From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: flaming RAND ( Re: Rand on Godel, QM))
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:58:17 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

Aside from the obvious disagreements I have with Bob's conclusions about 
Objectivism, I see a much more fundamental problem with his posting.  
Rather than explaining why certain objectivist ideas are wrong, or why 
the objectivist method in general is wrong according to some philosophical 
context (this is a philosophy newsgroup after all), he resorts to 
psychoanalysis of why objectivism appeals to people, and it's psychological 
effects.  Where does he get his evidence to draw these conclusions?  
Apparently from some kind of personal experience with experiencing these 
psychological problems or something.  My experience with Objectivists 
(or at least people who apply that term to themselves) is that some of them
are indeed a bit off-center, but then again, so are a lot of people with a 
lot of other outlooks.  On the other hand, a great many of them are very 
level-headed and thoughtful people.  Rather than trying to (insultingly)
make psychological generalizations about Objectivists, Mr. Hooker
ought to address the philosophical issues at hand.  
 
Another problem here is that Mr. Hooker either doesn't understand the 
objectivist positions on the various issues, or is deliberately misrepresenting
them.  Though I suspect Mr. Hooker is doing the latter, I'll give him 
the benefit of the doubt for the moment, and explain to him and the
rest of you lurkers what's the case.
 
aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (BOB HOOKER) raves:
>But allow me to start if I may.  Objectivism is a dangerous degeneration of
>the human condition which results from a total isolation of the self from
>the surrounding world which threatens the objectivist.  
 
Even if you claimed that this philosophy causes people to become 
anti-social (something I find to be quite the opposite), your comment amounts 
to saying that only anti-social people agree with objectivist philosophy...have 
you ever heard of the ad hominem fallacy?
 
>This movement attracts those who lack any connection to the world of others,  
 
How then do you explain the fact that so many Objectivists meet, discuss, 
speak, and write for audiences full of 'others'?If I were one of those who 
"lack any connection to the world of others", why would I be posting this 
message?  The fact that Objectivists are out there arguing with you (if
nothing else) makes it clear that this is not true.
 
Are you saying that this "lack of connection" is part of objectivist theory or
that objectivism is more appealing to such people?  If this is an attack on 
the people, it doesn't reflect on the ideas, right?  Christianity attracts some
people who are power lusters too, but I would not criticize Christian 
philosophy on that basis.  Do you see why that's an ineffective way to 
argue your position?
 
>it feeds on
>a strange need for certain people to feel better,  more perfect then other
>people.   
 
That's a ridiculous claim, all the more so because you don't see fit to explain
what leads you to believe so.  Would you care to try to back up this assertion
with at least SOME kind of argument and evidence?  Or is your *feeling* that
this is true good enough?
 
The objectivist view is that one's self-esteem ought to be based on one's
ideas and abilities.  Now, you may choose to claim that many who profess to 
agree with objectivism are actually hypocrites, but that's an attack on those
individuals, not on the philosophy which they have rejected.
 
>This need comes from a horrific fear of others.
 
HereUs our old friend the ad hominem argument again...only people fearful of 
others would believe X.  I don't have a 'horrific fear of others'...how do you
explain that?
 
You arenUt claiming that Rfear of othersS is consistent with objectivist philosophy
are you?  If you are not, then you are merely complaining that some people
who profess objectivist beliefs are actually not practicing what they preach,
not that objectivism is bad or wrong.  Are you actually saying that the 
objectivist view on relationships with others is correct here?
 
>Once one has accepted the Objectivist notions then a very ugly self-
>reinforcing cycle begins.  Very abnormal of misanthropic behavior is
>suddenly justified as signs of advanced perfection and rationality.  
 
Really?  What sorts of behavior might that be?  Are you saying that IUm a 
misanthrope?  
 
Here you go again.  Are you saying that misanthropy is consistent with 
objectivist philosophy or that some self-declared Objectivists are not 
acting in accordance with objectivist philosophy?
 
>Which
>in turns increases the social isolation of these individuals.  They tell
>themselves that the world would stop without them,  if they shrugged their
>roles,  
 
WhereUs your evidence of that?  RandUs point about virtue and 
productiveness are necessary to keep the world going (as opposed to
being an oppressive sinful thing).  She portrayed this idea in her FICTION
in order to make her philosophical point clear.  Do you disagree with that 
point?  Do you think that objectivist philosophy says that one ought to 
act as though the world would stop turning if he RshruggedS?  It 
doesnUt.  What it says is that the application of reason and productivity
to the problems of life is what keeps things going, and that one ought
to act to promote this rather than detracting from it.  Do you disagree?  Do you
think that if most or all of the most rational, most productive people RshruggedS,
that the world would just continue on oblivious to the loss?
 
>but the world goes on taking less and less notice of their existence.
 
Are you of the impression that objectivism advocates withdrawal from the
world?  It certainly doesnUt.  It looks to me as though you canUt tell the
difference between fiction and philosophy.
 
>I myself was once enamored by the objectivist position,  
 
Does that mean you were a misanthropic fearful hermit back then?  If so,
why blame objectivism for YOUR psychological hang-ups?  Unless you
can demonstrate that objectivism is the cause, you are placing the blame
where it doesnUt belong.
 
>in my freshmen
>year in College I read Atlas Shrugged and some of Rand's philosophical
>works.  
 
Apparently no too closely if you think objectivism advocates misanthropism
and withdrawal from society.
 
>On reflection I see that though I thought I was getting a more
>objective picture of the world I was in fact more isolated from it.  I
>would speak to myself about the control I exerted via the agency of my mind
>like some type of sympathetic magic of a witch doctor.  
 
I should note that this is a description, not of objectivism, but of your
reaction to reading a few of RandUs books.  Aside from casting doubts
on your own psychological health, such a position doesnUt really tell us 
anything very interesting, does it?
 
>But I simply became
>more paranoid,  after all I was the rational man who knew reality,  who
>could shape the world into my own image,  who could be used to measure the
>entire earth.  I Ego.
 
But WERE you rational?  Were you capable of making a place for yourself
in the world?  Of changing it for the better?
 
One thing that troubles many people about objectivism is that it sets very 
high standards for morality and offers strong reasons for why morality is
important.  Many people are disturbed to find that they donUt measure
up to that standard and react in various strange ways, often angrily blaming 
the standards rather than evaluating their own ideas and actions.
 
>The others around me were lesser human who feared me.  
 
Are you saying that objectivism claims this is true?  It sounds to me as
though you were a confused and perhaps mentally unbalanced
person who blamed Ayn Rand for your own faults.
 
>It was the other who
>saw me as a threat.  Objectivism projects the fear of the other out onto
>the world.  
 
Really?  What objectivist idea or ideas leads to this?
 
>It no longer is that we are afraid of others in the world but
>rather others are afraid of us and want to stop us.  
 
Really?  Does objectivism recommend hate and fear of others?  Does it
recommend paranoia?  Or are you just saying that some who read RandUs
books are often appealing to people who have these ideas and emotions
before reading them?
 
>Thus the Objectivist
>is liberated from his hatred and fear of other humans but pays the price of
>endless paranoia.  
 
I'm certainly not paranoid, and neither are my objectivist friends and 
associates.  How do you explain this?  If you disagree and think that we
are paranoid, then on what basis do you draw that conclusion?  What
does this have to do with philosophy anyway?  Unless you can show that 
some objectivist doctrine or other explicitly or implicitly calls for it,
you are merely insulting certain people for not REALLY being Objectivists.
 
>Others are out to wreck his accomplishments,  prevent his success,  
>fear his genius.  
 
Are you saying that objectivism teaches that everyone is like this?  Or that
SOME people are like that?  I certainly think that there ARE people like
that, but itUs certainly not everyone, or even most people.  What exactly 
are you saying here?  That objectivism made you paranoid about such
people when they did not exist?
 
>Stalin could probably said to be one of the few humans to act out 
>objectivist intentions.
 
That is ludicrous!  The first principle of the objectivist view of social 
interactions is that one must not initiate force against others.  Stalin
obviously violated this consistently.  Where in the world did you come
up with this ridiculous assertion?  StalinUs personal and political ideas
are completely antithetical to objectivist ones and you know it.  Next
youUll be telling us that Santa Claus is not generous with gifts.
 
>All Objectivism can probably be boiled down to Temporary Delirium in a
>state of advanced Paranoia.  
 
It sounds to me as though this is a boiling-down of your psychological
reaction to objectivist philosophy.  ThatUs not the same thing.
 
>Rand was clearly a very ill woman 
 
Mentally ill?  ThatUs merely another ad hominem argument.  How do you
know if she was mentally ill?  Even if she was stark raving crazy would
it follow that her philosophy is wrong?
 
>and only an
>unstable personality could have unleased an un-thought-out 
 
I have heard a lot of silly things said about objectivism, but this takes the
cake.  Ayn Rand was fairly rare as philosophers go in that hers is a complete
systematic philosophy addressing all of the important philosophical areas from
metaphysics through art and politics.  You might criticize her particular
views in these areas (although you have refrained from doing so in this
post), but she can hardly be criticized for not having thought out her
positions.  Have you really read anything Rand wrote?  
 
>self delusion so foil upon the unsuspecting vulnerable minds of humanity.
 
So humanityUs minds are vulnerable to objectivism.  I see.  And it was never
really thought out.  Any Ayn Rand is crazy.  And she makes people hate
and fear everyone.  WhoUs the delusional paranoid here?
 
And what does this have to do with objectivist philosophy anyway?  Do you 
think that objectivism was designed to be deceptive?  Do you think that
Ayn Rand practiced her own philosophy?  If not, then you are merely
claiming that even Rand wasnUt an objectivism.  While ludicrous, it still
doesnUt constitute an argument against objectivism, just an attack on
an objectivist.
 
>Randian Dellusionalism start with the assertion that What is Is.  Never is
>there any real effort to figure out how we know what is that is from what
>is that is not.  
 
Have you ever read ANYTHING about objectivist metaphysics?  Apparently 
not.  Furthermore, the validation of the idea that what is is, is not derived 
from is that is not (in fact, the objectivist view is that non-existent
things do not exist).  It is validated by the fact that to deny that what is is
is self-refuting (I suppose you have never read AristotleUs writings on
reaffirmation through denial either.).  If you unaware of the general
objectivist idea of how axioms can be validated, then you are in no
position to criticize objectivist philosophy.  You canUt effectively
criticize what you donUt understand.
 
>The entire delusion of grandeur rest on this statement,
>which in it arbitrary un-philosophical vagueness can rationalize all of the
>poor victims paranoid misconceptions.
 
Is it as un-vague as your criticism of it?  As I said, you have to understand 
an idea before you can criticize it, and you canUt even state the objectivist
position in the first place.
 
>Then the great true man,  the John Gault is presented,  the idea man.  Rand
>who never deals with the real lived lives of everyday human beings always
>presents this man in the state of idealized non-reality.  
 
Apparently you have also never read RandUs theory of aesthetics either.
The whole idea behind her art fiction is to create ideal examples of certain
ideas so that we can better understand them.  It sounds like you are looking
for journalism, not art.  Just because no real person is actually exactly like 
John Galt, does not mean that he canUt be an example to illustrate what it
means to be a great man, and that is the purpose of art...to convey ideas,
not to show what the folks next door are like.
 
>This ideal man
>accomplishes things that no single man could ever accomplish in this world,
 
You mean single men like Edison, Jefferson, Newton, Aristotle, and Ford?
 
>he can create light bulbs from candles in two years,  
 
Yes, given that he had a working example to work from and that heUs
highly intelligent, itUs quite realistic.
 
>he can bring the
>very existence of society to a halt in no time what so ever,  simply by
>denying the world his brilliance.
 
If you are talking about John Galt, it took 12 or 13 years as I remember, and
this was not by denying his own brilliance, but that of hundreds of key
industrialists, artists, doctors, politicians, and other thinkers.  This all in
a society already on an irretrievably advanced state of decline.  Why
do you think thatUs so outrageous?  Of course it is fiction, but not 
outrageous as fiction goes.
 
>Since these characters lack any humanity, any real faults  
 
Is the possession of faults what makes one human?
 
>they provide
>little guidance to living ones life day to day,  
 
As examples of what one should or should not do (donUt forget those
flawed villains) they provide all kinds of guidance on how one ought
to live.  If you recognize that these people are perfect, then you at
least know what it means to be perfect.  If you recognize that the bad guys
are perfectly bad (and not all of them are), then you can learn what evil
is really all about.  Do you see no value in that?
 
>nor do they provide much
>in the way of inward guidance to deal with  the crisis of life that we must
>all face.  
 
You mean crises like how to deal with evil?  Like how to arrange oneUs 
romantic life?  Like how to plan oneUs career?  Like how to choose
friends?  Do you not think that these (and many other issues) are
addressed?  The value of honesty and integrity?  Do you not 
think that it is clear what the right and wrong ways of addressing 
these crises is according to Rand?  The fact that you can recognize
that the good guys always (or almost always) do the right thing means
that her moral guidance was effectively communicated (at least
in part).
 
>They are characters for a dream world and they are for people
>who live in a dream world.   
 
They are fictional characters!  What do you expect?  As for whom they are
RforS...I live in the real world, and I like them.  What do you think of that?
I guess itUs just another example of your habit of applying ad hominem 
arguments when no valid ones are available.
 
>But they are never intended to be real guides,
 >they are only intended to rationalize an isolation of delusion of
>grandeur.
 
They are examples of good and bad.  If not examples of right and
wrong, what else would you suggest as more proper moral guides?
Examples of Rkinda goodS and Rsorta badS?
 
I should also point out that although RandUs fictional characters are 
implicitly representing philosophical positions, her fictional writings
are not philosophy.  What have you ever read of objectivist philosophy
anyway?  It sounds like all you have read is Atlas Shrugged and Anthem,
and you donUt seem to have achieved a very good understanding of 
either of them.
 
>But this is not the worst of it,  for the world will always be full of
>romantic dreams who don't know the difference between a good and a bad
>novel or piece of philosophy.  
 
Indeed, you are demonstrating the truth of your statement as you write.
 
>For Rand gives us the evil rest of the world.  
 
What?  That doesnUt make any sense.
 
>Most prone for here spite is the college professor.  
 
Really?  In Atlas Shrugged, the guy who sort of started the whole 
thing was Dr. Hugh Akston, a philosophy professor, and he was 
a very virtuous character wasnUt he?  If you look at the objectivist
movement, it is strongly focused on changing the academic
world, including college professors.  Where do you get the 
impression that Rand hated college professors?  What she
hated was evil people, and they exist in all sorts of professions.
 
>Even in an age
>where America's business men are losing to Germans and Japanese,  many of
>which were educated by our professors 
 
What a strange perspective.  Strange or not though, it has nothing to do 
with objectivism.  Even if it did, and the objectivist view was that 
every last professor was an evil axe-murderer in disguise, it would
not follow that German and Japanese businesses would be doing
worse than American businessmen...or better for that matter.  I donUt
think it is necessary to point out the 20 reasons why this whole line of 
argumentation makes no sense.  Just think about it for a minute.
 
>(who are the best educators the world has ever known),  
 
You think that American college professors are in general the best the
world has ever known?  How do you reach that conclusion?  Have you 
ever sat in a room with one for an hour?
 
Anyway, this is not a philosophical issue, and is certainly not based on
anything Rand wrote or said.  She criticized a great many intellectuals
in her day, and many of them were college professors (not surprising
since that is the leading occupation for serious intellectuals and writers)
but she didnUt write that college professors are all bad guys.
 
>may still judge the professor as inferior to the business
>man.  Why?  a professor is likely to evaluate and judge our disturbed
>objectivist.  
 
That is ridiculous!  I have to wonder whether you ever read ANY of RandUs
writings.  Perhaps you just didnUt understand any of what you read.
If you think about it, the stuff you read was probably written before there
even were any Objectivists (aside perhaps from Rand herself).
 
I find it incredible that anyone would criticize Rand for being opposed to 
judgementalism!
 
>In the professor lurks the possibility of rejection, failure.
 
Here you go again.  Is this a claim that objectivism advocates this view
or that some professed Objectivists act in contradiction to the 
actual objectivist view on this issue?
 
 >He must be turned into a caricature as soon as,  and Rand provides him
>with a weapon.  Academics are evil destroyers of wealth and time wasters,
>they fail to see the true objective truth that is the truth that
>objectivist know because they are Objectivists.
 
I donUt know why I even bother responding to this nonsense.  Rand never 
said any such thing.  Rand did have a lot of criticisms of certain attitudes
common in academia, but thatUs far from the same thing.  ItUs also not
a philosophical issue...itUs an evaluation of cultural trends.
 
>Then there are the other humans out there that our poor delusional can only
>secretly feel are superior.  "No" says Rand,  "they are are leaches on your
>productive work.  
 
Have you got any idea what you are talking about?  Rand said that SOME 
people live as parasites on the productive members of society, and she
said that it is bad to be this way.  Do you disagree with that?  What she
DIDNUT say was that everyone but Objectivists acts that way.  Do you
know the difference between saying RSome people are criminals.S and
saying RPeople are criminals.S?
 
>You are more perfect then they are,  better then they
>are,  the world would stop without you,  you are responsible for everything
>they have."
 
To the extent that someone is rational and productive, one is able to create
values.  To the extent one is irrational and lazy, one is helpless.  ThatUs all
Rand is saying.  Do you disagree?
 
>But then the most unnatural Randian perversion takes place,  a crime
>against the species itself,  an inhuman farce against philosophy, art,
>humanity and life itself.
 
Now thereUs a convincing analytical argument!
 
>Rand asserts that altruism,  that felling for others,  that compassion, the
>"humanity" itself is valueless and must be put aside.  
 
Talk about perversion!  She never said any such thing.  In fact, she
considered compassion, feelings for others, and human society in
general as extremely valuable.  What she opposed is undeserved 
compassion, self-destructive feeling for others, and oppressive 
societies.  Again you have failed to make a distinction between a 
criticism of SOME things, ideas, or people and ALL things, ideas,
or people.  Maybe thereUs a pattern here.
 
Now, she WAS against altruism as the standard of morality, but thatUs
probably something you don;t understand about her position
either.  The alternative to altruism is NOT to become a hermit 
or a misanthrope.
 
>Never does she examine the true implications of these ideas,  
 
What implications?  She wrote thousands of pages discussing these
ideas.  Apparently because you have not read those pages, you
donUt think they exist?
 
>to salvage such insanity she
>imposes the restriction that humans can not use force on others to gain
>their will,  but why is it that I can not use force against someone to
>impose my wishes? 
 
Because (in a nutshell) it is not in your best interest to do so.  In life in
a lawful honest society there is much to be gained.  To attempt to
destroy that society by advocating (in word or deed) fraud, theft, and
murder, you are putting everything else in your life at risk.   On a more
personal level, if you live a life of dishonesty and violence, what
kinds of people will want to associate with you?  How will they treat you?
How clear will your thinking be if you are always worried about being 
caught at some dishonest or violent deed?
 
Am I to infer from your comments that you think I would better off in
general if I were to live a life of crime and deceit?
 
> since I need not feel any apathy or compassion,  since I
>have no commitment to put another before me,  why should I not use force.
 
Because using force is bad for you.  You seem to disagree.  Perhaps you
ought to explain why you think that using force and fraud are actually
in your best interest.
 
>Rand simply says this only to save this bit of $.10 philosophy to its true
>purpose.
 
And what is itUs true purpose?  
 
Do you not think that these social views are consistent with her more 
fundamental views on morality, values, and the nature of man?
What perspective is it consistent with?  Actually, I shouldnUt bother
asking you those questions since you clearly have only the most vague 
idea of what RandUs position was in the first place.
 
>Rand never gives anything other then idiotic assertions on these moral
>issues,  
 
You may or may not find her arguments RidioticS, but she did a LOT more
than just assert them out of thin air.  Go read her writings before you claim
to know what she says.
 
>but Rand's anti-altruism is never intended as a moral guide.  
 
It isnUt?  How do you know what Ayn RandUs intentions were?  Actually,
anti-altruism isnUt the moral guide Rand recommends...self-interest is.
Since altruism and self-interest are mutually exclusive, thereUs a bit
of truth there, but there are all sorts of other anti-altruist ethical systems
(like hedonism for example) which are not at all objectivist in their
formulation or conclusions.
 
>In
>fact none of Randianism is meant to guide man in action on this earth,
 
Reading RandUs mind again?
 
>rather it is intended to guide man in non-action, in isolation,  in retreat
>from a scary, chaotic less then perfect world.  
 
Really!  I suppose thatUs why Rand spent most of her life writing and 
speaking in public, and why she lead such non-isolated non-timid
existence.   And what did she recommend for the rest of us?  If you
think that objectivism recommends some kind of withdrawn 
hermit-like existence then you are simply mistaken (perhaps ignoring
her philosophy and focusing on a plot device in one of her
fictional stories.  Where in the world did you get this idea?
 
>The anti-altruism of Rand,
>which is riddled by logical contradictions never contradicts itself,  
 
What the hell does that mean?  How can something be contradictory
without contradicting itself?   Since the objectivist ethics is so riddled
with contradictions, you should have no problem giving us one little
example, right?  Remember, your example has to be from something 
Rand wrote, not some fantasy interpretation of the meaning you
drew from her fiction.
 
>since it is not intended to be acted upon 
 
Reading minds again?
 
>but only to rationalize the hatred of humanity that Objectivists feel.
 
What hatred is that?  Do you have any indication from objectivist 
writings that misanthropy is consistent with objectivist philosophy?
Rand specifically advocates a certain benevolent attitude toward 
others and life in general, were you aware of that?  I certainly
donUt hate humanity and I am an objectivist...how can you
explain that?  Having a hard time telling the difference between
RsomeS and RallS again?  Of course, you are (again) simply
claiming that some professed Objectivists are thinking and 
acting in contradiction to explicit objectivist philosophy, and 
taking that to be an attack on objectivism, but thatUs nothing 
new...you made that same mistake throughout your post.
 
i suggest that before you make an even bigger fool of 
yourself, you ought to get some idea of what Rand actually wrote.
Until you do, youUll just be making yourself look silly.
 
--Brian
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta