Micdiddy wrote:hibiki wrote:Odd Future Wolf Gang wrote:I am curious bros.
Instead of just saying Rand's philosophy lacks DAT RIGOR, give me FIVE cogent reasons why Rand suck as a philosopher (not a Rand-fan, never read her).
1) Objectivism ignores the is/ought problem.
2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates
3) She attempts to give a reductive approach to a nuanced problem. (epistemology)
4) Even in an idealized world filled with supermen she seems to forget that some tasks do not require a higher class of individual.
5) Her contemporaries focused on such problems as how language affects our understanding of the world and how the absurd is a necessary condition of the human experience. She instead focused on saying "A is A" through long-winded boring speeches by her characters.
1) How so?
2) No it doesn't. I am sure Ayn Rand would have no problem if someone told her primates showed altruistic tendencies. It wouldn't weaken her philosophy in the slightest.
3) And is she wrong? What's the problem of epistemology, and what's the answer?
4) I don't see this at all in her fiction or the some non-fiction I have read. She seems perfectly fine with many tasks involving any class of individuals, as long as they do not systematically leech off of others.
5) But you fail to recognize that she had to harp on this A=A thing because so many otherwise intelligent people seem to ignore it, and it's the basis of her entire philosophy. I cannot recall a single refutation of her beliefs that doesn't either consciously or unintentionally contradict A=A.
I've read her fiction and some non-fiction, and I have met many intelligent people who have a big problem with Ayn Rand and none of them have ever had a valid reason why. Furthermore, I have not met a single intelligent person who actually understood her ideas and still had a big problem with her. Evidence of this are the people calling her "selfish" and saying she was a conservative. Lots of otherwise intelligent people dismiss her out-of-hand because it's the fashionable thing to do and they don't like the surface of her philosophy.
Anyway, I guess I picked up the Rand apologist banner, flame on and we'll see where it goes.
Also, on is/ought
Ayn Rand wrote:In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.” and A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil. Yet he needs that knowledge in order to live. He is not exempt from the laws of reality, he is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life. He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see. Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.” Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. -- Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics, pg. 23"