tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post1692455176118822815..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Intellectual Sources of the Latest Objectischism 2Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-48176649654534873012010-11-23T11:22:14.664-08:002010-11-23T11:22:14.664-08:00It was interestingly enough the debate on determin...<em>It was interestingly enough the debate on determinism vs. free will that started this off for me.</em><br /><br />This was a big issue for me as well. It's what turned me into a critic of Objectivism. Even before my exposure to Objectivism, I had come to the believe, as a result of my experiences in college and from reading Nock, Mencken, and Schumpeter, that most intellectuals were genetically biased toward liberalism and radical leftism, so that any attempt to reason them out of their delusions was largely hopeless. I was shocked when I discovered that Peikoff believed Objectivism just needed to be taught at a few Ivy League schools in order take over the culture. Whenever I challenged this point to other Objectivists, I was always taken to task for denying "free will." In one argument, the Objectivists I was debating all agreed that it was "invalid" to make predictions about human behavior, since people had "free will." (Never mind that Peikoff's belief about getting Objectivism taught at Harvard and Yale also involved a prediction about human behavior!) When I found out what this "free will" was based on (i.e., the purely rationalistic argument about determinism being self-refuting), I became suspicious of Rand's "reason." From that point on Objectivism merely became for me a useful foil through which I could develop my own philosophy. From Rand I learned how <em>not</em> to philosophize, and for that I'm grateful to her.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-37202623115427614712010-11-23T10:02:59.772-08:002010-11-23T10:02:59.772-08:00Brendan,
Objectivist lack a commonsense understan...Brendan,<br /><br />Objectivist lack a commonsense understanding of "trivial". Exhibit A: The Romantic Manifesto.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-10187005798047949852010-11-23T04:33:57.137-08:002010-11-23T04:33:57.137-08:00Empirical testing and rational criticism therefore...<i>Empirical testing and rational criticism therefore constitute the chief ingredients of rationality, not concept-formation or "reason."</i><br /><br />I think my appreciation of this point was the beginning of my break with Objectivism specifically and historical and philosophical speculation generally. So many subtle points are related to the above conclusion: an appreciation for the limits of rational discourse, and why actions often speak way louder than words.<br /><br />It was interestingly enough the debate on determinism vs. free will that started this off for me. It was clear to me that Objectivism caricatured determinism. What wasn't so clear was why people felt so strongly about "genetic determinism". Just so happened that "The Blank Slate" was released around the same time so I purchased it and entered a whole new world.<br /><br />There is a paper by Sperber and Mercier on "The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning" which argues that our ability to reason is designed primarily to win arguments, and not primarily to arrive at correct conclusions, and that arriving at correct conclusions are more about criticism and testing. It also showed that groups often manage to do better at many reasoning tasks than individuals do in that there are quite a few cases where groups of people can arrive at the correct solution when none of the individuals arrived at it himself.<br /><br />Of course, when I point my Objectivist brother to this paper, he argues that the authors do not understand what "reason" is. The irony of it all!Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-16045548432537925402010-11-23T01:23:25.471-08:002010-11-23T01:23:25.471-08:00Greg: "Different contexts lead to different a...Greg: "Different contexts lead to different assessments of interests, even among rational men; and differing assessment of interests will inevitably lead to conflicts."<br /><br />And when the conflict is serious enough, it leads to accusations of "irrationality", since as you point out, the alternative is that other "contexts", including non-Objectivist contexts, can be rational.<br /><br />In some matters, such as tastes in food, and perhaps even voting preferemces, the context argument can work well enough without threatening the ideology, giving Rand's thought the appearance of flexibility and nuance.<br /><br />But "serious" interests involve the likes of control and property, and here rationality often takes a back seat to status and the drive for dominance.<br /><br />As many have pointed out, the great irony in Objectivism is that the self-described devotees of reason are so consumed by conflict. Although I remember one young chap enthusing over the fact that "Objectivism is a fighting creed". Indeed.<br /><br />Sometimes I think Peikoff is bit of a Breshnev-type character, sclerotic and clinging to power despite the many "mental health" scares.<br /><br />But even if there's a general openness and relaxation after his death, I doubt that Objectivsim will go the way of the Soviet Union. <br /><br />Organisations are not territories, and there will always be young people smittten enough by Rand's vision to work their way though the many contradictions, helped by her passion and the "contextual" arguments of her followers.Brendan Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-43052681709349787632010-11-22T19:39:37.522-08:002010-11-22T19:39:37.522-08:00Great comment Anon69.Great comment Anon69.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-39003761587142671902010-11-22T18:54:46.273-08:002010-11-22T18:54:46.273-08:00Part of the problem seems to be that Rand herself ...Part of the problem seems to be that Rand herself was an author who sought to create an attractive air of certainty in her published works. There was no room for reasoned discourse because the first say had to be the final say. Any discussion could only take the form of instruction and clarification to subordinates, but not reconsideration or revision from debate with peers. <br><br>Rational argument has no place in such a system of thought; the "conveyor belt" of ideas must always move in one direction only. How fun it must have been to imagine oneself above all others as the ultimate fountain of truth! Yet the impossibility of reasoned debate is profoundly unwise and a fatal flaw of Objectivism. It is hard to see how such things as academic peer review, adversarial legal procedures, respect for others' rights, friendly criticism or even friendship could fit. Organized Objectivism has carried on this absurdity, and is reaping the whirlwind.Anon69noreply@blogger.com