Jason Brennan Joins the Brigade of People Misrepresenting Ayn Rand’s Views
Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
" blog post by Jason Brennan of Bleeding Heart Libertarians, in which Brennan claims (among other things) that Rand and Objectivists are, according to the implications of ethical egoism, “committed to the view that you should rape, dismember, and murder others when it serves your interests.” Of course, Brennan does not and cannot quote Rand saying or implying this or anything of the sort. Nor does he or can he get around the fact that the implications of Rand’s ethics are precisely the opposite of what he claims them to be—as Rand herself made clear."
Is this going to be Objectivists battle for ever? Or is it a major indicator of the successes of AR's philosophy?
Is this going to be Objectivists battle for ever? Or is it a major indicator of the successes of AR's philosophy?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 12.
And that interpretation always serves the self interest of the true believers doing the interpreting, which isn't necessarily the same as those true believers over there.
That the basic axiom, "A is A" (or a thing is itself) is wrong because of some discovery's in quantum science.
Government (forced) science "progresses" better than non-government (voluntary) science.
And these prove Objectivism needs to be misrepresented by any means necessary.
Who wouldn't? (strangely, a rhetorical question)
As to your comment, I think you're mixing up the concept of a philosophy with historical practices of those without much of a philosophy or a sound ethic. Looters have been prevalent in our history since we became sentient and probably before, but that's the animalistic nature of our development, not a workable, moral, and sane practice for the individual or society.
When people accuse Ayn Rand of denying science, what they mean is that she clung desperately to classical Newtonian mechanics, completely rejecting quantum mechanics. Now of course Newtonian mechanics is obviously a legitimate field of science, which is why Objectivsts are technically correct in their claim that Ayn Rand did not reject science. However, to continually hold on to the old theories and the old equations, even when they can no longer accurately describe the observed phenomena of the atomic universe, well, that's not the path to scientific progress. In fact, it's the exact opposite of progress. It's the path to intellectual damnation. It's closing the door on new knowledge.
There's an excellent book about quantum mechanics which I believe everyone here should read, titled "The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates," by Howard Bloom:
http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Problem-Go...
And yes, Howard Bloom does specifically mention Ayn Rand in that book, and directly addresses her theories. Anyone who considers themselves a serious student of Objectivist philosophy should read this book.
On top of that, Ayn Rand also opposed government funding of scientific research, believing that if such research were supported with government funds, it would progress at a slower rate than if it were privately funded. Not only does that line of reasoning not make any logical sense, it doesn't even have any proof to support it. In fact, all historical evidence points to the exact opposite: that the biggest scientific advancements and technological breakthroughs have always come out of government-funded laboratories. Here's an article with just a few examples:
7 great government-backed inventions:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/tech...
Now consider the following two quotes. The first is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, while the second is a quote from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:
____________________________________
"I’ll tell you, if you wish. It’s the truth that you want, isn’t it? Dr. Ferris cannot help it, if the morons who vote the funds for this Institute insist on what they call results. They are incapable of conceiving of such a thing as abstract science. They can judge it only in terms of the latest gadget it has produced for them. [...] People have been criticizing the Institute, because, they say, we have not produced enough. The public has been demanding economy. In times like these, when their fat little comforts are threatened, you may be sure that science is the first thing man will sacrifice. There are practically no private research foundations any longer. [...]
If you consider that for thirteen years this Institute has had a department of metallurgical research, which has cost over twenty million dollars and has produced nothing but a new silver polish and a new anti-corrosive preparation which, I believe, is not so good as the old ones – you can imagine what the public reaction will be if some private individual comes out with a product that revolutionizes the entire science of metallurgy and proves to be sensationally successful!"
— Dr. Robert Stadler, "Atlas Shrugged," part I, chapter VII, p.180
____________________________________
"Also in that decade [the 1920s], quantum mechanics, quantum physics, was discovered. That is the science of the small. The science of electrons, protons, neutrons, particles, nuclei. At the time you'd say, 'This is just physicists burning tax money. Cuz' who cares about the atom? I got my horse to feed. I got kids. I got... you know, you got issues in society.' Yet it's quantum mechanics that is the entire foundation of our technological revolution. There would be no computers, there would be no... there would be none of what you take for granted, your iPod, your iPhone, cell phones, the space program, without our understanding of the laws of physics as they operate on that atomic, molecular, and nuclear level. And so the chemist has no understanding of the periodic table of elements without quantum mechanics. To them it's just a list of elements. Quantum mechanics tells you why this column is there, and that's there, why this mates with that, and why that makes a molecule with that. That's quantum mechanics, and it's unheralded. You ask me if there's any discovery that has changed how we live, it is quantum mechanics. And I make... I make this point, because I'm ready to... [stomps foot]. Today you hear people say 'Why are we spending money up there when we've got problems on Earth?' And people don't CONNECT the time delay between the frontier of scientific research and how that's gonna transform your life later down the line. All they want is a quarterly report that shows a product that comes out of it. That is so short sighted, that that's the beginning of the end of your culture."
— Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Interview with Stephen Colbert at Montclair Kimberley Academy, Jan. 29, 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXh9RQCv...
I just read the article, planning to guess the answer. I think he may be saying that you can derive that it's okay to use force from objectivist premises. I can't state objectivist premises. I just like the two books I've read. I'm not smart enough on this topic to argue with the blog post author.
What do you want him to change his mind about?
The only thing I disagree with is it's not every so often, it's all the time.
Outside a pro-Rand article/forum, I almost NEVER have heard someone mention Rand w/o getting something radically wrong.
People say Ayn Rand's heroes are rich and famous, never people (like Roark) struggling to pay rent because they put their principles ahead of profits.
If you come to a forum like this, I'd guess roughly half the posts get it wrong (compared to my interpretation of the two books I read): valuing normal over exceptional; opposing helping people categorically; fear of outsiders; putting politics ahead of hard work; opposing some mutually-agreed trades; denying science; blaming failures on others.
Load more comments...