Ayn Rand was a crackpot

The opponent's condescending attitude is off-putting. I don't know what civility there is in calling one's opponent "a feisty one". First, I note how pedantically charged in semantic Pro's argument is. Even though he says the argument is informal to the degree that ad hominem is allowed (since Rand's character is the main subject here), Pro argues in such a ostentatiously formal way that it only serves to show off his "skill" of deduction and is not the least convincing. This of course needs demonstration:Pro bases his argument off of the definition given by popular dictionaries of crackpot. He says that crackpot consist of being eccentriic, lunatic/unrealistic, or foolish/crazy. He says that if he proves these three conditions, he will have proven that Ayn Rand was a crackpot. Let me grant him that, even though dictionary definitions are not written in such logical method as would befit pro's hyper-rigorous treatment. My accusation rests not so much on his definition of crackpot, but how absurdly he treats and "proves" each individual components. It is here that Con flies off from a track of semi-valid argument to a completely ludicrous one. 1) Eccentric/StrangeIn proving that Rand was eccentric, Pro makes a huge and indeed fallacious assumption. First, he cites a definition from the apparently philosophically-authoritative source of Merriam-Webster, where eccentricity is basically when one deviates from the convention. Let us say we accept this definition. Now, take a look at how Pro argues that Rand was eccentric. Let's take one example: he says that Ayn Rand was eccentric because she was an atheist and only .03% of the people were atheists at her time. This argument is absurd, because it judges Ayn Rand's eccentricity from the standard of her time--this we must not do; we should rather try to judge whether Rand was eccentric from our convention in the modern time. Why? Because if we try to judge an individual by the standard of their own time, then many others of greatness were crackpots, or at least eccentric, who we would not take to be so. Take Galileo, for example. He proposed and believed that the earth was round when almost no one of his society believed it to be so. Would in our modern day of the heliocentric theory, say he was eccentric? We may say he was an eccentric in his time, but we would not consider him, if he were among us, eccentric. After all, what is the point of considering whether someone was eccentric/stupid/crackpot or the like? Because we wish to know whether or not to take him or her seriously in the modern day. Otherwise, there is no point--Galileo was an eccentric during his time, so what? We would not call people, who were eccentric (as defined in the given definition) in the past but right all along, eccentric as such, but would call them pioneers. In fact, the definition given of eccentricity does not suffice. It may be from a published dictionary but a purpose of a dictionary's denotation is to give the reader the basic connotation, the basic gist of the word. It is not meant to be enforced in a pedantic way. I say that eccentricity in terms of belief (because that appears to be our focus here) should be "the propensity to be given to unjustified and wrong belief". This fits best to our conception of eccentricity, because concept of Brownian motion is known only by the narrow subset of the population who are versed in physics. Yet, one would not call them eccentrics for believing that because it has been scientifically justified through countless calculations and observations. But any enlightened or scientifically-educated person would call the creationists eccentric, even though they consist of 46% of United States citizens according to the gallup poll [1], because we find their belief to be unjustified. In fact, Ayn Rand's atheism is justified, as Pro cited, by her belief that God's existence has yet to be proved. She also states her belief in the perfection of man as such, and using it as a fulcrum, rejects the notion of God as "degrading". Of course, the "perfection of man" needs some expansion and that is provided by her metaphysical statement that none can transcend existence, which God does. Of this, she says " "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time... A is A." [2]Other "evidences", which I will not argue unless provoked due to tiredness, can be argued in the same manner.2)Lunatic/UnrealisticNow I will go down point by point arguing against the Pro's evidences for Rand's lunacy/detachment from reality. 1) Rand was a hypocrite, because she criticized welfare state but still collected a large amount of money. i. One of the core ethical principle of Rand's philosophy of objectivism is that one should maximize one's welfare. Rand is only adhering to her own philosophy--what's more important, one's own philosophy, or a complaint she made some time ago? 2) Rand was detached from reality because she said that cigarette was not bad for you, when there were many evidence contrariwise. i. But in the 1970's, cigarette consumption was still in its heyday [3]. The brainwashing pro-smoking advertisement was banned just in 1970 [3]. One can surely understand her ignorance, as one would the ignorance of a child brainwashed by a skinhead his entire life. a. Of course, here, perceptive readers will point out the seeming doublestandard on my part. Why do we consider whether Rand was a lunatic or unrealistic with the past standard, while we judge her using the modern standard in the case of eccentricity? This is because the purpose of inquiry is different--whereas the purpose of questioning an individual's eccentricity is to see if we should take him seriously in the modern world, the inquiry of whether an individual was lunatic/unrealistic is dependent on the intellectual environment in which the person lived and given the context, the way in which the person drew his or her conclusion. In this case, Rand, as was many people from the 1950's~70's, could have been brainwashed by the cigarette company and thus reluctant to the counter-advertising, which began to surface in 1967 [3]. By that time, she was 62. 3) I do not defend racism. Nonetheless, can we say that because of this, Ayn Rand was a lunatic and an unrealist? Remember the time period she was born in and grew up in--it was a homogenized America, where racial slurs were not looked down upon, and where America was the supernation of the world. She was 58, when Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Many thinkers had racist/sexist/straight-out-weird thoughts, but this does not deter our belief in their rationality and awareness. Aristotle had sexist view of the genders. Heidegger was a Nazi officer. Pythagoras and pythagoreans killed over irrational numbers. I note that Pro ignores the third point of his definition of crackpot: foolishness.Seeing as that I do not have much characters remaining, I find no room for my counter-argument. I remind the readers that if Pro has not proved his burden of proof, i.e., prove that Ayn Rand was a crackpot, Con wins by default. I have proved that Pro's argument that Rand is eccentric and that she is a lunatic is insufficient. Not only that, his argument is insufficient even by his own standard, seeing as that he has failed to consider whether Ayn Rand was "foolish". Pro has thusly failed to fulfill his burden of proof.I don't know why we skipped Round 2, but I look forward to Pro's conclusion/response. Let us keep the condescension and snarkiness down to the minimum this time. [1] http://science.slashdot.org...;[2] Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton. ISBN 0-452-01101-9. [3] http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov...