My friend thinks Ayn Rand is a genius. How do I save them?

Teach him economics.

Great job Hugh!

No one has come close to matching the power and logic of your arguments. I'm so glad you deigned to take it on.

Surely there's no point in arguing collectivism vs individualism or the overwhelming quantitative evidence that capitalism has stunningly added to man's standard of living, not to mention being the only moral economic system, but I have a serious question for someone of your obvious intellectual gifts.

Are the leaders who offer up collectism and altruism simply deluded? That is, they have honorable intentions and truly wish the best for society but either lack the knowledge or philosophy to understand they are doing irreparable harm. Or, are they simply evil thugs who know full well the immorality of their ways but choose them anyway to satisfy their own powerlust? As George Orwell wrote, "a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

applicable quote man wrote:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

first off, that was pretty funny. got a good LOL on that one.

question for the philosophiers: can't we say that all actions, no matter what are selfish? giving food/money/assistance to the poor is a selfish act because you are doing it to satisfy your own personal conscience. just like doing charity work makes you feel good inside. YOU feel like you are doing something good.

questionsqqq wrote:question for the philosophiers: can't we say that all actions, no matter what are selfish? giving food/money/assistance to the poor is a selfish act because you are doing it to satisfy your own personal conscience. just like doing charity work makes you feel good inside. YOU feel like you are doing something good.

We could say that, but what would be the point of reducing the variety of reasons that we give for our actions to this one?

Also, seems to me that people do a lot of stuff that doesn't make them feel good. Alcoholics, for example. Or folks who are addicted to message boards. They keep coming back even though it causes them pain--perhaps because it causes them pain.

Roman, quit trolling the internet for Ayn Rand threads. You're not even a runner. Get back to work before I write another manuscript that you can fluff your annual review with (no hard feelings there, I'm just messing with you).

Some questions to start:

1.) How does a free society function and even exist without some level of social welfare?

2.) Why is it that many individuals use Objectivism to justify the "evils of taxation and social programs" when working for the collective good can always be viewed in some way as an act of self interest?

3.) What is the true nature of property; theft? Furthermore, how does one have any rights, besides the right to free thought, outside of society.

4.) If protected rights are a benefit of social interaction, what is the difference between a society deciding it's members have the right to poperty or the right to good health?

5.) How is protecting one's property by force (deemed as a right by society, and enforced by figurative gunpoint) any different than taking "property" from current holders by force (which is what many misguided individuals believe taxation represents)?

Rand's belief that the ultimate evil is the taking of man's rights by force falls apart when we realize that all property is acquired and protected by gunpoint, hence society's decision to let you own something is just the same as its' decision to take it back for the greater good.

6.) Explain to me how anyone is not a leech on humanity more or less society. In my opinion Ayn Rand was a leech, you are a leech, I am a leech, and the same with everyone else. The only way one could not be so is to be fully capable of surviving independant of societal interaction. Explain to me how this pathway leads to the perpetuation of our species.

That is all for now. More questions will follow. Also, please excuse the poor quality of this post, as I am dealing with a fussy baby at the moment.

akston fan wrote:Great job Hugh!

The number of positive encouragements so far - always nonexistent on Let's Run - only prove something is going on here. Probably a bored Troll.

Next, the overwhelming quantitative evidence that "capitalism" has added to man's standard of living can equally be ascribed to: technology, innovation, learning, science, and a host of other factors. Comparatively just as much economic development occurred in Europe with it's Monarchies prior to World War I.

If you're going to make that argument back it up.

Even if you can, though, the big question is, "at what cost?" Certainly, there is overwhelming evidence that as mankind's standard of living has gone up the amount of environmental damage done to the planet has as well.

P.S. I'll be back about the human nature thing.

By production, voluntary exchage, and the protection of individual rights. These are the same (and only) elements that sustain all societies.

Value is relative to the individual and not to the group as a whole. An action is only in a man's self-interest if it is his own preferred course of action, and anyone else's will for his life is irrelevant. You have no right, for example, to replace a man's will to invest for his own retirement with your will for him to recieve Social Security benefits. If he doesn't want that, it's not in his self-interest.

The concept of rights applies to human interaction. It is inapplicable outside of society. To associate property with "theft," i.e. to imply that all property is stolen from someone else, is so distorted and disgusting that it's almost impossible to take seriously.

Society is a non-entity; it doesn't have a mind and therefore it can't make decisions concerning rights or anything else. Individual men, or groups of them, can only violate the rights of other men, but not vote them in and out of existence.

If you can't grasp the difference between aggression and self-defense, I don't think there's any argument to be had.

This contains so many layers of distortion that it's almost impossible to untangle. Your argument assumes the communal ownership of property and relies on the same fallacy discussed in point 4, i.e. the idea that society as a whole can make decisions concerning rights.

This point has been discussed at length in previous exchanges.

applicable quote man wrote:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

My two favorite books to this day -- both of which will outlast all the people who have called them childish, unrealistic, not real literature.

"Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories...In such stories comes a piercing glimpse of joy." --J.R.R. Tolkien

"I did not start by trying to describe the folks next door—but by inventing people who did things the folks next door would never do. I could summon no interest or enthusiasm for “people as they are”—when I had in my mind a blinding vision of people as they could be." --Ayn Rand

"I have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone of scorn or pity with which 'Escape' is now so often used. Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls?" --J.R.R. Tolkien, continued

"The best of mankind’s youth start life with an undefined sense of enormous expectation, the sense that one’s life is important, that great achievements are within one’s capacity, and that great things lie ahead...Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they lose it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one’s mind; security, of abandoning one’s values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that the fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality." --Ayn Rand yet again

The first time I read Anthem, I knew that it said what I had always believed, but had never known how to put into words. Someone, reading this, understands that experience. The rest -- well, that's their business.

P.S. Whoever thinks that the various posts of people who like what Rand has to say are the work of one bored troll is quite wrong. I don't actually think Hugh is arguing too well, but I don't blame him too much since it's not worth trying too hard to prove people wrong on the Internet (notice how I didn't really try to join the debate.) Maybe he should learn from his namesake.

I really didn't have the time to read all 7 pages of this thread so forgive me if I tread any old ground, but I'm currently three-quarters of the way through The Fountainhead and while the book is entertaining (though definitely not gripping or a page-turner), there are a few problems with her characters -- problems that likely stem from her apparent world view or philosophy of objectivism.

Without going into minutia, my main qualm is that instead of crafting what could be real people (as John Fowles tried to do in the last book I read), she crafts men and women who would be more suited to roles in a soap opera. They are fantastic creations that seem to exist only insomuch as they reinforce (as exemplars or foils) an unrealistic view of human creativity and will. With the possible exception of Peter Keating, very few of the characters exhibit the inherent ideological mediocrity and hypocrisy that comes with the human experience. And even Keating is a characateur of a vicious and an unrelenting "type A" personality.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Rand seems to write in a world that is very different from our own. It is populated not by real people but instead by ideals. As a piece of philosophy and contrived melodrama it works, but there is folly in thinking that it should be applied to real life in some serious way.

Is there a similarity between Ayn Rand and the Pose method of running? On some level, one reminds me of the other.

Hugh Akston wrote:

Objectivist metaphysics is based on three axioms: 1) existence exists independently of man's mind, 2) everything that exists has a distinct identity which determines its characteristics and behavior, and 3) consciousness is proof of 1 and 2.

In other words, existence exists, and the fact that you are conscious to frame the question is proof of such.

These statements are axioms because because you have to accept them and use them in order to attempt to refute them. They're inescapable.

I don't accept them. Existence exists? I argue that existence is a property and that properties don't exist; things *with* those properties exist. Rand's "axiom" is "realism is correct and nominalism is incorrect". That's not an axiom, that's a statement of belief.

I'm also not sure how consciousness can be proof that something exists independently of consciousness.

I roughly accept #2, although current theories of physics show that individual sub-atomic particles have less of an individual identity than Rand might like.

Not Rand Fan wrote:

I'm currently three-quarters of the way through The Fountainhead and while the book is entertaining (though definitely not gripping or a page-turner), there are a few problems with her characters -- problems that likely stem from her apparent world view or philosophy of objectivism.

My main problem with the book is that Roark wins. His philosophy, his whole motivation wasn't about him *winning*. He wanted to design the buildings the way he felt they should be. Public recognition was not what he was looking for (otherwise he would have taken the Keating route). It's one thing to say that being true to yourself is the best way to be successful both personally and professionally, but it's another thing to say that being true to yourself is an end unto itself, societal recognition is not part of the equation, and ending up with society recognizing how awesome you are.

It's almost as if Roark *did* want society to recognize his genius, he just didn't want to compromise to do it. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that it seemed to contradict the way he behaved throughout the entire freaking book.

Roman, you, an objecivist, have not answered any of my questions with reason or fact; just mere opinion and belief. This is the primary reason why objectivism falls apart; it assumes that one person's beliefs are "fact" while all others must be the product of misguided reason.

1.) Explain to me how the granting and protection of individual rights is not a form of social welfare; I don't care about you, so why should I protect your rights?

2.) Your response to this question is one layer deep; if man cannot agree with the people (society) who protect his "rights" then he has a choice to either go along with the rules he dislikes or leave and find protection elsewhere. If one has the ability to leave then participation in a society and its' rules is not forced. While in some societies this is not the case, it is here n the US. No one in he US will stop you from leaving, alhough another socety that doesn't like your selfish beliefs may be a bit harsher.

3.)Why do you assume that if something is stolen it must be stolen from someone else; how does one decide that he is not only in possesion of an object but that it solely belongs to him? I find your belief in a fist come first serve world a bit disorted with reason and reality.

4.)Nobody has "rights" until a group of individuals agree to protect said rights. Once the group (society) is large enough (larger size offers new potection from smaller violent groups) you cannot rely on complete areement between all, which is wh government and rules often develope. In a free society it is a persons choice to accept the rules in exchange for protection of rights or leave.

5.)How is agressively protectin something that does no belong to anyone any different than agressively taking somethin that does not inherently belong to anyone.

6.)Last, please use logic and reason to show how objectivism is valid in the world that we have deemed as fact by the use of our senses. Please do not just play semantics either, use only logic and reason, like a true objectivist.

MJS wrote:

Roman, you, an objecivist, have not answered any of my questions with reason or fact; just mere opinion and belief. This is the primary reason why objectivism falls apart; it assumes that one person's beliefs are "fact" while all others must be the product of misguided reason.

We have a winner. This is also why objectivism fosters fascism--while simultaneously blinding objectivists to this fact.

OK, take two:

"I did not start by trying to describe the folks next door—but by inventing people who did things the folks next door would never do. I could summon no interest or enthusiasm for “people as they are”—when I had in my mind a blinding vision of people as they could be." --Ayn Rand

That's why she creates "unrealistic" characters. If you dislike it for that reason, fine, but I don't think it's an inherent flaw in her work -- and I also don't think mediocrity and hypocrisy are inherent to being human.

The movie "Thunderpants" has an unrealistic character who flys to the moon using his farts. While personally I think the character built in the movie is genius, many may not. In regards to Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged" I do not feel there is any genius here, partcularly since the concepts are stolen from an older novel titled "The Driver" by Garet Garrett.

One thing I never got was how she said existence exists independent of an observer, when if there is no one to observe it, how can you prove it?

If you put a ball in a room with no windows and seal the door is the ball still in there? Logically, you can deduce it's still in there but unless someone goes in to check is it really?

sawamonkey wrote:

One thing I never got was how she said existence exists independent of an observer, when if there is no one to observe it, how can you prove it?

If you put a ball in a room with no windows and seal the door is the ball still in there? Logically, you can deduce it's still in there but unless someone goes in to check is it really?

sawamonkey pwns the thread.