From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: flaming RAND ( Re: Rand on Godel, QM))
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:30:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.201818.28191@ils.nwu.edu>, hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu 
(BOB HOOKER) writes:

SG 	The following is the ad hominem logical fallacy
>
>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.  This movement
>attracts those who lack any connection to the world of others,  it feeds on
>a strange need for certain people to feel better,  more perfect then other
>people.   This need comes from a horrific fear of others.   
>
>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.  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,  but the world goes on taking less and less notice of their
>existence.
>
>I myself was once enamored by the objectivist position,  in my freshmen
>year in College I read Atlas Shrugged and some of Rand's philosophical
>works.  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.  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. 
>The others around me were lesser human who feared me.  It was the other who
>saw me as a threat.  Objectivism projects the fear of the other out onto
>the world.  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.  Thus the Objectivist
>is liberated from his hatred and fear of other humans but pays the price of
>endless paranoia.  Others are out to wreck his accomplishements,  prevent
>his success,  fear his genius.  Stalin could probably said to be one of the
>few humans to act out objectivist intentions.

SG	You used a rationalist view on Objectivism. Objectivism is not a 
deduction from an idea. Objectivism is basically inductive, an induction from 
the concretes of reality to secondary issues to philosophy to the recognition 
that reality is real, that existence exists. See Peikoff's _Understanding of 
Objectivism_, a profound and systematic rejection of rattionalism and 
empiricism as methods of objectivity. Objectivism is objective, the volitional 
and logical connection of mind to reality. It does not start in consciousness 
but, instead, in reality.

SG 	The ad hominems continue...
> 
>All Objectivisim can probably be boiled down to Temporary Delirium in a
>state of advanced Paranoia.  Rand was clearly a very ill woman and only an
>unstable personality could have unleased an un-taught-out self delusion so
>foil upon the unsuspecting vulnerable minds of humanity.  
>
>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.  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.
>
>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.  This ideal man
>accomplishes things that no single man could ever accomplish in this world,
> he can create light bulbs from candles in two years,  he can bring the
>very existence of society to a halt in no time what so ever,  simply by
>denying the world his brilliance.  

SG	Try convincing a primitive savage that computers are possible.
>
>Since these characters lack any humanity, any real faults  

SG	Now we get closer to his rotten little soul

they provide
>little guidance to living ones life day to day,  nor do they provide much
>in the way of inward guidance to deal with  the crisis of life that we must
>all face.  They are characters for a dream world and they are for people
>who live in a dream world.   But they are never intended to be real guides,
> they are only intended to rationalize an isolation of delusion of
>grandeur.
>
>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.  For Rand gives us the evil rest of the
>world.  Most prone for here spite is the college professor.  

SG	Rand damns non-objective professors, not professors. One hero in _Atlas 
Shrugged_ is a professor. To be ad hominem for a moment, why be so concerned 
with professors, hmmmm....?

Even in an age
>where America's business men are losing to Germans and Japanese,  many of
>which were educated by our professors (who are the best educators the world
>has ever known),  may still judge the professor as inferior to the business
>man.  Why?  a professor is likely to evaluate and judge our disturbed
>objectivist.  In the professor lurks the possibility of rejection, failure.
> He must be turned into a caricature as soon as,  and Rand provides him
>with a weapon.  

[anti-objective] 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.  
>
>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.  You are more perfect then they are,  better then they
>are,  the world would stop without you,  you are responsible for everything
>they have." 
>
>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.  
>
SG	Here we go...

>Rand asserts that altruism,  that felling for others,  that compassion, the
>"humanity" itself is valueless and must be put aside.  Never does she
>examine the true implications of these ideas,  

SG	Rand provides the only systematic rejection of altruism in history. 
"humanity" is your mind and your desire to live and be happy

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?  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. 
>Rand simply says this only to save this bit of $.10 philosophy to its ture
>purpose.

SG	Rand provides a systematic rejection of the initiation of force, 
basically the recognition that trade and not force is the most selfish way to 
realte to others.

>Rand never gives anything other then idiotic assertions on these moral
>issues,  but Rand's anti-altruism is never intended as a moral guide.  In
>fact none of Randianism is meant to guide man in action on this earth, 
>rather it is intended to guide man in non-action, in isolation,  in retreat
>from a scary, chaotic less then perfect world.  

SG	From a scary, chaotic world to sacrifice, the explicit ethics of Marx 
and Hitler. And what is perfect for altruists if not this world? A fantasy in 
which sacrifice causes self-esteem. Of course, without a self...

The anti-altruism of Rand,
>which is riddled by logical contradictions never contradicts itself,  

SG	Is selfishness contradictory or not? It is consistent with itself and 
with reality. 

since
>it is not intended to be acted upon but only to rationalize the hatred of
>humanity that Objectivists feel.
>
SG	I have no duty to relieve your misery. You caused it. Its yours. you 
own it, not me.

SG	Robert Duvall, who played Stalin on HBO, said he did not understand the 
character. Of course, since Stalin was not shown as motivated by altruism, the 
desire to sacrifice oneslf for others and to force others to do likewise (thus 
the lust for power) if they would not voluntarily sacrifice themselves.
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta