tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post4026631040714370061..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Why Rand Never Lost an ArgumentDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24065963575110839832011-07-31T00:06:51.196-07:002011-07-31T00:06:51.196-07:00On the issue of libertarianism, I reprint here som...On the issue of libertarianism, I reprint here some notes I took on the Clemson conference's final faculty roundtable: "libertarianism is eclectic in its philosophy, superficial, floating abstraction, subjectivism"<br /><br />To be fair that's obviously just a parahrase of what was actually said but still I find it noteable that modern Objectivists still hold the same antagonism towards libertarianism Rand herself held (they even said once that Ron Paul wasn't "really" a libertarian! [appearently forgetting for a moment their antagonizism towards that word]. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal recentely about how Objectivism has never been able to form coalitians with its close allies (of course they didn't want to hear it). Gee I wonder why :)Jeffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13974315997961202562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17194810214747842512011-07-26T20:47:27.750-07:002011-07-26T20:47:27.750-07:00Neil,
It's pretty obvious that anyone who can...Neil,<br /><br />It's pretty obvious that anyone who can write a book like <i> Atlas Shrugged </i> is quite intelligent ("genius"). "Never losing an argument" is a different proposition altogether and points to the kind of explanation that Greg provided and the kind of doubts that Dragonfly and ECE have raised.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-20259555191972310052011-07-26T17:46:46.616-07:002011-07-26T17:46:46.616-07:00I too wonder which acolytes.
Remember, Nathaniel,...I too wonder which acolytes.<br /><br />Remember, Nathaniel, Barbara and others stayed with Rand for at least 18 years.<br /><br />I don't imagine they are going to say, "Rand won some and lost some."<br /><br />Rand's followers (even those who broke with her) have an interest in saying that she was a genius.<br /><br />That being said, there were smart people who found Rand something of a genius.Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-10124550833794496342011-07-26T15:44:41.590-07:002011-07-26T15:44:41.590-07:00What I wonder about is how these eyewitnesses defi...What I wonder about is how these eyewitnesses define "losing" an argument. If it requires the arguer to concede that her position is wrong -- or to admit that just maybe her opponent's position has some merit -- or to show doubt or weakening in her conviction -- then I could believe Rand never lost an argument. (Anyone here ever heard of Rand backing down?)<br /><br />But if losing an argument means failing to persuade the audience (or the opponent), then I think it's pretty clear that Rand lost a <i>lot</i> of arguments.Echo Chamber Escapeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-12041718160379789892011-07-26T14:45:01.490-07:002011-07-26T14:45:01.490-07:00Anyway, "eyewitnesses say...", what eyew...Anyway, "eyewitnesses say...", <i>what</i> eyewitnesses? Acolytes from the collective? To them Rand may have seemed to be an intimidating force with eyes that burned holes into them if they ever seemed to doubt anything she said. <br /><br />But that's not the impression I get from the videos I've seen of her. Even while the interviewers were no serious opponents and she'd screened the questions in advance, she looks rather shy and uncomfortable, mechanically delivering her standard lines as if she were reading them from one of her books. It still wasn't <i>her</i> setting and that seemed enough to make all that alleged brilliance and superiority disappear. Small wonder that she refused to debate serious and knowledgeable opponents.Dragonflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-67547447594017122582011-07-26T13:47:39.493-07:002011-07-26T13:47:39.493-07:00Bah objectivism, say it out loud and with enough u...Bah objectivism, say it out loud and with enough umphhh and it'll make any idiot look like a genius. That is it's one strength.<br /><br />Steven Johnston<br />UKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-78487026835045125222011-07-24T08:30:50.083-07:002011-07-24T08:30:50.083-07:00Wells,
I consider debate to be about persuasion, ...Wells,<br /><br />I consider debate to be about persuasion, which is not necessarily the same thing as truth seeking inquiry. With your focus on truth, I can see why our conclusions diverge.<br /><br />Rand may not have wanted to be considered a good bull shitter but she did want her view to win out because she hardly accepted the possibility she could be wrong. And with that as a starting point, winning the argument is the focus, not examining it for flaws. I can't recall a single example of critical introspection in her writing (not to be confused with her contrived internal conflicts). Internal conflicts show doubts and are not practically persuasive. You don't want to sound like you have doubts when the goal is to persuade unless you are dealing with experts who can assess risks themselves.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25274422740894749222011-07-23T19:46:39.388-07:002011-07-23T19:46:39.388-07:00Actually, I do believe it.
I am defining "Go...Actually, I do believe it.<br /><br />I am defining "Good debater" to mean someone who is able to take data, analyze said data for its veracity, choose the best data available, then propose novel conclusions that follow from that data. A "Good debater" will then be able to defend the conclusions against hostile actors regardless of how much time, intelligence, and research those actors have at their disposal.<br /><br />You have a point about a person not really needing to have good logic if they only need to fool some of the people some of the time. Being able to do that has utility that should not be ignored.<br />However, I was thinking it didn't apply to the situation of this particular thread. Ayn Rand probably didn't want to be considered a good bullshitter.<br /><br />For normal work is is usually not necessary to convince someone far smarter than yourself, who wants to refute you, and is willing to read what you write closely to look for the finest contradiction, and is also willing to spend infinite time in the library looking for just the right information to discredit you. <br /><br />Ayn Rand and her acolytes though are trying to refute the entire academic establishment (in Philosophy most definitely, in Physics as well from <i>The Logical Leap</i>). These are people who have high IQ and bundles of time on their hands. The ability to give a good speech and abuse critics counts for nothing in this arena. If they can't convince in writing then they can't hack it.Wellsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-29272854691785964602011-07-23T11:35:27.658-07:002011-07-23T11:35:27.658-07:00Really; if someone is not a good debater on paper,...<i>Really; if someone is not a good debater on paper, then they are not a good debater.<br />Everyone on Earth can make bullshit sound like wisdom. Only good thinkers can write things that stand up to being read, reread at their opponent's leisure, and fact-checked.</i><br /><br />Wells,<br /><br />Do you really believe this? So many practical issues are time sensitive and perception is often reality, so by the time people have fact checked, which is sometimes the same as revised history vs. truly fact-checking, the practical nature of the issue is often moot and the bad debater (by your standards) has already ridden victoriously with his spoils into the sunset (think of many politicians).Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-85980625467294190472011-07-22T22:15:25.117-07:002011-07-22T22:15:25.117-07:00Really; if someone is not a good debater on paper,...Really; if someone is not a good debater on paper, then they are not a good debater. <br />Everyone on Earth can make bullshit sound like wisdom. Only good thinkers can write things that stand up to being read, reread at their opponent's leisure, and fact-checked.Wellsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-33055738491189597902011-07-22T09:43:11.377-07:002011-07-22T09:43:11.377-07:00It sounds like Rand was pretty good at disagreemen...<i>It sounds like Rand was pretty good at disagreement and intimidation, not so adept at argument, and avoided actual debate. Is that a fair assessment?<br /></i><br /><br />Rand was not good at argument on paper. In her writings, he arguments are often rather poor, relying far too much on various ad hominem tactics and ex cathedra assertion. In person, however, she seems to have been a good arguer after a fashion; which is to say, although the actual quality of the arguments she was presenting were not very good, by her sheer will power and sense of convicion and the fact that everything she said <i>seemed</i> really well thought out, she would often carry the day. But I don't believe she would've stood a chance against any particularly well informed and intelligent debator, such as a WF Buckley or a Sidney Hook. Such individuals would've noticed immediately that she was taking far too much for granted and they would have pinned her down on that.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88355573767523311222011-07-21T07:35:26.254-07:002011-07-21T07:35:26.254-07:00This reminds me of the Monty Python "argument...This reminds me of the Monty Python "argument clinic" sketch. It sounds like Rand was pretty good at disagreement and intimidation, not so adept at argument, and avoided actual debate. Is that a fair assessment?Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-36944239498908323172011-07-20T07:27:57.444-07:002011-07-20T07:27:57.444-07:00Oops, sorry Greg!
Not "Daniel Barnes." ...Oops, sorry Greg!<br /><br />Not "Daniel Barnes." I followed a link here from one of his comments on another blog accidently wrote his name.Lee Kellyhttp://criticalrationalism.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-72470912194511910762011-07-20T07:24:29.477-07:002011-07-20T07:24:29.477-07:00People often recommended that I read Ayn Rand'...People often recommended that I read Ayn Rand's books; I never do. I have read a few articles by Rand and other Objectivists, but I have never been impressed. There are so many other things to read.<br /><br />Ayn Rand actually reminds me of Murray Rothbard. They seem to have had a similar effect on acolytes. I am unsurprised to learn from Neil that Rothbard found her "persuasive and magnetic." Rothbard clearly found <i>himself</i> persuasive and magnetic, and so it follows that he would feel the same about Rand.<br /><br />None of these comments come from partisan hostility. I am classical liberal in the Smith, Hayek, and Popper tradition. I actually agree with many of the political stances held by Rothbard and Rand; my problem is primarily that they make such very bad arguments for those positions.<br /><br />I also dislike the anti-rational strategies explained by Daniel Barnes.<br /><br />Great post, by the way.Lee Kellyhttp://criticalrationalism.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-38794358430400175282011-07-19T16:28:53.172-07:002011-07-19T16:28:53.172-07:00Greg,
1. The 2009 bios say that Rand refused to a...Greg,<br /><br />1. The 2009 bios say that Rand refused to appear on TV unless she was first told what the questions would be and also that no critics would be mentioned. This doesn't sound like a person convinced of the brilliance of her own arguments.<br /><br />2. Nonetheless, many people did find Rand persuasive and magnetic in her personality, such as Murray Rothbard who was no doubt better read than the typical Objectivist acolyte.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.com