Well it took me a while, but here's my primary complaints with Ayn Rand.

1) Philosophical

*Metaphysics - Rands approach to this subject is like her approach to most others, assume your conclusion to be true and argue from there. Reality exist and what man percieves is that reality. Period. What about the fact that we only percieve reality through our sensorary organs that can be fooled (ala Descartes)? Doesn't matter. she assumes that reality exists as we percieve it and that's all that matters.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_essentials

*Ethics - Similar problem here. Rand says "All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil", implying that it is morally good for man to continue "living".
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs4

How do we know this is good? Rand doesn't say. She only assumes that it is true. But how do we know that it is true? According to Rand's philosophy, the only way man can know any truth is through empriical observation. I would love to see her derive a moral truth from an observable physical reality.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs3

But the trouble with Rands ethics goes beyond ignoring the Is-Ought problem, it's also hard to derive a meaningful "objective" moral code that holds an individual's happiness (which is subjective) as the highest moral good. This is the exact same problem we run into with Utilitarianism.

So basically my main problem with her philosophy is that it is uninformative. All the big questions she simply assumes away.

2) Economics
In her essay "Inflation and Egaltarianism" in her book "Philosophy: Who Needs it?", she demonstrates that she has no clue about economics (despite her claims to the contrary). She scoffs at the idea that changes in the mere velocity of money could lead to shifts in aggregate output, and she confuses Keynes' concept of inadequate EFFECTIVE Aggregate Demand with simply WANTING more stuff. EC202 mistakes. The woman don't know shit folks.

3) Her Writing
Her characters are wooden talking heads trapped in her silly morality plays. Her major works are 400 pages too long and not worth the effort to read in retrospect.

4) Her Personality
She's just a bitch. She advocates free thought and indepence but kicks anyone out of her "collective" for doing those very things. She triumphs selfishness, but accuses Barabra Branden of "thinking only of herself" when Ayn is fucking her husband Nathaniel Branden.

Fucking Bitch.

5)She looks like a Bull Dyke..
Yep.

[Edited on October 24, 2005 at 2:29 PM. Reason : ``]

10/24/2005 2:28:41 PM

wow - can't believe I just read all that. And I agree with Socks``

I mostly hate her because she's taken up peoples valuable time with 1200 pages of mindless crap (i.e., Atlas Shrugged) that makes you wonder "why the fuck did I just read this?" At least Kafka's Metamorphosis (which is just as pointless) can be read in a single sitting.

10/24/2005 2:34:03 PM

I have come to see her philosophy as sort of a bloated mess of Aristotle and Nietzsche that doesnt really make a damn bit of sense, and that is why you end up with stuff like the first point in your post.

[Edited on October 24, 2005 at 2:40 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2005 2:38:36 PM

My main problem with her: she has a vagina. No woman can think at the level required to be a real philsopher.

10/24/2005 2:40:11 PM

Quote :

"I look upon the history of men, which I have learned from the books, and I wonder. It was a long story, and the spirit which moved it was the spirit of man's freedom. But what is freedom? Freedom from what? There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. That is freedom. This and nothing else."

Free of his brothers? To me, being "free from my brothers" would be sad, indeed. Man is a cultural species. Man can survive without other men, but would he really want to? We have a societal instinct for a reason - because evolutionarily, the only reason we survived was BECAUSE of our brothers. This is typical of Rand's views - she believes so highly in indivual freedom that she begins to go AGAINST what is a natural human tendency - the tendency to build communities with our fellow men, and to learn to live with them and for them.

The world in Anthem is, indeed, not a world in which I would enjoy living. However, it is a world that is an extreme version of the way I feel the world should be. Individuality does not die out when the good of the community becomes high on our list of priorities. Personal freedom and the ability to think individually are some of the greatest gifts given to mankind by nature... but the communal spirit that is inherent in man is equally great.

10/24/2005 2:57:19 PM

Good post in Rand. Taken with a large grain of salt she's OK, but there's definelty a cult of personality surrounding her. Took me awhile to get over Atlas Shrugged, but glad I slogged through it. Wouldn't do it again though.

Nietzsche with a vag is about right. He was batshit crazy with syphillis during his biggest writing phase too.

10/24/2005 3:21:41 PM

i won a $1000 scholarship my senior year of high school endorsing her viewpoints based on "atlas shrugged"...didn't believe a word i wrote, but eh...

10/24/2005 3:23:38 PM

Don't blame the playa

10/24/2005 3:26:26 PM

^^heh, I won a $1000 scholarship from a AFL-CIO member union.

Quote :

"Nietzsche with a vag is about right. He was batshit crazy with syphillis during his biggest writing phase too."

Well the funny thing is that the objectivists will absolutely reject Nietzsche's philosophy as false.

And also, I think anyone who goes about creating their own philosophy must by definition be batshit crazy.

10/24/2005 3:33:12 PM

i haven't read Atlas Shrugged but The Fountainhead is a really good book

[Edited on October 24, 2005 at 3:43 PM. Reason : need to learn my tenses]

10/24/2005 3:35:27 PM

Quote :

"At least Kafka's Metamorphosis (which is just as pointless) can be read in a single sitting."

ah but it isn't pointless

there is a definite theme of alienation with moments of shock and self-horror

10/24/2005 3:36:55 PM

definitely not pointless.

it's just hyperbolic as shit

10/24/2005 3:37:53 PM

interesting that Metamorphosis was the work chosen to represent Kafka

perhaps because its part of the high school curriculum?

10/24/2005 3:39:10 PM

i like The Trial

10/24/2005 3:40:07 PM

my favorite is In The Penal Colony... powerful shit


people should read more before they pass judgement

10/24/2005 3:42:10 PM

this cunt never got laid in her youth

and never got hugged as a child

10/24/2005 4:23:21 PM

...and consequently, never developed a philosophy significantly different than that of a child.

10/24/2005 4:40:26 PM

My view on Rand is that she got a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong. Her support of rationality and individualism is a breath of fresh air (to me) in a society that reveres mysticism and community focus. My major complaint against her is her assumptions about values. I should be self-interested and productivity should be the purpose of my life? Make me. I'll choose my goals and values. I don't care how objective you think things are. My second complaint is about how she mischaracterizes anyone that disagrees with her as an unhappy, unthinking zombie.

I finished Atlas Shrugged a few months ago. Did anyone else notice the top three minds in the country just happened to be the same age, went to the same college, and had dazzlingly gorgeous hair?

10/25/2005 1:36:31 AM

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=341681
ayn rand is a chotch

10/25/2005 11:09:15 AM

Quote :

"This is typical of Rand's views - she believes so highly in indivual freedom that she begins to go AGAINST what is a natural human tendency - the tendency to build communities with our fellow men, and to learn to live with them and for them."

Yes, that is natural for most people. But there are people like myself that do not enjoy social interaction and obligation nearly as much as most people. We do not like the idea of living for others.

10/26/2005 2:56:01 PM

Well, save us the trouble and jump off a bridge then.

10/26/2005 3:35:48 PM

The Fountainhead was all right. But from a literary standpoint, Ayn Rand sucks. Her characters are completely black-and-white and don't resemble real people, her plots are subordinate to her themes, all her novels are the same, and "Howard Roark laughed" is the worst first sentence I've ever read anywhere.

10/26/2005 4:06:34 PM

i disagree with her therefore she is a big doodoohead

10/26/2005 4:17:00 PM

You're all just jealous cause she has her own stamp.

10/27/2005 12:08:44 AM

Quote :

"Reality exist and what man percieves is that reality. Period. What about the fact that we only percieve reality through our sensorary organs that can be fooled (ala Descartes)? Doesn't matter."

No, it doesn't. This alternative is only "sound" because it annot be logically disproven. Primarily because logic in the strict sense probably doesn't apply to philosophical arguments at all.

A good test of a philosophical theory is whether one is willing to act on it. You argue a mild version of solipcism. It's all nice and dandy until you realize nobody who argued it, went to the roof and jumped off of it. I mean, what the hell? It's all perception anyway. Oh, that's right... "you simply didn't want to". Right...

Shut the fuck up. Everything you do is based on the assumption that the reality is exactly how you see it. Your childish exercises at "logic" are only impressive to those who have never taken mathematical logic.

10/27/2005 12:21:28 AM

^But Rand makes a lot of statements that she considers objective and part of reality that cant be derived just from perception (a moral code), she then provides virtually no reasoning and does assume everything away. This is, of course, after she talks about how reasoning is all important.

10/27/2005 12:52:48 AM

I addressed only one specific paragraph.

10/27/2005 12:55:33 AM

eh, I was basically clarifying that more for myself since I made a point earlier where I thought I was agreeing with Socks`` but upon closer inspection and your post, I realized I had misread that part and made a mistake.

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 1:02 AM. Reason : ]

10/27/2005 1:01:05 AM

Quote :

""There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals - one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking the law." Ayn Rand"

I may have even broken some law posting this quote.

10/27/2005 11:04:49 AM

Quote :

"Shut the fuck up. Everything you do is based on the assumption that the reality is exactly how you see it. Your childish exercises at "logic" are only impressive to those who have never taken mathematical logic. "

-MathFreak

Once again pretending you know something about anything, are you?

Allow me to explain why you and Rand are wrong and why I still believe that what we touch/see/feel is probably reality. You may even learn something

Your crucial error, as well as hers, is that you wish to use a deductive argument when it isn't proper to do so. Watch. Here's an example of what I would call the "naive realist" argument that you and Rand are making.

1. I see a Duck.
2. Everything I see is real.
3. Therefore, the duck is real.

This is a valid argument (meaning that no logical fallacies have been made and your reasoning is correct), but this argument is not SOUND (meaning that at least one of your premises is incorrect)!!

It isn't sound because your second premise is not correct. Clearly it is possible that not everything you see is a reality. You might be crazy. You might be in the Matrix. Simply seeing a duck does not entail that the Duck is real. Assuming away this problem is counter productive and uninformative.

So how do I still believe that the duck is probably real? INDUCTIVE reasoning. In an Inductive argument ones premises do not have top entail ones conclusions, they only have to support the probability of the conclusion. Seeing the duck is evidence that the duck really is there, and one could lay out a formal inductive argument to establish that it is probable that the duck you are seeing actually is a real duck. One could do the same for all of what we see and conclude that what we touch/see/feel is most likley reality. But if you're waiting for an air tight deductive argumennt "proving" the existence of reality, then keep waiting.

Chances are that since you were taking a math logic course you only dealt with deductive logic. And that's very cute, but before you go running your mouth you might want to actually try getting educated.

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 12:29 PM. Reason : ``]

11/1/2005 12:25:07 PM

*yawn*

Quote :

"Simply seeing a duck does not entail that the Duck is real. Assuming away this problem is counter productive and uninformative. "

I never said one must imply the other. I said, I could safely assume so because everybody does it, including you. BTW please to define productive.

Quote :

"So how do I still believe that the duck is probably real? INDUCTIVE reasoning. In an Inductive argument ones premises do not have top entail ones conclusions, they only have to support the probability of the conclusion. Seeing the duck is evidence that the duck really is there, and one could lay out a formal inductive argument to establish that it is probable that the duck you are seeing actually is a real duck."

Please to define probability/probable. Note to a stupid southern teenager without even a basic degree: you cannot define it in any way that would rely on learning the outside world, since what we are trying to establish is how the said learning actually works.

11/1/2005 12:35:40 PM

^ dude, you with much learning now sounds like a pissed off educated twat

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 6:24 PM. Reason : a]

11/1/2005 6:23:30 PM

Quote :

"I never said one must imply the other. I said, I could safely assume so because everybody does it, including you. BTW please to define productive."

And simply assuming something to be true isn't the same as it being really true, in fact it haults any attempt to learn the truth (why try to learn the truth of something you're already assuming to be true). That's what I mean by being counterproductive.

Simply assuming your pet conclusions to be true is not philosophy, it's intellectual laziness.

Once again,stick to intimidating undergrads.

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 7:01 PM. Reason : ``]

11/1/2005 6:39:15 PM

^^

I wouldn't know how an educated twat sounds. Personally, I'm not pissed the least bit. It's funny to watch the attention whore to talk about things he has no idea about. That's all. At his age I had a graduate degree. He's stil stuggling to get anything more than a high school diploma. Therefore his attempts to tell me what classes I should take are just laughable. What would I be pissed? Seriously.

^

*yaaaawn*

Quote :

"please to define productive"

Quote :

"Please to define probability/probable"

11/1/2005 7:58:51 PM

^ potato-chewer.

I think I answered your first question and you'll find the answer to your second question here under section two.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/

Plz come back when you have something interesting to add. Or atleast when you have a clue of what you're talking about.

PS* it might be interesting to note that Oleg's graduate degree was in Engineering. Obviously relevant to the subject at hand. Not saying you need to be a Philosophy major to discuss these topics, but if you want to argue from authority...AT LEAST HAVE SOME FUCKING AUTHORITY.

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 9:31 PM. Reason : how old do you think I am?]

11/1/2005 9:15:35 PM

OK, finally something to look at more substantial than a ton of acne mixed with a ton of arrogance...

Quote :

"Criterion of Adequacy (CoA): As evidence accumulates, the degree to which the collection of true evidence statements comes to support a hypothesis, as measured by the logic, should tend to indicate that false hypotheses are probably false and that true hypotheses are probably true."

How do you know the evidence accumulates? If the very process of observing the evidence is in question.

Quote :

"How old do you think I am?"

Intellectually? 9 year old. Give or take.

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ?]

11/1/2005 10:12:59 PM

mathfreak sounds more juvenile

11/1/2005 10:21:08 PM

Im not sure I understand the whole thing with inductive reasoning and sensory perception.

Descarte's point was that senses can be fooled so therefore we should never use inductive reasoning and only use the deductive form.

but how do you arrive at a general principle without ever having made an observation? Obviously God helps, but how else (maybe pure mathematics, I dont know)

Of course, Descartes was also able to use his logic to prove the existence of a benevolent god.

11/1/2005 10:59:02 PM

MathFreak,

And that's the REAL question of this debate. Once you realize that you can't make a deductive argument for the existence of external reality you are left trying to make an inductive argument, which requires that we define what we consider evidence.

The answer to what we can accept as evidence of reality depends on who you ask. If you asked Descrates, he would tell you that there is no evidence of external reality because we can't be 100% certain anything we see/feel/smell is real. If you asked Dr. Austin in NC States Philosophy department he would tell you that this criteria is too strong and that we should accept what our senses tell us as some imperfect perception of external reality based on a "leap of faith". This is similar to the view held by Kant and detested by Rand and it has strong implications not only in metaphysics but in other fields of inquiry such as the philosophy of science. I would personally agree with Austin, which is what I was alluding to earlier, but that's just me.

There isn't any perfect answer to your question, but it's the right one to be asking.

Maybe you actually did learn something. Maybe you learned that the tools of deductive reasoning you learned in your mathematical logic course are inappropriate for this question and that we can't simply assume everything we percieve is reality, and that a more thoughtful approach might bring us closer to the truth of the matter.

Probably not. I figure you're just asking questions hoping to stump me because you can't stand getting pwnt by a undergrad.

11/2/2005 11:49:40 AM

Quote :

"There isn't any perfect answer to your question"

Oh, so you don't even have an answer to the question what is evidence, yet you use this undefined notion to define other things. Nice.

P.S. I'm not really asking you anything. I have read you for a while to know you're just too stupid and fascinated with trivial shit to teach me anything. And no, I wouldn't mind learning something from anybody, undergrad or not.

11/2/2005 10:21:06 PM

huh?

[Edited on November 2, 2005 at 11:05 PM. Reason : reading comp-ruh-hen-shun ]

11/2/2005 11:04:48 PM

gfy

11/3/2005 12:48:30 AM

Excellent responce, prof.

So first you claimed that Descrates dream argument doesn't matter and that if I only had taken a "mathematical logic" course (i.e. a course in deductive logic) I would see flaw in my thinking.

When that failed you jumped on my inductive argument (which was irrelevant to your original complaint) and asked questions you didn't even cared to know the answer to.

When that failed you just told me to "Gfy".

Classic, prof. Classic.

Consider yourself pwnt and this convo over.
*insert Napoleon picture*

11/3/2005 11:54:09 AM

I think Socks needs reading comp-ruh-hen-shun remediation.

Metaphysics -

Quote :

"...what man perceives is that reality. Period. What about the fact that we only perceive reality through our sensorary[sic] organs that can be fooled...she assumes that reality exists as we perceive it and that's all that matters."

But the Objectivist website reads:

Quote :

"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears."

So reality has nothing to do with Man. What he perceives with those fallible sensory organs is irrelevant. Existence still exists. A is A no matter what a man perceives.

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 4:40 PM. Reason : a]

11/3/2005 4:38:11 PM

consider that a mis-filing. PLz to look under Epistemology.

Quote :

"Kant objects to the fact that man's mind has a nature. His theory is: identity—the essence of existence—invalidates consciousness. Or: a means of knowledge makes knowledge impossible. As Ayn Rand points out, this theory implies that "man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them." "

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs3

Quote :

"Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_essentials

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 5:29 PM. Reason : i knew that. I guess that's what you get for making threads in a hurry @ werk.]

11/3/2005 5:12:23 PM

http://www.americanwriters.org/writers/rand.asp

Click on the watch the program link. There is a 30 min interview with her.

11/9/2005 1:21:22 AM

you know the way her voice sounds, I would probably be terrified of her if she was my mother or grandmother.

11/9/2005 2:31:40 PM