tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post4876187191127391210..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Ayn Rand & Human Nature 15Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-50799023715556626912012-01-04T02:41:34.143-08:002012-01-04T02:41:34.143-08:00KW:
>Daniel, you forget that Greg is trying to ...KW:<br />>Daniel, you forget that Greg is trying to convice us that we can't escape our "motivational baggage" when we make our arguments. It seems to me that he's implying that there is no such thing as a "good" stand-alone argument because it had to have come from someone possessing motivations. This seems to give me a ticket to say what I was saying.<br /><br /><br />Well, KW, you'd be dead wrong. Here's why. Yes, we humans have "motivational baggage". Now, equipped with said motivational baggage I will make a good argument:<br />P1:All men are mortal.<br />P2:Socrates is a man.<br />C: Socrates is mortal.<br />Yes, that just happened! I just did the very thing you claim we're "implying" is impossible. Even with my "motivational baggage" I made a good argument.<br /><br />Look, it seems you're deeply confused about what Greg is saying. Let me spell it out. Greg criticises Rand's theory of human nature because it does not fit the facts - for example, that her "blank slate" conception doesn't account for the large amount of "motivational baggage" we're born with. However, just because you, me, Greg, Ayn Rand all have this inbuilt baggage <i>it does not necessarily follow that all our arguments are therefore no good.</i> My example above now demonstrates this.<br /><br />Are you starting to get it now?Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86897616196676993252012-01-03T18:11:44.510-08:002012-01-03T18:11:44.510-08:00Better to just lock ranks and declare Objectivism ...<i>Better to just lock ranks and declare Objectivism perfect.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure if it is, but I find Objectivism interesting and thus I've started to study it a little. <br /><br /><i>Such as how Rand twisted the ideas of Kant, or Hume's is/ought problem?</i><br /><br />Just because everyone is capable of twisting ideas doesn't make it a necessary outcome. That's something that you, and presumably others here believe, and I'll probably look into at some point. <br /> <br /><i>What is it about this Argument 101 that you don't understand? </i><br /><br />Daniel, you forget that Greg is trying to convice us that we can't escape our "motivational baggage" when we make our arguments. It seems to me that he's implying that there is no such thing as a "good" stand-alone argument because it had to have come from someone possessing motivations. This seems to give me a ticket to say what I was saying.<br /><br /><i>Miss Malaprops like KW</i> <br /><br />Juvenile name calling isn't going to help you, Daniel. Did someone say high-quality scholarship?<br /><br /><i>don't know the difference between "scholarship" and "scholasticism"</i><br /><br />So because I made a slip and got a word wrong it goes toward invalidating my points? But your guys' motivations don't affect your points?<br /><br />So, in the end, I took a quick look at Huemer's page. Let's look at how he starts off:<br /><br />In <i>Objection (i)</i>, he does a pretty good job of outlining what Objectivism calls the 'subjective-intrinsic' split, but then he attributes Rand's position to the former. However, the notion that Objectivism belongs in a third category apart from these two is explained here:(http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture29.shtml)<br /><br />In <i>Objection (ii)</i>, I can't, for the life of me, envision a situation in which you can "in no way avoid" receiving a certain sum of money. If someone grabs your hand and stuffs money into it, you can let go of it a second later. If he stuffs it down your throat, the money gets destroyed. I don't see where Huemer gets this idea. <br /><br />Now, I haven't looked at the rest, but right at the beginning, he's made one significant misunderstanding, and presented an impossible hypothetical situation to further his point. Given that he's constructing an argument, and not a decorative piece of wooden furniture, any mistakes he makes are not going to enhance the final product by giving it more character, They're going to weaken it significantly.KWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5378035698976712912012-01-03T00:26:30.057-08:002012-01-03T00:26:30.057-08:00KW:
>I never speculated about the nature and or...KW:<br />>I never speculated about the nature and origin of Greg's motives. Those are irrelevant. What matters whether there is a strong negative motivation against Rand or not. <br /><br />Actually, here's what you wrote:<br />KW:"Such a narrow focus on something to which [Greg N doesn't] ascribe much significance is indicative of some kind of strange and sad obsession."<br /><br />And here you go again: "What matters is whether there is a strong negative motivation against Rand or not."<br /><br />Actually, even if you did have a strong negative motivation against Rand, which we don't, once again <i> this is irrelevant to the quality of the arguments</i>. You can like Rand and have great arguments, you can hate her and have terrible ones, and vice versa. The fact that I may hate Socrates doesn't stop "All men are mortal/Socrates is a man/Socrates is mortal" being a valid argument. What is it about this Argument 101 that you don't understand? <br /><br />KW:<br />>I don't see why any Objectivist would take the time to write [a refutation of Huemer].<br /><br />So hilarious. Objectivists could fly to the moon too, or solve nuclear fusion using Rand's epistemology; they just don't feel like doing it right now. Why don't you give it a crack, KW, seeing you've probably read Atlas Shrugged and everything. Isn't that all you need to know to refute every philosophic critic ever?<br /><br />Actually, the reason why Objectivists don't refute critics like Huemer is because for the most part they are embarrassingly bad at making arguments in the first place. Of course, they will have no doubt learned nothing from reading Rand, as she has hardly any arguments at all, let alone good ones. Most of her work consists of freestyle assertions, word games, inflammatory rhetoric and lots of juicy denunciations. That's all, folks. And that's why her fanbase, particularly online, consists largely of Miss Malaprops like KW who don't know the difference between "scholarship" and "scholasticism" let alone what "psychologising" is even when they use the term themselves. <br /><br />So now you know that accusations of "bias" are just lame, KW, do you have any other point you'd like to make? Or is that it?Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-42136846545339837062012-01-02T20:08:59.529-08:002012-01-02T20:08:59.529-08:00"I don't see why any Objectivist would ta..."I don't see why any Objectivist would take the time to write one."<br /><br />Sure, why bother to clarify or explain Rand's concepts to the unconvinced? Better to just lock ranks and declare Objectivism perfect. That'll guarantee that everyone sees the light.<br /><br />"With any set of complicated, abstract ideas, pretty much anyone is capable of taking those ideas and craftily twisiting them into an interpretation of his own choosing."<br /><br />Such as how Rand twisted the ideas of Kant, or Hume's is/ought problem?<br /><br />...Or even you and this blog?CWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-68692296179018512492012-01-02T14:25:15.809-08:002012-01-02T14:25:15.809-08:00psychologising like this
I never speculated abou...<i>psychologising like this</i> <br /><br />I never speculated about the nature and origin of Greg's motives. Those are irrelevant. What matters whether there is a strong negative motivation against Rand or not. <br /><br />Echo Chamber Inhabitant,<br /><br />The way Greg describes it is is that he began to 'see' things firsthand in Objectivism that, to him, just didn't fit with the rest of the system. This is what I was asking for, not just "Hey! Check out this ... criticism that's posted on the internet!" <br /><br /><i>I've never seen a convincing refutation of Huemer's analysis by any Objectivist.</i><br /><br />I don't see why any Objectivist would take the time to write one. With any set of complicated, abstract ideas, pretty much anyone is capable of taking those ideas and craftily twisiting them into an interpretation of his own choosing. Taking the time to refute one of these would be in vain because another could pop up anywhere at any time. Objectivism is not immune to being misconstrued.KWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-23062186991896547162012-01-02T13:37:58.540-08:002012-01-02T13:37:58.540-08:00@KW:
You quoted Greg:
I kept running into in th...@KW:<br /><br />You quoted Greg: <br /><br /><i>I kept running into in things in Rand's philosophy and life and in the Objectivist movement that didn't seem either rational or realistic.</i><br /><br />and replied: <br /><br /><i>I've heard this notion a lot from 'ex-Objectivists' but none have ever provided a specific example.</i><br /><br />Actually, Greg has provided many specific examples. As you know, his main thesis on this blog (and in his book) is that Rand was fundamentally unrealistic about human nature. More specifically, her ideas about the origin of emotions and the role of reason in decision-making are deeply flawed, and evidence to that effect is mounting as psychological research advances. Greg has been demonstrating, repeatedly, how the research undermines Rand's views.<br /><br />But you seem to deny that any of this rises to "specific examples." So I'm wondering if what you are looking for is more in the form of a detailed line-by-line critique of Randian arguments.<br /><br />If so, then here is one: <a href="http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm" rel="nofollow">a detailed critique by Michael Huemer</a> of Rand's essay "The Objectivist Ethics." He identifies numerous specific factual and logical errors in the essay. <br /><br />Chief among the errors Huemer identifies are these two:<br /><br />1) Rand's claim that that "the functions of all living organisms ... are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a mingle goal: the maintenance of the organism's <i>life</i>" is factually false, i.e., not realistic.<br /><br />2) Rand's switch from physical survival as the standard of value for non-human organisms to "man qua man" survival as the standard for human beings is logically indefensible, i.e., not rational.<br /><br />Hard to get more specific than this. And FWIW, I've never seen a convincing refutation of Huemer's analysis by any Objectivist.Echo Chamber Escapeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45328286823915301862012-01-02T11:04:48.218-08:002012-01-02T11:04:48.218-08:00Most (not necessarily all) people are not capable ...<i>Most (not necessarily all) people are not capable of thinking rationally about abstract moral and political doctrines, but rather use bad arguments to defend whatever accords to their sentiments (which tend to be inflexible).</i><br /><br />A bit of a self-description there? If that's the case, how can you prove to us that you're not one of the "most" people?KWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-71807035084225960942012-01-02T10:39:30.537-08:002012-01-02T10:39:30.537-08:00I kept running into in things in Rand's philos...<i>I kept running into in things in Rand's philosophy and life and in the Objectivist movement that didn't seem either rational or realistic.</i><br /><br />I've heard this notion a lot from 'ex-Objectivists' but none have ever provided a specific example.KWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-39782221185084012502012-01-01T11:09:25.517-08:002012-01-01T11:09:25.517-08:00You write a post about how human beings are "...<i>You write a post about how human beings are "creatures with significant motivational baggage" and the implausibility of Rand's idea of a "detached, emotion-free type of reasoning" and yet you go on to assert your own detached, rational objectivity in your whole approach.</i><br /><br />It was actually my concern about rationality that led me to Ayn Rand in the first place. Initially, Rand seemed like a passionate, eloquent defender of rationality and realism. Yet on closer acquaintance I kept running into in things in Rand's philosophy and life and in the Objectivist movement that didn't seem either rational or realistic. This was a initially baffling: how could someone who was so passionately in favor of rationality and realism so often lapse into their opposites? This was something that had to be explained, so I became a critic of Rand and her philosophy. This criticism has provided a motive for studying human nature, and arriving at the important truths which Rand misrepresented or ignored. <br /><br />From a larger perspective, Rand's provides a cautionary example of how it is to stray from the narrow path of rationality. Rand appears to have been completely ignorant of the unconscious forces that were leading her astray. Her view of human nature made it impossible for her to understand, let alone come to grips with or control, those unconscious forces.. If you get human nature wrong, you will never understand how rationality can be achieved. Rand never provided an adequate technology for "reason" because she didn't understand the psychological forces involved. Most individual reasoning is mere rationalization; as Jonathan Haidt puts it, conscious reasoning is "mostly post-hoc constructions made up on the fly, crafted to advance one or more strategic objectives." Rationality only emerges in a social context through criticism. Human beings are congenitally bad at criticizing themselves, but they are often very good at criticizing others. So while the individual may struggle to be rational (because he is hopelessly biased on behalf of himself, his kin, and whatever group and/or ideology he identifies with), within a group of scientists or scholars, he may achieve a functional rationality via peer review. In short, evidence from experimental psychology corroborates Karl Popper's view of rationality, not Rand's.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-40415199287125215332012-01-01T10:07:25.483-08:002012-01-01T10:07:25.483-08:00This is, I think, the satement of the central pill...<i>This is, I think, the satement of the central pillar in your critique against Rand, the notion that humans are not capable of Randian 'rationality,' that reality, in it's entirety, is too complicated to be understood by human consciousness.</i><br /><br />This is close to my position, but it's not quite exact. I wouldn't say, for example, that reality, "in its entirety, is too complicated to be understood by human consciousness." Understanding reality "in its entirety" is not important. Human beings do not have to understood, and are not wired to understand, <i>all</i> of reality. Human beings only need to understand what is needed for the well-being of themselves, their loved ones, and the social order they live in. The way I would put it is as follows: <i>Some aspects of reality which are important to human well-being are too complex to be understood via conscious reasoning.</i> To this I would add a further proviso: <i>Most (not necessarily all) people are not capable of thinking rationally about abstract moral and political doctrines, but rather use bad arguments to defend whatever accords to their sentiments (which tend to be inflexible).</i> These views are backed by extensive research by experiment psychologists and cognitive scientists. (The best single book on this topic is the soon-to-be-released <a href="http://www.righteousmind.com/" rel="nofollow"><i>The Righteous Mind</i></a>, which provides detailed descriptions of the evidence for the limits of human rationality.) <br /><br /><i>It's like saying that truth isn't fully reachable by the human mind.</i><br /><br />That's your own interpretation, or rather misinterpretation, of my position. It's boilerplate Objectivism: anyone who challenges Rand's view of reason is denying the efficacy of the human mind. <br /><br /><i> This kind of vague notion that "reality is too complex" or that "human beings aren't really capable of.." (I mean vague in the sense that where do you define the limit that the human mind is capable of reaching?) </i><br /><br />I've discussed these issues extensively in past blog posts, particularly in my series "<a href="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/12/cognitive-revolution-objectivism-part-8.html" rel="nofollow">The Cognitive Revolution & Objectivism</a>." It's not a vague notion at all for those who have read and understand those posts as well as the books referenced therin. See my post on "<a href="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/12/cognitive-revolution-objectivism-part-8.html" rel="nofollow">Reason and Emotion</a>" for a detailed description of why conscious reason, on its own sources alone, can't handle complexity.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-40483233515534772162012-01-01T08:19:51.720-08:002012-01-01T08:19:51.720-08:00I think to really get Ayn Rand, one has to have li...<i>I think to really get Ayn Rand, one has to have lived in an openly corrupt society, which America isn't. I lived in Nigeria for seven years, and one of the things that amazed me was how the "collective culture" of the people, prevented them from rallying against an openly corrupt government. </i><br /><br />I lived in Nigeria for way more than seven years and while I have relatives who agree with Rand, I find that people can superimpose her ideology onto any situation they wish because they aren't seriously testing it. There are Marxists who are equally convinced that Marx explains Nigeria well too. Ideology does that to you.<br /><br />Apart from what I believe is the major problem with Nigeria, which is that I don't believe the intellectual capital currently exists to sustain a modern economy for more than 10-20% of its population, I think Lee Kuan Yew said in one sentence something that explains the Nigerian condition far more than anything Ayn Rand ever wrote, as she denounced tribalism, but never explained why almost all her serious associates were Jews:<br /><br />"SPIEGEL: During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?<br />Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that..."<br /><br />That is an empirically testable statement and often explains voting patterns in many multi-ethnic countries.<br /><br /><br /><i>I mean on one side, it was amazing to see how much respect the young had for the old, but on the other hand it was amazing to see the consequences of that, which is that older people are rarely ever challenged by the younger generation, so bad ideas just get carried on from one generation to the next.</i><br /><br />Is it the ability to evaluate the ideas that is lacking, or the will to do so, or both? Could you provide a specific example?<br /><br />Younger people defer to older people all the time in just about every culture across the world. I think we need to be sure that we are comparing apples to apples here.<br /><br />One of the limitations of the human mind is that it can see cause and effect where there is only correlation, and it can claim correlation when what is really going on is cause and effect. Finally, it is hard to tie cause to effect without eliminating other possibilities. I am not saying you are wrong, but would like to know how seriously you have investigated the matter of Nigeria's corruption in terms of theories other than Objectivism.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-38195733016451790182012-01-01T07:05:23.133-08:002012-01-01T07:05:23.133-08:00I think to really get Ayn Rand, one has to have li...I think to really get Ayn Rand, one has to have lived in an openly corrupt society, which America isn't. I lived in Nigeria for seven years, and one of the things that amazed me was how the "collective culture" of the people, prevented them from rallying against an openly corrupt government. <br /><br />I mean on one side, it was amazing to see how much respect the young had for the old, but on the other hand it was amazing to see the consequences of that, which is that older people are rarely ever challenged by the younger generation, so bad ideas just get carried on from one generation to the next.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-53311384817085876082011-12-31T22:31:16.721-08:002011-12-31T22:31:16.721-08:00Are there any real life situations that pose such ...<i>Are there any real life situations that pose such a rigidly binary alternative?</i><br /><br />Volunteers for Suicide missions where death is near certain? Falling upon a grenade to save your comrades? Why is it in your selfish interest to fall on it and not someone else?Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35829942908751592002011-12-31T12:20:10.870-08:002011-12-31T12:20:10.870-08:00KW:
>I'm not sure. I'd like to see some...KW:<br />>I'm not sure. I'd like to see someone begin from a neutral starting point, and with the calm, academic tone of many of the 'great thinkers' referenced in this blog, take a real hard look at Objectivist ideas. <br /><br />KW, <br />1) There is no such thing as a "neutral starting point." Such things are irrelevant. You can be firmly in favour of Rand, and have great arguments. You can be firmly against her, and have terrible arguments. And vice versa.<br />The main problem is that her followers, and Rand herself, tend to have terrible arguments. If they didn't, we'd probably be in favour of her!<br /><br />2) If "tone" is the biggest bone you have to pick with the ARCHNblog, then we must be doing pretty good. Point out areas where we are factually wrong, or have made serious logical errors, and you will have made an important criticism - and we would welcome it. I would even argue that your criticism of our "tone" is misguided. Given the generally hysterical tone of pro and anti Rand commentary, I think the ARCHNblog is pretty moderate usually. Also never forget that Rand wrote in a highly provocative way herself, and there is nothing "calm, academic" or even "neutral" in her style, which is polemical if not occasionally hysterical itself. Yet I don't hear you demanding that same standard from Rand, but only her critics. Why not?<br /><br />>Such a narrow focus on something to which you don't ascribe much significance is indicative of some kind of strange and sad obsession.<br /><br />Once again, if your best criticism is feeble attempts at psychologising like this, we must be doing alright. Rand is a significant cultural figure; this is obvious. Yet she lacks much in the way substantial, detailed criticism, certainly compared to the efforts her various institutes and legion of internet fanboys to build her intellectual reputation. Usually such criticism comes in the form of the odd hit piece from the left that tends to focus on her personal life and attributes, which only leaves her fans more convinced that her philosophy is somehow supremely unanswerable. It isn't. It's actually a very weak, and even hazardous intellectual contribution, with a handful of useful things in amongst it - most of which are available in far better packages elsewhere.<br /><br />This asymmetry between her fame, which attracts uncritical, sycophantic fans who swallow her romantic notions warts and all, and the searching empirical and logical criticism her philosophy actually needs is what we try to provide here in our own small way. So now you know.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5491159956816899342011-12-31T07:38:25.458-08:002011-12-31T07:38:25.458-08:00"The way that I'm aware it works in scien..."The way that I'm aware it works in science is that if you assert the positive claim, you need to provide the evidence. If you tell me that aliens abducted your auntie, it's not my obligation to prove that this wasn't the case. Why can't we adopt the same rules here? Greg makes positive assertions without providing compelling evidence."<br /><br />Well, you're both making essentially positive assertions: "Rand thought this" vs. "Rand thought that" (which happens to be "not this"). It's more like "aliens abducted my auntie" vs. "dinosaurs abducted your auntie". Furthermore, you're making this claim based on an implication that you know better than Greg what Rand's thought processes were like - which from my perspective may or may not be true, but Greg has years' worth of blog posts here for reference and support of his position, and as yet, your evidence is "I don't have to directly refute someone's positive claim in order to declare it invalid".CWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55839292991688209712011-12-31T05:01:17.304-08:002011-12-31T05:01:17.304-08:00I was not singling Greg out. Most people are a bit...I was not singling Greg out. Most people are a bit vague about just what they men by consciousness. Rand definitely was.<br /><br />Just as most people are vague about what they mean by life. Most of the time when they are talking about human life they are actually talking about the operation of human consciousness. Not the same thing at all. Rand actually had more of an inkling of this than most people.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-53727345489727402732011-12-31T04:21:37.900-08:002011-12-31T04:21:37.900-08:00"Self-awareness only has access to part of wh..."Self-awareness only has access to part of what the mind is doing."<br /><br />If by "part," you mean an almost infinitesimally small portion, then yes. The level of access we have of our brain is more or less, analogically, the equivalent of how much knowledge the CEO of General Motors has about the precise actions of any specific person working in a GM factory somewhere- fuck all except at the level of utmost generalities, which are often false or delusions.Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45768756253619678502011-12-31T04:10:26.517-08:002011-12-31T04:10:26.517-08:00I hope I'm not putting words into Greg's m...I hope I'm not putting words into Greg's mouth but but I think his point is that we have only partial awareness of what is going on in our minds.<br /><br />Greg is i think not being sufficiently precise when he uses the term consiousness. The way I see it there are at least three aspects of consciousness. There is awareness, the actual subjective representation in the mind of external reality. There is emotion. And there is self-awareness, the part which monitors what some of the rest of the mind is doing. Sometimes when people talk about consciousnes thaey mean all three processes and sometimes they only mean the last. Self-awareness only has acess to part of what the mind is doing. Believing otherwise was one of Rand's biggest mistakes.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25669203311559804292011-12-30T21:06:08.497-08:002011-12-30T21:06:08.497-08:00Why apologize then if you're going to be snark...<i>Why apologize then if you're going to be snarky all over again?</i><br /><br />I was referring more to the overall tone of my inital post.<br /><br /><i>the alternative Greg discussed was dying in order to further the lives of your fellow soldiers vs. preserving your life and allowing more likely multiple injuries and deaths to others.</i><br /><br />Are there any real life situations that pose such a rigidly binary alternative?<br /><br /><i>Even 9/11 and the worst plans of terrorists are not a serious threat to the US regime/system.</i><br /><br />Not anymore. And the wars that these events start aren't big enough to call for compulsory drafting. Every soldier fights there because he chooses to. <br /><br /><i>If Greg is wrong for stating that "Rand thought X", aren't you equally as wrong to declare a misrepresentation, that "Rand did not think X"? Your own evidence, as presented here, is less compelling than his.</i><br /><br />The way that I'm aware it works in science is that if you assert the positive claim, you need to provide the evidence. If you tell me that aliens abducted your auntie, it's not my obligation to prove that this wasn't the case. Why can't we adopt the same rules here? Greg makes positive assertions without providing compelling evidence. <br /><br /><i>There may be an academic arena for criticism? You're not sure about this?</i> <br /><br />I'm not sure. I'd like to see someone begin from a neutral starting point, and with the calm, academic tone of many of the 'great thinkers' referenced in this blog, take a real hard look at Objectivist ideas. <br /><br /><i>if someone gains notoriety for making controversial claims, that individual will be criticized</i><br /><br />While this may be true, it's pretty vague, and doesn't really justify the specific case of your criticism of Ayn Rand. <br /><br /><i>And do you have any evidence for this claim?</i><br /><br />I gave an example in my first post of what I thought sounded like fictional narrative.<br /><br /><i>Now if most human beings are not capable of the type of rationality Rand supposed, all these theoretical niceties that you bring up are irrelevant.</i><br /><br />This is, I think, the satement of the central pillar in your critique against Rand, the notion that humans are not capable of Randian 'rationality,' that reality, in it's entirety, is too complicated to be understood by human consciousness. Coming from someone who claims to be a seeker of truth, this assertion is surprising. It's like saying that truth isn't fully reachable by the human mind. This kind of vague notion that "reality is too complex" or that "human beings aren't really capable of.." (I mean vague in the sense that where do you define the limit that the human mind is capable of reaching?) is not only useless, it's self-defeating. Truly astonishing that you go to such painstaking lengths to defend it. <br /><br /><i>It is a question of fact, not of personal motives.</i><br /><br />You write a post about how human beings are "creatures with significant motivational baggage" and the implausibility of Rand's idea of a "detached, emotion-free type of reasoning" and yet you go on to assert your own detached, rational objectivity in your whole approach. Nobody with an unbiased view toward Ayn Rand writes an entire book and then five years worth of lengthy blog essays scathingly trying to criticize her ideas. You assert yourself that Rand was a "sloppy and even maladroit thinker." There was another post (I believe it was by el sidekick, Daniel) about looking at the numbers and how small Ayn Rand's influence has been on America at large. You're a brillant writer, Greg, and you seem to know a lot about philosophy. Such a narrow focus on something to which you don't ascribe much significance is indicative of some kind of strange and sad obsession.KWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-18470396015794834282011-12-30T10:22:43.560-08:002011-12-30T10:22:43.560-08:00perfect article, :)perfect article, :)fotografia ślubnahttp://www.jaceksiwko.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-64638419604333869582011-12-29T19:24:31.068-08:002011-12-29T19:24:31.068-08:00Is this the right way to look at the problem? The ...<i>Is this the right way to look at the problem? The most logically sound and the one that considers all necessary parameters? Maybe it isn't, but it's certainly different than the Objectivist viewpoint that you tend to project</i><br /><br />And what viewpoint have I projected? In this post, I didn't even criticize the <i>theory</i> of altruism in Objectivism. This is post about human nature, criticizing Rand's view that human beings have the potential to be rational. Now if most human beings are not capable of the type of rationality Rand supposed, all these theoretical niceties that you bring up are irrelevant. If most people cannot pursue their self-interest in a "rational" and enlightened way; if most soldiers cannot be convinced to risk their lives on rational self-interest grounds; in that case, it matters little whether you can make, in theory, a rational case that dying in battle is consistent with self-interest. This post is about motivation, not the Objectivist theory of altruism or what Objectivists think about dying in battle. Some disagreeable functions (such as fighting in war) must be performed to keep a society free. The question is: how do you motivate people to do those acts? I'm suggesting that using Objectivism as a tool of motivation would probably lead, in most if not all cases, to failure.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4652938785954458972011-12-29T19:05:19.311-08:002011-12-29T19:05:19.311-08:00While there may be an academic arena for criticism...<i>While there may be an academic arena for criticism of Objectivism, this would require a long and thorough study of the meanings of its ideas</i><br /><br />There may be an academic arena for criticism? You're not sure about this? Here's the reality of the situation: if someone gains notoriety for making controversial claims, that individual will be criticized, if not by academics, then by people outside of academia. That's just the way it is. The day when Ayn Rand and Objectivism cease to be criticized is the day when they will have ceased to have so much as a jot of relevance.<br /><br /><i>what I've seen from you thus far is more of an agenda approach, particularly with what I would call your almost narrative personification of Rand's character (she did this, she though that), for which you provide little or no evidence.</i><br /><br />And do you have any evidence for this claim? In the post above I ascribe to Rand the following: (1) she believed that human beings are "bundles of premises"; (2) she intensely denounced altruism; (3) Rand wanted to believe that human emotions were the product of premises; (4) Rand would likely have accepted that hunger and thirst are innate; (5) Rand assumed that all men had the potential to be rational; (6) Rand left the impression that she owed no intellectual debt to anyone other than Aristotle. Now none of these are all that controversial about Rand, except perhaps the last (which is based on a declaration Rand made during a Q&A, where she declared she owned no intellectual debt to anyone other than Aristotle). I don't cite sources on Rand when I consider them fairly uncontroversial. I've discussed on this blog a great many times Rand's views on human nature, and have even sometimes quoted the relevant sources. If you think something is amiss, simply inquire about the specific claim. I can't evaluate vague charges that don't cite examples. <br /><br /><i>this indicates that your starting point was probably a long-standing beef with Objectivism</i><br /><br />Either I'm right about Rand's theory of human nature or I'm not right. Speculation about my motives from someone who knows virtually nothing about me is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. It is a question of fact, not of personal motives.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3359615471980573642011-12-29T13:18:17.542-08:002011-12-29T13:18:17.542-08:00"Many Objectivists I know would phrase the pr..."Many Objectivists I know would phrase the problem like so: you face an alternative between defending your country, or living under a rule/regime/system which is much less favorable than what you have before the war."<br /><br />For a great number of internationally-deployed soldiers this alternative has not existed since, oh, at least WWII. Even 9/11 and the worst plans of terrorists are not a serious threat to the US regime/system. If anything, such acts only shore it up, causing people to put aside differences "for the common good". <br /><br />Another motive could be seen as a warped sort of altruism: revenge for the victims.<br /><br />"your ability to use subtle exaggerations and misrepresentations of Rand's ideas"<br /><br />If Greg is wrong for stating that "Rand thought X", aren't you equally as wrong to declare a misrepresentation, that "Rand did not think X"? Your own evidence, as presented here, is less compelling than his.CWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-52166501581527625882011-12-29T11:46:28.681-08:002011-12-29T11:46:28.681-08:00Greg wrote:
If a soldier dies in defending his co...Greg wrote:<br /><br /><i>If a soldier dies in defending his country, he has committed an act for the common good. He has, as Lincoln put it, gave his life so "that [the] nation might live." I realize that there are Rand apologists who insist that such acts are self-interested. But this strikes most people as mere casuistry. Since when is giving up one's life so that a "nation might live" a fully self-interested act? In any case, it's unlikely that you could persuade anyone to give up their life in battle solely on egoistic grounds. No general would tell his army that they don't have to make sacrifices, that on the contrary, they should only seek what's in their own self-interest and regard with horror anyone who talks about the common good. </i><br /><br /><br />KW wrote:<br /><br /><i>Let's look at the soldier in battle example. Many Objectivists I know would phrase the problem like so: you face an alternative between defending your country, or living under a rule/regime/system which is much less favorable than what you have before the war. Entering battle does not mean certain death, but does carry a significant risk to life. It is up to the individual to decide wether the benefits of winning the battle outweigh this risk. </i><br /><br />KW, the alternative Greg discussed was dying in order to further the lives of your fellow soldiers vs. preserving your life and allowing more likely multiple injuries and deaths to others. It was not about possibly rational calculations about whether to defend your country, which are different. What rational calculation do you make that makes such a decision to commit suicide while saving others <i>self-interested</i>? And is such a rational calculation really how an Objectivist thinks about it?<br /><br />Or do you simply think that dying to save fellow soldiers is an abominably altruistic act?Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65391226832956530612011-12-29T11:16:34.787-08:002011-12-29T11:16:34.787-08:00KW starts with:
I apologize for being snarky.
an...KW starts with:<br /><br /><i>I apologize for being snarky.</i><br /><br />and then moments later, writes:<br /><br /><i>Having now read the whole thing, it comes clear to me, in this post more than others I've read, your ability to use subtle exaggerations and misrepresentations of Rand's ideas to further your credo. </i><br /><br />Why apologize then if you're going to be snarky all over again?<br /><br />LajXtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.com