3 ms·

Ayn Rand often overstates her case for the sake of art (her evil characters, for example, are mostly shallow caricatures). I find that people who don't share he

Ayn Rand often overstates her case for the sake of art (her evil characters, for example, are mostly shallow caricatures). I find that people who don't share her views often mock her works and call her "ridiculous" because she treats some ideas that they hold completely without nuance or sympathy. I can see why they do this, but I think Ayn's detractors overstate their case. She is valuable because she is the only major author that writes from her point of view. I read many books in high school with a feminist or socialist moral, I read many literary triumphs that exposed the "failure" of capitalism, only Ayn dared to be different. I think every teenager should have a run-in with Rand, if only to begin the process of developing critical thinking. However, I do think her complete philosophical system has many more flaws then she would care to admit (the one laid out in the "BFS", "Big Frackin' Speech", at the end of Atlas Shrugged). She tries to lay out a case for the absolute, unassailable truth of her ethics, but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world.

maxharris 18y ago
"but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world." Why? Do you think a grand unified field theory is impossible? Do you think that quantum mechanics is the final word in physics? Do you suppose that that truth is knowable to some hypothetical race of aliens? (You specifically say that humans can't attain any absolute truth.) Or do you simply think that some truths are unknowable, such as distant historical events? Do you hold any superstitions (religious or otherwise)? (You probably don't, but it helps to cover all the bases.)
- radu_floricica 18y ago
  Because the world is complicated :) Thankfully. And by the time we get to understand significantly more then we do (not even close to everything) we won't be humans anymore. And this whole point will probably be obsolete.
  - maxharris 18y ago
    Sure, the world is complicated. But how does that make an "absolutist" moral system impossible? I think that with regard to morality (as it applies to humans, on earth), absolute truths and rules are not only possible to know (and make), but necessary. Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation.
    - jacoblyles 18y ago
      Discuss morality with intelligent people, and study evolutionary psychology, and it will not take you long to realize that every moral system has some edge cases where obeying it will lead to stomach-turning results. Our moral intuitions are lumpy, inconsistent, and contradictory. This is to be expected because we were designed by blind evolution, and not by any sort of logical process. Ethical systems serve as great guidelines, but it is impossible to find one simple set of consistent ideas to capture everything that an average person feels is right. It is even more impossible (for a non-theist) to find some sort of objective measure of value by which to determine morality. >"Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation." Human actions are guided by reason, but never solely by reason. We have a lot of innate biases left over from our 3 billion year evolution. I think you would enjoy this blog: http://www.overcomingbias.com/ http://www.overcomingbias.com/
      - maxharris 18y ago
        What about Objectivism leads to "stomach-turning results"? (Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)
        jacoblyles 18y ago
        Talk to more people that disagree with you, I'm sure you can find someone that can present you with an objectivist-flavored ethical dilemma. Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce contradictory results, but this is not unexpected for reasons previously stated. For what it's worth, I bought pretty much everything Rand ever wrote and quite a few things by Peikoff. I used to hand out copies of Anthem to friends. It was ideas such as I stated above that lead me away from objectivism. Roughly, I have a different idea of what kind of a beast a human is, and what kind of structure morality is. Also, I think what the average person feels is right is very pertinent to the discussion of ethics. Attempts to find an objective standard of moral value beyond what humans actually value are usually flimsy and involve a lot of purposeful ignoring of flaws.
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  Physics is the crown jewel of human knowledge. But even there, the theories of Physics are mere approximations to the actual phenomena that occur in the world. If you are familiar with Physics, then you know how almost-correct theories have been discarded for even more almost-correct theories throughout history. If our knowledge of as objective a field as Physics is so uncertain, then it makes sense that the state of knowledge in a much more nuanced field like Ethics is near hopeless. I suspect aliens would run into the same problems as we do, even if they were much smarter than us. I suspect perfect knowledge is unattainable. Lastly, >"Do you hold any superstitions (religious or otherwise)? (You probably don't, but it helps to cover all the bases.)" I don't think the religious would appreciate your reference to their beliefs as "superstition". And no, I am not religious. However, I don't appreciate your last parenthetical, which implies that I would be offended if you assumed that I was religious. Just yesterday I discovered among Donald Knuth's publications an illustrated book of Bible versus. I have thick enough skin to be lumped among simpletons like Donald Knuth.
  - murrayh 18y ago
    Our knowledge of physics is uncertain, but it is not inaccurate. Perhaps absolute truth is unattainable, but we can achieve enough truth that it becomes practically equivalent to absolute truth. I haven't read any of Rand's arguments, so it is difficult for me to understand the context, but dismissing an argument on the basis of absolute truth not existing seems a little too convenient.
- unalone 18y ago
  Truth is unknowable because it is so vast. To comprehend even a single human in their entirety would take more than an entire life of somebody externally. The closest we can come is an approximation - and Objectivism hits a lot of the right chords, and as such it's a great starting point for people. However, assuming it's perfect only works if you ignore the flaws.
- mseebach 18y ago
  As I understand it, "absolute truth" refers to when all actors in all interactions know and understand everything relevant to their interactions - and that will obtain the theoretical optimal equilibrium. Problem is, to know everything relevant, you must know everything - otherwise, how do you know that what you don't know isn't relevant? Since this is obviously not possible, you strive for the best approximation. Sovjet-style communism attempted to set up a political system to handle all this knowledge, and failed miserably. Free market capitalism, with free price formation and supply and demand seems to be an orders-of-magnitude better approximation.
- liminalist 18y ago
  Ever heard of the continuum hypothesis? Know anything about set theory? Etc. There are plenty of things that logically are either true or false, but logically cannot be proved either way by mere mortals.
radu_floricica 18y ago
She did veer a bit too much into philosophy after Atlas Shrugged, but I think she was pretty clear her writing should be taken as a romanticized work of fiction. I think she went as far as she did assuming the reader understands this, and trying to take things literally is a bit foolish. Granted, having been told she is right so many times she may have believed it later, but I remember the edition I read had pretty much a disclaimer in this sense somewhere.
- unalone 18y ago
  I agree with that, and it's why I still like her. However, even then she gets very preachy. Her scene where the people in the train all die because they believe in these ideals is pretty edgy, and not in a good way. That said: The Fountainhead is a great read, and so is Atlas Shrugged, even if it's not the absolute masterpiece she intended.
donniefitz2 18y ago
I think you're right about the whole of her philosophy. I think she has a firm grasp of epistemology, but fails to lay out a well reasoned metaphysical and ethical philosophy.
antigone 18y ago
"but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world." “There are no absolutes,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute. - Galt's Speech
- unalone 18y ago
  That's a great quote, and it's got a wonderful ring to it, but she's erecting a straw man. "It is extremely unlikely that anything complex can be understood in any entirety" is essentially "There are no absolutes", and it's more absolutely true.
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  There are plenty of absolutely true tautologies, but few absolute truths that are interesting at all.

maxharris 18y ago

"but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world." Why? Do you think a grand unified field theory is impossible? Do you think that quantum mechanics is the final word in physics? Do you suppose that that truth is knowable to some hypothetical race of aliens? (You specifically say that humans can't attain any absolute truth.) Or do you simply think that some truths are unknowable, such as distant historical events? Do you hold any superstitions (religious or otherwise)? (You probably don't, but it helps to cover all the bases.)

radu_floricica 18y ago
Because the world is complicated :) Thankfully. And by the time we get to understand significantly more then we do (not even close to everything) we won't be humans anymore. And this whole point will probably be obsolete.
- maxharris 18y ago
  Sure, the world is complicated. But how does that make an "absolutist" moral system impossible? I think that with regard to morality (as it applies to humans, on earth), absolute truths and rules are not only possible to know (and make), but necessary. Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation.
  - jacoblyles 18y ago
    Discuss morality with intelligent people, and study evolutionary psychology, and it will not take you long to realize that every moral system has some edge cases where obeying it will lead to stomach-turning results. Our moral intuitions are lumpy, inconsistent, and contradictory. This is to be expected because we were designed by blind evolution, and not by any sort of logical process. Ethical systems serve as great guidelines, but it is impossible to find one simple set of consistent ideas to capture everything that an average person feels is right. It is even more impossible (for a non-theist) to find some sort of objective measure of value by which to determine morality. >"Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation." Human actions are guided by reason, but never solely by reason. We have a lot of innate biases left over from our 3 billion year evolution. I think you would enjoy this blog: http://www.overcomingbias.com/ http://www.overcomingbias.com/
    - maxharris 18y ago
      What about Objectivism leads to "stomach-turning results"? (Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)
      - jacoblyles 18y ago
        Talk to more people that disagree with you, I'm sure you can find someone that can present you with an objectivist-flavored ethical dilemma. Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce contradictory results, but this is not unexpected for reasons previously stated. For what it's worth, I bought pretty much everything Rand ever wrote and quite a few things by Peikoff. I used to hand out copies of Anthem to friends. It was ideas such as I stated above that lead me away from objectivism. Roughly, I have a different idea of what kind of a beast a human is, and what kind of structure morality is. Also, I think what the average person feels is right is very pertinent to the discussion of ethics. Attempts to find an objective standard of moral value beyond what humans actually value are usually flimsy and involve a lot of purposeful ignoring of flaws.
jacoblyles 18y ago
Physics is the crown jewel of human knowledge. But even there, the theories of Physics are mere approximations to the actual phenomena that occur in the world. If you are familiar with Physics, then you know how almost-correct theories have been discarded for even more almost-correct theories throughout history. If our knowledge of as objective a field as Physics is so uncertain, then it makes sense that the state of knowledge in a much more nuanced field like Ethics is near hopeless. I suspect aliens would run into the same problems as we do, even if they were much smarter than us. I suspect perfect knowledge is unattainable. Lastly, >"Do you hold any superstitions (religious or otherwise)? (You probably don't, but it helps to cover all the bases.)" I don't think the religious would appreciate your reference to their beliefs as "superstition". And no, I am not religious. However, I don't appreciate your last parenthetical, which implies that I would be offended if you assumed that I was religious. Just yesterday I discovered among Donald Knuth's publications an illustrated book of Bible versus. I have thick enough skin to be lumped among simpletons like Donald Knuth.
- murrayh 18y ago
  Our knowledge of physics is uncertain, but it is not inaccurate. Perhaps absolute truth is unattainable, but we can achieve enough truth that it becomes practically equivalent to absolute truth. I haven't read any of Rand's arguments, so it is difficult for me to understand the context, but dismissing an argument on the basis of absolute truth not existing seems a little too convenient.
unalone 18y ago
Truth is unknowable because it is so vast. To comprehend even a single human in their entirety would take more than an entire life of somebody externally. The closest we can come is an approximation - and Objectivism hits a lot of the right chords, and as such it's a great starting point for people. However, assuming it's perfect only works if you ignore the flaws.
mseebach 18y ago
As I understand it, "absolute truth" refers to when all actors in all interactions know and understand everything relevant to their interactions - and that will obtain the theoretical optimal equilibrium. Problem is, to know everything relevant, you must know everything - otherwise, how do you know that what you don't know isn't relevant? Since this is obviously not possible, you strive for the best approximation. Sovjet-style communism attempted to set up a political system to handle all this knowledge, and failed miserably. Free market capitalism, with free price formation and supply and demand seems to be an orders-of-magnitude better approximation.
liminalist 18y ago
Ever heard of the continuum hypothesis? Know anything about set theory? Etc. There are plenty of things that logically are either true or false, but logically cannot be proved either way by mere mortals.

radu_floricica 18y ago

She did veer a bit too much into philosophy after Atlas Shrugged, but I think she was pretty clear her writing should be taken as a romanticized work of fiction. I think she went as far as she did assuming the reader understands this, and trying to take things literally is a bit foolish. Granted, having been told she is right so many times she may have believed it later, but I remember the edition I read had pretty much a disclaimer in this sense somewhere.

unalone 18y ago
I agree with that, and it's why I still like her. However, even then she gets very preachy. Her scene where the people in the train all die because they believe in these ideals is pretty edgy, and not in a good way. That said: The Fountainhead is a great read, and so is Atlas Shrugged, even if it's not the absolute masterpiece she intended.

donniefitz2 18y ago

I think you're right about the whole of her philosophy. I think she has a firm grasp of epistemology, but fails to lay out a well reasoned metaphysical and ethical philosophy.

antigone 18y ago

"but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world." “There are no absolutes,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute. - Galt's Speech

unalone 18y ago
That's a great quote, and it's got a wonderful ring to it, but she's erecting a straw man. "It is extremely unlikely that anything complex can be understood in any entirety" is essentially "There are no absolutes", and it's more absolutely true.
jacoblyles 18y ago
There are plenty of absolutely true tautologies, but few absolute truths that are interesting at all.