What's the big deal about Ayn Rand?

[Ruppert9]

I recently listened to this video:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se0VmSaJDvc:560:315]

if Roy Childs' essay was read by Rand and she didn't change her stance (which as far as I know she remained a minarchist), why is everyone so into her? It seems she is not a philosopher ready to examine the foundations of her thinking, as much as someone who post-facto justifies a philosophy she developed as a child.

She might be a great writer, but as a philosopher isn't objectivism and her minarchist stance a testament she was not? What am I missing here?

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

I listened to the first 3:30 of Mr.Childs, and found three (might have been more) logical fallacies (need I listen to more...). First, you are "either for the state, or against it". Simple, either, or, fallacy! Second, "defined by YOU, YOU support"; Ad Hominem fallacy. What Rand is, or, isn't, as a person, makes no difference to the truth. Third, "identifying it's essentials": Straw Man, don't present the other's position, erroneously, and then proceed to attack it. I do not claim to be an apologist for Ms. Rand. But I find it odd that NO ONE has refuted her arguments. People have ALWAYS resorted to fallacious reasoning to attack her. Show me where Rand denies the possibility of NO STATE, or, the inevibility of a STATE. I would say she's very much against the state. (Pragmatism vs. Ideology) "Defined by YOU", is ridiculous. Very little of what Rand wrote was 'original'. She, merely, presented old ideas in a new framework.

In, fact, Ms. Rand was only absolutist on one point: you must use reason to justify EVERYTHING.

My suggestion is to actually READ Rand before succumbing to the irrational critiques that exist. (N.B. William F. Buckley, wherein, he disputes NONE of her argument; he, as most do, attacks her as a person. His ultimate criticism of "Atlas Shrugged": That it was boring!)

[Ruppert9]

I don't find your arguments compelling.It's an open letter so he is going to refer to her directly. The Either-or-fallacy seems to hold though since what would be the other position?

Childs refers to specific passages in her books in later parts of his essay, see here for the full text http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html

There's a rebuttal to Child's letter here http://stoshwolfen.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/response-to-roy-a-childs-open-letter-to-ayn-rand-1969/ but again it is weak. The author is a Constitution thumper.

 

 

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

First, allow me to try to retreat frommy normal, overly argumentative and highly confrontational, stance.

As to the original question: What's thebig deal about Ayn Rand?

1. She wrote about freedom in an age ofincreasing socialism. She did not write about freedom according toyour, or my, personal viewpoint. She wrote about freedom from aphilosophical stance. Was she right? Mostly. Should she be deified?No. Much of her writing can be reviewed as a backlash against thecommunist state. She did 'escape' from Russia soon after thecommunist takeover.

2. The 'novel', Atlas Shrugged(actually a forum to present her 'radical' views) predicted, overfifty years ago, EXACTLY what is occurring in today's society. To myknowledge, she is the only person, in ALL of human history, toaccurately predict anything. A reading of Nostradamus' quatrains willreveal that he did not PREDICT anything. His writings were soobscure, they could have applied to almost any event.(And I do subscribe to the notion that today's science-fiction istomorrow's science-fact.)

3.Anyone who writes aboutfreedom, until and unless a truly free society is created, will bevilified. Witness T. Roosevelt's comments about Thomas Paine.(Granted, Mr. Childs is a self-proclaimed anarchist, but what is hisreal motive in attacking a stout proponent of liberty, no mattertheir defects)

4.I hate to use this, but, Atlas Shruggedis the best-selling 'novel' of all time. I understand that the onlybook that has 'sold' more copies is the Bible. (Although why theBible is 'sold' is a different topic.)

Mr.Childs' 'letter' strikes me as an emotional plea. Ayn Rand is onrecord as having denounced 'libertarianism', and 'anarchism' inparticular. What I have digested from her critiques is that:she considers, theforegoing lack aphilosophical foundation; being more a form of political expediencyand backlash against the current state of affairs.(Imagine that, a proponentof backlash against the communist state adverse to the concept of nostate whatsoever!)Libertarians andanarchists tend to adore Rand, so, her condemnation must strike deep.After a complete reading, Mr. Childs' 'letter' is fallacious in itsentirety. Though I agree with most of his sentiment, his logic ispolluted. (In contrast, the 'so-called' Constitution thumper, merelypointed to the American republic as an example of 'limitedgovernment'.)

I,on the other hand, being a 'devout'atheist, and the most anarchistic imaginable, have little troublewith Rand's support, or non-support, for 'this, that, or the other'.Anarchy is not the most digestible of political theories. Even as Iwas reading Rand for the first time I was 'thinking' alonganarchistic lines. Why do"I" need any government at all?But, do I expect a complete reversal of political trends, or, am Iwilling to accept incremental change? Step one: Stop theroller-coaster. Step Two: Implement rational processes. Step Three: Bythis time, the rest will follow.

Inconclusion, until the next posting, I have no trouble taking the bestof what someone offers, while discounting the worst, as I see it. Ido not expect Aristotle to be 'PERFECT'. That does not mean that whathe had to say was wrong. His reasoning must be placed into correctcontext: 2350 years ago. Same with Rand,or any other who chooses to put their 'soul' on the line. It is, andhas always been, easier to criticize, than to create.

Rand,like Aristotle, attempted to put forth ideas that went against thecurrent fashion. Does this mean they were 'right'? Not necessarily;going against the grain is not proof of worthiness, only throughtime, and testing, can your ideas approach universal truth. And I didsay 'approach".

Welive in an age of fallacious attack, and it is NOT new. The wholeconcept of the two-party system allows for irrational argument:"Either you're for us, or, against us."

AsI said originally, read Rand. Then decide if the attacks arewarranted.

Ifyou decide, as an anarchist, that her ideas miss the point:Good for you.

Ifyou decide, based on the,falllacious, reasoningof another: Good luck with that.

 

"Ifyou choose not to decide

Youstill have made a choice."

-Rush, "Freewill"

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

...and she didn't change her stance (which as far as I know she remained a minarchist), why is everyone so into her?

 

Because really smart, insightful people can still make errors.

 

It seems she is not a philosopher ready to examine the foundations of her thinking, as much as someone who post-facto justifies a philosophy she developed as a child.

 

That would echo other criticisms of her. However to say she developed philosophy as a child and then claim she is not a philosopher is a self-detonating statement. If she developed philosophy as a child, then she was a philosopher.

 

She might be a great writer, but as a philosopher isn't objectivism and her minarchist stance a testament she was not? What am I missing here?

 

That great thinkers might not have a full understanding of their own premises. "Atlas Shrugged" is really about the rejection of unchosen obligation and deFOOing. Galt's Gulch is not only an anarchist society, but it's also a place where "anyone would consider it monstrous to present a child with a suggestion of the irrational."

Rand might have thought she was imagining a world with a constitution, but what she was imagining was a world without hegemonic power, even with children.

She is not the first thinker to misunderstand her own grand vision. 

[fingolfin]

 

 

In, fact, Ms. Rand was only absolutist on one point: you must use reason to justify EVERYTHING.

 

 

Which doesn't establish an absolute. This is at best an if/then definitional axiom, depending on how she defined reason and justification. Or even a tautology. (If you want to justify reasonably, then you must use reasonable justification; i.e. justification is the use of reasoning as applied in a certain way).

Reason isn't an absolute, since when humanity perishes, there will be no reasoning by them. Reason is a verb, a process that advanced humanoids do.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Can you say philosobabble?

Did I claim an absolute? NO.

What I wrote was "absolutist", being an adverb, a modifier of a "verb". As reason, a verb, is a process, so absolutist, an adverb, must refer to a process.

Is this forum really this nit-picky?

I would have hoped a forum dedicated to philosophy would not be full of fallacious flaming. Guess I was wrong...