Ayn Rand the Sociologist

[David McDivitt]

On 3/19/2011 1:34 AM, michael brown wrote:
> David -
>
> With respect, tou need to learn about Rand better.
>
> For instance:
>
> 1. She never said she didn't read any other philosopher than Aristotle.
>
> 2. Doing kind/helpful actions isn't against her ethic - it just isn't 
> the essence of morality, according to her.
>
> Svein Olav has hailed her earlier works as genuinely egoist. He has a 
> point.
>
> As for Stirner, she denied that egoism was viable. An interesting 
> tactic, no?
>
>
> Michael
>
> http://www.fuguewriter.com

Michael,

Please see the video "Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 3.flv" 
at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEruXzQZhNI . This is one place she 
says this and there are others.

Rand is emphatic about objectivism being a form of realism, and 
everything she says is consistent with realism in line with other forms 
of it such as physicalism, essentialism, and materialism. Realism denies 
the individual. For instance in "Ayn Rand Interview with Tom Snyder, (1 
of 3).flv" she says it is immoral to do anything emotionally or as a 
whim, but using reason is what's right.

So when do we use enough reason? When have we thought things through 
enough? What if one person's view of reason doesn't match someone else? 
Should I use reason to decide when to have sex with my wife and not do 
that on a whim either? One may say such a question is ridiculous to ask 
because we're discussing science, philosophy, and "what is". Bullshit. 
Give some specification to what's being tested and I'll agree. Rand does 
not do that. She speaks in generalities, only. She talks about what is 
real and what exists ad nauseam, but never gives "real" specification. 
And that's the problem with realism. It involves circular reasoning 
treated as real.

I do not agree anything Rand says is egoist. Realism, or looking at the 
world in static terms, or attempting to nail down life and the universe 
through strict definition, is an intellectual trap seen time and again 
in history. The appearance of authority is always enticing to those who 
seek authority, but there is none except what we make up ourselves. If 
what we have works today, then let us congratulate ourselves, but let us 
not say we simply discovered what already exists, giving credence to 
nebulous, secret, mystical authority structures.

-- 

yes, I dare to be subjective!