Top 10 Reasons Ayn Rand was Dead Wrong
I happened across this by accident, fairly recent too… Someone is upset at the Objectivist philosophy, I started to read the reasons and was angry after reading the first but broke into laughter on the second reason when the author truly tried to convince the reader that “Reason has real-world limitations”. Then it goes into a hit piece on Ayn Rand personal life. My favorite reason is number 9, “Reading Rand creates instant jackasses”. Read the comments below, the author is lambasted…
Your truly, Jackass
Your truly, Jackass
The only flaw I would contest is did the individuals in question reason themselves into the situation or were they conned? Either way their choice their responsibility. Thumb up for the comment Gilles
Besides, who reads CBS Money? Old people. Objectivism has always been for the young. I recommend time and again that you goto the Ayn Rand Institute essay contests and see the winners from Catholic high schools. We are in our third generation.
I look at all the Bernie Sanders supporters and this statement just flashes at me like a neon sign on the Strip in Las Vegas.
Back then you would not believe how many Marines thought, as did I, that socialism was a good idea and that ":the man" sucked.
Later my brain grew up in time to vote for Ronald Reagan twice.
How many people here finally got over believing in God because of the works of Ayn Rand? We have atheists, but they came here that way.
With young people, they struggle with new ideas, explore new concepts, grapple with challenges.
We do not get that here much.
I would agree that most everyone here already is dead set in the beliefs; if you change your belief in a god due to a philosophy, it just illustrate the fact your original choice was faulty and your ability to make rational decisions is also questionable. If you hold a belief in a god, I would never expect to change that belief.
Don’t misunderstand me ether, I think that atheists are also dead wrong for their stanch, unyielding stance that god doesn’t exist. Any rational person will tell you that you can’t disprove a negative.
I believe that as a person grounded in reality, that I know that I don’t know everything and that I truly believe in questioning and discovery, I have to leave the possibility open of a higher being. I think it is extremely unlikely but still the same, on pure objective reasons, you cannot disprove a negative.
You wrote:"if you change your belief in a god due to a philosophy, it just illustrate the fact your original choice was faulty and your ability to make rational decisions is also questionable."
What you said means that whatever you believe first must always be your conviction. Your statement means that improvement is not possible. Ultimately, it says that we must be infallible or else incapable of making any decision.
Few people come to a belief in god from a rational decision. Mostly, we grow up with it; and accept it as given. Then, we find justifications for it. At least most people around me in America seem to have.
You also said (twice) " you cannot disprove a negative. You mean that it is impossible to prove a negative. It is easy to disprove a negative: just provide a positive example. Foxhole Atheists is a club for soldiers with non-traditional religious beliefs. Most are atheists; many other are just uncommitted. "There are no atheists in the foxholes" is a negative statement that has been disproved.
As I recall, in the Basic Principles of Objectivism class, Nathaniel Branden offered this example.
A: "The far side of the Moon has rose gardens with Coca-Cola vending machines."
B: That's ridiculous.
A: "Prove that it is not true!"
The implication is that just because we have not found them, does not mean that they are not there. Disproof is impossible.
Karl Popper set falsifiability as a requirement in science because, as he put it, both Freudian psychology and astrology have great explanatory powers. You can explain anything and everything. Every challenge is met with more explanation. But they set no standards for disproof.
I meant what I said, let me elaborate for you on this:
Let me first state that we are only arguing semantics… I’m an engineer first and a word smith somewhere around my ability to tie my shoes. I’m okay with that…
The first error is not an error at all and should have been very easy for you to understand. My point is exactly how its worded and exactly what that the sentence says. Making a basic switch in your belief system due to word of man from the word of god is a monumental shift. For this to occur, the person would have to rationally realize the previous belief systems was faulty. My point is that if you make a fundamental shift like this, you must also admit that your previous decision was void of logic and though extension you “new” choice must also be in question. Seems clear to me… I grew up in a religious family, I have always asked why, including a god.
Again, I mean exactly what I said, the argument here is disproving a negative.
The negative of your argument is the absents of god, you can say that god doesn’t exist because god hasn’t spoken to you. But maybe that’s because god thinks you’re an asshole and he/she simply wishes not to speak with you? This argument is fundamentally different from the religious person’s point of view, which is god exists because the bible says so (for illustration) or something else like that. This argument points to proof, rather true or not as evidence to the decision. Whereas your argument is being made on a lack of proof ether way. The flaw in your argument is that you wish me to say, you’re right, I don’t hear god ether; me must have never existed.
Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic)
1. If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
2. If P were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be false.
In practice these arguments are often fallacious and rely on the veracity of the supporting premise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen...
My point is that both sides of the argument is wrong…
Another way… “The patent is free from cancer because I looked for malignant cells and found none.” This argument is a fallacy in itself. Better said that: “The patent appears to be free from cancer as I’m unable to find any additional malignant cells.” The argument leaves wiggle room in an argument where you will never be 100% positive of the results. Errors in tests, wasn’t looking in the right place, the list goes on and on.
I don’t see god, therefore he doesn’t exist is the negative and your argument is “prove me wrong” … This is a fallacy because I can’t disprove a negative.
Mitch
of course if you are trying to disprove a block of cement dropped on your head from 10 ' or won't hurt...LMAO
You exist or you don't
You are aware of the nature of things around you or you aren't and can test them for usefulness or set them aside until later.
You are able to formulate a moral ethic for yourself or you can't or won't which becomes your moral ethic.
Even the emotional side can be judged objectively.....
To be a good Libertarian....must be more than just I'm for legalized marijuana because it feels good. Yet many view it from the outside as exactly that. They fail to see the strong points one of which revolves around the liberties afford by a strong economically capitalist based system of government called constitutionalism. I don't see how validating a belief system is being at odds with the validation system.
If you apply objectivism as you have are you not an objectivist. If the system tested successfully by your own conscious reasoning and ethical standards is libertarianism are you not a libertarian? Where in lies the disconnect?
Easy to see with some who have no belief system nor belief in themselves. In this case... difficult or impossible to see.
Therefore having seen the good in Libertarian what about the not so good? Someone else at odds for whatever reason who bristles at the words Cato Institute might want to take a stab at that one.
Being a humble acolyte I fail to see more than a few minor points of disagree all constantly under review.
It's as well interesting to me that the poster chose to place his post and comment in politics rather than in philosophy, where it more appropriately belongs. Many will ask 'Why is that interesting', and my response lies in AR's commentary on the necessity of addressing the intellectual education in philosophy of the American citizen in order to alter political outcomes, rather than addressing their political beliefs. Beliefs, whether political, theism, or any other description are equally tepid when examined under the light of objective reality. The revolution and founding of this country was based on the philosophy of individual rights, not political beliefs and arguments.
It can and should be argued and recognized that the dangers faced by this nation today are the direct results of the loss of intellectual support of individual rights and freedom and why it's essential to,understand the philosophical underpinnings, as well as the manipulation of political beliefs. Just liking the highlights and catch phrases of Objectivism that happen to align with some part of one's current political belief system without taking the time and effort to understand why, and why some aspects don't align with one's belief system will not generate significant individual liberty. Political beliefs will always be subject to manipulation and exaggerations, where the principles of Objectivism will hold firm against any attempt to manipulate or subject one's self to the short lived populism and entertainment value of political belief.
I always wonder whether these hit pieces are simply misguided emotional outbursts or if there is some ulterior motive.
The article is rubbish, but the comments are priceless.
Respectfully,
O.A.
In general, I think that the author epitomizes #7, as this article is clearly an emotional rant - not a reasoned critique. I was turned off not only by its style, but its condescending attitude.
Well done!
Shoot, even if you have perfect application - even under Objectivism, you will still have people that believe different things. If they were perfectly logical all the time, their own personal experience would give them rational reason to have varying knowledge about things. One person could have a good experience with item X and another person could have a bad experience with item X. They would have different views about item X - and if they never met each other to discuss their views about item X (in an objective fashion of course) - one may be correct and one may be wrong - and Objectivism would not have solved to problem.
But, so long as they are willing to consider new information to reevaluate their positions - they are still properly practicing Objectivism. Rand never claimed it would create a utopia - it is an excellent system to strive towards though - IMHO.
with each other through most of the novel, but it
was an honest difference of opinion about what the
results would be of certain actions. When Dagny
realized her mistake, she joined Francisco, Galt,
and the other strikers.
Rearden and Francisco were at odds, tempor-
arily; both were good; eventually Rearden joined
Francisco and the strike.
I am ok with setting aside reason in certain cases, and accepting that we have human limitations. For example, I like beer and wine. There is little really good derived from them, but I like them, and will allow this vice within reasoned limits.
This in until I pass the the Vulcan Kolinahr ritual!
Liking beer and wine is perfectly reasonable, or at least not unreasonable (I don't like them but know it is an opinion) and as long as you don't harm yourself or others, and as long as you don't damage your brain and thinking process, there is no, uh, reason not to drink it. IF you like it.
But NEVER "set aside reason." Please.
(And now I see AMeador1 has said something similar.)
If you decide to drink excessively so that you can no longer think rationally - then I would say that is too far - especially if driving, watching the kids, working on heavy equipment, etc... I have never been drunk. I have been very wary of alcohol as I do not want to drink it to the point that my reasoning skills are not at a higher level than my emotional responses. I have felt this way long before reading Rand.
It is an interesting point. I think we agree in the outcome and are arguing a fine point of reasoning...which is of some value. I have argued in your camp before regarding putting one's self in danger to save another. I claim I get pleasure from it, and consider this a reason. If this satisfies the same argument as beer drinking, then we agree.
Drinking within reason is hard. How do you clearly decide? There are pros and cons for reasonable drinking for the average person. You might gain some weight, maybe be at higher risk for kidney stones, possible liver damage - but all these are minimized or eliminated with limited use. But, there are also advantages - like relaxing, anti-oxidants, possible effects on your arteries/heart/etc... Who knows. Then there are always studies telling us it's good and others telling us it's evil. It becomes a personal decision based on your personal experience with it.
But, drinking to the point of putting aside rational reason is inherently dangerous to yourself and others around you. Drinking too much can effect finances, family, etc... Again - all have to be weighed and valued - rationally by the individual making the choice.
How's that for a Vulcan take from someone who frets about the rationality of drinking beer?
I know it's not good but I'm going to do it anyway.. Which means you are 2/3rds objectivist but 1/3rd subjectivist and therefore not truly and objectivist.
However if in Step Two you determine Wine and Beer are good within certain tested limits you are not violating any part of your personal moral values Unless you get drunk.
I remember court cases where I sat on the jury and the defendant used the excuse of 'being drunk' for committing some crime. And was a habitual offender. The excuse was neither reasonable nor acceptable.
Reason is a great and unmatched tool. But it doesn't need to be the only one in people's toolboxes.
Concept formation quickly becomes the human mode of knowledge. What you choose to believe defines how you react to the world around you. Ultimately, what you believe about yourself determines how you carry on your life.
Its failure, by repression, creates unresolved - and unresolvable - internal conflicts. Compartmentalization is one way that people get by: never letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing. The consequences of that are all around us. Just for one: engineers at General Motors "rationally" decided that it was cheaper to pay the victims than to redesign the product. That moral failure came from irrationality, not reason. Ayn Rand wrote on open letter to Boris Spassky about the compartmentalization of the rationality of chess apart from the irrationality of communism.
Another example of that seems to come from your statement: "I am not arguing that reason isn't the ideal, only that if any of us think we can reach that we're delusional." In other words, you appear to claim that ideals cannot be achieved, that failure is inevitable and normal. Perhaps you mean that no one can be completely rational; and that anyone who thinks that he is perfectly rational is deluding himself. Either assertion is wrong because it confuses rationality with knowledge. You can be "perfectly rational" and still be wrong about a great many things. Knowledge depends on experience. With finite experience, we draw incomplete conclusions. The path from Galileo to Newton to Einstein may be a paradigm for that. But they were not irrational or delusional.
Mountains of misunderstanding can grow from our molehills of paragraphs. It is not always easy (or necessary) to dash off a reply that conveys all of your ideas on a subject.
I'm a Scoutmaster dealing with 11-, 12-, and 13-year old boys 2-3 times a week. And I can tell you that the maturation processes are very different in the dozen+ boys I am responsible for. I have one 12-year old Patrol Leader with four older brothers who is very mature and responsible. I have another who is older by six months with one older brother who is incredibly immature both emotionally and psychologically. My Senior Patrol Leader (13) has more emotional maturity than many high school seniors I've met. I don't equate age with maturity one bit.
"In other words, you appear to claim that ideals cannot be achieved, that failure is inevitable and normal. Perhaps you mean that no one can be completely rational; and that anyone who thinks that he is perfectly rational is deluding himself. Either assertion is wrong because it confuses rationality with knowledge."
Actually, in order to be perfectly rational, you have to be able to see reality for what it really is - not merely for what you think it is. Our own ignorance is a huge barrier in many ways to this. We can make rational decisions that still turn out to be completely fallacious - and why? Because our reasoning is built on unsound principles and bad premises.
"With finite experience, we draw incomplete conclusions."
YES! Failures are not necessarily irrational. Failures may result either from a willful choice in departure of what we know or a choice which runs contrary to reality despite our ignorance. I acknowledge that no human being is going to achieve perfect knowledge, and that as such, we are all going to make decisions that at some point run contrary to reality. Does that mean we should not strive to make perfectly rational decisions? No. What we need to be willing to do is to act according to what we know and accept correction when appropriate.
If you believe you will be shocked when a button is pressed (because that has been your experience in life) - you will learn that and have an emotional response that is based on this "knowledge". So when someone who goes to press a button which makes you get scared and stressed - that is your emotional response. Others who have not had this experience in life will not have this response. The response is based on what you know and believe.
Rand pointed out that if people are raised from a young age with a rational approach to reason and taught how to use their experiences and knowledge to form their opinions and morality, that their emotional responses will be based on their particular experiences and how they have incorporated them into their knowledge base and morality (their particular valuation system).
When things happen that are positive to their morality, they will have a positive emotional response, and equally have a negative emotional response to things that are opposed to their value system. Your emotional responses thus, if raised objectivist - should result in rational emotional responses verses irrational responses such as when the moral/value system is based on a philosophical system such as Kant's.
If you have appropriate emotional responses due to a rational thinking - why should they then be "controlled" or held at bay? If someone has irrational emotional responses - their family, friends, parents, etc... need to help them review their beliefs and re-evaluate their premises and adjust accordingly. Even the "shocked" person can learn after experiencing buttons being pushed and not being shocked, that having buttons pushed doesn't equal pain - and their emotional response will change with confidence in their new found knowledge that button pushes do not in fact equal shocks.
I take the example of the 2-3-yr-old child. I've been around my fair share of these and though the basic emotions are all there, the actual responses differ signficantly. In the households where parents have taught self-discipline, even 2-3-yr-olds can show restraint from hitting (anger), taking others' toys (jealousy), hugs (love), etc., but this is by no means a determinant as I have seen siblings with exactly the same upbringing react completely different because their personalities are completely different. Do these children really "reason" about what anger or jealousy are? Not even remotely. All the parent can do is help the child isolate and identify what they are feeling and then help them practice appropriate responses.
"If you have appropriate emotional responses due to a rational thinking"
One does not generate emotional responses as a product of internal thinking, however. Emotions are generated by external stimuli acting on us. They are instinctual - not driven by the logical thought process. The "fight or flight" response is one such reaction: wholly ungoverned by and non-susceptible to rational thought processes. The adrenal glands kick in and the cognitive portion of our brain actually shuts down in favor of the instinctual portion. In combat training for soldiers, much of what they are drilled on repeatedly is reconditioning their reactions to the fight-or-flight response to channel their heightened senses and reaction times into pre-arranged response patterns - not because there is cognition or reason available but precisely because it is not. They also do it so as to improve their bodies' ability to revert back from a chemically-induced instinctive mode to a logically-controllable mode.
A second example stems from the old "count to ten" rule for dealing with anger. This is nothing more than a conditioned response which gives the cognitive portion of our brains time to re-engage after the initial emotional rush of chemicals hits us.
Now you do bring up the interesting example of a conditioned response due to shock therapy. What one is focusing on in such a scenario is first and foremost conditioning a response. What is further to be considered, however, is that the conditions are largely artificial as well and that one is not generating the emotion, but instead the circumstances in which an emotion may evince itself. In this case, the brain automatically recognizes the false nature of the situation and instinctively blocks the reaction and recovers more quickly than when a real threat evinces itself.
To conclude, my own empirical observation rejects the notion that logic drives emotion. All logic can help us do is understand what actions are appropriate and assist us in conditioning our responses.
The adrenaline rush or chemically induced and how to use it not abuse it is also part of training. Instant response learned as and individual and as a team without and our greatest fear was some newbie would fly off the handle and do something stupid.
When you say they speaking of combat training I say We. We wouldn't allow the use of the word flight or anything else that negative. Move to a position offering the best cover, concealment and set up a hasty ambush it was always combat positive. Most of those responses were the result of unceasing drills Of course our unit was a touch above the others be it actual,A field exercises or even computer simulation probably why we enjoyed a high survival ratio. All members could do the job of the other members no natter how different the skills and alll could take over and lead. We also had zero draftees and zero with low intelligence scores. While I'm thinking back the deck was stacked in our favor. But now I now how to deacribe what we were doing except instinctive mode. which doesn't exist in humans supercharged thinking mode is a better choice.
The other dude died for his country or whatever.. we just hit the showers That and a paycheck took care of the why? The rest didn't mean a thing.
"I, _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
We served the Constitution and only the Constitution. The Constitiution served the nation until the people's elected delegates saw fit to sit it aside time after time by open vote and presidential signature.
We were not relieved of our sworn duty. to support and defend , not to the best of our ability, but without purposes of evasion which is not listed in the above quote.
We were also taught any President who becomes an enemy of or turns against the Constitution was not exempt.
There was at tone time a move to make officers appointed over read 'uniformed officers.' Thus exempting the Service Secretaries from the Chain of Command which goes from Commander In Chief to the Commander US Military (Chairman of Join Chiefs) and the Commanders of the separate branches or Departments of the Military Chiefs of Staff. We just took it to mean by never asking officially it meant uniformed officers. not civilian officials.
Still. people, country, etc. are not mentioned. Now we serve a Constitution that has no country. The Country and the Citizens shit canned it without word or whimper on multiple occasions.
But the sentiment of Blarman was well intended and well received Your welcome. Some of us will continue to do so. while others hide behind closed forums. .
Reason has limitations. Therefore we should not attempt to use it where it serves?
Thomas Sowell deals with this in 30 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyJRu...
under the laissez-faire system she advocated,
an untalented person, or one who did not make
proper use of his inheritance, would lose his money;
one tries to wipe out reality, reality will wipe out the wiper". We are making progress, but philosophical change is slow...........the more Objectivism penetrates the culture, the more screams, rants, crying tantrums, etc. we will hear.............even this kind of article may spark some to investigate and discover Objectivism.
"Reasons" 3 and 9 are argumenta ad hominem.
"Reason" 1 lies at the core of this person's objection. He plumps for a command economy, or at least an economy with "command" elements.
"Reason" 7 ignores the very basis for law. Which is why those having the "thief mentality" never want to argue facts, because they know they'll always lose.
"Reason" 10 is false. Do you know why? Because all too many CEOs are Orren Boyles. You have only to observe their conduct.
"Reason" 6 is a matter of opinion, not objective, verifiable fact.
"Reason" 4 is an excuse for theft. It also ignores Henry Rearden's ringing defense of free enterprise. Remember: "the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with."
The rest of his "reasons" are scarcely worth considering.
So, rants like that just continue to advertise the product, really. It is nearly impossible to kill an idea, least of all a good one.
Speaking of the left...#7 is perfect for today...feelings, emotions, have "trumped" Facts, reason, logic or what is truly good for the country.
At the same time, I'm reading this and listening to Ted Cruz's concern about the vast divide in the country, the emotionally vicious non factual, lies expounded by the rest prohibits an awakening and a return to the principles. 1/2 the country is not, can not...listen to reason.
Maybe we have fallen over the edge and the idea of a Republic is dead.
What we have witnessed is exactly what happened at the fall of Babylon...The writings on the wall..."Your days are numbered"
Not knowing history prevents one from knowing from where you come and therefore prevents one from knowing to where you are going.
Limit real education and critical thinking skills, make the idea of moral judgment or the idea of right and wrong a moral relativism based on Kantian philosophy where anything goes, etc... and society will go in whatever direction the mystics direct them to.
The idea that the majority of the country is "feelings" based is clear. It is opening the doors to uneducated, non-thinking people to think the idea of socialism is a good thing - that big government is the answer - that free is cool. So like early stages of Atlas Shrugged.
Rand needed to come along in the late 1800's so Progressivism could have been combated early on before the is had a foothold.
If we have any hope, it is in getting control back of the same areas they took over - education, media, Hollywood, politics, etc... We have to educate and teach our young to be Objectivist in their approach to life. Right now all they're hearing is twisted versions of history, reality, socialism/communism, relativism, etc... Rational, critical thinking is a thing of the past.
It would be in the best interest of this forum to delete the totality of the post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ad hominem personal attack.
that does not mean they are right;