Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Her contribution, such as it was, was to offer an attractive-sounding, if simplistic, defense of capitalism.
Unfortunately, her vision of heroic individualist industrialists does not address the sort of corporate conglomerates we see all around us today. The individual moral rules she embodied in her characters does not translate well into a huge multi-national corporate environment.
As an economist, she was a pretty ham-fisted novelist.
In terms of her influence, I think the most telling example is the man whom she excommunicated from her circle of disciples: Alan Greenspan.
And is a function that adds to the primary rational self interests.
I should have added the appropriate qualifier to the clause, "regardless of what that interest is." That is, that the rights of others can't be violated in the course of pursuing those interests. In general, Rand holds that: "It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders."
" there's no particular reason to claim that "my interests" are the true measure of morality at all."
The foundation isn't the nature of the interests, it's the nature of man himself. He is an individual with certain characteristics. Since their is no rational reason, natural, or contrived, for anyone else to claim authority over that individual; there is no justification to initiate a forceful conquest of anyone elses sovereignty of will. That's the basis of the noninitiation principle.
" Thus, if non-initiation of force is to be accepted as absolute, the basis for making the claim must come from a source other than application of reason -- from God, for example.
The application of reason is the only way anything can be known to be true. Absolute, means it is real and unique; it has an objective reality. The source of the concept, or thing is irrelevant to whether it is subjective, or objective. The fact that the noninitiation principle is the only moral guiding principle that allows men to maintain their essential nature, when those men are contained in a community is a fundamental characteristic that leads to it's absolute nature.
"When you get right down to it, the problem is in the claims of absoluteness: they cannot be proved by this allegedly logical philosophy. And without such proof, the foundation of objectivism collapses.
The proof lies in examining the opposite principle and comparing it to the noninitiation principle. The opposite principle is any principle, simple, or complex, that allows for the initiation of force for some individual interest. If that principle is held as the guiding foundation in a moral code that governs the interaction of men, some men will be redefined and forced to take on an artificial essential nature. Their real nature though, will still be intact.
It's also true that the principles of Objectivism cannot be proved as absolute, contradicting objectivism's claims to the contrary. There's plenty of evidence to prove just the opposite, in fact.
Objectivists claim that philosophies that contain contradictions are wrong. Et tu, Ayn Rand.
No, "reading between the lines" means to step back from the text, ignore the fancy rhetoric, and look at the actual structure of what is being said for hints of irony, sarcasm, or dishonesty. It is a check to see if the facts of what is being said match up with the tone.
That is supposed to be objective.
Why is being a hedonist irrational if one is perfectly content in being one?
It's not irrational, so long as being a hedonist is in your rational self-interest (as opposed to whatever you think your self-interest might be)
What does that mean? Something is either proved or it is not. It can be proved true, or proved false, but to be proved absolute means nothing. Absolute what?
Also, the purpose of proof is not to convince others, but to insure one's own reason is correct. Truth is truth, even if no one else knows it.
Objectivists claim that philosophies that contain contradictions are wrong.
I have never read that claim in those words in anything Rand wrote, but, it is true that objectivism recognizes that no two contradictory statements can both be true.
You are implying a contradiction in objectivism. Care to name one?
By the way: Do you have a moral code? Do you have a philosophy? Can you prove them?
Hank
Evidence in nature, supporting the theory of evolution, for example.
Let's take one of Rand's biggies -- we can't sacrifice others to our own ends. By what logic can you prove that it's immoral to sacrifice others to my own ends? Evolutionary theory suggests that it can be just fine -- and we, as putative products of evolution, are subject to the same objective, "discoverable" rules as any other animal.
For example, if I'm a Pharaoh, who's to say that it's wrong to sacrice others to my own selfish ends? After all, it happens at all levels of nature, and has demonstrably good results for certain individuals who are, after all, "ends in themselves."
For objectivism to be valid, you have to prove that the Pharaoh is wrong, based on objective evidence. Knock yourself out.
At best, objectivist practice is merely one choice among many. Indeed, the arguments for it are often based on an alleged optimization of results. (Though the claims to optimality are themselves open to question.) But in that case, objectivism reduces to a merely relativist philosophy.
I believe he defended her during the split of the group. Also, he invited her to Ford's inauguration and he attended her funeral.
She had an influence upon rank-and-file millions through her book and the movie, "The Fountainhead".
I feel she was a little loopy, but do appreciate her efforts against socialistic trends in the 50's.
There are times that we can act believing at the moment that our actions are perfectly rational. It is when we look back that we see that they were quite irrational. We can also see in hindsight those who were hurt by those actions. There are flaws in objectivism just as there are flaws in all philosophies. Moral relativism being the greatest.
No one "decides" what is rational and what is not. Rational has a specific meaning, namely, that reason is mankinds only means to discovering and understanding truth. Rational means using reason as the means of determining what is true or false, or right and wrong.
I will assume you really do not know how "whatever a person is content with" is different from and not the same as "rational self-interest," and are sincere in your question. What someone is "content" with means what ever they "feel OK with," with is subjectivism, and not based on reason. Rational self-interest first discovers what kind of being one is, what is good for that kind of being, and then chooses that rationally understood good, even if one feels horrible about it. It puts reason above immediate pleasure (hedonism) and contentment (subjectivism).
No one decided this. It's what means.
Hank
.............................this thread's about sex, right?
So I'm not an end in myself after all. My self-interest is not absolute, but subject to the existence of others. So Ayn's got herself a bit of a problem.
What it suggests, then, is that rights are in some sense a "law of nature." But as we've already seen, observation of nature does not support Rand's claims to have discovered those rules.
The foundation isn't the nature of the interests, it's the nature of man himself. He is an individual with certain characteristics.
But in Rand's formulation, man would have to be a product of evolution -- the basis of which is the passing along of genes by whatever means, and "survival of the fittest," which in practice appears to favor the strong and/or the sneaky.
The source of the concept, or thing is irrelevant to whether it is subjective, or objective.
Objectivists claim that their ideas can be proved through application of reason alone. That is untrue. What are we to make of a philosophy whose fundamental claims are false?
The proof lies in examining the opposite principle and comparing it to the noninitiation principle. The opposite principle is any principle, simple, or complex, that allows for the initiation of force for some individual interest.
OK, I'll bite. The scientific evidence strongly suggests that biological evolution is a real phenomenon. As we can easily observe, one of the primary drivers in biological evolution is the initiation of force. Success in initiating force leads to better predators. Success in avoiding extinction at the hands of predators -- by a variety of methods -- leads to better prey. Note that the "goal" of this process is not so much the good of the individual, but instead passing along successful genes to subsequent generations -- the good of the species, in other words.
If we were to follow Rand's recommendation, we would have to conclude that man's highest moral goal would be some version of Social Darwinism.
If that principle is held as the guiding foundation in a moral code that governs the interaction of men, some men will be redefined and forced to take on an artificial essential nature. Their real nature though, will still be intact.
Well yes... but you've begged the question of what that essential nature is in the first place. In Rand's atheist conception we, as products of evolution, have no logical basis for setting ourselves above the evolutionary principles that guide the rest of nature. Yet that is precisely what objectivism does -- and it does so by violating its own basic premises.
IF we are say that man is set apart from the rest of nature, we cannot do it by applying reason to what we see around us. Our reason for doing so HAS to come from some other source.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.