Overlong, preachy and brilliant...Objectivists and Rational Thinkers all over the world celebrate one of their favorite books.

Quote :

" 'Atlas,' at last, on map By Robert Stacy McCain, Washington Times October 5, 2007 The famous question remains pertinent a half-century later: "Who is John Galt?" In 1957, Ayn Rand introduced a generation of readers to Galt, the reclusive engineer whose radical pro-capitalist stance brings a socialist government to its knees. Mixing romance, mystery, science fiction and philosophy, "Atlas Shrugged" has since fascinated millions with its epic tale of railroad heiress Dagny Taggart, who struggles against greedy union bosses, incompetent management and corrupt bureaucrats until her encounter with the refugees of "Galt's Gulch" enlightens her to the true nature of the "anti-life" forces that oppose the entrepreneurial spirit. The novel's 50th anniversary will be celebrated tomorrow at the Marriott Renaissance Hotel with a daylong conference culminating in a gala banquet featuring John Stossel of ABCNews, who says he was "stunned" when he read "Atlas Shrugged" at age 40. Rand "stunned me for how she could know things that had taken me 20 years of reporting to see," Mr.Stossel said. "I had already come to the conclusion that competition makes capitalism just. I discovered this as a consumer reporter. ... Competition protects consumers far better than regulation. "What I got from Ayn Rand was how she describes the chilling and creepy way regulators work." The golden anniversary of the novel comes at a time when Rand's fans are excited at the prospect of a major motion picture adaptation of "Atlas Shrugged," with Angelina Jolie announced for the starring role of Dagny Taggart. "It's as close as the book has ever come to being filmed," said Edward Hudgins, executive director of the Atlas Society, which is hosting tomorrow's event. Over the decades, repeated efforts to bring "Atlas Shrugged" to the screen have failed, Mr. Hudgins noted, but this project now has all the elements of a blockbuster — a studio (Lion's Gate), producers (Howard and Karen Baldwin, who produced an Oscar-winner, "Ray," the biography of singer Ray Charles), a director (Vadim Perlman, who directed "House of Sand and Fog"), a script (by Randall Wallace of "Braveheart" fame) and a marquee name in Miss Jolie. However, one question mark remains. "Who is John Galt? That is indeed the question," Mr. Hudgins said of speculation about who will portray the mysterious inventor who decides to "stop the motor of the world" by leading a strike against bureaucratic "looters." No leading man has yet been named for the film, although Hollywood gossip has centered on Miss Jolie's real-life leading man, Brad Pitt. While Miss Jolie is not known to share the libertarian views dramatized in the Rand novel, Mr. Hudgins says the story has an appeal that transcends politics. "First of all, I think that Angelina Jolie understands what an incredible role Dagny Taggart offers for any actress," he said. "She's an actress looking for a new challenge, and for her this is a great challenge. ... One of the messages of 'Atlas Shrugged' is to do what you love in life." While Rand's fans await the long-delayed film version of "Atlas Shrugged," the novel itself continues to exercise a powerful influence — a 1991 survey by the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Library of Congress ranked it second only to the Bible in terms of its effect on readers. Earlier this week, the paperback edition of "Atlas Shrugged" ranked No. 175 in sales at Amazon.com, putting it above many recent best-sellers. "This is a book that has sold millions of copies," Mr. Hudgins said. "It still sells in the hundreds of thousands each year." The novel is almost universally cited as an influence among leading free-market advocates, said Brian Doherty, author of "Radicals for Capitalism: A History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement." "Pretty much everyone who got active from the 1950s on has had an encounter with, and galvanizing by, Rand at the root of whatever they've gone on to accomplish in spreading ideas about free markets and free minds in academia or politics," said Mr. Doherty, a senior editor at Reason magazine. Yet the influence of "Atlas Shrugged" has not been fully acknowledged, Mr. Doherty said, in part because Rand and her novel "have been the object of so much hostility and mockery from the 'proper' thinkers of the world that it takes a Howard Roarkesque level of self-assurance" — a reference to the architect who is the hero of "The Fountainhead," Rand's first novel — "to talk about affection for, and inspiration from, Rand publicly." He adds that Rand's "famed hostility to what she considered any nonrationally chosen value, such as religion and fealty to the family, means that conservatives who share her commitment to economic and personal liberty also tend to avoid talking about her positively." Still, Rand's philosophy has many well-known admirers, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who was a personal friend of the Russian-born author before her death in 1982. Mr. Greenspan contributed an essay to Rand's 1966 collection, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." Another prominent admirer, Mr. Hudgins said, is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who "used to have his interns read 'The Fountainhead.' " Her influence extends to the halls of Congress, where Rand's admirers include Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, and Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Ed Royce, California Republicans. "Part of the reason why Rand has been so influential is that she presented her ideas in a novel," Mr. Hudgins said. "It's one thing to read a dry philosophical treatise. It's another thing to read an exciting story where those ideas are told through characters and action." "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071005/CULTURE/110050045/1015

10/8/2007 10:53:33 AM

Quote :

"It's one thing to read a dry philosophical treatise. It's another thing to read an exciting story where those ideas are told through characters and action dry novel."

10/8/2007 10:56:09 AM

Overlong, preachy and brilliantcompletely moronic.

10/8/2007 11:03:01 AM

[bioshock reference]

10/8/2007 11:22:31 AM

that's some bad hat harry

10/8/2007 12:20:53 PM

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/






my softcover copy has cover art that I can't seem to find a picture of online

I've found over 7 other covers with google

my (random house) reprint has a broken earth shadowed by blue, purple and yellow circles that make a face

oh well, my shit must be rare or something....

10/8/2007 5:45:47 PM

Quote :

"Overlong, preachy and brilliant"

Here's to another 50!

10/8/2007 11:37:20 PM

Quote :

"My Philosophy,in essence,is the concept of man as a heroic being,with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,with productive achievement as his noblest activity,and reason as his only absolute. -- Ayn Rand "

Who could argue with this?

10/8/2007 11:52:16 PM

compassionate people?

10/9/2007 12:27:20 AM

Anybody with anything other than a cursory knowledge of philosophy?

You might even think that Rand was on to something with such a statement, but how she got there was intellectually bankrupt.

Then again, Rand isn't about and never was about rational analysis, critical thinking, or actual philosophy. Rand is all about letting intellectually impoverished, selfish pricks feel rationally justified.

Rand's philosophy is like Mormonism. Its followers love the end results and could give a rat's ass how you got to it. The reason why Rand's shit is even worse than Mormonism is that it claims to be rational.

I don't understand how anybody with even a basic understanding of western philosophy could read her shit and agree with it.

10/9/2007 12:27:22 AM

I am an island

10/9/2007 8:28:39 AM

this book was garbage. And there was recently a topic in chit chat on this as well.

[Edited on October 9, 2007 at 8:36 AM. Reason : ]

10/9/2007 8:36:27 AM

Quote :

"compassionate people?"

Can you not both hold a desire to alleviate other's distress and also pursue your own happiness?

Rand: "I regard compassion as proper only towards those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty. If one feels compassion for the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers."

Quote :

"I don't understand how anybody with even a basic understanding of western philosophy could read her shit and agree with it."

You know, McD, I've met many people who have a terrific philosophy of life and have never cracked one book on Western Philosophy.

Quote :

"I am an island"

You might have to flesh out this criticism a bit more for me...not that Simon & Garfunkel didn't write some great tunes.

10/9/2007 11:27:49 AM

the book was boring, longer than it needed to be/overindulgence, and completely garbage. i had to write a report on it for a scholarship and i completely trashed it rather than lie and find ways to support the ideas like I was supposed to. needless to say i didnt get the scholarship

But I wasnt about to justify that worthless waste of a read.

10/9/2007 11:34:57 AM

Quote :

"famed hostility to what she considered any nonrationally chosen value, such as religion and fealty to the family"

nonrational?

perhaps this helps put it in perspective:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=saxX-Z6w3p4&mode=related&search=

10/9/2007 11:54:12 AM

Quote :

"Anybody with anything other than a cursory knowledge of philosophy? You might even think that Rand was on to something with such a statement, but how she got there was intellectually bankrupt. Then again, Rand isn't about and never was about rational analysis, critical thinking, or actual philosophy. Rand is all about letting intellectually impoverished, selfish pricks feel rationally justified. Rand's philosophy is like Mormonism. Its followers love the end results and could give a rat's ass how you got to it. The reason why Rand's shit is even worse than Mormonism is that it claims to be rational. I don't understand how anybody with even a basic understanding of western philosophy could read her shit and agree with it."

It is people like you that make these statements that are intellectually bankrupt.

Rand says that the purpose of one's life is to maximize their own happiness. People usually jump on this statement and rail against Rand. But people who usually do are the ones who never understood Rand or never read her at all.

She's not saying that you should do whatever the hell you want as long as it makes you happy. She's saying that striving to make yourself happy makes others happy and furthers society.

Most people have jobs. Most people don't go to their jobs for genuine, altruistic reasons. The person who served you Bojangles didn't do so to SERVE you... no, he served himself by earning a paycheck to pay for his children or to put gas in his car. But by acting selfishly (motivated by earning his paycheck) he provided a service for the community as a whole. The same could be said for policemen, engineers, bankers, etc. I'm not saying that people don't work to help others, but the real test for this is to ask those who say they are doing it for selfless reasons if they would put in the same hours at the same job for free.

That's what Rand is saying and she's perfectly right. Her philosophy is almost beautiful. It allows people to work for themselves and therefore work for society. It is not like communism which requires you to work for society only (and removes all incentive to advance, or put in the extra hours, or do more than your neighbor).

[Edited on October 9, 2007 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 9, 2007 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2007 12:15:30 PM

Quote :

"You know, McD, I've met many people who have a terrific philosophy of life and have never cracked one book on Western Philosophy."

If Rand had a terrific philosophy of life, then this statement might denote her. Unfortunately for her, she attempts to work herself into western tradition and rails against various parts of it (Kant in particular) without actually understanding any of it.

Quote :

"It is people like you that make these statements that are intellectually bankrupt. Rand says that the purpose of one's life is to maximize their own happiness. People usually jump on this statement and rail against Rand. But people who usually do are the ones who never understood Rand or never read her at all. She's not saying that you should do whatever the hell you want as long as it makes you happy. She's saying that striving to make yourself happy makes others happy and furthers society."

Look, the underpinnings of her entire system are awful. Have you read any Objectivist epistemology? It's utter garbage. If one of my students turned in a paper resembling her ideas I'd fail it for a lack of careful attention and critical analysis.

Quote :

"That's what Rand is saying and she's perfectly right. Her philosophy is almost beautiful. It allows people to work for themselves and therefore work for society. It is not like communism which requires you to work for society only (and removes all incentive to advance, or put in the extra hours, or do more than your neighbor)."

This isn't all that Rand's saying, and that's the problem. It's also why it can barely pass for philosophy. Sure, people should make themselves happy. They shouldn't fit themselves into a mold created for others. They shouldn't accept moral systems that aren't suited to them (especially when these moral systems are created by other types of men set on dominating/subjugating them). I agree with this -- but if you want a rational defense of it that approaches sound, read Nietzsche.

10/9/2007 1:30:18 PM

This is exactly what Rand is saying. I can see you've never read Atlas Shrugged, so let me offer you an abridged version:

Purchase The Virtue of Selfishness and read it. You can do it in one sitting. COme back to us once you have.




And if you failed one your students' papers for resembling one of the greatest capitalist philosophers of all tlime really underlines your bias. Just because you don't agree with her doesn't make her wrong.

[Edited on October 9, 2007 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2007 1:52:47 PM

Look -- I have no idea what to say to you. I've read Atlas Shrugged. You, on the other hand, have not properly read my posts.

You quite simply aren't reading carefully. Of course the position I outlined above is a lot of what Rand says -- she practically lifts it directly from Nietzsche (of whom she was a fan earlier in life, purportedly). The problem is in how she justifies her system, and the epistemological consequences of such a system (which are absolute garbage if you had even a modicum of a clue about this sort of stuff).

Another problem is in how she attacks and criticizes 19th century philosophy without a clue about its rational underpinnings. She thinks she can sidestep tradition and sound arguments by spewing vitriol. I disagree. She shows no compelling reasons to discard the boundaries set by Hume (and further elucidated by Kant).

Quote :

"And if you failed one your students' papers for resembling one of the greatest capitalist philosophers of all tlime really underlines your bias. Just because you don't agree with her doesn't make her wrong."

I really wonder why I'm wasting my time with a guy who can't read. I said I'd fail a paper that reasoned as poorly as any of her works. Notice I didn't raise any particular objections about some of the end propositions. Notice I didn't say I'd grade somebody poorly for disagreeing with me. Notice you didn't honestly read a word I said this entire thread.

10/9/2007 2:04:53 PM

50th anniversary of me shrugging off your terrible posting.



[Edited on October 9, 2007 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2007 2:17:35 PM

Quote :

"The problem is in how she justifies her system, and the epistemological consequences of such a system (which are absolute garbage if you had even a modicum of a clue about this sort of stuff). "

Can you elaborate on the epistemological consequences you speak of?

Quote :

"I disagree. She shows no compelling reasons to discard the boundaries set by Hume (and further elucidated by Kant). "

And the boundaries you're talking about here?

10/9/2007 2:57:36 PM

philosophy

LOL... get back to work, slacker

10/9/2007 3:29:53 PM

Quote :

"Can you elaborate on the epistemological consequences you speak of?"

The basic tenet of Objectivist epistemology is that we can, through a combination of sensory data and reason, have absolute knowledge of reality (Ding an sich -- the thing in itself). Is this obviously wrong yet or do I need to keep going?

Quote :

"And the boundaries you're talking about here?"

The boundaries of human experience -- she seems to think that we can come to absolute knowledge of our surroundings. Forget for the moment that she hasn't provided us with a definition of "knowledge" that works -- even if we had one, then how could we come to have it? Just performing operations of reason on our empirical facts is not enough -- she claims that sensory input is axiomatically-valid, but if this is true, how can our perceptions of the world be so patently false on a consistent basis?

Our views and concepts about the world aren't true in any strict sense. Simply because our views and concepts are necessary for our survival as a species proves nothing about their absolute truth. We describe the world around us in symbols that can be cashed out in sensory terms. To claim that these representations in any way capture ultimate reality seems willfully ignorant of the psychological facts involved. While we converge on useful calculations and models all the time, this doesn't suggest that the model itself is congruent to ultimate reality (even if it's certain and true enough to count as knowledge). Rather, it's a fact about the ordering of phenomena in our own experiences.

Let me put it this way to be utterly frank -- Rand doesn't have to be philosophically or factually precise at all in her analysis. There's a reason why there are barely any drawn-out objections to it as a school of philosophy -- nobody with an education in these things finds the underlying system worth considering. When it comes to the people that DO buy into her end-statements, these are precisely the people lacking the education to begin with -- so of course they won't notice the gaping holes and horrible misrepresentations her system draws.

There are plenty of ways to argue for the end-points she wishes to support. Objectivism is not a sound option, nor does it approach being sound -- it starts on an axiom that is blatantly false.

[Edited on October 9, 2007 at 6:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2007 6:51:22 PM

Oh shit, McDanger's back.

10/9/2007 8:56:06 PM

Quote :

"if you had even a modicum of a clue about this sort of stuff..."

I know you majored in philosophy and all, but surely the field is still too open to different interpretations to get overly condescending. Holding an undergraduate degree doesn't automatically make you right, does it? Is there room for other thought?

I realize that today's generally accepted Kantian approach is at opposite odds with Objectivism. Still it's OK with you if some of us find value in Rand's ideas..isn't it?

10/9/2007 9:05:50 PM

Once he sees how certain users have shit the section, he'll stay away.

10/9/2007 9:11:14 PM

Quote :

"I know you majored in philosophy and all, but surely the field is still too open to different interpretations to get overly condescending. Holding an undergraduate degree doesn't automatically make you right, does it? Is there room for other thought?"

What does this mean? Of course I could be wrong and there's room for other thought. If I am, then show me -- let the force of the better argument win. This is how philosophy works. (Not that it matters but I'm currently in graduate school for it, so it's not like I'm just a major anymore.)

Quote :

"I realize that today's generally accepted Kantian approach is at opposite odds with Objectivism. Still it's OK with you if some of us find value in Rand's ideas..isn't it?"

In fact Kant's approach isn't generally accepted today -- not even a little bit. Most contemporary analytic philosophers haven't even read him, and most discount him outright (even though Kant works within Hume's framework quite nicely, and many analytic philosophers love to associate with Hume). I disagree with this, but that's a topic for another discussion.

Of course it's okay if you find value in some of Rand's ideas -- but what is your line of reasoning to defend those views? If you can't give a valid line of reasoning, then how am I supposed to accept your claim that you're a rationalist?

10/9/2007 9:13:49 PM

Quote :

"Of course I could be wrong and there's room for other thought. If I am, then show me -- let the force of the better argument win. This is how philosophy works."

That sounds familiar

Quote :

"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit. -Ayn Rand"

[Edited on October 9, 2007 at 9:47 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2007 9:46:31 PM

Now what about her philosophical system leads you to believe that she took that advice to heart, seeing as how the majority of western tradition refuted her positions before she adopted them?

10/9/2007 9:54:41 PM

Excuse the ignorance, but what is the output of this intellectual (or is it only philosophical) struggle?

How does any of this work apply to my life?

How do I benefit from it?

10/9/2007 9:56:27 PM

What, philosophy in general or Rand's stuff?

10/9/2007 10:02:12 PM

Quote :

"When I disagree with a rational man, I let [my] reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn I'll kick him out of my cult and slander his name in the press; if I am wrong, I will ha ha hah. I'm never wrong, bitch. I'm Ayn Fucking Rand;"

and god damn, Atlas Shrugged was the most painfully narcissistic heap of masturbatory bullshit i ever had the displeasure to read.

10/9/2007 10:15:40 PM

I do disagree with Objectivism on some points also, but I think you are misframing her philosophy. Rand said that reality is mind-independent, thus objective, and that the only means we have to gain knowledge about that reality is through the use of the senses. To my knowledge she only has three axioms with 2 being a corollary of the first:

1) Axiom of Identity:

A is A.

2) Axiom of Subject:

I am aware of something.

3) Axiom of Object:

I am aware of something.


So this statement:

Quote :

"she claims that sensory input is axiomatically-valid"

is false.

She states that by the application of reason and sensory input while not violating the three axioms one can come to objective knowledge about the universe. This process is also not automatic and thus subject to error. For the record I do find her a tad glib at times but from what I understood of your post, it seemed you were slightly off.

10/9/2007 10:23:23 PM

Well she thinks we can learn the ultimate reality, the thing-in-itself, right? I was under the impression that Rand wanted all reasoning to bottom out in sensory terms at some point (such that there's no such thing as truly a priori reasoning).

10/9/2007 10:51:37 PM

Quote :

"the thing-in-itself"

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The only thing I can think of is that you might be confusing this with a part of her moral philosophy, that man is an end in himself, and needs no validation or sanction from an outside source. That is more of a comment on how she believes one should live.

This is where I believe a lot of philosophical purists hate Rand. In essence she says, we are here and we have these tools, how best can we use them? If for some reason our sensory information can't be used to obtain knowledge about an objective universe, if for some reason it behaves differently when we aren't looking, why is that relevant? She often called her philosophy "a philosophy for living on earth" so I can certainly appreciate why someone such as yourself grimaces when she skips some of the rigor needed for a complete philosophy.

As far as knowledge bottoming out in sensory information, she does hold that all beliefs, decisions, and indeed actions should be based on what you know about reality. Our interactions with reality must come to use through our senses and then using the process of reason (which to her is an
extremely black-boxed mechanism, one of the things I dislike) we integrate sensory input with our framework of reality. What she is trying to guard against here using emotions as a basis for knowledge, or being able to "intuit" reality via divine or mystical means, which is in no small part reactionary to her experience in USSR and religious conservatism of her time. Once again she is saying, "sensory input is the most rational means of knowledge, so lets use it".

[Edited on October 9, 2007 at 11:14 PM. Reason : Response to sensory question]

10/9/2007 11:03:23 PM

"Thing-in-itself" is philosophic jargon for the same thing Kant refers to as "noumenon" or "Ding an sich." It's the quotient of the universe that lies beyond human perception (what is behind what we perceive). Rand certainly has stuff to say about this -- she finds the notion that human reason be limited (unable to learn about noumenon) to be repulsive.

Quote :

"She often called her philosophy "a philosophy for living on earth" so I can certainly appreciate why someone such as yourself grimaces when she skips some of the rigor needed for a complete philosophy."

Not sure what you mean. I'm all about practical philosophy -- most of what I do is Bayesian epistemology and philosophy of science. It doesn't mean I think we should skip out on rigor, however -- especially when we call ourselves rationalists and philosophers. We should properly motivate and provide a rational foundation for our dealings.

10/9/2007 11:09:59 PM

I was agreeing with you. I can see why this would bother you.

10/9/2007 11:20:25 PM

Yeah but the reason why I want the justification is because of a practical-mindedness. If we don't have a good justification, it's easy to be wrong -- if we're wrong, it's practical to want to converge towards the truth.

You know -- about your post above there: it's not a good idea to base action on what we know. If we required certainty in our justifications for actions, we'd be inert.

10/9/2007 11:26:17 PM

Quote :

"You know -- about your post above there: it's not a good idea to base action on what we know. If we required certainty in our justifications for actions, we'd be inert."

I'm not a philosophy major but I believe the only things we know are axioms, so Rand would say we know 3 things. My error was one of semantics; I should have said "base our actions on concepts that are consistent with observable facts".

Quote :

"Yeah but the reason why I want the justification is because of a practical-mindedness. If we don't have a good justification, it's easy to be wrong -- if we're wrong, it's practical to want to converge towards the truth."

I agree with this also. Like I said earlier I myself am not an Objectivist; I was trying to correct a subtlety in your post I thought to be wrong. Many systems that "seem" to be good and are "practical" but are systemically flawed lead to disastrous results, most religions for example. I was trying to give a more thorough explanation of context in which her philosophy was written and didn't mean to get into a defense of O'ism.

I just remembered; She does define knowledge at some point, but only in a passing way. It is in her defense of volition (which is what I really don't like). I can't remember in what non-ficition book it was but she argues that the concept of knowledge presupposes volition and she digresses for a little bit to discuss knowledge. If I can remember where it is I'll point you to it.

10/9/2007 11:40:13 PM

i just had sex with your mother

10/10/2007 8:45:34 AM

Quote :

"I'm not a philosophy major but I believe the only things we know are axioms, so Rand would say we know 3 things. My error was one of semantics; I should have said "base our actions on concepts that are consistent with observable facts"."

I don't know if that's what Rand supports since she thinks we can reach ultimate knowledge of our surroundings. Since the word knowledge already entails certainty, I wonder what she means by "ultimate" -- I was always under the impression that she meant we could know "ultimate" reality in a metaphysical sense (what is traditionally thought to lay beyond our senses).

I don't agree that the only thing we can know are axioms for a few reasons.

One is that if we do know the axioms, then any entailments of those axioms should be known as well (as deductive inference preserves truth and certainty). This is how we know things in mathematics and logic, for instance.

The other is that we might not know the axioms in any way except a trivial sense -- the reason is because the axioms are only ever true because we suppose them to be true. Even in mathematics this is the case -- the axioms are supposed to be true, and are justified inductively (through our senses and experiences). Nobody questions them too hard because of the results they produce, but it could be that the axioms don't reflect anything in our world, or are false in some way (they're true of course in the sense that if I say "smargedl is smargedl" I'm saying something true -- although trivially true).

This of course ignores the fact that even if mathematical axioms were shown to be stuff we don't want to deal with, we could probably pick a different set of axioms and expand similar, if not the same mathematical truths (mathematicians and logicians play around doing this thing all the time). Anyway, you don't want to take the stance that all we can know are axioms -- either it means deductive reasoning doesn't work, or it means that we can only know things we define to be true.


Brief edit about knowledge: I can guarantee that her definition of knowledge is purely theory-internal without justification as to why non-objectivists should agree to it. I bet there are even a slew of theory-internal counterexamples to it (knowledge is too tricky to define other than normatively, and even that's difficult).

[Edited on October 10, 2007 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

10/10/2007 10:40:53 AM

Quote :

"Anybody with anything other than a cursory knowledge of philosophy?"

It's consistent with Kant's categorical imperative.

10/10/2007 4:08:44 PM

Why should we accept Kant's categorical imperative?

10/10/2007 11:19:15 PM

It's also consistent with the Golden Rule.

10/11/2007 10:18:53 AM

Rand is like the reader's digest version of Nietzsche, only he said it better and with about 20,000 less words.

10/15/2007 11:25:09 AM

i think that's the worst populist analogy i've ever heard

10/15/2007 11:46:29 AM

that's the worst analogy i've ever heard

and yes, i'll take Kant's categorical imperative for the win

10/15/2007 11:58:02 AM

That's a terrible analogy because it's inaccurate.

Nietszche stated "Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of the strange and weaker, suppression, severity, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and, at the least and mildest, exploitation."

Rands system of philosophy in no way advocates this.

10/15/2007 7:28:44 PM

Nietzsche is a perspectivist and Rand an objectivist. They're diametrically opposed.

Nietzsche went as far as to think belief is a necessary falsehood -- that we never get anything "right" in an objective sense. Even though our false beliefs are essential to our survival, that necessity does nothing to prove their veracity.

Something like that. Not at all like Rand. Besides, Nietzsche is a LOT harder to read and understand than Rand, so calling him the Reader's Digest version is fucking awful. You need to understand practically all of the early modern philosophers to even begin to get what Nietzsche is talking about (not to mention at least be familiar with the medievals, ancients, and of course, the Bible).

10/15/2007 11:06:56 PM

set em up ------------------------------------->

10/15/2007 11:11:21 PM