5 ms·

Your post does nothing but put down and ridicule an entire philosophical and political branch of thought without any rationale at all. It's a shame that this ty

Your post does nothing but put down and ridicule an entire philosophical and political branch of thought without any rationale at all. It's a shame that this type of comment can receive so many upvotes in a community that alleges to care about quality discussion.

pron 13y ago
> Your post does nothing but put down and ridicule an entire philosophical and political branch of thought without any rationale at all. Not every quip or fart deserve serious attention, and Rand's "philosophical branch of thought" would not have garnered any attention at all if not for the popularity of her books among American teens. Her "philosophy" is hardly recognized as such. I am not comparing Rand to Hitler, but the intellectual rigor of their "philosophies" is about the same. Would you consider an offhand dismissal of Hitler's ideas as not befitting a quality discussion? Nevertheless, Hitler's work has had quite an impact on society, as has Rand's, and for that reason, and that reason only, they are interesting subjects of study. No one is supposed to take their "philosophies" seriously, and frankly, hardly anyone does. Taking the time to refute Rand's philosophy is giving her too much credit and too little at the same time; too much, because her philosophy is not considered as such by philosophers; too little because her accomplishments lie away from intellectual rigor, in the realm of successful ideological fervor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Intellectual_impact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Intellec...
- pandaman 13y ago
  You know that the "Godwin's law fail" rule was derived to deal with exactly the type of argument you are making? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#Corollaries_and_usage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#Corollaries_and_...
  - pron 13y ago
    Ugh. I would propose to apply the recursive Godwin's law on any invocation of Godwin's law if only Godwin's law weren't more trite and, worst of all — boring — than the comparisons Godwin's law tries to outlaw, and so, by induction would be any recursive Godwin's law. And when have Hitler comparisons, if you think I made one, ever been more apt? ;) EDIT (if I need to spell it out): It was claimed that an offhand dismissal of a famous "philosophy" is inappropriate in a quality discussion. I then offered a famous example of an entirely different "philosophy", undeserving any serious merit and discussion on its own, and yet important historically for its effect on society. Rand is considered a childish, ridiculous "philosopher", so people rarely take the time to argue with her beliefs as their falsehood is apparent to almost anyone with a pair of eyes and/or ears, but her writings have played a part in recent American history. In no way other than in her intellectual rigor, should Ayn Rand (who, BTW, is one of my favorite historical characters; she was so deliciously cruel and lost at the same time) be compared to Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, the SS, the SA, the Luftwaffe or any of their affiliates.
    - pandaman 13y ago
      It seems I need to spell it out too: The Godwin's law is not about Hitler in particular. It's about making a (non-)argument based on some superficial and irrelevant observations. Thus, as you aptly noticed, it's inherently recursive as it's dismissing arguments based on no less superficial and irrelevant observations i.e. mentioning Hitler or Nazis.
- kamaal 13y ago
  >>Her "philosophy" is hardly recognized as such. That's almost like vegetarians saying, meat is hardly recognized as a source of nutrition because they don't eat it.

pron 13y ago

> Your post does nothing but put down and ridicule an entire philosophical and political branch of thought without any rationale at all. Not every quip or fart deserve serious attention, and Rand's "philosophical branch of thought" would not have garnered any attention at all if not for the popularity of her books among American teens. Her "philosophy" is hardly recognized as such. I am not comparing Rand to Hitler, but the intellectual rigor of their "philosophies" is about the same. Would you consider an offhand dismissal of Hitler's ideas as not befitting a quality discussion? Nevertheless, Hitler's work has had quite an impact on society, as has Rand's, and for that reason, and that reason only, they are interesting subjects of study. No one is supposed to take their "philosophies" seriously, and frankly, hardly anyone does. Taking the time to refute Rand's philosophy is giving her too much credit and too little at the same time; too much, because her philosophy is not considered as such by philosophers; too little because her accomplishments lie away from intellectual rigor, in the realm of successful ideological fervor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Intellectual_impact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Intellec...

pandaman 13y ago
You know that the "Godwin's law fail" rule was derived to deal with exactly the type of argument you are making? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#Corollaries_and_usage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#Corollaries_and_...
- pron 13y ago
  Ugh. I would propose to apply the recursive Godwin's law on any invocation of Godwin's law if only Godwin's law weren't more trite and, worst of all — boring — than the comparisons Godwin's law tries to outlaw, and so, by induction would be any recursive Godwin's law. And when have Hitler comparisons, if you think I made one, ever been more apt? ;) EDIT (if I need to spell it out): It was claimed that an offhand dismissal of a famous "philosophy" is inappropriate in a quality discussion. I then offered a famous example of an entirely different "philosophy", undeserving any serious merit and discussion on its own, and yet important historically for its effect on society. Rand is considered a childish, ridiculous "philosopher", so people rarely take the time to argue with her beliefs as their falsehood is apparent to almost anyone with a pair of eyes and/or ears, but her writings have played a part in recent American history. In no way other than in her intellectual rigor, should Ayn Rand (who, BTW, is one of my favorite historical characters; she was so deliciously cruel and lost at the same time) be compared to Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, the SS, the SA, the Luftwaffe or any of their affiliates.
  - pandaman 13y ago
    It seems I need to spell it out too: The Godwin's law is not about Hitler in particular. It's about making a (non-)argument based on some superficial and irrelevant observations. Thus, as you aptly noticed, it's inherently recursive as it's dismissing arguments based on no less superficial and irrelevant observations i.e. mentioning Hitler or Nazis.
kamaal 13y ago
>>Her "philosophy" is hardly recognized as such. That's almost like vegetarians saying, meat is hardly recognized as a source of nutrition because they don't eat it.