Atlas Shrugged and so did I...

[amicus]

emphasizing the heroic nature of the individual in the face of adversity.


it's funny, but i don't even know what this means.

~~~

I did not expect you to know, Pure.

Your little idealized collective world doesn't need hero's, it is the masses that arise in concert to right the wrongs of an evil world.

There are no individual genius's, special people, in your commune, who rise above and lead the way into the future; your ant colony just seems to collectively know the way.

I would never expect you to rise to the occasion with superlative qualities and lead anyone out of crisis to safety, you don't have it in you.

There are no Einstein's or Rachmaninoff's in your world, only peasants who vote before they build a shithouse.

No Michaelangelo's or DeVinci's or Monet's in your little commune, only toiling workers in the field.

What a sad and dismal universe you have created for yourself.

Amicus...

 

[xssve]

What distinguishes private efforts at infrastructure extension from government ones, to my mind, is that they aren't going to create anything like the benefits for the economy that larger-scale, lower use-cost projects can - and do. That seems an awfully strange benefit for an economically self-interested person to pass up on.

Best,
H

It is precisely public use infrastructure that creates the opportunities for the individual to thrive, Randland rapidly leads to feudal monopoly, pretty much the opposite of what Randians claim to desire.

It's pretty clear from Amicus's posts that he's still into that frontier mentality - in all of his claims about hwo america was built by individuals, and his peans to natural resources, he fails to conneect the two - sure given an entire virgin, undeveloped continent, teeming with natural resources where all you have to do is reach out and scoop it up, a mythos develops around those who scoop more and faster, a few pesky Indians notwithstanding.

The Buffalo "hunters" were the defintion of Randian self made supermen, they took their rifles and drove an entire economy into extinction from atop trains.

Point being, it really takes no brains at all to succeed under such circumstances, what Amicus is really railing about is that the picking aren't so easy anymore, and he takes that personally, it the fault of all those "other people" in his way, preventing him from living off the fat of the land.

Pity really, the Fed is making recessionary noises, and it's a direct result of all this he-man economic "logic", that mythologizes individual effort and denigrates the role of public investment in creating individual opportunity.

Everybody is going to suffer for it.

 

[xssve]

~~~

I did not expect you to know, Pure.

Your little idealized collective world doesn't need hero's, it is the masses that arise in concert to right the wrongs of an evil world.

There are no individual genius's, special people, in your commune, who rise above and lead the way into the future; your ant colony just seems to collectively know the way.

I would never expect you to rise to the occasion with superlative qualities and lead anyone out of crisis to safety, you don't have it in you.

There are no Einstein's or Rachmaninoff's in your world, only peasants who vote before they build a shithouse.

No Michaelangelo's or DeVinci's or Monet's in your little commune, only toiling workers in the field.

What a sad and dismal universe you have created for yourself.

Amicus...

So who's the republican Da Vinci, lol.

Yer' a fucking cartoon ami.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

hahahahaha Cut me some slack! The book is great, wonderful!, for the first 600 pages. And the rest of it is a "What the fuck is that all about?" experience. I'm an Ayn Rand fan.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

America truly is created by Supermen. Even when the Feds do something magical they almost always recruit a Superman from the real world to do the actual work. Bureaucrats cant do magic. Political stooges cant do magic.

I'm reading a history of the 1812 war. Jefferson did everything possible to geld our military, and Madison did likewise. Supermen saved our ass. Real men and women, blacks and whites, who confronted the problems on the seas and on the frontiers and along the coasts. Andy Jackson put real pirates to work. And blacks made up a significant portion of American seamen fighting the Royal Navy.

 

[Pure]

Ami opines

Your little idealized collective world doesn't need hero's [sic],

No Michaelangelo's[sic] or DeVinci's [sic] or Monet's in your little commune,

I most recently complimented France on its being top among nations, in quality of life. Hardly an 'idealized collective.' And still producing excellent individuals, even perhaps Sarkozy, whom you may admire. (Bush does, I think' can ami be far behind).

Ami simply makes up the views he wishes to refute, for any persons silly enough to engage him.

I will say that in France, they teach basic spelling and punctuation, something--along with the rest of English writing skills-- that still eludes Mr. Amicus.

 

[Pure]

Great individuals born since 1800, excluding business men who were only that

Here is a list from cold diesel

Charles Darwin
Albert Einstein
Dr. Sun Yat Sen
Mahatma Gandhi

here are some examples from amicus:

Einstein
Rachmaninoff

[these from earlier periods:]
Michaelangelo
DeVinci
Monet

jbj nominates

John D. Rockefeller.

===

OK, people, next question. Which if any, resemble Roark or Galt, or embody Randian virtues?

Which if any subscribe to Rand's rightwing political position, minimal government, let the 'free market' (business unrestrained) solve all problems.

Interestingly note that John D. Rockefeller, in funding Black colleges, was labelled by JBJ (by implication), as 'ladling soup for the poor,' which we know is a fault in Rand's system.

A number of notable capitalists have funded charitable enterprises, e.g. carnegie. Seems they are unaware of Rand's discoveries of the evil of altruism/charity.


John D. was a 'northern baptist,' who evidently believed in doing something for his fellow man beside selling them cheap oil products.

Nelson Rockefeller, one of the outstanding offspring, and Governor of New York, was always someone i admired, the rare bird nowadays, a liberal [=socialist, according to ami] Republican.

At least the following nominees by others would be labelled as 'socialist' by amicus:

Darwin,
Einstein,
Sun Yat Sen
Gandhi

-----

Conclusion: 1) Rand's ideas of greatness are defective, even when Randians (or admirers) nominate those on the list.

2) The Great Men, even in 'private enterprise,' generally do NOT subscribe to Randist views;

come to think of it, in my Rand readings i do not find many concrete examples of Great Individuals in our historical period. There are no philosophers since Aristotle, who get significant praise.

Why? i suggest that Rand's narcissism led her to conclude, in general, that only she was a Great Individual, in the time she lived.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

Youre doing a strawman fallacy. I never said Rockefeller's funding of Spellman College was ladling soup to the poor. I said Liberals discount benefactors and patrons and accept only toil in a soup kitchen as proof that someone is nice.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think Rockefeller and Edison and Ford did significantly more for common people than social workers or preachers do.

 

[gauchecritic]

I think Rockefeller and Edison and Ford did significantly more for common people than social workers or preachers do.

Excellent examples of 'trickle down' supermanism. In order to 'greaten' themselves they incidentally improved the lot of others without which there would only have been failure.

He was responsible for the price of lamp oil falling from 95 cents a gallon to 5 cents a gallon. Rockefeller's innovations eliminated ecological destruction across Pennsylvania and Ohio. He killed the American whaling industry and barrel-making.

Along with which he was following very simple economic practice (still alive today) reducing unit costs by increasing volume of sales, by the simple expedient of reducing prices and expanding useage. Greater sales with less profit per unit.

Or perhaps they were secret socialists that wanted to benefit mankind whilst incidentally improving their own lot? (so that they could benefit mankind in other ways not associated with industry but which reap the benefits later)

Now there's an idea. Social altruism through capitalism. Could it be? Great ideas, industry and invention intended to alleviate the depths of poverty through radical capitalism. It works for me. Any thoughts on why it would be false?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You cant eliminate poverty giving people money. You eliminate poverty by creating opportunities for wealth. You create wealth providing people what they want or a viable substitute for a lot less money.

Money should be thought of as Certificates of Esteem.

 

[gauchecritic]

You cant eliminate poverty giving people money.

Yes you can. If you're simply going to equate poverty with lack of money then a supply of money eliminates poverty.

Here's one stupid way of doing it: those 5% of people that apparently pay 95% of tax revenue, add on another one percent and give it to the poor.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hey AMICUS! I have it from good authority that the rich are gonna hire poor people to shoot Liberals in the ass if they try and get moe money from um.

G-man you better look out. All these po folk you love are gonna be huntin you.

 

[Pure]

yes, you did say it. agreed.

jbj I said Liberals discount benefactors and patrons and accept only toil in a soup kitchen as proof that someone is nice.

we weren't talking 'nice,' we were talking Great Individuals. this claim, (yes, you did say it, and the previous one) however, is false, since i accepted Rockefeller Sr for the list.

(i'm supposing that you consider me a 'liberal' [=socialist] as does amicus; no point in attempting niceties of definition. those who oppose the banalities of the supermen, amicus and jbj, are understandably labelled, 'evil', 'usual suspects','pinkos,' useless, blood sucking, to be exterminated, etc.)

you never addressed the point that most of those considered 'great individuals' even by you all on the right, do not fit Rand's specifications.
i don't expect you will.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

I'm not a Rand disciple. I dont obsess about her. I read her stuff and agree with a lot of it. Just like AMICUS. I agree with most of what he posts. Some things I'm ignorant of, and some topics dont particularly float my boat.

Take Richard Dawkins. He's pretty leftist, I think. And his thinking about selfishness pretty much matches Rand's. Like, he's sympathetic to homo's but understands that dippin your stick in a guy's butt dont make babies, and making babies is the name of the game.

There are a few Lefties who've escaped the gravitational pull of the Death Star and see things accurately.

 

[amicus]

It is precisely public use infrastructure that creates the opportunities for the individual to thrive, Randland rapidly leads to feudal monopoly, pretty much the opposite of what Randians claim to desire.

It's pretty clear from Amicus's posts that he's still into that frontier mentality - in all of his claims about hwo america was built by individuals, and his peans to natural resources, he fails to conneect the two - sure given an entire virgin, undeveloped continent, teeming with natural resources where all you have to do is reach out and scoop it up, a mythos develops around those who scoop more and faster, a few pesky Indians notwithstanding.

The Buffalo "hunters" were the defintion of Randian self made supermen, they took their rifles and drove an entire economy into extinction from atop trains.

Point being, it really takes no brains at all to succeed under such circumstances, what Amicus is really railing about is that the picking aren't so easy anymore, and he takes that personally, it the fault of all those "other people" in his way, preventing him from living off the fat of the land.

Pity really, the Fed is making recessionary noises, and it's a direct result of all this he-man economic "logic", that mythologizes individual effort and denigrates the role of public investment in creating individual opportunity.

Everybody is going to suffer for it.

~~~

I invest a little time and effort here Xzzve, not for your benefit as you are beyond redemption, but for those who may be following your rants and awaiting my denoument that always follows.

The early colonists mimicked what they knew, it was all they knew, from the old countries; the way of Kings and land baron's and a controlled command economy and a scarcity of land ownership.

Early Americans had to, by necessity, discover amiable means of easement from one parcel of property to another, adjacencies and even through passage and the advent of private ownership and privacy, made that a challenge and it was not overcome easily and required study and codification.

Water transport is another interesting field of study, from ship building to commercialism and to the first attempts to build canals.

Road building methodology also had to be developed, the construction of bridges and land surveyors, a very interesting study in how to maximize facility of travel yet still maintain private ownership and use.

The oil fields in Pennsylvania present another problem of rights and easement for pipeline construction, as did town and city infrastructure as the population grew.

There have always been twits like you who maintain that only central control can facilitate infrastructure and you accomplish it by diminishing or diluting the concept of private ownership and use of land.

We have a long history of trying to keep you fucking politicians out of our pockets and our lives and still create and accomplish the tasks of invention and production and transportation.

You are just baggage on our back, shoo....!

Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

~~~

I invest a little time and effort here Xzzve, not for your benefit as you are beyond redemption, but for those who may be following your rants and awaiting my denoument that always follows.

The early colonists mimicked what they knew, it was all they knew, from the old countries; the way of Kings and land baron's and a controlled command economy and a scarcity of land ownership.

Early Americans had to, by necessity, discover amiable means of easement from one parcel of property to another, adjacencies and even through passage and the advent of private ownership and privacy, made that a challenge and it was not overcome easily and required study and codification.

Water transport is another interesting field of study, from ship building to commercialism and to the first attempts to build canals.

Road building methodology also had to be developed, the construction of bridges and land surveyors, a very interesting study in how to maximize facility of travel yet still maintain private ownership and use.

The oil fields in Pennsylvania present another problem of rights and easement for pipeline construction, as did town and city infrastructure as the population grew.

There have always been twits like you who maintain that only central control can facilitate infrastructure and you accomplish it by diminishing or diluting the concept of private ownership and use of land.

We have a long history of trying to keep you fucking politicians out of our pockets and our lives and still create and accomplish the tasks of invention and production and transportation.

You are just baggage on our back, shoo....!

Amicus...

Happy Thanksgiving, Ami! Have you done any fearless research yet? Or are you still taking the easy way out?

 

[Pure]

jbj

Take Richard Dawkins. He's pretty leftist, I think. And his thinking about selfishness pretty much matches Rand's.

show me the evidence. using the word 'selfish' does not show much of anything.

what is dawkins' thesis?

what morality, if any, does he recommend?

 

[cantdog]

The thesis of the Selfish Gene was precisely to allow for altruism at the level of the individual organism. People who have never read the book should be cautious. It's pretty easy to make yourself out a bullshit artist if you go by the title.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CANTDOG your comment makes no sense to me. I read Dawkin's book a dozen times, at least, and it isnt about altruism. It's about getting your genes into the next generation by manipulating the other sex to mate with you.

 

[Pure]

what you leave out, jbj, is that if i can go down in flames, but insure that my brother gets to mate and pass his genes, that* i *have a large measure of success, in view of the large overlap of me and my brother.

the selfish gene theory precisely is to explain the apparent sacrifice of the individual, i.e. sacrifice of one self, in terms of that individual's degree of genetic commonality with the family member who is sacrificed for: the "pure" gene is in varying degrees in my brothers and sisters, cousins, etc. i believe it's been quoted above to the effect that i'm twice as ready to sacrifice myself for my brother as for my cousin.

anthropomorphically, we say that the "pure" gene, found in various locations (individuals), "wants" to continue itself; that is its "selfishness".
which individuals go down is irrelevant except in so far as they carry more or less big chunks of the 'pure' gene.

 

[Pure]

critique of objectivist (egoist) ethics, etc.

This professional philosopher has given some of the most trenchant and detailed critique of Ayn Rand, sometimes, line by line.

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm#General Overview
Huemer, Critique of Objectivist Ethics

Three excerpts; two on the core issue of self interest, and the last an analysis of Rand’s arguments against ‘looters’ (liberals, charity inclined, government bureaucrats, those in favor of nonvoluntary taxes.).

3. General arguments against ethical egoism
Rand endorsed a version of 'ethical egoism': the view that a person should always do whatever best serves his own interests. I have discussed the following objections to this doctrine in my "Why I Am Not an Objectivist", so I will be brief here. Here is one general argument against egoism:

1. If ethical egoism is true, then if you could obtain a (net) benefit equal to a dime by torturing and killing 500 people, you should do it.

2. It is not the case that, if you could obtain a (net) benefit equal to a dime by torturing and killing 500 people, you should do it.

3. Therefore, egoism is not true.


This argument is very simple, but that should not fool us into thinking it is therefore illegitimate. It is true that an egoist could simply deny 2, proclaiming that in that situation, the mass torture and killing would be morally virtuous. Any person can maintain any belief, provided he is willing to accept enough absurd consequences of it.

Here is a second argument against ethical egoism: it contradicts Rand's own claim that each individual is an end-in-himself and that it is therefore morally wrong to sacrifice one person to another. For either Rand meant that an individual life is an end-in-itself in an absolute sense--as discussed in my objection (i) above; or she meant that an individual life is an end-in-itself in a relative sense--i.e., for that individual.

Assume she meant it in a relative sense. In this case, Smith's life is an end-in-itself for Smith. But since Smith's life is not an end-in-itself for Jones, there has been given no reason why Jones should not use Smith or sacrifice Smith's life for Jones' benefit. In fact, for Jones, Smith's life can only have value as a means, if it has any value at all, since for Jones, only Jones' life is an end in itself.

Now, assume she meant it in an absolute sense. In that case, she contradicted her agent-relative conception of value. Furthermore, she generated a general problem for ethical egoism. If the life of my neighbor, Jones, is an end-in-itself in an absolute sense, and not just relative to Jones, then why wouldn't it follow that I ought to promote the life of my neighbor, for its own sake? But this is not what Rand wants--she claims that my own life is the only thing I should promote for its own sake.

======================================================



(38) 27,3: "The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others--and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

Above (comments 7-8) we saw that Rand adopts a purely agent-relative conception of value: that is, a thing cannot be said to be good simply. Rather, a thing can only intelligibly be said to be good for (or: good relative to) someone. This is what the ethical egoist has to say.
Since "is an end in itself" means "is good for its own sake," it follows that nothing can be said to be an end in itself in any absolute sense; rather, one can only say a thing is an end-in-itself for someone or other.

Now, what does Rand mean in saying "life is an end in itself"? This appears to be using "end in itself" in an absolute sense, but perhaps she means only that each particular life is an end in itself for that particular living thing. What does she mean by saying every human being "is an end in himself"? Again, is she using this in an absolute sense, or a relative sense?

Case A: Assume she is using "end in himself" in an absolute sense here. In that case, she is contradicting her earlier claim that value is agent-relative (comment 8). Furthermore, it would seem to follow that every person has a reason for promoting the welfare of everyone, as an end in itself. That is, utilitarianism would seem to follow, which is not what she wants. She thinks one should promote one's own life as one's sole ultimate value. Which brings us to the second case.

Case B: Rand must mean this in an agent-relative sense: i.e., each individual human being is an end in himself for himself (but not for other people). So for me, my life is the only end in itself, whereas for you, your life is the only end in itself. This is consistent with what she has said up to now. But now what about the rest of the passage: "not the means to the ends or the welfare of others." Well, of course for me my life is an end in itself. But for other people, it is not; we just established that. So why wouldn't my life be for them just a means to their own ends? Why wouldn't my life from my neighbor's point of view be good only as a means to promoting my neighbor's life?

Similarly, what about the remark, "man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself"? Clearly, given that my life is, for me, the only end in itself, I would be irrational to sacrifice it for the sake of others. But why would I not be rational to sacrifice others to myself? True, their lives are ends in themselves for them; but what has that to do with me? For me, their lives are not ends in themselves, since only mine is. So why wouldn't it be good, for me, to sacrifice their lives for the sake of my own?
What seems to have happened here is that Rand slipped from the agent-relative theory of value into the absolutist conception.


==============================================================
(28) 23,6: "If some attempt to survive by means of brute force or fraud, by looting, robbing, cheating or enslaving the men who produce, it still remains true that their survival is made possible only by their victims, only by the men who choose to think and to produce the goods which they, the looters, are seizing."

From Rand's other writings, we can infer that she has in mind socialist governments, among other things, and we know that she believes this looting behavior is morally wrong. It is reasonable to interpret this as an attempted explanation of why such behavior is morally wrong, in terms of the theory of ethics she has just given.

If so, it fails. Nothing in the above indicates how the looting behavior is not conducive to the survival of the looters. It is true that the strategy depends on the existence of non-looting, productive people. But that does not make it a bad strategy, given that one knows productive people exist and will continue to exist. Analogously, a tribe might live by hunting buffalo. That their existence depends upon the buffalo does not make this a bad strategy, provided they know the buffalo exist and will continue to exist.

Of course, Rand might say that the looters, while they survive, do not have the sort of lives 'proper to a rational being.' But (a) we have already indicated that Rand is committed by other things she says to holding mere survival (continued existence) as the standard of value, and (b) anyway, no reason has been given so far for why this behavior is 'improper' to rational beings.

(29) 23,6: "Such looters are parasites incapable of survival, who exist by destroying those who are capable, those who are pursuing a course of action proper to man."

No reason has been given why the looting behavior is improper, other than the claim that the looters are "incapable of survival." What does she mean by that? I consider four alternatives:

(i) Perhaps she means that looters always immediately die, once they take up looting.

One counter-example to this will suffice. From her other writings, we know that Rand would regard most people in the United States government at present as looters. Yet these people are not dead. They have survived for years.

(ii) Perhaps she means that the looters will eventually die.
But everyone will die eventually, so this shows nothing about why looters are more immoral than anyone else.

(iii) Perhaps she means that the life expectancy of looters is significantly less than that of non-looters.

If so, she has given no evidence for this claim. We may again use the example under (i): do government officials on average have a significantly shorter life-span than, say, businessmen? I have no reason to think so.
(iv) Perhaps Rand means that although looters can physically survive, their lives are sub-human in quality, i.e., they are not living 'qua man'.
In that case, no argument has been given for this claim. See also comment 27.

The significance of this is that Rand's meta-ethics is incapable of delivering the moral judgements she wants. Moreover, it is incapable of explaining obvious moral facts such as that stealing is wrong.

(30) 24,1: Discussing why looting will lead to your own destruction: "As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship."
I have not edited the remark--she gives no further elaboration.
I do not find this adequate evidence. It is not obvious that all criminals and dictators have shorter life-spans than non-criminals, though I grant many of them do. Again, take the example of U.S. government officials, whom Rand would regard as looters. [end excerpts]
=====

 

[amicus]

Criticisms of Objectivism

Objectivism is controversial in a number of ways. First, it includes positions very much at odds with the ideas held by most people. Rand and other Objectivists have also been open about their own criticisms of other philosophers and intellectual traditions, sometimes denouncing them in very forceful terms. Also, Objectivism is a "popular" philosophy, which originated in the writings of novelist with no formal background as an academic philosopher. Finally, Rand's own personality and personal life have sometimes drawn fire from critics who consider her arrogant, dogmatic, hypocritical, etc.

Links to critical essays and sites are organized into the following categories:

* Criticisms of Objectivist Metaphysics
* Criticisms of Objectivist Epistemology
* Criticisms of Objectivist Ethics
* Criticisms of Objectivist Politics
* Criticisms of Objectivist Esthetics
* Miscellaneous Philosophical/Ideological Criticisms
* Personal Criticisms of Ayn Rand or Other Objectivists
* Parodies of Objectivism or Objectivists
* Special Collections:
o The ARI-TOC Dispute (a.k.a. Peikoff versus Kelley)
o Objectivism, Libertarianism and Anarchism

~~~

Dismissed as inconsequential, Ayn Rand's Objectivism continues to fuel entrenched academic tenured Philosophers, much like fellow socialists around the world as the center and most effective refutation of Humanist, non absolute metaphysical criticism, so much, that most modern efforts at refutation begin and end with the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

That it brings forth the objections from a wide variety of critics, a generation after its introduction, is proof beyond doubt of the continuing importance of Rands efforts to clarify and popularize and investigation into objective, rational reasoning as applied to ethics and morals.


http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html

Keywords, Critics of Michael Huemer

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

I dont believe Rand ever advocated harming others for profit. It seems clear to me she advocated force for self-defense ONLY. She also advocated trading things of equal value, without coercion.

 

[Stella_Omega]

~~~

Dismissed as inconsequential, Ayn Rand's Objectivism continues to fuel entrenched academic tenured Philosophers, much like fellow socialists around the world as the center and most effective refutation of Humanist, non absolute metaphysical criticism, so much, that most modern efforts at refutation begin and end with the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

That it brings forth the objections from a wide variety of critics, a generation after its introduction, is proof beyond doubt of the continuing importance of Rands efforts to clarify and popularize and investigation into objective, rational reasoning as applied to ethics and morals.


http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html

Keywords, Critics of Michael Huemer

Amicus...

That's downright funny. Because it's widely dismissed as inconsequential, because it's continually debunked, because Objectivism is so very much a cult of personality that the personality of its founder most often bears the burden of proof-- a horrible failing in any movement-- this proves that it's important. Well, in one sense it is, it reminds the rest of us of how appealing ignorance can be. Although, we have a better reminder of that in Scientology.

It reminds me of the old snake-oil salesman's Washday Miracle-- no housewife could start cleaning without it-- Dirt.

(besides the fact that most criticisms of Objectivism focus on the tenets of the 'philosophy' itself anyway)