Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ayn Rand vs. John Stuart Mill

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:01:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am taking a Socio-Political Philosophy course this semester and the Professor surprisingly was against Ayn Rands philosophy. He's very intelligent and philosophically adept, so I was surprised that he would criticize Ayn Rand. He appears to be more in agreement with John Stuart Mill (minus the God-given rights part).

So who wins, John Stuart Mill or Ayn Rand?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:07:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:01:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I am taking a Socio-Political Philosophy course this semester and the Professor surprisingly was against Ayn Rands philosophy. He's very intelligent and philosophically adept, so I was surprised that he would criticize Ayn Rand. He appears to be more in agreement with John Stuart Mill (minus the God-given rights part).

So who wins, John Stuart Mill or Ayn Rand?

Didn't they both advocate consequentialist ethics and more specifically egoism? Did JS Mill defend egoism or was that his father? I can't remember.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:13:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:01:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I am taking a Socio-Political Philosophy course this semester
Why? :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:17:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:07:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:01:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I am taking a Socio-Political Philosophy course this semester and the Professor surprisingly was against Ayn Rands philosophy. He's very intelligent and philosophically adept, so I was surprised that he would criticize Ayn Rand. He appears to be more in agreement with John Stuart Mill (minus the God-given rights part).

So who wins, John Stuart Mill or Ayn Rand?

Didn't they both advocate consequentialist ethics

lol
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:18:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:01:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I am taking a Socio-Political Philosophy course this semester and the Professor surprisingly was against Ayn Rands philosophy. He's very intelligent and philosophically adept, so I was surprised that he would criticize Ayn Rand. He appears to be more in agreement with John Stuart Mill (minus the God-given rights part).

So who wins, John Stuart Mill or Ayn Rand?

Those who are philosophically adept can't be critical of Ayn Rand? I'm certainly closer philosophically to Mill than Rand. I read The Fountainhead a while ago, and while I'm not anti-capitalist, I disagreed with her on many points.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:20:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:01:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I am taking a Socio-Political Philosophy course this semester and the Professor surprisingly was against Ayn Rands philosophy. He's very intelligent and philosophically adept, so I was surprised that he would criticize Ayn Rand. He appears to be more in agreement with John Stuart Mill (minus the God-given rights part).

So who wins, John Stuart Mill or Ayn Rand?

Are you seriously surprised your philosophy professor doesn't like Ayn Rand, or are you joking? Very, very few philosophy professors do--I'm surprised yours even mentioned her in his class.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:22:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:07:18 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:01:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So who wins, John Stuart Mill or Ayn Rand?

Rothbard.

Unfortunately we don't have enough time in the semester to get to more modern socio-political theorists. We start with Plato and end with Marx.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:26:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:20:06 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:01:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I am taking a Socio-Political Philosophy course this semester and the Professor surprisingly was against Ayn Rands philosophy. He's very intelligent and philosophically adept, so I was surprised that he would criticize Ayn Rand. He appears to be more in agreement with John Stuart Mill (minus the God-given rights part).

So who wins, John Stuart Mill or Ayn Rand?

Are you seriously surprised your philosophy professor doesn't like Ayn Rand, or are you joking? Very, very few philosophy professors do--I'm surprised yours even mentioned her in his class.

His ideas seemed to be rather Libertarian in many ways, but highly influenced by classical political philosophy as well so he's obviously not a typical Libertarian.

But why is it common for philosophy professors to oppose Ayn Rand? What is the reason?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:39:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I suppose I would prefer dystopian to utilitarian I think not sure at all
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:29:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:22:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:07:18 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:01:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So who wins, John Stuart Mill or Ayn Rand?

Rothbard.

Unfortunately we don't have enough time in the semester to get to more modern socio-political theorists. We start with Plato and end with Marx.
But you have time to throw in Ayn Rand? Well, I suppose that's a good thing then :)
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:33:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:26:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
But why is it common for philosophy professors to oppose Ayn Rand? What is the reason?
Because Ayn Rand wasn't an academic, that's why. She came up with her own ideas and spread them through popular novels and "esoteric" newsletters and self-organized courses, rather than within the academic philosophy establishment. Thus the accusation of being a cult.

Of course, that may not be what your professor specifically doesn't like about her, but I'll bet it plays into it.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 5:29:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:33:44 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:26:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
But why is it common for philosophy professors to oppose Ayn Rand? What is the reason?
Because Ayn Rand wasn't an academic, that's why. She came up with her own ideas and spread them through popular novels and "esoteric" newsletters and self-organized courses, rather than within the academic philosophy establishment. Thus the accusation of being a cult.

Of course, that may not be what your professor specifically doesn't like about her, but I'll bet it plays into it.

Nah, we were learning about Thomas Hobbes and self-interest ethics and Ayn Rand was brought up and he commented that Ayn Rands ethics were as brutish as Thomas Hobbes.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:43:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:26:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:20:06 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Are you seriously surprised your philosophy professor doesn't like Ayn Rand, or are you joking? Very, very few philosophy professors do--I'm surprised yours even mentioned her in his class.

But why is it common for philosophy professors to oppose Ayn Rand? What is the reason?

Because she wasn't a very careful thinker. Ayn Rand was something of an inside joke in the philosophy department I used to frequent.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:46:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:01:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So who wins, John Stuart Mill or Ayn Rand?

John, he looks like he wouldn't pull his punches simply because Ayn is a girl. I think she would get a few good hits in, but based on John's muttonchops, I think he is probably fairly used to beating women who resist.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:47:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rand is a bit too robotic and pessimistic for my taste.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
meowmixxx
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 7:12:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:33:44 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:26:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
But why is it common for philosophy professors to oppose Ayn Rand? What is the reason?
Because Ayn Rand wasn't an academic, that's why. She came up with her own ideas and spread them through popular novels and "esoteric" newsletters and self-organized courses, rather than within the academic philosophy establishment. Thus the accusation of being a cult.

Of course, that may not be what your professor specifically doesn't like about her, but I'll bet it plays into it.

That's actually not at all why most philosophers have a problem with Rand, but it's a good talking point who want to justify why Rand isn't talked about in academia without saying anything about her. This response is more relevant to philosophers like Hofstadter.

The real reason is that she virulently attacked various philosophers, most notably Kant, without even taking the time to understand them or make sure what she was saying about them was correct. Reading her rants on Kant show her to be very, very misinformed, especially when she calls him a moral nihilist.

On the other hand, she proclaimed that she solved a lot of philosophical problems (the is-ought problem) and other problems in logic, despite not really having any sort of basis in the subjects she was talking about, and most ended up showing that she didn't understand the subject at hand.

Her metaphysics and epistemology are also pretty bare bones and not well developed, and have this weird "pointing to" to her ethics. They aren't really very coherent systems.

Lots of philosophers disagree with her ethics on face, but her ethics aren't exactly clear or particularly helpful, and really poorly justified, is the line of thought. I don't really care about her ethics.

Basically, Rand is viewed as a pop-philosopher who wrote to have her own views spread throughout the populace, but without giving any real philosophical meat for someone who was actually looking for said meat to get, and sometimes, there was just an empty, vacuous hole.

Also her books are too long.
Debates I'm in:
Emotion is a weakness in decision making.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 7:20:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 7:12:16 PM, meowmixxx wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:33:44 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:26:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
But why is it common for philosophy professors to oppose Ayn Rand? What is the reason?
Because Ayn Rand wasn't an academic, that's why. She came up with her own ideas and spread them through popular novels and "esoteric" newsletters and self-organized courses, rather than within the academic philosophy establishment. Thus the accusation of being a cult.

Of course, that may not be what your professor specifically doesn't like about her, but I'll bet it plays into it.

That's actually not at all why most philosophers have a problem with Rand, but it's a good talking point who want to justify why Rand isn't talked about in academia without saying anything about her. This response is more relevant to philosophers like Hofstadter.

The real reason is that she virulently attacked various philosophers, most notably Kant, without even taking the time to understand them or make sure what she was saying about them was correct. Reading her rants on Kant show her to be very, very misinformed, especially when she calls him a moral nihilist.

On the other hand, she proclaimed that she solved a lot of philosophical problems (the is-ought problem) and other problems in logic, despite not really having any sort of basis in the subjects she was talking about, and most ended up showing that she didn't understand the subject at hand.

Her metaphysics and epistemology are also pretty bare bones and not well developed, and have this weird "pointing to" to her ethics. They aren't really very coherent systems.

Lots of philosophers disagree with her ethics on face, but her ethics aren't exactly clear or particularly helpful, and really poorly justified, is the line of thought. I don't really care about her ethics.

Basically, Rand is viewed as a pop-philosopher who wrote to have her own views spread throughout the populace, but without giving any real philosophical meat for someone who was actually looking for said meat to get, and sometimes, there was just an empty, vacuous hole.

Also her books are too long.

Almighty Puck, what do you say to this?

And what do Ragnar and Cody say to this?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 7:30:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 7:20:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Almighty Puck, what do you say to this?

Lol, I'm always a bit hesitant to criticize Rand because I know Puck may be lurking, ready to issue a smackdown. To be honest, I don't think I understand Objectivism very well, nor do most of Rand's detractors. It's a more complex system of thought than people give it credit for. There are certain aspects of Objectivism, mainly involving ethics, that I can point to and say, fairly confidently, that I think Rand is dead wrong. But there are other issues that I'm not really qualified to comment on.

And what do Ragnar and Cody say to this?

Cody isn't an Objectivist.
meowmixxx
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 7:35:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd like to add to my post that those are reasons I've heard given, not my personal feelings. I started reading the Fountainhead when I was 15 but had to stop not because I thought her ideas were completely abhorrent, though I was apprehensive, but because the writing was bland. I know very little about her actual philosophy outside of ethics, which is where most criticism exists. I just know why people hate her. Other than Nozick, who had distaste.
Debates I'm in:
Emotion is a weakness in decision making.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 12:12:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Correction: John Stuart Mill does not assert God-given rights. I was confusing that position with John Locke. Obviously Mill is Utilitarian.

Anyways, I'm not really sure who my Professor favors because he really doesn't display any level of bias except he blatantly rejects Hobbes. Given today's lecture, he has made it clear that he is anti-capitalism and gave rather convincing arguments as to why.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 12:21:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 12:12:59 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Correction: John Stuart Mill does not assert God-given rights. I was confusing that position with John Locke. Obviously Mill is Utilitarian.

You also may have been confused since Mill was a rule utilitarian as opposed to an act utilitarian, and thus did in fact affirm that, prima facie individuals have a right not to be aggressed against.

Anyways, I'm not really sure who my Professor favors because he really doesn't display any level of bias except he blatantly rejects Hobbes. Given today's lecture, he has made it clear that he is anti-capitalism and gave rather convincing arguments as to why.

Let's hear 'em.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 12:56:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 12:21:58 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/11/2011 12:12:59 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Correction: John Stuart Mill does not assert God-given rights. I was confusing that position with John Locke. Obviously Mill is Utilitarian.

You also may have been confused since Mill was a rule utilitarian as opposed to an act utilitarian, and thus did in fact affirm that, prima facie individuals have a right not to be aggressed against.

Anyways, I'm not really sure who my Professor favors because he really doesn't display any level of bias except he blatantly rejects Hobbes. Given today's lecture, he has made it clear that he is anti-capitalism and gave rather convincing arguments as to why.

Let's hear 'em.

I'll post a new thread about it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 1:18:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 7:12:16 PM, meowmixxx wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:33:44 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:26:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
But why is it common for philosophy professors to oppose Ayn Rand? What is the reason?
Because Ayn Rand wasn't an academic, that's why. She came up with her own ideas and spread them through popular novels and "esoteric" newsletters and self-organized courses, rather than within the academic philosophy establishment. Thus the accusation of being a cult.

Of course, that may not be what your professor specifically doesn't like about her, but I'll bet it plays into it.

That's actually not at all why most philosophers have a problem with Rand, but it's a good talking point who want to justify why Rand isn't talked about in academia without saying anything about her. This response is more relevant to philosophers like Hofstadter.

The real reason is that she virulently attacked various philosophers, most notably Kant, without even taking the time to understand them or make sure what she was saying about them was correct. Reading her rants on Kant show her to be very, very misinformed, especially when she calls him a moral nihilist.

On the other hand, she proclaimed that she solved a lot of philosophical problems (the is-ought problem) and other problems in logic, despite not really having any sort of basis in the subjects she was talking about, and most ended up showing that she didn't understand the subject at hand.

Her metaphysics and epistemology are also pretty bare bones and not well developed, and have this weird "pointing to" to her ethics. They aren't really very coherent systems.

Lots of philosophers disagree with her ethics on face, but her ethics aren't exactly clear or particularly helpful, and really poorly justified, is the line of thought. I don't really care about her ethics.

Basically, Rand is viewed as a pop-philosopher who wrote to have her own views spread throughout the populace, but without giving any real philosophical meat for someone who was actually looking for said meat to get, and sometimes, there was just an empty, vacuous hole.

Also her books are too long.

I like Rand but I think this was a pretty fair critisism of her.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 1:37:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 7:12:16 PM, meowmixxx wrote:
The real reason is that she virulently attacked various philosophers, most notably Kant, without even taking the time to understand them or make sure what she was saying about them was correct.

Except Kantians still parrot what she attacked and offer agreement of her analysis in terms of what he said. :P It's somewhat of a trope, not sure where it originated.

Reading her rants on Kant show her to be very, very misinformed, especially when she calls him a moral nihilist.

The ethics are treated as being nihilistic, not, that Kant was an ethical nihilist. Nihilist when used by Objs in regards to Kant's ethics simply denotes anti self.

Her metaphysics and epistemology are also pretty bare bones and not well developed, and have this weird "pointing to" to her ethics.

Not sure what you mean by not well developed. She didn't write everything collated in one tome, might be the issue. Dunno. *shrugs*

As for metaphysics > ethics, you skipped epistemology. The metaphysics is the broad base for the epistemology. The ethics is the application of that.

Basically, Rand is viewed as a pop-philosopher who wrote to have her own views spread throughout the populace, but without giving any real philosophical meat for someone who was actually looking for said meat to get, and sometimes, there was just an empty, vacuous hole.

And most arguments show poor to none reading/understanding of the system. Partly due to the fact no one really cares enough to know beforehand I suspect. :P
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 1:41:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:07:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Didn't they both advocate consequentialist ethics
That's a pretty minor similarity.

and more specifically egoism?
No, he was a utilitarian-- a consequentialist for whom the relevant consequences are net impact to the total amount of happiness among all humans.

The real reason is that she virulently attacked various philosophers, most notably Kant, without even taking the time to understand them or make sure what she was saying about them was correct. Reading her rants on Kant show her to be very, very misinformed, especially when she calls him a moral nihilist.
First-- that has nothing whatsoever to do with her positive philosophy.
Second, I can't comment on her calling him a moral nihilist without seeing the context-- I do not recall that phrase.

On the other hand, she proclaimed that she solved a lot of philosophical problems (the is-ought problem) and other problems in logic, despite not really having any sort of basis in the subjects she was talking about, and most ended up showing that she didn't understand the subject at hand.
No, she had a different understanding of the is-ought problem than others did. She has a simple, if foundationalist solution to the is-ought problem. She might have also have had a few poorly phrased solutions. The essence of her solution is "First choices." By making the choice to think or not to think, to live as a rational animal or not, one has declared a primary value, proving all moral statements that the conjunction of that choice with the facts of reality happen to imply to be an "ought," "ought" meaning nothing more and nothing less than what reality has to say about how one can achieve such a value.. She doesn't deal with "The nature of the universe gives you a moral duty to do blank regardless of your choices" because she regards the concept of duty as the problematic element. Essentially, I suppose one could say she doesn't solve the is-ought problem at all-- it isn't applicable to Objectivism. Her metaethics isn't based on assumptions it can be problematic for. There are no out of context moral rules, only rules within the context of that first choice. If you don't choose to think, to live as a rational animal, you are beyond the reach of the Objectivist ethics.

Her metaphysics and epistemology are also pretty bare bones and not well developed, and have this weird "pointing to" to her ethics.
The first isn't a substantive criticism, the second--This criticism contradicts the is-ought problem criticism. If the metaphysics imply the ethics, there is no is-ought problem, by definition. Make up your minds, devils Meoww is advocating.

Lots of philosophers disagree with her ethics on face, but her ethics aren't exactly clear or particularly helpful, and really poorly justified,
This criticism is unclear, not particularly helpful, and really poorly justified.

Also her books are too long.
They make up for it by being entertaining even to many people who end up unconvinced. Furthermore, I dunno about Rand, but whenever someone wants to debate philosophy, I'm not fond of telling them "Read Atlas Shrugged" ("Read the Bible" "Read the LessWrong Sequences" "Read the complete works of Karl Marx" etc.) I sit here and argue. I'd like you to read Atlas Shrugged of course, but unlike many folk around the Internet, I don't hold it as a sign of intellectual dishonesty for you to get offended at a request to do so when you don't have the prior of knowing whether it'll be more worth your time than the thousands of other works clamoring for your attention. And I'll be honest, I've never read the John Galt speech from end to end. 20 pages gave me sufficient evidence to engender the idea that one can get the idea from 5 to 10 pages of it just fine.

and sometimes, there was just an empty, vacuous hole.
Like most of the criticisms, or at least your summary of them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 1:54:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 1:41:07 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Second, I can't comment on her calling him a moral nihilist without seeing the context-- I do not recall that phrase.

Yer, I can't recall it either. I've seen it floated around by Objs though to describe it as destructive.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 12:18:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 1:41:07 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And I'll be honest, I've never read the John Galt speech from end to end.
What a pity. From what I've read of it so far, I find it to be unparalleled in any of her other writings in clarity and logic, as well as in persuasiveness. I haven't read whole either yet, but that's because I haven't finished Atlas Shrugged quite yet :) Yes, I'm fairly new to all of this ;)
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 1:07:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i think people here take ayn rand way too seriously lol. just because we have several highly intelligent members who like her... after reading most of her writings and then going on to read more academic philosophy... at the very least she's philosophically unsophisticated. much of what she criticises in other philosophers is a misconstrual of what they said. her arguments tend to be more rhetorically than philosophically sophisticated. she was highly intelligent herself, no doubt, and knew how to construct a persuasive argument... but she just takes so many things for granted in her philosophy, its not surprising that serious philosophers would be put off by it.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 1:21:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 1:07:56 PM, belle wrote:
but she just takes so many things for granted in her philosophy, its not surprising that serious philosophers would be put off by it.
I can't think of much she "takes for granted". Wasn't her whole point to deduce evything rather than take stuff for granted? If you could give an example, that would be helpful.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)