4 ms·

Rand makes claims based on clearly defined concepts - if you change the definition of the concept or misinterpret that's not her fault. When she says 'man' it i

by Tycho 16y ago

Rand makes claims based on clearly defined concepts - if you change the definition of the concept or misinterpret that's not her fault. When she says 'man' it is shorthand for an adult human capable of rational thought. If the human in question is not capable of rational thought (infant, retarded person), then most of Rand's theory does not apply. It consists of qualified universal claims, all depending on the nature of the organism (on a case by case basis, but we generalize for convenience). Meeting an overwhelming foe in war is an ethical emergency where there is no good outcome, just a choice of bad ones. As such, do whatever seems to best protect that which you value most, either fleeing or fighting (or even dieing to save others) could be moral decisions. These are not the problematic parts of Rand's philosophy, the rules themselves don't change - but they are in fact the problematic parts of almost every other philosophy I come across: ie. the unhelpful focus on emergencies and exceptions, rendering the 'answers' irrelevant to everyday life. See Rand's essay 'The Ethics of Emergencies' for more on this. You say the concept of the individual is wrong but just as morality only has meaning to the living, this very discussion only has meaning if it involves conscious, self-aware individuals, so there's literally no point entertaining any idea to the contrary (even though I'd like to point out that molecules still exist as unique entities even though they're made up of quarks). Also it's irrelevant whether there is a hardwired survival instinct in place or not - as I said the whole thing rests on a conditional premise, a choice. Look at what Rand's saying like this: Do you, lifeform, wish to live? If so then [insert Objectivism here]

ThomPete 16y ago
It doesn't matter if Rand makes claims on clearly defined concepts. Her concepts are wrong. The premise is wrong. I don't change the definition I am telling you what is wrong with her definition. There is a world of difference. Again you speak of conscious self-aware individuals as if it's well defined what that means. This is exactly the problem with Rands philosophy and your belief. Words are not reality, words are simplifications of reality. No matter how many descriptors you put around the word individual it won't become more well defined. There isn't any clear cut easily observable individual when you start to really dig into it. "Do you, life-form, wish to live? If so then [insert Objectivism here]" This obviously isn't what she is saying since there are other ways to live than by the gospel of objectivism. Ways that have no problem supporting life. Religion being one of them.
- Tycho 16y ago
  Words are symbols for their referents, which are concepts - concepts that are a condensation of many, many observations about existents or other concepts. So yes words are simplifications of reality, they encode the essential aspects of some part of reality - but their definitions are right or wrong depending on the truth or falsehood of the condensed observations. Rand observed that biologically developed men were autonomous agents with the ability to perceive, reason and conceptualize (ie. conscious, self-aware individuals) and proscribed an ethical theory accordingly. She declares her definition so if you want to invalidate it you need to refute those observations or the manner in which they're integrated into a single concept. Individuals are extremely easy to recognize, we do it all the time. We just don't know exactly how all the systems supporting our individuality work, but then we don't know exactly how all the systems supporting anything work either. Quantum mechanics, anyone? Humans are rational animals: that means as animals they have all the usual biological considerations of growth/development/decay but the end product of that growth/development (when successful) is always a being with the type of consciousness (ie. awareness) that allows him/her to not only respond to the environment and act autonomously, but also to abstract, conceptualize, and reason. Also I think you misinterpreted my last line - Rand is only addressing or 'trying to reach' life-forms who choose life. Of course they could choose to follow some other advice and still choose to live (although not wholly consistently, Rand would argue)
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    I have refuted those observations simply by showing that men are not ONLY individuals. That they don't exist in a vacum, that they are not ONLY autonomous. That's all I need to do. I don't have to buy Rands observations if they don't fully account for the reality they are trying to make claims about. You are confusing what seems to be the case with what is the case. You take one interpretation of phenomena and makes it the only interpretation. Then you (or Rand if you like) take that an try to make universal claims. That is exactly what is wrong here. That is only one interpretation not very well thought out and certainly not grounded in any deep thinking on the matter. Humans are not only rational animals they are also irrational animals. Sometimes that irrationality actually have benefits for survival. And then we haven't even looked at the problem with claiming that something is rational outside of it's context as you are fundamentally arguing. No I didn't misinterpret it I understood very well what you said. To boil it all down. The problem that you find yourself in is that every time I give you examples of where Rands universal claims don't apply you simply exclude them from the claim. You don't need to think about this very long until you realize that this is not what constitutes careful thinking. That's sloppy thinking. There is nothing well defined about reality. No slam dunk easy peacey way to get to certainty in these matters no matter how many words you use to describe it. Listen you will grow up meet the woman in your life, perhaps get kids. Then you will realize just how wrong Rands thinking is. And don't get me wrong. Rand did have some clever things to say and sure did inspire many to do better. But a philosopher she was not. That requires careful thinking something that she and the whole objective school that came after her so sorely miss.

by Tycho 16y ago

ThomPete 16y ago

It doesn't matter if Rand makes claims on clearly defined concepts. Her concepts are wrong. The premise is wrong. I don't change the definition I am telling you what is wrong with her definition. There is a world of difference. Again you speak of conscious self-aware individuals as if it's well defined what that means. This is exactly the problem with Rands philosophy and your belief. Words are not reality, words are simplifications of reality. No matter how many descriptors you put around the word individual it won't become more well defined. There isn't any clear cut easily observable individual when you start to really dig into it. "Do you, life-form, wish to live? If so then [insert Objectivism here]" This obviously isn't what she is saying since there are other ways to live than by the gospel of objectivism. Ways that have no problem supporting life. Religion being one of them.

Tycho 16y ago
Words are symbols for their referents, which are concepts - concepts that are a condensation of many, many observations about existents or other concepts. So yes words are simplifications of reality, they encode the essential aspects of some part of reality - but their definitions are right or wrong depending on the truth or falsehood of the condensed observations. Rand observed that biologically developed men were autonomous agents with the ability to perceive, reason and conceptualize (ie. conscious, self-aware individuals) and proscribed an ethical theory accordingly. She declares her definition so if you want to invalidate it you need to refute those observations or the manner in which they're integrated into a single concept. Individuals are extremely easy to recognize, we do it all the time. We just don't know exactly how all the systems supporting our individuality work, but then we don't know exactly how all the systems supporting anything work either. Quantum mechanics, anyone? Humans are rational animals: that means as animals they have all the usual biological considerations of growth/development/decay but the end product of that growth/development (when successful) is always a being with the type of consciousness (ie. awareness) that allows him/her to not only respond to the environment and act autonomously, but also to abstract, conceptualize, and reason. Also I think you misinterpreted my last line - Rand is only addressing or 'trying to reach' life-forms who choose life. Of course they could choose to follow some other advice and still choose to live (although not wholly consistently, Rand would argue)
- ThomPete 16y ago
  I have refuted those observations simply by showing that men are not ONLY individuals. That they don't exist in a vacum, that they are not ONLY autonomous. That's all I need to do. I don't have to buy Rands observations if they don't fully account for the reality they are trying to make claims about. You are confusing what seems to be the case with what is the case. You take one interpretation of phenomena and makes it the only interpretation. Then you (or Rand if you like) take that an try to make universal claims. That is exactly what is wrong here. That is only one interpretation not very well thought out and certainly not grounded in any deep thinking on the matter. Humans are not only rational animals they are also irrational animals. Sometimes that irrationality actually have benefits for survival. And then we haven't even looked at the problem with claiming that something is rational outside of it's context as you are fundamentally arguing. No I didn't misinterpret it I understood very well what you said. To boil it all down. The problem that you find yourself in is that every time I give you examples of where Rands universal claims don't apply you simply exclude them from the claim. You don't need to think about this very long until you realize that this is not what constitutes careful thinking. That's sloppy thinking. There is nothing well defined about reality. No slam dunk easy peacey way to get to certainty in these matters no matter how many words you use to describe it. Listen you will grow up meet the woman in your life, perhaps get kids. Then you will realize just how wrong Rands thinking is. And don't get me wrong. Rand did have some clever things to say and sure did inspire many to do better. But a philosopher she was not. That requires careful thinking something that she and the whole objective school that came after her so sorely miss.