This is a fascinating interview with Raynd, in the first part of the interview, in just a few words, demolishes liberalism.
Watch the first of three videos.
For the other two, go here:
http://www.rtfa.net/2009/02/17/ayn-rand-mike-wallace-interview-1959

Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1

Meh. You can have Rand. The mis-named "Objectivism" had a big burst of popularity when I was in high school and I didn't care for it then although I couldn't articulate "why". Now I can.

It's both overly simplistic and attempts to ape science in order to share science's cloak of credibility. But science gets its credibility the old fashioned way, by the ruthless pursuit of knowledge regardless of whose sacred cow gets gored. Objectivism, and Rand, try to sound coldly objective and uninfluenced by sentiment but there's no demonstration of the validity of Rand's ideas. It's just a philosophy like a million others which means at its best it's the intellectual equivalent of lifting weights - developing a flexible and muscular intellect via otherwise pointless exercise - and at it's worst, intellectual masturbation.

I think Objectivism is bad because it distracts from an understanding of human motivations based not on ideas pulled from various nether regions but from a hard-nosed observation of what we are. It presents a phony support for individual identity without explaining how it fits into very human propensities to bury ourselves in the collective.

Quote from: arpad on January 16, 2011, 12:23:46 PM


It's both overly simplistic and attempts to ape science in order to share science's cloak of credibility. But science gets its credibility the old fashioned way, by the ruthless pursuit of knowledge regardless of whose sacred cow gets gored. Objectivism, and Rand, try to sound coldly objective and uninfluenced by sentiment but there's no demonstration of the validity of Rand's ideas. It's just a philosophy like a million others which means at its best it's the intellectual equivalent of lifting weights - developing a flexible and muscular intellect via otherwise pointless exercise - and at it's worst, intellectual masturbation.

I have to disagree, I live it, therefore, it carries validity.

QuoteI think Objectivism is bad because it distracts from an understanding of human motivations based not on ideas pulled from various nether regions but from a hard-nosed observation of what we are. It presents a phony support for individual identity without explaining how it fits into very human propensities to bury ourselves in the collective.

Despite the understanding of the existence of truths independent of the mind or it's perception, it is human nature, and cannot be ignored, no matter how hard one tries.
Mans sole purpose in life is to exude/weild his own power, whether monetarily or physical, it is human nature. Sun Tzu put it more eloquently. ;)

Quote from: Solar on January 16, 2011, 12:40:17 PM
I have to disagree, I live it, therefore, it carries validity.

Just the sort of trite, meaningless formula beloved by philosophy professors the world over and eagerly seized upon as evidence of commitment and understanding by their students.

You sure you weren't born with a predisposition to some of the tenets of Objectivism so whatever "validity" you may believe Objectivism lays claim to results not from a thoughtful appreciation of the limitations and structure of human behavior but because that's the way you're built?

Quote
Despite the understanding of the existence of truths independent of the mind or it's perception, it is human nature, and cannot be ignored, no matter how hard one tries.
Mans sole purpose in life is to exude/weild his own power, whether monetarily or physical, it is human nature. Sun Tzu put it more eloquently. ;)

Who's trying to ignore human nature? Not me.

I'm just not willing to give any more credence to one philosopher then another. As far as I'm concerned they're all charlatans and Rand is no exception.

Providing the illusion of understanding without the reality. That's why philosophy's so popular. It gives its adherents the comforting belief that they understand deep concepts and hidden meanings. All with little effort other then soaking up the master's weighty thoughts. Sorry, not good enough. Understanding's not easily wrested from ignorance whether by the scientist who makes the initial, groundbreaking discovery or the students that follow. By contrast philosophers confer their enlightenment without the acolyte breaking an intellectual sweat.

Rand's dazzling insight is that it's OK to be selfish, to pursue your own ends without asking permission or feeling guilt. Gee, any four year-old understands that. They just can't write a thousand page book to make the idea seem exciting and novel.

If you want to know who really understood human nature take a look at the Constitution. It's a job of social engineering to which there is no comparison.

Imagine starting out with a pretty clean sheet of paper and building a brand new nation based on the unlikely ideas that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain, inalienable rights. There are historical antecedents and various writings but damn, how many people would ascribe to those ideas today? Probably no more then ascribed to them back then yet here we are, two hundred plus years later and while the document has certainly taken some knocks the nation built upon the document continues. That's where you'll find ideas about human nature worthy of consideration.

Quote from: arpad on January 16, 2011, 12:23:46 PM
Meh. You can have Rand. The mis-named "Objectivism" had a big burst of popularity when I was in high school and I didn't care for it then although I couldn't articulate "why". Now I can.

It's both overly simplistic and attempts to ape science in order to share science's cloak of credibility. But science gets its credibility the old fashioned way, by the ruthless pursuit of knowledge regardless of whose sacred cow gets gored. Objectivism, and Rand, try to sound coldly objective and uninfluenced by sentiment but there's no demonstration of the validity of Rand's ideas. It's just a philosophy like a million others which means at its best it's the intellectual equivalent of lifting weights - developing a flexible and muscular intellect via otherwise pointless exercise - and at it's worst, intellectual masturbation.

I think Objectivism is bad because it distracts from an understanding of human motivations based not on ideas pulled from various nether regions but from a hard-nosed observation of what we are. It presents a phony support for individual identity without explaining how it fits into very human propensities to bury ourselves in the collective.

As I have always understood Rand's philosophy, burying ourselves in the collective is not reality, but a movement towards slavery.  Caring and helping others is OK, but we have to be responsible for ourselves in order to even carry out any human functions or purpose, whatever those variably are.  It doesn't make sense to me that one would care for someone who doesn't care about themselves first (virtue).

Quote from: arpad on January 16, 2011, 09:18:30 PM
Just the sort of trite, meaningless formula beloved by philosophy professors the world over and eagerly seized upon as evidence of commitment and understanding by their students.

You sure you weren't born with a predisposition to some of the tenets of Objectivism so whatever "validity" you may believe Objectivism lays claim to results not from a thoughtful appreciation of the limitations and structure of human behavior but because that's the way you're built?
Who's trying to ignore human nature? Not me.

I'm just not willing to give any more credence to one philosopher then another. As far as I'm concerned they're all charlatans and Rand is no exception.

Providing the illusion of understanding without the reality. That's why philosophy's so popular. It gives its adherents the comforting belief that they understand deep concepts and hidden meanings. All with little effort other then soaking up the master's weighty thoughts. Sorry, not good enough. Understanding's not easily wrested from ignorance whether by the scientist who makes the initial, groundbreaking discovery or the students that follow. By contrast philosophers confer their enlightenment without the acolyte breaking an intellectual sweat.

Rand's dazzling insight is that it's OK to be selfish, to pursue your own ends without asking permission or feeling guilt. Gee, any four year-old understands that. They just can't write a thousand page book to make the idea seem exciting and novel.

If you want to know who really understood human nature take a look at the Constitution. It's a job of social engineering to which there is no comparison.

Imagine starting out with a pretty clean sheet of paper and building a brand new nation based on the unlikely ideas that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain, inalienable rights. There are historical antecedents and various writings but damn, how many people would ascribe to those ideas today? Probably no more then ascribed to them back then yet here we are, two hundred plus years later and while the document has certainly taken some knocks the nation built upon the document continues. That's where you'll find ideas about human nature worthy of consideration.

I'm not saying that Raynd is absolutely correct, but her ideas are closer to Conservatism than socialism, that was the point of my post.
Personally, I think she is correct when she says not everyone is deserving of our love (respect), people that think society owes them something, are not worthy of mine, or your respect, would you not agree?

Quote from: taxed on January 17, 2011, 08:53:05 AM
As I have always understood Rand's philosophy, burying ourselves in the collective is not reality, but a movement towards slavery.  Caring and helping others is OK, but we have to be responsible for ourselves in order to even carry out any human functions or purpose, whatever those variably are.  It doesn't make sense to me that one would care for someone who doesn't care about themselves first (virtue).

Good point Taxed, it is the individual that is responsible for their own actions, thats just the way life is.

Quote from: arpad on January 16, 2011, 12:23:46 PM
I think Objectivism is bad because it distracts from an understanding of human motivations based not on ideas pulled from various nether regions but from a hard-nosed observation of what we are. It presents a phony support for individual identity without explaining how it fits into very human propensities to bury ourselves in the collective.

I'm always hesitant to describe any philosophy -- and you did say that Objectivism is a philosophy, and I agree -- as being "bad," unless of course the practice of it is directly and inescapably harmful to other people.

I disagree with your characterization of Objectivism. I honestly cannot name another philosophy that better typifies "a hard-nosed observation of what we are." Objectivism doesn't "present a phony support for individual identity." Its very foundation is the idea that individual identity can and should stand alone, and needs no support at all, phony or otherwise. And Objectivism declares without reservation that the "human propensities" of which you speak are externally imposed, invalid, and unnecessary.

Objectivism is as simple as it is because it does not need to be more complicated to serve as a valid philosophy. The very fact that it is "hard-nosed" is, I think, what turns many people away from it.

I've really got two beefs. One is with philosophy in general and the other's with Objectivism in particular.

The beef I've got with philosophy in general is that philosophy purports to be explanatory without doing the hard work of establishing the validity of whatever the hypothesis is that's being advanced. Philosophy looks and sounds like science without doing the experiments or the observations necessary to validate the idea you believe to be true.

Objectivism says it's OK to be selfish, to not concern yourself with what others think of you but doesn't explain why some people are driven by the opinions of other and some people aren't.

Thanks a lot Ayn but plenty of people don't seem to need your advice and plenty of others seem to be immune to it.

Ooops. More later but I gotta scoot.