5 ms·

My biggest gripe with this article is that the ‘solution’ is introduced in the second-to-last paragraph. I’m a big fan of Ayn Rand, and I think the ‘New Atheist

My biggest gripe with this article is that the ‘solution’ is introduced in the second-to-last paragraph. I’m a big fan of Ayn Rand, and I think the ‘New Atheists’ probably do have a lot to learn from Objectivism, since it seems a lot more internally consistent—nevertheless, in articles like these it should occupy more than just a footnote.

AmaroqWolf 17y ago
I think the majority of this article was just intended to show that the "New Atheists" don't have any better justification for their moralities than the religious people do, and that morality must be justified with reason, not from feelings. The footnote was meant to recommend the reader to a source of moral guidance that is actually justified rationally and grounded in reality. (Objectivism.)
- mbrock 17y ago
  "There is, scientifically, a most profound break between the living and the non-living. Now life may be the spirit; the animals may be the forms of spirit and matter, in which matter predominates; man may be the highest form, the crown and final goal of the universe, the form of spirit and matter in which the spirit predominates and triumphs. (If there’s any value in “feelings” and “hunches”—God! how I feel that this is true!)" — Ayn Rand. I don't think she seems that rational; adjectives like dogmatic, idealistic, romantic, manichean seem more apt. It is admirable to try and ground ethics in reality, but I think Rand claims much, much more than she accomplished. I can't put together her dogged insistence on a benevolent universe, the grand exaltedness of capitalists and individualists, the nonexistence of instincts, the objective life-affirming value of cigarettes, etc, etc — with the idea of sober, honest reasoning. Yet these features are actually what I like the best about Rand. I think her attitude shows someone who could have been a good poet of individualism — like a more austere and condemning Whitman — if she hadn't gotten tangled up in the business of philosophy. (Richard Rorty's "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity" to me shines brightly with a kind of humble yet very discerning rationality, almost saintly honesty — yet he and Rand are completely, utterly at odds philosophically.)
  - AmaroqWolf 17y ago
    I've actually never come across that quote of Rand's before. It must be in a book of hers I haven't read. It's a terrible quote to try to justify Objectivist ethics with. The best validation of her ethics I know of is an essay entitled The Objectivist Ethics, in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness. The first several pages are dedicated to establishing why man needs ethics, and the rest of the essay to explaining Objectivist ethics and why it benefits human life. Ooh, I think we're in luck. A quick google search shows that you can read the essay here. I just glanced over it, but it appears to be the same essay as in VoS. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand...
philwelch 17y ago
Of course, you don't really get as many page views (or, sadly, upvotes on Hacker News) if you just write another blog post about why everyone should adopt Ayn Rand's philosophical system. You have to string everyone along for several paragraphs first.

AmaroqWolf 17y ago

I think the majority of this article was just intended to show that the "New Atheists" don't have any better justification for their moralities than the religious people do, and that morality must be justified with reason, not from feelings. The footnote was meant to recommend the reader to a source of moral guidance that is actually justified rationally and grounded in reality. (Objectivism.)

mbrock 17y ago
"There is, scientifically, a most profound break between the living and the non-living. Now life may be the spirit; the animals may be the forms of spirit and matter, in which matter predominates; man may be the highest form, the crown and final goal of the universe, the form of spirit and matter in which the spirit predominates and triumphs. (If there’s any value in “feelings” and “hunches”—God! how I feel that this is true!)" — Ayn Rand. I don't think she seems that rational; adjectives like dogmatic, idealistic, romantic, manichean seem more apt. It is admirable to try and ground ethics in reality, but I think Rand claims much, much more than she accomplished. I can't put together her dogged insistence on a benevolent universe, the grand exaltedness of capitalists and individualists, the nonexistence of instincts, the objective life-affirming value of cigarettes, etc, etc — with the idea of sober, honest reasoning. Yet these features are actually what I like the best about Rand. I think her attitude shows someone who could have been a good poet of individualism — like a more austere and condemning Whitman — if she hadn't gotten tangled up in the business of philosophy. (Richard Rorty's "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity" to me shines brightly with a kind of humble yet very discerning rationality, almost saintly honesty — yet he and Rand are completely, utterly at odds philosophically.)
- AmaroqWolf 17y ago
  I've actually never come across that quote of Rand's before. It must be in a book of hers I haven't read. It's a terrible quote to try to justify Objectivist ethics with. The best validation of her ethics I know of is an essay entitled The Objectivist Ethics, in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness. The first several pages are dedicated to establishing why man needs ethics, and the rest of the essay to explaining Objectivist ethics and why it benefits human life. Ooh, I think we're in luck. A quick google search shows that you can read the essay here. I just glanced over it, but it appears to be the same essay as in VoS. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand...

philwelch 17y ago

Of course, you don't really get as many page views (or, sadly, upvotes on Hacker News) if you just write another blog post about why everyone should adopt Ayn Rand's philosophical system. You have to string everyone along for several paragraphs first.