tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post587674425033745885..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Ayn Rand & Epistemology 49Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35984831081278548542014-01-19T01:11:42.151-08:002014-01-19T01:11:42.151-08:00On the "affair with Branden" Rand destro...On the "affair with Branden" Rand destroyed him Nietzsche style. She imploded NBI. It cost her a fortune to do that in lost revenue and prestige. But she could not do other than her characters. I doubt that she wanted to and it was not in her self-interest to do it, but she did it. Greenspan should have become aware that the financial kings of Wall Street might also act against their self-interest and ruin their businesses if Rand had.He didn't get it.It was a magnificent act.seymourbloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843717286012748265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-39531197805303774982014-01-19T01:00:14.548-08:002014-01-19T01:00:14.548-08:00First, Greenspan was a success. He crashed the mar...First, Greenspan was a success. He crashed the market, and he crashed it by following Rand who was following Nietzsche. To get rid of something take it to excess. This is where Zizek goes off as he says that Rand over-identified with capitalism, but Zizek knows nothing of the long Rand/Nietzsche affair as he was the only master she ever had and she fought against him with fervor. But Rand was an example of the "unknown known" as she didn't know that the consequence of freeing the market as Greenspan did, that capitalism would separate from product and circulate without a referent. This is why Greenspan even late in the game said he preferred a return to the gold standard.Without it money floats. But oh she is such a genius. All her words even tho the rhymes were edited out of Atlas (as Burns says but maybe Heller)her prose follows Nietzsche in its music. seymourbloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843717286012748265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-13721668078780943042014-01-19T00:39:28.514-08:002014-01-19T00:39:28.514-08:00Without Nathaniel Branden's Objectivist Lectur...Without Nathaniel Branden's Objectivist Lectures I would never have been able to grasp Ayn Rand's thinking. What I was getting was Nietzsche through Rand without knowing it. That sense of idealization, of over-identifying with the best (Zizek's reading of Rand)drove me on to The Will to Know, the title of Foucault's first Lecture series at the College de France. (my mistake in another comment was titling it The Will To Power)Rand had that fantastic Will to Know and she got it from reading Nietzsche - not that it wasn't in her before that. Nietzsche did the same for Foucault. And Baudrillard. And Bataille. But without NBI I would never have begun and would have floundered never understanding what was really going on economically and politically.So I owe the Brandens big time as Barbara was the one who came to Philadelphia every Tuesday night for the 2 years I went there. The dogma does wire you up tight and constricts you.And not until I began reading post modern thinking did I get it. <br /><br />Greenspan was a disciple of hers.She did not pay enough attention to Nietzsche here on what he said about disciples to her chagrin. Greenspan followed Rand who was following Nietzsche and ushered in the era of the end of capitalism. By this I mean its jump into the speculative realm of circulating currencies attached to nothing of value whatever. Rand never meant this. Capitalism for her had a product;it was in a relation with its product.Money was not separate from the product. And since Greenspan it now is. Money floats, attached to nothing but other money currencies. That is not capitalism as Rand conceived it.<br /><br />seymourbloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843717286012748265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-67553435812037272712014-01-19T00:27:18.641-08:002014-01-19T00:27:18.641-08:00But if you read Rand's fiction you will learn ...But if you read Rand's fiction you will learn to think differently and much clearer. I have paid no attention to her non-fiction since 1962. Darren Wrede has written a post on my blog with an interesting take on Objectivism as a footnote to the philosophy of John Galt. Much as Borges made up long involved footnotes in his fiction and of course David Foster Wallace in his Infinite Jest where he has 150 pages of footnotes.Rand was just there ahead of all of them because of Nietzsche who is just now taking his rightful place in philosophy, so you will hear much more of Rand from these people who won't miss connecting those dots. Don DeLillo connected them in his novel Cosmopolis. Ayn Rand is a living breathing presence in it that is thrilling. seymourbloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843717286012748265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27098039895806983582014-01-17T20:09:51.079-08:002014-01-17T20:09:51.079-08:00http://randroidbelt.blogspot.com/?zx=3485402ae604e...http://randroidbelt.blogspot.com/?zx=3485402ae604ea58<br />"Around the Randroid Belt"<br /><br /><br />http://randroidbelt.blogspot.com/2012/06/dead-fish-rots-from-head-down-end-of.html<br />"A Dead Fish Rots from the Head Down: The End of Objectivist Epistemology"darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573318905727286251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2738694221084846352014-01-12T06:49:39.859-08:002014-01-12T06:49:39.859-08:00Full of hate and envy?
Perhaps you didn't see ...Full of hate and envy?<br />Perhaps you didn't see the praise and maybe some praise of great men like Pol Pot , Stalin, MaoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7775046339015635932013-12-14T20:43:34.041-08:002013-12-14T20:43:34.041-08:00
What a sad little blog this is. Full of hate and...<br />What a sad little blog this is. Full of hate and envy.Jim Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-58270880239297603172013-11-06T11:51:10.066-08:002013-11-06T11:51:10.066-08:00Precisely. The Official Objectivist Reality Detect...Precisely. The Official Objectivist Reality Detection System failed in the hands of its inventor and best operator; probably because the reality to be detected was somewhat more sophisticated than a table or a chair.<br /><br />Which is why the cultists must build Branden/s up to a Kantian level of ultra-evil - because only the ultimate reality fakers could fool the ultimate reality detector.<br /><br />This explains such otherwise inexplicable cultic items such as Valliant's "Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics". Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88723519515929227482013-11-02T06:26:13.191-07:002013-11-02T06:26:13.191-07:00ITOE didn't help Ayn Rand in the Branden affai...ITOE didn't help Ayn Rand in the Branden affair fiasco.Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-19799870715943668932013-10-31T16:55:41.947-07:002013-10-31T16:55:41.947-07:00"What Objectivist, other than Rand, has ever ..."What Objectivist, other than Rand, has ever done anything of any particular note in the world? What Objectivist has invented something important? Or made an important scientific breakthrough? Or written any work of philosophy or social thought that went beyond regurgitating Rand's ideas?"<br /><br />Apparently you mean to ask why hasn't anyone derived some kind of cognitive advantage from studying Rand's philosophy that he or she wouldn't have had otherwise. The fact that this apparently hasn't happened raises awkward questions about Rand's contributions. Rand's followers don't stand on the shoulders of a giantess named Ayn Rand; instead they stand in the shadow of a woman of average height who may have seemed a bit brighter than average, but not a genius by any means. <br /><br />In a way, Rand cultists engage in false advertising. I'd like to see a defensible "philosophy for living on earth," but Rand lacked the goods to deliver on that promise. And the absence of development in the intellectual revolution her followers claimed she started also raises questions about the Objectivist doctrine of progress in the competitive market. We tend to get better material products through competition, and certainly in consumer electronics; but no one has written an <i>Atlas Shrugged 2.0</i> better than the original to illustrate Rand's doctrine of progress.Mark Plusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86191402083635238882013-10-21T12:28:25.322-07:002013-10-21T12:28:25.322-07:00what a naive view of IQ measurement.what a naive view of IQ measurement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17084361901850619172013-10-20T12:04:39.338-07:002013-10-20T12:04:39.338-07:00Many years ago someone handed me a copy of Rand...<i> Many years ago someone handed me a copy of Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and said, "This will help you think better." That sounded kind of intriguing, so I gave it a try. The experiment proved a failure. ITOE did not improve my thinking; nor have I run across any evidence that ITOE has improved anyone else's thinking.</i><br /><br />That's a good point. Does anyone think that what's prevent B students from becoming A students is that they haven't read ITOE or have a bad theory of concept formation?<br /><br />Would the ARI waste money on a study to see what happens if average students are taught ITOE?<br /><br />One of the problems, it seems to me, is that Objectivists are unwilling to accept the large genetic component to intelligence that modern psychology is now universally agreed on.<br /><br />Rand said (if you can believe Mayhew) that you can raise your IQ from 100 to 130 (or something like that). That was wrong when Rand said it in the 70s, but there is no excuse for holding such a belief now.Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-32687825369229214432013-10-18T16:46:44.502-07:002013-10-18T16:46:44.502-07:00ECE & Anonymous, I know a guy who is 30 years ...ECE & Anonymous, I know a guy who is 30 years old and living in his parent's basement (literally). He thinks that reading the Logical Leap will increase the efficiency of his mind such that he'll finally be able to move upward in life.<br /><br />One data point may not make a trend, but that little piece of anecdotal evidence (and lots more like it) is still a valid observation. I've seen Objectivism shut off a lot of creativity.<br />Todhttp://todllc.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-30749428847439152852013-10-18T16:32:57.870-07:002013-10-18T16:32:57.870-07:00Lampert is known to hand out copies of Atlas Shrug...Lampert is known to hand out copies of Atlas Shrugged and he listed it as his favorite book on the company's failed social media site. It's fair to say he's influenced by Ayn Rand. If Wikipedia doesn't reflect that reality yet, that can easily be rectified.<br /><br />If someone connected to or inspired by Rand is a failure, like Greenspan or Lampert, then the movement will claim several things. He never really understood Objectivism. He was never really an Objectivist in the first place. He was just a misguided libertarian. Et cetera.<br /><br />According to ARIans, David Kelley is not an Objectivist for obvious reasons. You can live and breathe Ayn Rand but if you displease the orthodox crowd or make them look bad, you aren't an Objectivist and you aren't using Objectivist principles. How convenient. The philosophy is never wrong; if it causes havoc in your life, then you're the one who is mistaken. There's a famous cult that was started by another midcentury fiction writer that operates on the same principle.Todhttp://todllc.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47609280439611840442013-10-18T13:07:22.100-07:002013-10-18T13:07:22.100-07:00@Anonymous: Jimmy Wales invented wikipedia.
True....@Anonymous: <i>Jimmy Wales invented wikipedia.</i><br /><br />True. But how did ITOE influence his creation? Does Wikipedia demonstrate any of the principles of "proper" concept formation as outlined by Rand? Where is the definition by essentials, the attempt to validate knowledge claims by reducing to reality (as opposed to citing the authority of others)? Where, in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia's "five pillars,"</a> is there anything that was original to Rand?Echo Chamber Escapeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-62148444499311069652013-10-18T07:50:43.933-07:002013-10-18T07:50:43.933-07:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_influe...<i><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_influenced_by_Ayn_Rand</i><br /><br />The most important people on this list have merely been influenced by Rand's political and moral views. For some of the people on the list, like Hunter Thompson, that influence runs very thin. Outside of those with strong ties to ARI or the Atlas Society, it's unlikely that any of them were strongly influenced by ITOE -- indeed, most of them probably never even read it.<br /><br />The broader point is that people's thinking is rarely influenced, and never minutely directed, by epistemological speculations. ITOE may have provided a bit of cover for some of the bad habits of argumentation indulged by leading orthodox Objectivists like Peikoff and Harriman; but beyond that, the influence hardly goes. Most rank-and-file Objectivists either haven't read ITOE, or have never quite mastered it. It's a difficult book. It describes cognitive processes that hardly anyone actually experiences, which makes it difficult to identify with and evaluate. gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-43950522214287331322013-10-18T06:36:55.559-07:002013-10-18T06:36:55.559-07:00Tod merely shows his own incompetence and bias.
h...Tod merely shows his own incompetence and bias.<br /><br />http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/07/22/sears_less_atlas_shrugged_than_game_of_thrones_100494.html<br /><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_influenced_by_Ayn_Rand<br /><br />Lampert is not even on the list. Try Mark Cuban or John Mackey for your smears.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-91506751887404745852013-10-17T04:17:12.891-07:002013-10-17T04:17:12.891-07:00Jimmy Wales invented wikipedia.
Jimmy Wales invented wikipedia.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-10360874056130529992013-10-17T03:54:56.292-07:002013-10-17T03:54:56.292-07:00Lampert actually sounds more like a Rand influence...Lampert actually sounds more like a Rand influenced person than an objectivist. I don't think Rand was as obsessed with competition as Lampert. To her it was more an instrument for getting the best out of people.<br /><br />She was scornful of status seeking. That is definitely what she scorned as living through others.<br /><br />This is Lampert's caricature of libertarianis. Competition good! More competition better!Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2895768504728970072013-10-16T18:29:55.493-07:002013-10-16T18:29:55.493-07:00If only he'd read ITOE! His thinking would hav...If only he'd read ITOE! His thinking would have been so much more effective!<br />http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand_killed_sears_partner/Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45768227235401356542013-10-16T12:35:33.286-07:002013-10-16T12:35:33.286-07:00If anyone is interested you can read more about ho...If anyone is interested you can read more about how Lampert put Sears in a death spiral here: <br /><br />http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-eddie-lamperts-warring-divisions-model-adds-to-the-troublesTodhttp://todllc.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45885614697499583792013-10-16T12:30:57.260-07:002013-10-16T12:30:57.260-07:00Here's a perfect example of Objectivist failur...Here's a perfect example of Objectivist failure nobody mentioned: Eddie Lampert.<br /><br />He made billions as a hedge fund manager, then took over Kmart and merged it with Sears. He now operates the company internally on an Ayn Rand inspired "free market" model. The decline gets worse every year.<br /><br />I guess he made billions because he was so rational. Now he's losing billions. What's a more likely explanation of the decline -- that he suddenly lost his rationality in 2004 when all this started, or that his carefully reasoned plans have failed despite how logical they seemed?<br /><br />Super-rationality is not a guarantee of success. It does not make supermen. It is effective in limited areas in life, but not everywhere and always. Objectivism and Objectivist culture would have you believe otherwise, so it's legitimate to ask where all the Objectivist supermen are.<br /><br />More from Business Insider on Eddie Lampert:<br /><br />Lampert runs Sears like a hedge fund portfolio, with dozens of autonomous businesses competing for his attention and money. An outspoken advocate of free-market economics and fan of the novelist Ayn Rand, he created the model because he expected the invisible hand of the market to drive better results. If the company’s leaders were told to act selfishly, he argued, they would run their divisions in a rational manner, boosting overall performance.<br /><br />Instead, the divisions turned against each other—and Sears and Kmart, the overarching brands, suffered. Interviews with more than 40 former executives, many of whom sat at the highest levels of the company, paint a picture of a business that’s ravaged by infighting as its divisions battle over fewer resources. (Many declined to go on the record for a variety of reasons, including fear of angering Lampert.) Shaunak Dave, a former executive who left in 2012 and is now at sports marketing agency Revolution, says the model created a “warring tribes” culture. “If you were in a different business unit, we were in two competing companies,” he says. “Cooperation and collaboration aren’t there.”<br />Todhttp://todllc.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70230149282932926132013-10-15T09:52:48.081-07:002013-10-15T09:52:48.081-07:00"Confirms that any scorn you clowns get, you ..."Confirms that any scorn you clowns get, you get it because that's what you gave."<br /><br />That is, of course, factually false. This is just your bald assertion which you will never back up. It's a rationalization to justify your own nasty behavior. Your excuse.<br /><br />Prove it, in other words.<br /><br />"ignoring the Jimmy Wales example"<br /><br />Because A) you aren't really interested in discussion, so why bother? and B) at that time, it had been established that the point wasn't whether there were notable Objectivists, but whether Objectivism's supposed methods of thought forming and processing are what enabled the success of those people. Can you point to anything Jimmy Wales did and show how being an Objectivist made him any smarter or better than he would have been otherwise? Not really.<br /><br />"I'M NOT AN OBJECTIVST! I never said I was. I only said I'm an expert on it."<br /><br />If it walks like a duck... for "not being an Objectivist", you sure spend a lot of time defending it. Like you accused me, when there's a post that doesn't give a favorable impression of Objectivism, you "jump to its defense like a pitbull", salted with fake little "lol"s as if you actually laugh at anything. I guess this makes you a philosophy's sycophant instead of some person's sycophant.<br /><br />So even if you aren't an actual Objectivist, what's the difference? What does it matter? You're still just another troll trying to put down any criticism with insults and empty air, just like so many actual Objectivists.Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-21742389922429461532013-10-15T02:11:40.538-07:002013-10-15T02:11:40.538-07:00@Daniel Barnes
"Quantum Haecceitty - dimwit...@Daniel Barnes<br /><br /><br />"Quantum Haecceitty - dimwitted trolls"<br /><br />Thanks for the insult Daniel. I appreciate you giving more evidence of the royal (A)-hole you are. And speaking of dim-witted, spell my blog name correctly, boy.<br /><br />I also appreciate the tremendous level of garbage your last post entailed as far as ignoring the Jimmy Wales example, and the nasty vindictiveness and spite it showed.<br /><br />Confirms that any scorn you clowns get, you get it because that's what you gave. The "And as the final humiliation", was particularly remarkable in its malicious schadenfreude. <br /><br />I also want to say I appreciate that you, Burkowski, Parille, and Jzero, are really loyal sychophants. Greggy should be really proud of his little cult of sycophants here.<br /><br />Daniel reiterates and supports Greggy's spiteful crap like a good goose stepping sychophant. Parille's sycophancy extends to him trying to ameliorate his rebuking of Greggy's nastiness, so as to make sure it's known that he dare not disagree too much, if at all, with his hero. And anytime someone says something about Greggy that Jzero doesn't like, he jumps to his defense like a pitbull. LOL!<br /><br />Reminds me of what some people say about Rand and her followers or fans. LOL!<br /><br />As an added bonus to show how horrible you clowns are, while you're spewing all your childish stereotypes, it's quite embarrassing for you to come to know that I'M NOT AN OBJECTIVST! I never said I was. I only said I'm an expert on it.<br /><br />You look quite stupid right about now Danny-boy.QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-68318237604606330242013-10-14T18:56:30.281-07:002013-10-14T18:56:30.281-07:00Greg has an important point - the only point, when...Greg has an important point - the only point, when it comes down to it. <br /><br />It's worth reiterating: What, really, for all its talk of purpose and productivity, has Objectivism ever purposely produced?<br /><br />It's been 50 years since Atlas Shrugged, and the Objectivist movement has produced literally <i>nothing</i> of note. No science, no art, no literature, no music, no economics, no philosophy. Objectivism hasn't even made any progress in epistemology, its supposed strong suit. Its one feeble tract, forty years late, The Logical Leap, was an intellectual embarrassment that added nothing to the world but another Objectivist schism.<br /><br />What has Objectivism produced in that time? One 60s fad movement, long exploded. It's produced steady streams of Randroids. It's produced a never ending series of feuds and schisms. It's produced lots of internet forums and conferences, full of blab about how Objectivism will one day produce something. It's produced two, soon to be three movies, all so far resounding financial and artistic failures. It's produced two institutions, one of which is all but defunct and the other positively North Korean in its public persona. <br /><br />Compare that to say, Karl Marx. Das Kapital was hardly a multi-million selling potboiler like Atlas; yet 50 years of the publication of the final volume, half the earth was - much for the worse - under its philosophical dominion.<br /><br />And as the final humiliation, Objectivism's much vaunted New Intellectuals look, in reality, not like Howard Roark or John Galt but like Quantum Haecceitty - dimwitted trolls whose powers of reasoning are so weak they dare not put their own name alongside their arguments.<br />Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.com