Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:31-40|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Ayn Rand a parrot?

lidia.watzktyshoov
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 11:10:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ayn Raand is actually from my hometown in Serbia. I can assure you she is not a parrot. At a young age Ayn, my dear Ayn, would always impress upon her peers her deep philosophic ornithological ideals. The truth is she is more of a raven or crow; this is a inherent fact that can hardly be ignored. Her spirit is of a deep, dark assortment of colors...colors similar to black, or dark purple, even a kind of Ashes-Atramentous-Charcoal-Coal-Ebony-Ink-Jet-Licorice-Midnight-Misty Mystery Ninja- Obsidian-Onyx-Pepper like color. Needless to say, it was not white. Her choice of clothing was cheap...like Kmart having a baby with Plato's Closet and Dollar Tree's son. Her shirt was often a different tone of black than ther pants; it increased my gall for her by 50XP levels of anger. She was more of a "squacker" in a sense than a thoughtless "repeater" parrot. Can you follow? She is more of a "bowler" than a "golfer"...more of a "Babe Ruth" than a "Pee Wee Reese"...more of a "Rasputin" than a "Lenin." You get the idea I am sure. You see Ayn Raand...wait...oh, I think I am mistaken. Yes, I am...I know an Ayn Raand not an Ayn Rand. In that case yes, I agree, Ayn Rand IS a parrot.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 11:15:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/7/2013 1:44:35 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/6/2013 10:25:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:30:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/6/2013 6:45:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" she just mentions how all collectivist philosophies are immoral, and individuals should not hesitate to kill, maim, and harm others if it is in their best individual interest."


You really have no idea what you're talking about...
http://aynrandlexicon.com...

http://aynrandlexicon.com...

" So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate"do you hear me? no man may start"the use of physical force against others."

If Objectivst morality is derived from the individual accepting individual survival over non-survival how can they then derive that said individual has any moral obligation related to whether or not another individual may access rationality when making decisions?

Blindly asserting "DON'T BE VIOLENTZ TOWARDS OTHAS" might be a nice blind assertion, but it does not follow from Objectivism's basic claims to objectively derived moral systems (namely how it skips the is-ought dilemna).

The only connection Objectivism can make is to say that those who initiate violence may face social repercussion which would hurt their chances of survival.

That's precisely what this article does. It says "if society were to engage in initiation of violence civilization would crumple, then the ego should not initiate violence" or "if the ego's survival would be harmed by initiation of violence, then the ego should initiate violence."

Both interpretations leave open the precise scenarios I'm talking about: ones where there are no social repercussions.

So your little linking-frenzy has yet to actually address my argument.

You don't get to spew out any normative presupposition you wish when claiming Objective morality. They must derive from the supposedly "objective" normative claim: survival over non-survival.

So please, do throw more papers of people pleading that Objectivism is entirely harmless, but find some that can actually derive their position from Rands "objective" normative statement.

All I see is a general "f*ck you if you don't agree, it means you're a monster" anytime a normative assertion like "neuroscience shows human behavior is not rational and so approaches to morality should take this into account." Anyone who engages in coercive actions is "is an attempt to live in defiance to reality. Reality DEMANDS man act rational." If you are a politician who wants income tax to go to public schools, you are denying reality.

Unsurprising, since Rand's entire approach to is-ought is "I'm right, and if you don't accept that I'm right, f*ck you because you should kill yourself or let yourself die." (I'm paraphrasing Nozick).

How about you learn what Objectivism is before you unwittingly bash a straw man version of it, because I can tell your understanding of it doesn't go beyond "Do what's best for you, without regard to anyone else." Just because you don't understand why my philosophy makes the distinctions it does doesn't mean that it doesn't make them. So enough of your claims that Objecitivsm holds that murder is moral, because it doesn't, and I see no good reason why you should continue making jabs at a philosophy that probably doesn't even exist, and one that I definitely don't subscribe to.


It's one thing when, say, utilitarianism throws in some extra assumption about how their philosophy is grounded.

However, Objectivism claims that it can derive objective moral statements from how the world is.

Rand claimed to have beaten Hume through the claim that "when given the choice, the ego ought to try to survive as opposed to not survive and thus survival is inherently valuable." serves as an objective basis for morality.

It does Rand no good to throw on an assumption like "you ought not initiate force" unless she derives it from her "ego ought to survive" claim.

No one ever said it's "Do whatever you want with no regard to others."

It's "Do whatever you want, but keep in mind the preferences and actions of others."

Your own link stresses that the rationale behind not initiating force is that "man could not live together."

As long as there are no social or psychological repercussions, how is random violence immoral? And again, it must be derived from the "Objective" normative claims.

Again, if Objectivism weren't claiming to have sucker-punched the "is-ought" dilemma, I'd be treating their moral claims quite differently. But that is not the case.

So, to repeat myself, you have yet to actually address my argument. Again, while you may not like the wording, it is the same argument Nozick uses, so dismissing it as a "strawman" is not sufficient.

http://www.scribd.com...

All you're doing is taking part of her philosophy, and misapplying it because that's how you think it should be. According to Objectivism, the initiation of force on another being immoral is just as big a part of its philosophy as is the virtue of working in one's self interest. Taking pieces of the philosophy without the limits of other parts of her philosophy is NOT HER PHILOSOPHY.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 11:18:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
"It does Rand no good to throw on an assumption like "you ought not initiate force" unless she derives it from her "ego ought to survive" claim."

Why must her entire philosophy stem from four words?
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 11:26:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/7/2013 11:18:20 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
"It does Rand no good to throw on an assumption like "you ought not initiate force" unless she derives it from her "ego ought to survive" claim."

Why must her entire philosophy stem from four words?

I don't mean stem, I mean BE four words.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 4:45:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/7/2013 1:44:35 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/6/2013 10:25:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:30:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/6/2013 6:45:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" she just mentions how all collectivist philosophies are immoral, and individuals should not hesitate to kill, maim, and harm others if it is in their best individual interest."


You really have no idea what you're talking about...
http://aynrandlexicon.com...

http://aynrandlexicon.com...

" So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate"do you hear me? no man may start"the use of physical force against others."

If Objectivst morality is derived from the individual accepting individual survival over non-survival how can they then derive that said individual has any moral obligation related to whether or not another individual may access rationality when making decisions?

Blindly asserting "DON'T BE VIOLENTZ TOWARDS OTHAS" might be a nice blind assertion, but it does not follow from Objectivism's basic claims to objectively derived moral systems (namely how it skips the is-ought dilemna).

The only connection Objectivism can make is to say that those who initiate violence may face social repercussion which would hurt their chances of survival.

That's precisely what this article does. It says "if society were to engage in initiation of violence civilization would crumple, then the ego should not initiate violence" or "if the ego's survival would be harmed by initiation of violence, then the ego should initiate violence."

Both interpretations leave open the precise scenarios I'm talking about: ones where there are no social repercussions.

So your little linking-frenzy has yet to actually address my argument.

You don't get to spew out any normative presupposition you wish when claiming Objective morality. They must derive from the supposedly "objective" normative claim: survival over non-survival.

So please, do throw more papers of people pleading that Objectivism is entirely harmless, but find some that can actually derive their position from Rands "objective" normative statement.

All I see is a general "f*ck you if you don't agree, it means you're a monster" anytime a normative assertion like "neuroscience shows human behavior is not rational and so approaches to morality should take this into account." Anyone who engages in coercive actions is "is an attempt to live in defiance to reality. Reality DEMANDS man act rational." If you are a politician who wants income tax to go to public schools, you are denying reality.

Unsurprising, since Rand's entire approach to is-ought is "I'm right, and if you don't accept that I'm right, f*ck you because you should kill yourself or let yourself die." (I'm paraphrasing Nozick).

How about you learn what Objectivism is before you unwittingly bash a straw man version of it, because I can tell your understanding of it doesn't go beyond "Do what's best for you, without regard to anyone else." Just because you don't understand why my philosophy makes the distinctions it does doesn't mean that it doesn't make them. So enough of your claims that Objecitivsm holds that murder is moral, because it doesn't, and I see no good reason why you should continue making jabs at a philosophy that probably doesn't even exist, and one that I definitely don't subscribe to.


It's one thing when, say, utilitarianism throws in some extra assumption about how their philosophy is grounded.

However, Objectivism claims that it can derive objective moral statements from how the world is.

Rand claimed to have beaten Hume through the claim that "when given the choice, the ego ought to try to survive as opposed to not survive and thus survival is inherently valuable." serves as an objective basis for morality.

It does Rand no good to throw on an assumption like "you ought not initiate force" unless she derives it from her "ego ought to survive" claim.

No one ever said it's "Do whatever you want with no regard to others."

It's "Do whatever you want, but keep in mind the preferences and actions of others."

Your own link stresses that the rationale behind not initiating force is that "man could not live together."

As long as there are no social or psychological repercussions, how is random violence immoral? And again, it must be derived from the "Objective" normative claims.

Again, if Objectivism weren't claiming to have sucker-punched the "is-ought" dilemma, I'd be treating their moral claims quite differently. But that is not the case.

So, to repeat myself, you have yet to actually address my argument. Again, while you may not like the wording, it is the same argument Nozick uses, so dismissing it as a "strawman" is not sufficient.

http://www.scribd.com...

I think that this touches on a different, more glaring defect. The reason that Objectivist ethics argues for no initiation of violence is because that is the only system in which Objectivist ethics lead to good results per Objectivist standards. In Objectivism, the absence of initiatory violence is a prerequisite for the application of its ethical standards. Rand responded to the Jews in the attic scenario by claiming that her morality was negated in such a situation, which is why she so opposes the initiation of violent force against innocence: it renders her entire ethical system moot. Does this mean that Objectivism can advocate rape of unconscious persons or other similar scenarios? No. It's a much more glaring flaw: it means that in many real-world situations, the ethical system is useless. It can give us an ideal system if we provide ideal conditions, but falls apart the minute it comes into contact with the brutality of humans. For Rand, this wasn't a problem, as she was optimistic to the point of, in my opinion, irrationality. For me, it is.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Raisor
Posts: 5,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 6:05:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/7/2013 11:18:20 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
"It does Rand no good to throw on an assumption like "you ought not initiate force" unless she derives it from her "ego ought to survive" claim."

Why must her entire philosophy stem from four words?

Doesn't she herself think it stems from two words: "Existence Exists?"
We gonna pull up like the ice cream truck
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 7:04:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/7/2013 6:05:01 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 5/7/2013 11:18:20 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
"It does Rand no good to throw on an assumption like "you ought not initiate force" unless she derives it from her "ego ought to survive" claim."

Why must her entire philosophy stem from four words?

Doesn't she herself think it stems from two words: "Existence Exists?"

I corrected myself earlier.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 8:49:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 10:00:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:35:42 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 5/4/2013 4:36:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
Rand's philosophy is actually much more revealing of her psychology than anything else.

She grew up under extraordinarily oppressive communist measures. In turn, Objectivism is actually a perfect mirror of the commie narrative of "the proles are why the world turns, and they need to revolt". Objectivism says "proles are parasites, the capitalists are the ones who are better."

wtf, no. She placed emphasis on the rights of the individual, and in none of her writings did she say a "class" or "group" was better. That is simply more collectivist thinking.

Rand defines the world in terms of "productive citizens" who hold up society through their selfish, capitalistic manner and the parasites who draw upon their resources through taxation and regulation. Anyone who holds a remotely communist perspective is immoral.

Atlas Shrugged is about how the poor, helpless "productive citizens" are exploited by the lower classes that don't do their fair share and expect redistribution.

The end of civilization, instead of Marx's communist utopia, will be a dystopia where all vital industries are shut down by the all-important "exploited capitalists." See: Atlas Shrugged

It's the Marxist story with an individualistic bent. Instead of rooting for the collectivists, Rand roots for capitalists that are able to exploit workers and workers who only do enough to help themselves and not the greater society.

Of course Rand doesn't mention "class," she just mentions how all collectivist philosophies are immoral, and individuals should not hesitate to kill, maim, and harm others if it is in their best individual interest.

The mirror image of collectivism is not collectivism. It's the marxist story, but a new individualistic perspective.

I would not consider it exploitation to say you should have to work to eat. It is fairly objective (as she is an objectivist, you might have forgot this), to say that I personally don't have an obligation to take care of the weak. Saying you do have to is subjective.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 9:24:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/7/2013 11:18:20 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
"It does Rand no good to throw on an assumption like "you ought not initiate force" unless she derives it from her "ego ought to survive" claim."

Why must her entire philosophy stem from four words?

Because unlike most moral philosophers, Rand directly claimed to have overthrown Hume.

You can't claim something like that and then say "oh, and for sh!ts and g!ggles you can't initiate harm on others."

If you wish to abandon any claim to surpassing Hume, then by all means tell me and I will accept any moral presupposition Objectivism has to offer.

Otherwise, Rand's burden is to derive her ethics SOLELY from "objectively grounded" normative statements.

Other than associating initiation of harm to the possibility that it might hurt your own survival, Rand has no derivation to account for this moral presupposition.

So how does she account for not initiating force outside of ego survival?
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 9:58:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/8/2013 9:24:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/7/2013 11:18:20 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
"It does Rand no good to throw on an assumption like "you ought not initiate force" unless she derives it from her "ego ought to survive" claim."

Why must her entire philosophy stem from four words?

Because unlike most moral philosophers, Rand directly claimed to have overthrown Hume.

You can't claim something like that and then say "oh, and for sh!ts and g!ggles you can't initiate harm on others."

If you wish to abandon any claim to surpassing Hume, then by all means tell me and I will accept any moral presupposition Objectivism has to offer.

Otherwise, Rand's burden is to derive her ethics SOLELY from "objectively grounded" normative statements.

Other than associating initiation of harm to the possibility that it might hurt your own survival, Rand has no derivation to account for this moral presupposition.

So how does she account for not initiating force outside of ego survival?

Objectivism is not Subectivism, that's why. I can elaborate if needed.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.