• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Paul Ryan comments on Ayn Rand

Moot said:
That's what I figured. You show the same symptoms of someone who dismisses and rejects anyone who questions their religious faith. I see it all the time with Mormons.
Click to expand...

Well that was an honest reply of my opinion on the matter, but whatever.
 
Ikari said:
It may appear so to the untrained eye. Yet nothing he wrote was a coherent and intelligent argument to the philosophy. It was personal opinion and bias, and as such that is what I called it.
Click to expand...

Your "argument" is that she said so, so it must be so. :lol:
 
Ikari said:
Well that was an honest reply of my opinion on the matter, but whatever.
Click to expand...
I do appreciate your honesty, but dismissing and rejecting people who question what you believe is what you are doing, isn't it?
 
AdamT said:
Your "argument" is that she said so, so it must be so. :lol:
Click to expand...

No, my argument was that in lack of evidence or proper argument I'm more likely to trust the creator than a random guy on the internet.
 
Moot said:
I do appreciate your honesty, but dismissing and rejecting people who question what you believe is what you are doing, isn't it?
Click to expand...

It was not arbitrary dismissal. He could have presented an actual argument, but he did not. It was merely opinion and bias.
 
Ikari said:
No, my argument was that in lack of evidence or proper argument I'm more likely to trust the creator than a random guy on the internet.
Click to expand...

Certainly, because who could be more objective about the creation than the creator? *cough*
 
AdamT said:
Certainly, because who could be more objective about the creation than the creator? *cough*
Click to expand...

I would expect the creator to have expert knowledge on the subject.

You wish to say that just because one created something doesn't mean they'd be honest with the description, and this is true. That is why I said without evidence or argument, I am more likely to trust the creator than some guy on the internet. That of course means that sufficient evidence or argument could be presented to demonstrate the dishonesty of the creator's statements. Yes?

So, is there something unreasonable about that?
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I would expect the creator to have expert knowledge on the subject.

You wish to say that just because one created something doesn't mean they'd be honest with the description, and this is true. That is why I said without evidence or argument, I am more likely to trust the creator than some guy on the internet. That of course means that sufficient evidence or argument could be presented to demonstrate the dishonesty of the creator's statements. Yes?

So, is there something unreasonable about that?
Click to expand...

In itself that is not unreasonable, but as "some guy on the iternet" pointed out, there have been volumes and volumes of criticism of Rand produced over the years, written by highly credenialed sholars.
 
Ikari said:
It was not arbitrary dismissal. He could have presented an actual argument, but he did not. It was merely opinion and bias.
Click to expand...
But wasn't Rands philosophy just opinion and full of bias as well?
 
AdamT said:
In itself that is not unreasonable, but as "some guy on the iternet" pointed out, there have been volumes and volumes of criticism of Rand produced over the years, written by highly credenialed sholars.
Click to expand...

There's volumes of criticism on countless philosophy pieces, philosophy is to be discussed and criticized. And there is plenty of room for criticism of Rand's philosophy as well. However, this is what we got:

1st post
cmakaioz said:
No. Karl Marx -- regardless of the massive misinformation and ignorance about his actual writings, his actual stances, and who was/was not actually inspired by the same -- actually got a lot of things right. He made major substantive critiques of capitalism, both as manifest in his own times as well as predicting major problems within capitalism which came true long after his death. Regardless of how one may feel about his recommendations, his empirical findings and analysis are well grounded in observations almost anyone can reproduce.

Ayn Rand, on the other hand, doesn't have a leg to stand on (intellectually or empirically speaking), used a patchwork mess of private definitions (different from and in some cases practically the opposite of their typical usage), thin and transparent characters, and hysterical overreaction to living under false communism as a basis for rationalizing her pathological "philosophy" (which, ironically, ended up operating like a religion, with a mindless individuality-crushing inner cult of its own).
Click to expand...

Not an argument, these are accusations and opinion.

2nd post
cmakaioz said:
Aside from being an excellent example of the willful illiteracy and ideologically motivated nonsense so often inspired by Ayn Rand, the egregious quote-mining of Obama via the "You didn't build that" meme has no relevance to Paul Ryan's alleged endorsement of Ayn Rand's value system (or by extension the danger of having someone who may endorse Objectivism holding high office).
Click to expand...

Ad hom

3rd post
cmakaioz said:
Two things:

1) what you have described above is NOT Ayn Rand / Objectivism. Her "philosophy" -- while not theistic -- was nonetheless chalk full of arbitrary whim, appeal to emotion, arbitrary edict, and such;

2) Objection to Ayn Rand is not anti-intellectualism. The core objections to Rand's writings and (especially) her nonsense are that the factual claims she made are patently false, and that the values she actually espoused (not the ones she declared or claimed, but the ones which result from attempting to apply her claims and premises consistently) are those of a sociopath. Rand was not grounded in any kind of rigorous anchor to evidence, peer review, or sustained endurance of critique. She used private definitions, personal re-casting of loaded terms, appeal to the popular prejudice of the cold war, and a host of logical fallacies...in order to promote a dogmatic value system falsely masquerading as a carefully reasoned philosophy.
Click to expand...

Closer. Point 1 is again accusation, Point 2 was deflection as I did not say that all objection to Rand was anti-intellectual; but rather that his are. As evidence, I submit the first 2 posts. He declares her false and calls her a sociopath. Have we gotten to the intellectual part yet? The last bit of it approaches a coherent argument, but is full of bias and accusation.

4th post
cmakaioz said:
ROFLMAO...so your standard of substance is simple declaration?!? Calling something X, or stating a desire for it to be X...is not the same as it actually being so.



See above.



Got any substance, any specific argument with actual content lurking about, or are you simply following your apparent standard of treating declaration on equal footing with actual evidence?
Click to expand...

I find the last statement hilariously ironic. But he had provided no argument to this point (as evidence by the quoted posts above), and at such point I claimed that till such occurred, I shall take the word of the creator over some guy on the internet.

5th Post
cmakaioz said:
Occam's razor refers to adopting the simplest explanation which explains the available evidence. You're acting like Rand's work is something that just popped up out of nothing in this thread, and has never been addressed (at great length) by all kinds of people...for decades...online and in real life...in spoken dialogue and in written criticism (when in fact all of these things have happened).

I don't mind addressing specific, substantive, points of contention. I DO mind, and will give no quarter, to the practice of pretending we're all starting from scratch (i.e. that Objectivism was conceived and articulated in a political and intellectual vacuum).

The premise that Rand's Objectivism ACTUALLY IS some kind of rigorous anchoring of a value system to something magically free of the influence of emotion, arbitrary whim, etc. would NOT be favored by Occam's razor because it is contradicted by the actual history and development of Rand's ideas. In other words, her raw assertion that Objectivism is a rigorous philosophy free of the usual rationalizations and personal nonsense *fails to explain the available evidence*.



Would it have any rational audience here?
Click to expand...

We're fairly off topic by this point, but again I merely pointed out that without evidence or argument, I am more likely to believe the creator than some guy on the internet. Which you yourself agreed was reasonable.

6th Post
cmakaioz said:
No, actually. That's not the situation at all. Congratulations on completely ignoring the entire content of my post and declaring yourself an enemy of rational exchange.

Good Night...and Good Luck.
Click to expand...

He ran away, and thus ended this. And that's when you and Moot hopped on board.
 
Moot said:
But wasn't Rands philosophy just opinion and full of bias as well?
Click to expand...

A lot of philosophy is based on perception and argument. Her philosophy was a morality based not on religion or divine edict, but rather of rational thought and demonstrated morality. Is it complete? No, though what philosophy is really complete? Is it flawed? I would say yes, it breaks when taken to its extreme, though that is true of a lot of things. However, it does touch on the basis of humanity and presents some worthwhile ideals of liberty, freedom and choice.
 
Ikari said:
There's volumes of criticism on countless philosophy pieces, philosophy is to be discussed and criticized. And there is plenty of room for criticism of Rand's philosophy as well. However, this is what we got:

1st post


Not an argument, these are accusations and opinion.

2nd post


Ad hom

3rd post


Closer. Point 1 is again accusation, Point 2 was deflection as I did not say that all objection to Rand was anti-intellectual; but rather that his are. As evidence, I submit the first 2 posts. He declares her false and calls her a sociopath. Have we gotten to the intellectual part yet? The last bit of it approaches a coherent argument, but is full of bias and accusation.

4th post


I find the last statement hilariously ironic. But he had provided no argument to this point (as evidence by the quoted posts above), and at such point I claimed that till such occurred, I shall take the word of the creator over some guy on the internet.

5th Post


We're fairly off topic by this point, but again I merely pointed out that without evidence or argument, I am more likely to believe the creator than some guy on the internet. Which you yourself agreed was reasonable.

6th Post


He ran away, and thus ended this. And that's when you and Moot hopped on board.
Click to expand...

And of course you are doing exactly the same thing, PLUS adding the tautological argument that Rand's philosophy is awesome because Rand said so.

Let's see how this works:

I have a theory that everyone who disagrees with me is a jagoff. You may disagree with me, but you're just some guy on the internet and I'm the guy who came up with the theory, so I must be right!
 
AdamT said:
And of course you are doing exactly the same thing, PLUS adding the tautological argument that Rand's philosophy is awesome because Rand said so.

Let's see how this works:

I have a theory that everyone who disagrees with me is a jagoff. You may disagree with me, but you're just some guy on the internet and I'm the guy who came up with the theory, so I must be right!
Click to expand...

Interesting, perchance you can quote me where I claimed the philosophy was awesome. I believe I said

Ikari said:
...this ideal of a morality not based on faith, not on arbitrary whim, not on emotion, not arbitrary edict; but on reason and morality based on logic that can be shown true...
Click to expand...

So my contention was that her philosophy is an ideal of morality not based on faith, not on arbitrary whim, not on emotion, not arbitrary edict; but on reason and morality based on logic that can be shown true, which is in fact how she defined objectivism.

Now if contention is the definition as defined by the creator, all one must do is demonstrate it false. Yet such demonstration was lacking. As such, I shall state again, in the lack of evidence or argument I will likely believe the creator over some guy on the internet.
 
Wiseone said:
Good on him, I'm certainly glad to hear that much.

The first two posts are just deflecting and trying what should be a good thing into a way to attack the right, not cool guys. If you like that he's not a believer in Objectivism, then say so and move on, you can still not like the guy's politics and say that much about him.
Click to expand...



cat bite your tongue?
 
Ikari said:
As such, I shall state again, in the lack of evidence or argument I will likely believe the creator over some guy on the internet.
Click to expand...

As will I with respect to my everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-jagoff theory. :D

On a serious note, however, it's obvious that he philosophy isn't grounded in religion or magic. But she only *claims* that it's based on logic when I think most logicians would say that's laughable. Rand is not considered by philosophers to be a serious philosopher. She is considered more of a gateway drug to far right conservativism.
 
Fletch said:
That the state should run a program such as Social Security is not consistent with her beliefs. Yet it exists, and she was compelled, as we all are, to participate. Since her property was forcibly taken from her to fund Social Security, she was entitled to that money back. So, no, collecting Social Security does not clash in any way with her beliefs.
Click to expand...

Ikari said:
If she were given the choice between control and freedom, then perhaps. If she was offered to ability to pay into or refuse social security and went with social security, I think that there would be a stronger point. But in this case one can be opposed to the system; but since the system is mandatory (at least for the payment portion in this case), I don't particularly see it as a strong indicator of having abandoned principle. The money government took from her, she couldn't invest the way she wanted and thus didn't see the return on it that she did with other investments.

I don't know, it's like you preach against stealing but would take your wallet back from someone who stole it. She was never not coerced into participation.
Click to expand...

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction. There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.
Click to expand...

She either believed that or it's hogwash. Isabel Peterson, another woman whom the Cato Institute credits with founding Libertarianism, Isabel M. Paterson, refused Social Security benefits since it contradicted her beliefs.
 
AdamT said:
As will I with respect to my everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-jagoff theory. :D

On a serious note, however, it's obvious that he philosophy isn't grounded in religion or magic. But she only *claims* that it's based on logic when I think most logicians would say that's laughable. Rand is not considered by philosophers to be a serious philosopher. She is considered more of a gateway drug to far right conservativism.
Click to expand...

Her philosophy is certainly an individualistic one and breaks down when she tries to aggregate it to the State level. However, I do find it rational and innately with worth particularly as it addresses pursuit of self interest. The ideals are not far from the more basic arguments of Kant. I'm unsure if the main complaints against her work is logic. I think a lot of criticism is that it's not well refined, it's incomplete, doesn't address fundamental philosophical questions, or is more an argument of anarcho-capitalism. But the ideals of pursuit of self-interest and removal of coercion to be rather rational and gives good basis for arguments for minarchy.
 
Ikari said:
A lot of philosophy is based on perception and argument. Her philosophy was a morality based not on religion or divine edict, but rather of rational thought and demonstrated morality. Is it complete? No, though what philosophy is really complete? Is it flawed? I would say yes, it breaks when taken to its extreme, though that is true of a lot of things. However, it does touch on the basis of humanity and presents some worthwhile ideals of liberty, freedom and choice.
Click to expand...
I re-read through the discussion and I'm inclined to agree with you, he really didn't provide a valid argument. But if I understand objectivism correctly, it is that man's moral purpose in life is the achievement of his own happiness through reason and rational self interest. Which kinda seems like a fancy way of saying egoism. And of course egoism taken to it's extreme is probably where most people find objection to Paul Ryan's budget because it is in the self interest of a few and will negatively impact the larger population. So isn't there something to be said about rationalizing something greater than just a few individuals self interest?
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
I re-read through the discussion and I'm inclined to agree with you, he really didn't provide a valid argument. But if I understand objectivism correctly, it is that man's moral purpose in life is the achievement of his own happiness through reason and rational self interest. Which kinda seems like a fancy way of saying egoism. And of course egoism taken to it's extreme is probably where most people find objection to Paul Ryan's budget because it is in the self interest of a few and will negatively impact the larger population. So isn't there something to be said about rationalizing something greater than just a few individuals self interest?
Click to expand...

It is often said that people do not feel complete until they are for a purpose greater than themselves. This sentiment can be heard echoed through all corners of society and therein lies the fundamental problem between Objectivism and human nature.

Human nature is social and often times happiness is found in human relationships, love, a greater purpose, or being part of the crowd.

There is some merit to Rand's philosophy if taken at its most basic level, which states that people are responsible for themselves, this I agree with and I find consistent with how people behave. Once you get to the point where you start building exclusions though, "man is responsible for his own happiness in exclusion to the desires and needs of other people" is there it is no longer consistent with human nature and the philosophy starts to break down and become harmful.

Many people on this forum perceive themselves to be far more individualistic than the typical person and any philosophy, if it is to work for all of humanity, needs to be able to work for that typical guy you see at people of walmart.com as well as the intellectuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom