(April 2, 2012 at 1:20 am)Epimethean Wrote: Rand was a hypocrite in the way she ostracized anyone from her inner circle for challenging either her thinking or her desires.

How is that hypocrisy? Rand was free to choose whom to associate with. That was an important part of her philosophy. She was free to choose not to associate with anyone who disagreed with her.

(April 2, 2012 at 1:20 am)Epimethean Wrote: Her "vision" of the ideal man was limited to which men were kissing (or fucking) her ass at a given time.

Quite the reverse, in fact. One of the most common criticisms leveled against her is her position on feminist issues. She believed that one of the most defining characteristics of the ideal woman was her-worship of the ideal man.

Not the reverse at all. She did not celebrate the individual, but loved the clone. Two words: Nathaniel Branden.

http://www.robertfulford.com/Randians.html

(April 2, 2012 at 8:57 am)Epimethean Wrote: Not the reverse at all. She did not celebrate the individual, but loved the clone. Two words: Nathaniel Branden.

http://www.robertfulford.com/Randians.html

Are you in the habit of changing accusations when the one made before doesn't stick?

Rand didn't celebrate the individual - she celebrated individualism. That means she did not have to give her respect and association to any and all individuals but was free to choose among them. She chose the like-minded. What's so terrible about that?

And yes, I have read many of the ad-hominem attacks on Rand like the one you presented. I find them to be curiously lacking in any criticism of her philosophy.

I changed no accusation, but have maintained the one I made, which is that Rand was not a fan of the individual (call the expressed individual individualism if you will) when the individual did not put himself at her disposal, and if you think that Rand dismissed Branden from her circle due merely to disagreements about philosophy, I can see why you admire her.

My assessment of Rand is that she was fine pontificating about her cult of the individual, but never had a means of understanding just why it creates unfeeling, selfish beings-because she already was one.

http://www.barbarabranden.com/answer-nathaniel.html
http://www.barbarabranden.com/answer.html

(April 2, 2012 at 9:40 am)Epimethean Wrote: I changed no accusation, but have maintained the one I made, which is that Rand was not a fan of the individual (call the expressed individual individualism if you will) when the individual did not put himself at her disposal,

And that was not the charge you originally made. Yours was regarding hypocrisy. And as of this statement, I see that you do not understand the difference between being a fan of individual and being a fan of individualism.

(April 2, 2012 at 9:40 am)Epimethean Wrote: and if you think that Rand dismissed Branden from her circle due merely to disagreements about philosophy, I can see why you admire her.

I don't think that. Rand was left bitter after the dissolution of their affair and did not want to associate with Branden in any context - so she dismissed him while coming up with whatever reasons she could. She departed from some aspects of her own philosophy on the matter, but stayed within the within the whole of it.

(April 2, 2012 at 9:40 am)Epimethean Wrote: My assessment of Rand is that she was fine pontificating about her cult of the individual, but never had a means of understanding just why it creates unfeeling, selfish beings-because she already was one.

Selfish - most definitely, but unfeeling - not quite. If anything, these examples show that Rand felt things a bit too deeply.

Anyway, her personal life has little to do with her philosophy of Objectivism. Yes, I know that she claimed that her life was a perfect example of Objectivism in practice - but she was wrong. There are multiple instances which can be pointed out where she deviated from the stated tenets of Objectivism (the Branden case being one).

Further, the philosophy itself is not foolproof, no matter how much Rand considered it so. There are quite a few points where the conclusion is forced or not completely justified - but more or less, I find it to be a good philosophy to live by. I participated in this thread to discuss the philosophy - not defend Ayn Rand from ad-hom attacks - real or imaginary. My respect for her requires me to defend against imaginary charges - however, I'd prefer to discuss Objectivism here - not Ayn Rand. So if you could limit you arguments to the criticism of her philosophy, I'd appreciate it.

I appreciate your points above. My contention that she was a hypocrite was what I was defending. I find one litmus of any philosopher's work to be whether the philosopher can and does adhere to it. I have enjoyed Rand's writings, but never found her to be more than a modern Aristotelian with a huge chip on her shoulder against the poor execution of Marx's philosophy. I have no love of the iterations heretofore of Communism, but in Rand, I find little to commend beyond the advocacy of self-determination, and there I prefer Emerson and Thoreau.

(April 1, 2012 at 6:04 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(April 1, 2012 at 12:01 pm)mediamogul Wrote: Rand's most obvious fallacy is her use of rational egoism as the foundational principle guiding the totality of human conduct and productive activity.

She saw it as the principle guiding all productive activity - but not all human conduct. She argued that it should guide human conduct, not that it did.

(April 1, 2012 at 12:01 pm)mediamogul Wrote: When we talk of rational self-interest we can only talk in terms of consequences and doing that which rationally would confer the greatest benefit to the acting person. This is of course regardless of the effects that any action would have on another person, with specific implications that a person can be used as a mere means to an end. In other words, particularly for powerful people driven by profit in a laissez faire environment, this means destruction of the environment, running the competition out of business, driving up prices of commodities in any way consistent with their own interest, and outsourcing labor to get the best profit margin possible.

This is exactly why it is important to consider her philosophy as a whole. Consideration of just one part such as rational egoism, out of context of the whole leads to incorrect conclusions, like it did here.

Rand was pretty specific about what the premises of rational egoism were. Rand's premise was "No man is a means to an end for another man". The conclusion drawn form this statement is that it is proper for a man to consider himself the means to his own ends - but he cannot consider anyone else as means to his ends. So, according to her philosophy, any acts which make a man means to someone else's ends, like they do in the given examples - would be unethical and not consistent with objectivism (consistency with rational egoism might be a different matter. It was not originally Rand's concept and it held a different meaning to her).

(April 1, 2012 at 12:01 pm)mediamogul Wrote: Also, why would a true egoist give to charity? Obviously it would not be out of a genuine desire to help someone elseor reduce another person suffering? Would it be to demonstrate their position of power? To appear as though they were a philanthropist? It would have to confer them some benefit.

Rand saw kindness, compassion and good-will as secondary consequences of egoism. She did not hold that people should not consider lives of others to be without any value - only that they should not value it more than their own. She also held that people should have a preiritized value structure which would help them make these decisions. To take the example of charity - suppose I have a lot of money - more money than I could possibly spend on my needs throughout my life - and by my value structure - the pleasure any reduction in suffering of the poor would be greater that pleasure of buying a new yacht - then I should most certainly donate that money to charity.

(April 1, 2012 at 12:01 pm)mediamogul Wrote: Didn't Rand herself go on Medicare at the end of her life to have surgery related to her years of chain smoking? It seems as though ideologically noone wants to pay into the safety net programs but then when they need them people always use them.

That would be the other way around. Rand did not want to pay for the safety-net program and she considered the she was forced to pay into supporting it as hers to the end. Her claim was therefore reclaiming what was hers to begin with. In her own words -

"It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."

This is where the system begins to become a bit paradoxical to me. So in the interests of charity one can give freely to a system if it gives them pleasure? How could a truly selfish person take pleasure from giving money they earned through their productive activity to another as an unearned handout? I know that in theory it would be a freely willed gift on the part of the giver, not government "theft", but that does not adequetely place the motivation for such an action on egoist grounds. It seems as though, within the Objectivist system, this presents a contradiction. It appears to be special pleading. In one circumstance it is deemed rationally neccessary to pursue one's own ends but to simultanaouesly exhibit compassion for another is to consider their ends as well. As in it is more important to not give the government "my money" as opposed to letting someone die in the street because they lack health care that they can afford on their own. As in it is in everyone's interest to provide safety net programs that the population, outside of once again the rich, will inevitably use. Plus on a practical level a charity system would never be able to sustain the sheer volume of elderly and disabled people who rely on the Social Security system for their daily monitary and medical needs. Rand's justification appears to be ad hoc and she utilized the system in precisely the way it was intended to be used and to her own benefit. People will inevitably become old and utilize Medicare and Social Security. All except the rich, of course.

Objectivism has been hit many times for its lack of emotional textures, its illogical insistence that people will naturally do the best deeds when putting themselves first in every instance and its wholesale ball-polishing attitude toward capitalism. The fact that Rand herself could not tolerate the presence in her circle of people who, although fully supporting (in fact, doing so even in their own selfish actions) her philosophy's stated premises, rejected her ego on an amatory level suggests that even she was not able to tolerate the presence of a true individual.

This is a gentle take on Objectivism, written by a former fan of its ideology:

http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.c...ugging.htm

(April 2, 2012 at 6:26 pm)mediamogul Wrote: This is where the system begins to become a bit paradoxical to me. So in the interests of charity one can give freely to a system if it gives them pleasure?

Pleasure is just one of the possible reasons. There may be many more.

(April 2, 2012 at 6:26 pm)mediamogul Wrote: How could a truly selfish person take pleasure from giving money they earned through their productive activity to another as an unearned handout?

By believing that the handout would be earned and returned manifold. Or the payment might be of a different kind altogether - for example, your children haven't earned the food or money you give them, but you gain pleasure from their use of it nevertheless.

(April 2, 2012 at 6:26 pm)mediamogul Wrote: I know that in theory it would be a freely willed gift on the part of the giver, not government "theft", but that does not adequetely place the motivation for such an action on egoist grounds.

I agree, the motivation present would not be enough. But that's not the same as no motivation being present.

(April 2, 2012 at 6:26 pm)mediamogul Wrote: It seems as though, within the Objectivist system, this presents a contradiction. It appears to be special pleading. In one circumstance it is deemed rationally neccessary to pursue one's own ends but to simultanaouesly exhibit compassion for another is to consider their ends as well.

No, to exhibit compassion is not necessary here. The compassion might be a consequence, but not a necessary consequence and according to objectivism - irrelevant to the man's moral nature.

(April 2, 2012 at 6:26 pm)mediamogul Wrote: As in it is more important to not give the government "my money" as opposed to letting someone die in the street because they lack health care that they can afford on their own.

Actually, whether giving the government "your money" is moral would be judged by the trade involved. For example, you may pay the government for the use of their police force, military etc and the government may use that money however it wishes. But that is not the case here.

(April 2, 2012 at 6:26 pm)mediamogul Wrote: As in it is in everyone's interest to provide safety net programs that the population, outside of once again the rich, will inevitably use.

How is it in the interest of the rich if they are not going to use it?

(April 2, 2012 at 6:26 pm)mediamogul Wrote: Plus on a practical level a charity system would never be able to sustain the sheer volume of elderly and disabled people who rely on the Social Security system for their daily monitary and medical needs.

It is the reliance on social security that needs to be phased out. Old age, accidents, disabilities are facts of life. Preparing for them is the rational thing to do. Expecting someone else to take care of you as a result of your own lack of foresight, is not.

(April 2, 2012 at 6:26 pm)mediamogul Wrote: Rand's justification appears to be ad hoc and she utilized the system in precisely the way it was intended to be used and to her own benefit. People will inevitably become old and utilize Medicare and Social Security. All except the rich, of course.

Actually, I find her explanation to be consistent with her philosophy. For example, she'd consider that all the rich people who were forced to contribute to the program, should claim from it once they get old - inspite of being rich. The system is not intended to be used this way - its intended to be used by those who need it - not those who contributed to it. Rand held that those who contributed had the greater right to use it. Therefore, your "except the rich" caveat does not apply.

---

(April 3, 2012 at 12:15 am)Epimethean Wrote: Objectivism has been hit many times for its lack of emotional textures,

And yet I find it to be emotionally exhilarating.

(April 3, 2012 at 12:15 am)Epimethean Wrote: its illogical insistence that people will naturally do the best deeds when putting themselves first in every instance and its wholesale ball-polishing attitude toward capitalism.

There is no such insistence. The insistence is that they should be allowed to and pay for their own mistakes and misdeeds.

(April 3, 2012 at 12:15 am)Epimethean Wrote: The fact that Rand herself could not tolerate the presence in her circle of people who, although fully supporting (in fact, doing so even in their own selfish actions) her philosophy's stated premises, rejected her ego on an amatory level suggests that even she was not able to tolerate the presence of a true individual.

You are mistaken if you think that it was only the rejection at amatory level that caused the Branden break. That played a big part - yes - but there were also other differences. Besides, Branden is only one case of many who have been rejected and you wouldn't claim that all were the result of unsuccessful affairs, would you?

Rand held her philosophy to be self-consistent and sound. So to reject any of its tenets was to reject its premises. Celebrating individualism does not mean you have to tolerate any individual who comes your way - especially not someone whose views are inconsistent with yours or who you believe is being intellectually dishonest. Since Rand believed what she did about her philosophy, its expected that she'd treat any deviation from its tenets as both of the above.

A caveat to Objectivism's love affair with capitalism is that, on the world quality of life index, capitalism doesn't seem naturally to generate happiness (outside the one percenters) , whereas socialism does.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/05/world-h...piest.html