5 ms·

"Millions of other critics" was no strawman, for the simple reason that it wasn't an argument. Just my impression of the weakness of your argument. Let me add

by dgordon 17y ago

"Millions of other critics" was no strawman, for the simple reason that it wasn't an argument. Just my impression of the weakness of your argument. Let me address it. You claim Objectivism claims all rich people are productive and all poor people are parasites. I claim it clearly doesn't. To prove my case I'll just cite a few names, which you, with your deep knowledge of Objectivism, ought to know: Jim Taggart and Lillian Rearden on one side; Mike Donnagan and Steven Mallory on the other. Even Howard Roark did quite a bit of manual labor, and presumably was never anything approaching rich within the pages of The Fountainhead. As for who cleans the toilets in Galt's Gulch? Let's start with Quentin Daniels. Ever get that answer before?

ubernostrum 17y ago
You claim Objectivism claims all rich people are productive and all poor people are parasites. I do no such thing; I merely draw an analogy to the broad grouping of social classes in orthodox Marxism, which equally does not argue that 100% of Class A are good and 100% of Class B are bad. Meanwhile, let us consider Rand's philosophy as expounded by Rand herself; for simplicity's sake, and because she considered it such a vitally important work, we'll look at Atlas Shrugged. We are meant to glean from it a view of Rand's purely-rational, logically-defensible Objectivist ethics, but what we find is merely contradiction piled upon contradiction. Selfishness, Objectivism tells us, is a virtue. So how is it presented in Atlas Shrugged? Well, while the selfishness of, say, Galt is held up as great and good, the selfishness of people other than Rand's heroes is painted as a vast evil, such that their very lives are to be forfeit as punishment. And though Objectivism preaches an ethics based on the sanctity of the individual's rights over him- or herself and that subverting the individual's goals for the "greater good" is an absolute evil, Atlas Shrugged preaches that individuals can and should be killed as needed in the service of greater advances. Say, to expose corruption in railway management. I could go on if you'd like, since Objectivism as expressed by Rand in her books has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese, but hopefully you'll trust that I've actually given this some thought. The final impression I came away with was that Rand was trying to write tales of Nietzsche's ubermensch (which would resolve contradictions by putting her heroes beyond mere everyday notions of good and evil), but merely produced a caricature of his philosophy embedded into a series of one-dimensional and frankly unreadable novels.
- dgordon 17y ago
  Yes, yes you did do any such thing. Here's what you wrote: "Objectivism is -- literally -- orthodox Marxism with different words filled into key blanks." Then your link leads to: "There are two classes of people in society. One class, which we call the ____, is productive and labors to bring forth all manner of useful things. The other class, which we call the ____, is not productive and, in fact, consists entirely [emphasis mine -dgordon] of parasites who suck the life's blood out of their fellow men. These parasites accomplish their goal via exploitation and alienation: unjustly separating others from the fruits of their labor, though they wrap themselves in a philosophy by which they seek to justify their theft. One day, the revolution will come and the productive class will rise up and throw off the yoke of the parasites. Broadly speaking, one can insert "poor" into the first blank and "rich" into the second and obtain the works of Marx. Or one can insert "rich" into the first blank and "poor" into the second and obtain the works of Rand." Anyway, let me address your current argument. "The selfishness of, say, Galt is held up as great and good, the selfishness of people other than Rand's heroes is painted as a vast evil, such that their very lives are to be forfeit as punishment." Rand uses selfishness in a very specific and unconventional sense, which includes "neither sacrificing oneself to others nor sacrificing others to oneself." The second one is considered selfish under the conventional definition. So if you're trying to claim that Galt's selfishness is the same as, say, Jim Taggart's selfishness, which you seem to be, that won't work because you're clearly conflating Rand's definition and the conventional one. (Was that new definition a good one for ease of understanding? Maybe not, but I'm not sure what word is available to convey the same meaning -- even "independence" or "self-reliance" don't quite get there.) In your other argument, you seem to be referring to the train crash that collapsed the Taggart Tunnel, and specifically to the listing of the beliefs of the passengers in the train. Nothing there suggested they "can and should be killed...to expose corruption." First, the situation that led to the train being sent into the tunnel with an unsafe engine was much deeper and worse than corruption in railway management. More importantly, nothing in the book said or suggested they "can and should be killed" -- only that the ideas they practiced and preached helped to create the state of society in which they could die in the way they did. If you disagree with that claim, fine, but you're badly distorting that part of the book. I don't trust that you've given this thought, because you're repeating standard criticisms which don't have much substance to them.

by dgordon 17y ago

ubernostrum 17y ago

You claim Objectivism claims all rich people are productive and all poor people are parasites. I do no such thing; I merely draw an analogy to the broad grouping of social classes in orthodox Marxism, which equally does not argue that 100% of Class A are good and 100% of Class B are bad. Meanwhile, let us consider Rand's philosophy as expounded by Rand herself; for simplicity's sake, and because she considered it such a vitally important work, we'll look at Atlas Shrugged. We are meant to glean from it a view of Rand's purely-rational, logically-defensible Objectivist ethics, but what we find is merely contradiction piled upon contradiction. Selfishness, Objectivism tells us, is a virtue. So how is it presented in Atlas Shrugged? Well, while the selfishness of, say, Galt is held up as great and good, the selfishness of people other than Rand's heroes is painted as a vast evil, such that their very lives are to be forfeit as punishment. And though Objectivism preaches an ethics based on the sanctity of the individual's rights over him- or herself and that subverting the individual's goals for the "greater good" is an absolute evil, Atlas Shrugged preaches that individuals can and should be killed as needed in the service of greater advances. Say, to expose corruption in railway management. I could go on if you'd like, since Objectivism as expressed by Rand in her books has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese, but hopefully you'll trust that I've actually given this some thought. The final impression I came away with was that Rand was trying to write tales of Nietzsche's ubermensch (which would resolve contradictions by putting her heroes beyond mere everyday notions of good and evil), but merely produced a caricature of his philosophy embedded into a series of one-dimensional and frankly unreadable novels.

dgordon 17y ago
Yes, yes you did do any such thing. Here's what you wrote: "Objectivism is -- literally -- orthodox Marxism with different words filled into key blanks." Then your link leads to: "There are two classes of people in society. One class, which we call the ____, is productive and labors to bring forth all manner of useful things. The other class, which we call the ____, is not productive and, in fact, consists entirely [emphasis mine -dgordon] of parasites who suck the life's blood out of their fellow men. These parasites accomplish their goal via exploitation and alienation: unjustly separating others from the fruits of their labor, though they wrap themselves in a philosophy by which they seek to justify their theft. One day, the revolution will come and the productive class will rise up and throw off the yoke of the parasites. Broadly speaking, one can insert "poor" into the first blank and "rich" into the second and obtain the works of Marx. Or one can insert "rich" into the first blank and "poor" into the second and obtain the works of Rand." Anyway, let me address your current argument. "The selfishness of, say, Galt is held up as great and good, the selfishness of people other than Rand's heroes is painted as a vast evil, such that their very lives are to be forfeit as punishment." Rand uses selfishness in a very specific and unconventional sense, which includes "neither sacrificing oneself to others nor sacrificing others to oneself." The second one is considered selfish under the conventional definition. So if you're trying to claim that Galt's selfishness is the same as, say, Jim Taggart's selfishness, which you seem to be, that won't work because you're clearly conflating Rand's definition and the conventional one. (Was that new definition a good one for ease of understanding? Maybe not, but I'm not sure what word is available to convey the same meaning -- even "independence" or "self-reliance" don't quite get there.) In your other argument, you seem to be referring to the train crash that collapsed the Taggart Tunnel, and specifically to the listing of the beliefs of the passengers in the train. Nothing there suggested they "can and should be killed...to expose corruption." First, the situation that led to the train being sent into the tunnel with an unsafe engine was much deeper and worse than corruption in railway management. More importantly, nothing in the book said or suggested they "can and should be killed" -- only that the ideas they practiced and preached helped to create the state of society in which they could die in the way they did. If you disagree with that claim, fine, but you're badly distorting that part of the book. I don't trust that you've given this thought, because you're repeating standard criticisms which don't have much substance to them.