows that my own identity is also tied to them. I certainly perceive myself as a Cartesian “I,” but that doesn’t mean I am one — or even that any Cartesian “I” exists. My self-perception is, quite simply,a product of my neurological hardware building a comprehensible gestalt perception from my sensory inputs.
3.) Since everything — even the concept of identity itself — is derived from, and mediated by, experience, any attempt to generalize one’s rational observations of the world and formulate universals from them is, in effect, projection of an idiosyncratic gestalt perception.
4.) In other words, “objective reality” can be nothing but an artifact of experience; even if we use “reason” to arrive at this “reality,” our “reason” is still subordinate to our experiences.
Also: You are attempting to use reason to refute reason. Nice job there, sport. You win a cookie.
I’m still waiting on someone to demonstrate that Objectivistism isn’t deeply connected to Capitalism and in favor of Capitalism’s aims. I’m ignoring most of this thread and any metaphysical or epistemological arguments because I argue–as I have in the past–that Objectivism’s refusal to see the value in any system but “individual above all, and by individual we mean those with enough privilege to benefit from the system.”
My point about Capitalism was and remains that Objectivism leads to morally untenable ideas, especially in light of centuries of Capitalist abuses.
That sort of confidence in an economic system is just as misplaced, perhaps more so, than absolute confidence in the reliability of government.
So Objectivists, if you can stop letting luaphacim bait you for a moment, what, in your understanding, is the Objectivist understanding of Capitalism? Would you support a mix of Capitalism with other economic philosophies? Why or why not?
I was done baiting anyway. I have a job now. :-)
The Objectivist understanding of capitalism is that it is the only truly moral political system (i.e. it is the only political system that is rational and in which true human rights are inviolable).
Your observation that Objectivism seems deeply connected to capitalism is correct, of course. Objectivism defines what is moral (i.e. rational self-interest) and then proceeds to apply this to ethics, art, politics, etc. In politics, the only morally defensible system is capitalism (and this is the only justification needed – the fact that is capitalism is also the most effective system economically is incidental).
Has capitalism really failed? Objectivists maintain that true laissez-faire capitalism has never been realized. Ayn Rand, in her non-fiction (most notably, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) makes the observation that the “Capitalist abuses” you mention were not the results of capitalism at all. Monopolies, for example, occur as the result of state subsidies and government favoritism – not as the result of unrestricted markets.
She makes a very persuasive and comprehensive argument (much more so than I can do here). I would suggest that you pick up Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, or some of her other non-fiction that deals with economics/politics and form your own opinion. I guarantee that if you agree with basic human rights (to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) then her essays won’t seem radical to you at all, but simply logical extensions of what we already know and feel to be morally correct.
(and no, Objectivism doesn’t approve of ‘mixed’ economic philosophies since this would represent a ‘mix’ of rights with the violation of those rights)
Hope this was helpful!
Thanks for the explanation, Rod; it really was helpful. (No irony, serious.)
One bit really sticks out to me, though: “Has capitalism really failed? Objectivists maintain that true laissez-faire capitalism has never been realized.” Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes, from every Marxist ever, but about communism. tee hee. :-)
Yes! Funny you mention that – every time I say that (laissez-faire capitalism has never been realized, etc…) it does remind me of the socialist’s party line….
The conventional view of socialism is that its aims are noble, but that we have failed it somehow in our means. Alternatively, the conventional view of capitalism is that while its aims maybe selfish (evil?), it does lead to the most prosperous economy – so we adopt it in the least degree possible to maintain a healthy economy.
What Objectivism has to say is quite different. It rejects that socialism’s ideals are noble at all. Socialism’s basic tenets are immoral because they do not respect individual rights (and individual rights are the only rights). Comparing the record of socialist states (or mixed economies) to capitalism certainly casts a favorable light on capitalism – but this is secondary. The only justification needed for capitalism, maintain Objectivists, is that it is moral.
Rod:
Like Luaphacim, I’m dropping sarcasm and whatnot because I’m genuinely curious.
You stated that “Objectivism defines what is moral (i.e. rational self-interest) and then proceeds to apply this to ethics, art, politics, etc.” I just wanted to make sure I’m following you: according to the Objectivist worldview, morality = rational self-interest?
If one accepts that definition, then it goes to follow that capitalism is the most moral economic system.
My problem comes from the fact that I don’t accept the definition that rational self-interest is the defining characteristic of morality. What then?
Right…you would certainly have a problem with Objectivism’s take on ethics if you didn’t agree with its definition of morality.
If someone had walked up to me ten years ago and told me that being moral consisted of being selfish, I would have had your reaction. I’m sure you’re going through all of the implications of my statement in your mind, regarding family, the poor, the handicapped, and furthermore, the simple fact that, given the chance, people will walk all over each other to get what they want. Anarchy, even.
But it’s important to understand that this is NOT what Objectivism is about. People who first encounter Objectivism write the ‘rational’ in ‘rational self-interest’ off as being something thrown in there by Objectivists to soften an otherwise repugnant idea. But the ‘rational’ aspect of Objectivism’s self-interest is the most important.
How does Objectivism arrive at its definition of morality? It starts at the most basic point – by asking, what is reality? The answer is that reality is what we live in, it is definable, and furthermore, it is objective. In other words, it doesn’t change according to my wishes, etc…which is what Objectivism means by “A is A.”
If reality is objective (and this is a VERY radical idea), Objectivism goes on to state, then we can discover a ‘best’ way to live as people. The best way to live as a person, is very different than the best way for an animal to live. Animals have instincts that guide their decisions. Humans have reason. Reason allows us to discover reality and live effectively within it.
Other systems of thought have begun with the premise that being moral consists of doing for others. Objectivism states, simply, that this is not in keeping with reality. We live first and foremost for ourselves, because that is what is rational. We cannot eat for someone else. We cannot think for someone else. Objectivism doesn’t reject charity, or any other form of giving (this may be what makes YOU happy), but it does reject the idea of selflessness as an obligation. It simply does not fit reality.
The moral certitude of Objectivists can sometimes be a turn-off in itself for people. But the reason for this certititude is, again, because Objectivists hold that reality is objective and, hence, are not given to compromise with their ideals.
[...] the Objectivists, take two May 14, 2007 Posted by Evil Bender in Morality. trackback After the recent dustup about Ayn Rand, a friend of mine had this to say: “when I was 19, Rand taught me to take responsibility for [...]
[...] May 4, 2007 at 8:56 am · Filed under Activism, Against Rand-Bashing http://evilbender.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/additional-thought-on-ayn-rand/ [...]