Skip to main content

Home/ Long Game/ Group items tagged objectivism

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
anonymous

A Convenient Untruth - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...convenient-untruth.html

objectivism criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 11 Dec 10 - Cached
  • The Ayn Rand Institute’s mission is not to further intellectual enquiry but instead to perpetuate the jejune cult of personality that surrounded the writer, and that Rand herself endorsed from its earliest beginnings.
  • With philosophy as the ultimate discipline, and Objectivism as the ultimate philosophy, its inventor could only be, therefore, the ultimate philosopher – and with all the intellectual, ethical, aesthetic and even sexual qualities that that entails
  • Faced with the inconvenient facts, delivered by an independent historian with no pre-existing agenda and whose evenhandedness is evident on every page, the Ayn Rand Institute and their fellow travelling True Believers' response has been to simply pretend it doesn’t exist: a state of denial Rand called a “blank out.”
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • This is really The Education of Ayn Rand; where the oddball immigrant, simmering with equal parts talent, ambition, and resentment, absorbs the basic political program she was to later do so much to promote.
  • beneath a superficially clear prose style in fact Rand was a confused and contradictory thinker, who had a garbled misunderstanding of the important philosophical problems she claimed to have solved and depended on her own obscure, pseudo-intellectual jargon – not to mention her sheer chutzpah - to conceal her lack of comprehension from both her followers and herself.
  • swathes of Rand’s unpublished writing and speeches have been stealthily rewritten to banish all uncertainties and contradictory thoughts, and keep the convenient untruth of Rand's immaculate conceptions alive.
  • First, they begin with the pro forma objection that the critic is "biased" against Rand, and “doesn’t understand Objectivism”, despite the fact that it is far from clear who, if anyone, actually does understand Rand’s rambling and ramshackle construction.
  • Second, True Believer Objectivists invoke what I’ve dubbed the Objectivist Double Standard.
  • The final True Believer tactic is to simply limn the piece in question for various Thought Crimes such as “determinism”, “pragmatism” or “subjectivism” - terms so conveniently vague that it’s possible to convict just about anyone.
  • From the central darkness of Planet Peikoff itself, only a few, faint, on-the-fritz radio signals have been detected.
  • anonymous on 11 Dec 10
     
    "Jennifer Burns' new biography, Ayn Rand: Goddess of the Market is a genuine event: the first independent, scholarly biography of one of the 20th century's most widely read novelists and thinkers, arriving right in the middle of her biggest revival in decades. Goddess has been acclaimed from the mainstream of Time magazine to the margins of Mises.org, and been plugged from the left of The Daily Show to the right of the Economist. But there's one place where it literally doesn't seem to exist: over at the organization Leonard Peikoff founded in 1985, three years after Rand's death, the Ayn Rand Institute. Searching their website turns up only some fine-print references to it in relation to the Ayn Rand Archives; officially the ARI has not even mentioned it, let alone promoted it."
anonymous

Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Rand and Empirical Responsibility 5 - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...re-not-tools-of-cognition.html

criticalthinking objectivism

shared by anonymous on 15 Dec 10 - Cached
  • Where is Rand's evidence for this view? Again, we have nothing -- merely her own say-so.
  • This, of course, is an argument ad hominem with no scientific standing whatsoever.
  • According to Sayegh, the conventional way of thinking about decision making is to banish emotion from its decisions entirely.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • The somatic marker hypothesis is a very relevant theory when discussing emotions in decision making. It states that bioregulatory signals such as feelings and emotions provide the principal guide for decisions where individuals, when dealing with a judgement, will assess the severity of the outcomes, their probability of occurrence and their emotional quality to provide their decision.
  • As mentioned earlier, there is an intimate connection between emotion and cognition in practical decision making.
  • If Objectivists wish their view of the role of emotions in cognition to be taken seriously, they need to (1) provide scientific evidence on behalf of their view, and (2) explain why the evidence supporting the Somatic Marker Hypothesis is not inconsistent with Rand's assertions about emotion.
  • anonymous on 15 Dec 10
     
    ""Emotions are not tools of cognition." Where is Rand's evidence for this view? Again, we have nothing -- merely her own say-so. In Objectivism, emotions are equated with mere "whims"; to allow one's judgment to be affected by emotions is tantamount to committing the horrible crime of "whim worshipping." This, of course, is an argument ad hominem with no scientific standing whatsoever."
anonymous

Who Makes The Randroids? Inside an ARI Weekend Workshop. - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...droids-inside-ari-weekend.html

objectivism criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 31 May 11 - Cached
  • A typical Objectivist assurance that rational debate is welcome and encouraged. So how did it measure up? Well, let's find out.
  • One, while arguing that abortion is permissible in the third trimester, added this classic Objectivist line to his argument: A is A. A is A entails that abortion is moral? Call the press! The pro-lifers have been officially refuted. And absolutely hilarious was the debate between a Randroid and an ideological anarchist (Editor: did the anarchist call the Randroid a "statist"?? They really hate that!). If only we had a dogmatic libertarian, we could have had the cultist right trifecta!
  • And another remarkable statement: Mr. Biddle told several students that morally we would be justified in overthrowing our government because it is more powerful than the one the Founders overthrew (he does not advocate it because it would be unpractical - but then what happened to Rand's claim that the moral is the practical?)
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • To be fair, I don't think that most students were as enamored of the book as he was, but still there was an air of fawning about the sessions. The professors helped guide the discussions but otherwise generally stayed out of the way. Interesting to note that the handful of times I criticized Objectivism or Atlas, they were sure to 'correct' me. Not brusquely or rudely, but nonetheless the message was that we were supposed to believe what Rand said (in the group think model, they would be the "mind guards").
  • Unfortunately, his topics were pretty standard fare for those well versed in libertarianism: communism is evil, the welfare state is pretty darn bad too, we need to go back to a commodity standard, and the Fed was the prime mover behind America's Great Recession.
  • So what is the net sum of this potpourri of ideas, quackery, and economics? Some good, I'm sure, but a dangerous potential for evil. I had been a libertarian and Objectivist fanatic for long enough to be familiar with most of the ideas presented in Clemson, but my roommate, who is new to the movement, said he learned a lot, so there's a good chance that many students picked up on a lot of radical right ideas. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
  • The trouble is that there were almost no caveats. Dr. Thomson's encouragement to free thinking aside, Rand's ideas were presented as the truth, without any warnings that they were controversial.
  • All too often, as Robert A. Heinlein once said, man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal. And what's been 'proved' with 'reason' usually turns out to be some arbitrary claim by Rand. As Dr. Eric Daniels said: "To understand political economy, you need to understand man". Sadly, man is perhaps what Objectivism understands the least.
  • anonymous on 31 May 11
     
    "Our ARCHNblog mole "Mr A" goes undercover at an Ayn Rand Institute weekend student workshop. Once a year, the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism hosts a free conference for college students on "The Moral Foundations of Capitalism" and the greatest book ever written in defense of it...oops, I forgot, Atlas Shrugged isn't primarily about capitalism, but hey, it STILL made the best defense of capitalism in the history of the world!"
anonymous

Can Objectivism Be Criticised? - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...objectivism-be-criticised.html

objecgtivism criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 04 May 11 - Cached
  • Most of Rand’s critics have probably read her key essays several times over, so if they don’t understand them maybe it’s because Rand isn’t as clear as her acolytes claim.
  • a number of stock objections
  • Theory of Concepts
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • Epistemology
  • Rand herself became irate when informed by Joan Blumenthal that the tree she thought she saw outside her hospital window was really an IV pole.
  • Ethics
  • Politics
  • Religion
  • Although Objectivists tell us how stunningly original Rand was, most of her ideas and even the way she defends them are quite similar to other thinkers and schools of philosophy.
  • “Objectivism is a version of empiricism.” As such it is subject to the standard criticisms of empiricism, in particular the difficulty of explaining necessity, mathematics and logic without the aid of a priori knowledge. Another example is Rand’s belief that man’s mind is tabula rasa, which makes it subject to various objections from evolutionary psychology.
  • If an Objectivist historian of science and an Objectivist physicist can’t get issues right in their own field whereas Leonard Peikoff (who has expertise in neither) can, what’s the hope for the rest of us?
  • anonymous on 04 May 11
     
    "Apparently not. Neil Parille plumbs the latest depths of Objectivist apparatchik stupidity so you don't have to."
anonymous

Objectivism & Politics, Part 57 - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...ectivism-politics-part-57.html

criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 06 Jul 10 - Cached
  • according to Rand, it is better to be consistent in a bad cause than inconsistent in a good one. This has it's basis in one of Rand's oddest prejudices—namely, that human beings are the mere pawns of the logical deductions of their most basic premises.
anonymous

Objectivism & "Metaphysics," Part 4 - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...tivism-metaphysics-part-4.html

philosophy criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 14 Aug 10 - Cached
  • Rand once claimed that, “ Nothing is self-evident except the material of sensory perception.” However, the Objectivist “axioms” are also regarded as self-evident, even though it is not clear in what sense axioms are “material of sensory perception” (or even what “material of sensory perception” is supposed to mean!). In dealing with the Objectivist metaphysics, “we must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.”
  • How is an axiom “self-evident”? What does this self-evidence rest on?
  • In other words, according to Rand, an axiom is true and self-evident because you cannot refute it without assuming its validity.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Positing a world from the data of sense can never be “self-evident.” The only thing that is “evident” to the self is the passing rush of datum across the mind’s sentience.
  • anonymous on 14 Aug 10
     
    "Central to the Objectivist metaphysics is the notion that there are certain premises or "axioms" that are "self-evident." This notion of self-evidence is at the very root of Rand's foundationalism and must be challenged before we go any further." By Greg Nyquist at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature on August 13, 2010.
anonymous

Our Daughter Isn't a Selfish Brat; Your Son Just Hasn't Read "Atlas Shrugged". - 0 views

www.mcsweeneys.net/...12hague.html

whimsy philosophy objectivism

shared by anonymous on 13 Aug 10 - Cached
  • When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, "Have a ball, peas [sic]?" And I'm sure you were very proud of him for using his manners. To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, "No! Looter!" right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him.
  • Since the day Johanna was born, we've worked to indoctrinate her into the truth of Objectivism. Every night we read to her from the illustrated, unabridged edition of Atlas Shrugged—glossing over all the hardcore sex parts, mind you, but dwelling pretty thoroughly on the stuff about being proud of what you've earned and not letting James Taggart-types bring you down. For a long time we were convinced that our efforts to free her mind were for naught, but recently, as we've started socializing her a little bit, we've been delighted to find that she is completely antipathetic to the concept of sharing. As parents, we couldn't have asked for a better daughter. That's why, when Johanna then began berating your son, accusing him of trying to coerce from her a moral sanction of his theft of the fruit of her labor, in as many words, I kind of egged her on. Even when Aiden started crying.
  • You should never feel guilty about your abilities. Including your ability to repeatedly peg a fellow toddler with your Elmo ball as he sobs for mercy.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • After all, we've managed to raise a bright, self-reliant girl who achieves her goals by means of incentive and ratiocination and never—or very rarely—through the corrupt syllogism of force. We know, despite what you and a number of other parents we've met have said—as they carried their whimpering little social parasites away—that Johanna's defiant, quasi-bellicose nature only superficially resembles that of an out-of-control toddler, and in truth posits her as more of a latter-day Dagny Taggart than any kind of enfant terrible.
  • anonymous on 13 Aug 10
     
    "When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, "Have a ball, peas [sic]?" And I'm sure you were very proud of him for using his manners. To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, "No! Looter!" right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him." By Eric Hague at McSweeney's Internet Tendency.
anonymous

Objectivism & "Metaphysics" (Part 1) - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...tivism-metaphysics-part-1.html

philosophy criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 27 Jul 10 - Cached
  • Metaphysics, in the proper sense of the word, is dialectical physics, or an attempt to determine matters of fact by means of logical or moral or rhetorical constructions.
  • Even when used to defend postulates that are basically sound, metaphysics remains, in the words of F. H. Bradley, “the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct.”
  • Karl Popper applied the word metaphysics to any claims or conjectures that are not empirically testable.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • I don’t choose to call my so-called “basic view” of the universe metaphysical. It is merely, as Santayana calls it, cosmology or natural philosophy.
  • Unlike Rand, I don’t believe these basic presuppositions can be defended or validated via axioms or logical argumentation. All these fundamental presuppositions may conceivably be illusory—that is to say, the arguments against them cannot be decisively refuted. They are presuppositions which nature has bred in us (probably via evolution) and which have proved their worth, not by logic, but through centuries of practice.
  • They neither require nor are amenable to logical justification.
  • The belief that all human contentions and presuppositions require explicit philosophical justification constitutes a false demand.
  • Rand’s foundationalism only serves to encourage rationalization, verbalism, essentialism, and other modes of empty speculation, and is often symptomatic of a dogmatic turn of mind that has trouble accepting the provisional and conjectural nature of knowledge.
  • anonymous on 27 Jul 10
     
    "Rand defined metaphysics as "the study of existence as such or, in Aristotle's words, of 'being qua being.'" Well, that sure narrows it down!" By Greg Nyquist at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature on July 26, 2010.
anonymous

Suicide Note - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...suicide-note.html

criticalthinking objectivism

shared by anonymous on 04 Oct 10 - Cached
  • What really drives this scandal is not philosophical error, but human nature. Human beings want status, deference, respect. That's what drives Peikoff; it's what drove Rand. Of course, according to their explicit philosophy, they're not supposed to care about these things. But since nature is nearly always stronger than principle (especially when nature is denied), these motives make their appearance stealthily, without Rand or Peikoff being any the wiser. Objectivism then becomes a method of rationalizing those very motives or propensities of human nature which the philosophy seeks to deny.
  • anonymous on 04 Oct 10
     
    "In a new, special edition of his Intellectual Activist newsletter, former Orthodox Objectivist and Ayn Rand Institute member Robert Tracinski claims the official movement is committing "suicide" with what he is calling "Anthemgate", and predicts a "long, ugly period of crisis". We've already touched on this burgeoning schism - see Neil Parille's excellent coverage here - and it looks to be gaining a real head of steam now." By Greg Nyquist at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature on October 1, 2010.
anonymous

A Randroid Review - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...randroid-review.html

objectivism criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 11 Dec 10 - Cached
  • First, they begin with the pro forma objection that the critic is "biased" against Rand, “doesn’t understand Objectivism”, doesn't respect ideas etc.
  • Invoke the Objectivist Double Standard.
  • Simply limn the piece in question for the hint of various Thought Crimes such as “determinism”, “pragmatism” or “subjectivism”, and then condemn the author's intellectual and moral standing due to their allegedly underlying commitment to one or all of the above.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Garnish each review with standardised ARI talking points about Rand's millennial intellectual and moral qualities and achievements
  • anonymous on 11 Dec 10
     
    "Edwin A. Locke is a professor of organisational psychology, with a large number of articles and books to his credit over a lengthy career. He is also, judging from his recent comments on Jennifer Burns' "Ayn Rand: Goddess of the Market", a fully spec'd, boilerplated, T-1000 series Randroid." By Greg Nyquist at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature on December 10, 2010.
anonymous

Objectivism & Politics, Part 50 - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...ectivism-politics-part-50.html

criticalthinking politics tradition

shared by anonymous on 05 May 10 - Cached
  • Rand is unique in that she tried to justify capitalism and freedom using the same sort of rationalistic assumptions accepted by the Old Left. She insisted, just like so many of the so-called “scientific” socialists and progressives of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, that everything in the political and moral realms had to be explicity justified on the basis of “reason.” But whether used to provide the rationalistic justification of socialism, capitalism, or any other ism that a febrile imagination can dream up, all such rationalisms amount to the same thing: incapacity in the face of the complexities of the human condition.
  • Reverence for tradition is, for the intelligent, non-ideological conservative, merely a tool used to compliment less tacit forms of knowledge, such as science and individual experience.
  • Traditional usages often have proven their worth over time, and should not be tossed out merely become some rationalist fails to explain it by “reason.” The conservative proceeds cautiously when reforming a tradition, because he knows, from long experience, how easy it is to make things worse, and that when faced with any daunting complexity, sheer trial and error is often a far better guide than the so-called “reason” of conceited intellectuals.
  • anonymous on 05 May 10
     
    By Greg Nyquist at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature on May 4, 2010.
anonymous

Rand and Empirical Responsibility 6 - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...mpirical-responsibility-6.html

objectivism criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 21 Dec 10 - Cached
  • Rand's view is that the conscious mind serves as a kind of gate keeper for what gets into the unconscious mind.
  • the unconscious mind figures out which decks are bad before this awareness reaches the conscious mind. These findings are consistent with a large body of experimental research (see Timothy Wilson's Strangers to Ourselves).
  • The phrase "programmed by chance" means something along the lines of: not sufficiently focused.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • according to Objectivism, the ultimate choice is to focus or not.
  • Did Rand provide any evidence for this view? Nope. Nor did she explain why she believed it. Then what reason can any rational person have for believing it? None whatever.
  • The conscious not only processes knowledge, but makes decisions and organizes memory.
  • The relevant evidence (see the above mentioned Strangers to Ourselves) strongly suggests that the conscious mind neither is nor could be in control all the time.
  • Since most of one's "inner states" lie below the threshhold of consciousness, they cannot be introspected.
  • anonymous on 21 Dec 10
     
    "The conscious mind "programs" the subconscious mind. Rand's view is that the conscious mind serves as a kind of gate keeper for what gets into the unconscious mind. Again, we are faced with the question: How did she know this to be true? Where is her evidence? Is this merely a speculative conjecture? If so, why doesn't Rand make this clear?" By Greg Nyquist at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature on December 21, 2010.
anonymous

Rand and Empirical Responsibility 12 - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...pirical-responsibility-12.html

criticalthinking objectivism

shared by anonymous on 03 Feb 11 - Cached
  • Rand was always mistrustful of anything that smacked of "just knowing." She shared the rationalist's contempt for non-explicated knowledge.
  • In the first place, hardly anyone outside of Objectivism regards Rand's view of Kant as fair or accurate.
  • anonymous on 03 Feb 11
     
    ""The process of forming a concept is not complete until its constituent units have been integrated into a single mental unit by means of a specific word." This assertion reflects Rand's bias against tacit knowledge."
anonymous

Rand & Aesthetics 20 - 2 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...rand-aesthetics-20.html

objectivism criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 13 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • It is like a moment of rest, a moment to gain fuel to move farther. Art gives him that fuel; the pleasure of contemplating the objectified reality of one’s own sense of life is the pleasure of feeling what it would be like to live in one’s ideal world.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 13 Jul 11
       
      Quote by Rand
  • I suspect that this statement explains more about Rand's aesthetics than any of Rand's specific theories about art.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 13 Jul 11
       
      Which is at the heart of what passes for her methodology.
  • Now while anyone may have as narrow (or as wide) aesthetic tastes as they please, in a philosopher of aesthetics, such prejudices are deeply problematic. How can a philosopher provide insights on aesthetics applicable to all (or at least most) individuals when their tastes are so confined within the narrow bounds of their own narcissistic agendas?
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Don Quixote is a malevolent universe attack on all values as such. It belongs in the same class with two other books, which together make up the three books I hate most: Don Quixote, Anna Karenina, and Madame Bovary.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 13 Jul 11
       
      A general rule of thumb: Any books Ayn Rand hates are very likely classics worthy of your attention.
    • Erik Hanson
      Erik Hanson on 14 Jul 11
       
      Where is the "like" button on that note?
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 14 Jul 11
       
      Hah. Thanks. I know my Rand-bashing is probably old to some of my peeps. I try to keep most off the radar, but as a recovered Objectivist, this is all very cathartic.
  • And by implication, anyone who admires and enjoys these three novels is also evil. Rand was not content merely to state her own likes and dislikes, however narrow and prejudiced these might have been; but she also had to attack and disparage those whose tastes differed from her own.
  • In going through Rand's aesthetic judgments, one can't help noticing how often Rand conflates her personal tastes with objective truth
  • Her "Objectivist" philosophy is really the most subjective of philosophies. It's all about her: her tastes, her emotions, her wants, her needs, all writ large in platonic letters across the heavens.
  • The standard of truth and morality in Objectivism is not "reason" or logic or fact; it is Ayn Rand herself. What Rand said is true is true, despite what all the great thinkers and scientists said before her. What Ayn Rand said is good or evil is good or evil, regardless of whatever natural needs may exist elsewhere in the universe. This explains, perhaps more than anything else, why Objectivsm so quickly degenerated into an Ayn Rand personality cult.
  • Rand claim to found her philosophy on the axiom existence exists; but it is really founded on the (implicit) axiom that equates Rand's thoughts and judgments with objective truth.
  • anonymous on 13 Jul 11
     
    Succinct, scathing, and a hell of a read. It's Ayn Rand as the brooding teenager figuring the universe out via scribbling passionate post-its and arranging them on a corkboard. She had it all figured out... It begins: Art as "fuel." For Rand, one of the primary objectives of art was to serve as a kind of spiritual sustenance or "fuel"
anonymous

What I Think About Atlas Shrugged - 0 views

whatever.scalzi.com/...t-i-think-about-atlas-shrugged

objectivism

shared by anonymous on 05 Oct 10 - Cached
  • That said, it’s a totally ridiculous book which can be summed up as Sociopathic idealized nerds collapse society because they don’t get enough hugs. (This is, incidentally, where you can start your popcorn munching.) Indeed, the enduring popularity of Atlas Shrugged lies in the fact that it is nerd revenge porn — if you’re an nerd of an engineering-ish stripe who remembers all too well being slammed into your locker by a bunch of football dickheads, then the idea that people like you could make all those dickheads suffer by “going Galt” has a direct line to the pleasure centers of your brain. I’ll show you! the nerds imagine themselves crying. I’ll show you all! And then they disappear into a crevasse that Google Maps will not show because the Google people are our kind of people, and a year later they come out and everyone who was ever mean to them will have starved. Then these nerds can begin again, presumably with the help of robots, because any child in the post-Atlas Shrugged world who can’t figure out how to run a smelter within ten minutes of being pushed through the birth canal will be left out for the coyotes. Which if nothing else solves the problem of day care.
  • Yes, he’s a genocidal prick with excellent engineering skills. Good for him. He’s still a genocidal prick. Indeed, if John Galt were portrayed as an intelligent cup of yogurt rather than poured into human form, this would be obvious. Oh my god, that cup of yogurt wants to kill most of humanity to make a philosophical point! Somebody eat him quick! And that would be that.
  • In a similiar vein Rand seemed to think that all rational thought led to the same conclusion. This is on its face false and simplistic. Scientists can looks at the same data results and draw different conclusions. How do they resolve this difference? They do further experiments, they challenge currently held assumptions that were themselves the result of a rational thought process. Rationality and empiricism inherantly encourage doubt and self examination. I didn’t see any of this in the “converted” Atlases. Once Galt had his claws (or fangs if you prefer) in them they were zombiefied. No an objection raised to the deaths of millions (that could have been prevented), not a doubt uttered as to their own righteousness, not a single second thought about what they were doing. There’s a term for that: cult. We in the real world tend to frown upon such organizations but Rand holds them up of having discovered the one eternal Truth. As Patton once said, “If everyone is thinking alike than no one is thinking.”
  • anonymous on 05 Oct 10
     
    "That said, it's a totally ridiculous book which can be summed up as Sociopathic idealized nerds collapse society because they don't get enough hugs. (This is, incidentally, where you can start your popcorn munching.) Indeed, the enduring popularity of Atlas Shrugged lies in the fact that it is nerd revenge porn - if you're an nerd of an engineering-ish stripe who remembers all too well being slammed into your locker by a bunch of football dickheads, then the idea that people like you could make all those dickheads suffer by "going Galt" has a direct line to the pleasure centers of your brain. I'll show you! the nerds imagine themselves crying. I'll show you all! And then they disappear into a crevasse that Google Maps will not show because the Google people are our kind of people, and a year later they come out and everyone who was ever mean to them will have starved. Then these nerds can begin again, presumably with the help of robots, because any child in the post-Atlas Shrugged world who can't figure out how to run a smelter within ten minutes of being pushed through the birth canal will be left out for the coyotes. Which if nothing else solves the problem of day care." By John Scalzi at Whatever on October 5, 2010.
anonymous

Rand and Empirical Responsibility," Part 1 - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...rical-responsibility-part.html

objectivism criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 28 Nov 10 - Cached
  • Those who emphasize such things as factual evidence and peer reviewed scholarship are derided as “concrete bound” pragmatists and/or Kantian subjectivists.
  • Below is a list of thirty-one assertions made by Rand (and two by Peikoff) which are not supported by sufficient evidence:
  • Three warnings before we commence.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • First, many of these statements could be interpreted analytically, so that they become irrefutable.
  • All the statements listed above, if they are to be taken seriously as accurate descriptions of reality, must be empirically testable.
  • the indistinct terms in which many of Rand’s statements are couched.
  • Rand frequently makes use of vague words and expressions, which leave her ample opportunity to use ambiguity to equivocate to whatever conclusions she wishes.
  • If a philosopher doesn’t wish to be misunderstood, he should stop using vague terms. And nothing could be more to the purpose, if a philosopher wishes to be understood, then carefully framing his contentions in clear, distinct, empirically testable propositions.
  • the primary contention at issue in this series is not whether the thirty-one statements listed above are false (many of them are, but some of them may have an element of truth in them), but that Rand fails to provide sufficient evidence for them.
  • anonymous on 28 Nov 10
     
    "What is the biggest problem with Ayn Rand? A fairly convincing argument could be made that Rand's biggest problem was her lack of empirical responsibility. " By Greg Nyquist at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature on November 28, 2010.
anonymous

Rand and Empirical Responsibility 2 - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...mpirical-responsibility-2.html

objectivism criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 03 Dec 10 - Cached
  • "The use or misuse of his cognitive faculty determines a man’s choice of values, which determine his emotions and his character. It is in this sense that man is a being of self-made soul."
  • To describe this viewpoint as controversial greatly understates its tremendous reach. Were it true, it would mean that nearly every scientist in the biological and behavorial sciences, nearly every great poet, dramatist, and novelist, and all great statemen, generals, businessmen, etc. have been wrong; for nearly everyone who has ever studied, described, bargained with, dealt with, or commanded human beings has assumed that man is not a being of self-made soul, that his "soul" (or character) is a product of many factors, and that something called "human nature" most definitely exists and can be used to make generalizations concerning how human beings are likely to react to various incentives.
  • Rand's assertion that man is a being of self-made soul goes into the very teeth of this evidence.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Rand cites no scientific experiment, no article from a reputable scientific journal, no evidence from experimental psychology.
  • It's one of their philosophy's chief presuppositions. Without it, the whole structure becomes wobbly, and threatens to fall.
  • Take away Rand's extreme self-determinism, and the old rules apply once again. The conservative (or "Tragic") vision of human nature, dramatized by Sophocles and Shakespeare, limned by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, scientifically explicated by E.O. Wilson, Steven Pinker, and other scientists, is once more vindicated.
  • anonymous on 03 Dec 10
     
    "Man is a being of self-made soul. Rand explains this assertion as follows: "The use or misuse of his cognitive faculty determines a man's choice of values, which determine his emotions and his character. It is in this sense that man is a being of self-made soul." In other words, a man's "character and emotions" are determined by how he uses (or misuses) his consciousness. Under this view, a man is responsible not merely for how he behaves, but for his personality and emotions." By Greg Nyquist at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature
anonymous

Rand and Empirical Responsibility 3 - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...mpirical-responsibility-3.html

objectivism criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 10 Dec 10 - Cached
  • A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice.
  • Matters of fact simply cannot be determined in this way. No credible scientist would ever be taken seriously if he tried to establish some controversial matter of fact using the method Rand resorts to above.
  • Conclusion: Innate tendencies are impossible
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • If Rand and her followers want to be taken seriously on these points, they must (1) provide detailed evidence that there assertions are true; and (2) they must explain why the evidence provided on the opposite side of the issue by geneticists and evolutionary biologists is either irrelevant or false.
  • anonymous on 10 Dec 10
     
    "Human beings have no innate tendencies. Instead of providing evidence for this assertion, Rand and her followers merely provides a couple of arguments. Let's briefly examine the two arguments." By Greg Nyquist at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature on December 9, 2010.
anonymous

Rand and Empirical Responsibility 4 - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...mpirical-responsibility-4.html

criticalthinking objectivism

shared by anonymous on 13 Dec 10 - Cached
  • Rand, alas, never provided any evidence for this assertion. Her chief disciple, Leonard Peikoff, did provide the following:
  • There are at least two problems with this:
  • first, it's merely an anecdote and as such cannot be regarded as decisive on this issue; but even more critically, the anecdote doesn't establish what it claims.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • the real question is not whether emotions are inexplicable or whether thinking may influence emotions, it's whether emotions are entirely the product of thinking.
  • The idea that the emotions have to be programmed by the intellect, whereas the intellect can choose values independently of any help from the emotions, suggests a hierarchical relationship between intellect and emotion, and a unidirectional picture of moral and psychological development.
  • However, if infants and young children (not to mention animals) have emotions in a pre-conceptual form -- as they surely do -- then emotions cannot be entirely dependent on the intellect.
  • Some Objectivists have claimed that evidence on behalf of Rand's theory of emotions has been compiled on behalf of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT).
  • anonymous on 13 Dec 10
     
    ""Emotions are the result of your value judgments," Rand declared in her Playboy Interview; "they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong." How did Rand know this? Where is her evidence for this extraordinary assertion? Surely a theory so bold, so unconventional, so contrary to obvious facts commonly known should be supported with evidence strong enough to shift the balance of plausibility in its favor!" By Greg Nyquist at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature on December 13, 2010.
anonymous

Rand and Empirical Responsibility 10 - 0 views

aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/...pirical-responsibility-10.html

objectivism criticalthinking

shared by anonymous on 19 Jan 11 - Cached
  • aken literally, the statement is palpably false. For it suggests anyone who does in fact "live" must hold reason, purpose, and self-esteem as his ruling values. Do Objectivists really believe that? Probably not.
  • As a matter of fact, it is not true. Even worse, Rand was probably should have known it not to be true, since she read two writers who attacked (or ridiculed the pretensions of) "reason" and authority: namely, Friedrich Nietzsche and H. L. Mencken.
  • None of the traditional theories of concepts regards concepts as objective. Rand never made any serious attempt to demonstrate this assertion.
  • anonymous on 19 Jan 11
     
    ""To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason-Purpose-Self-esteem." It is not surprising that neither Rand nor any of her followers ever tried to provide evidence for this statement." By Greg Nyquist at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature on January 19, 2011
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 62 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page