In Defence of Ayn Rand #3 - Ayn Rand was a Philosopher

[kropotkinbeard1]

The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/­2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an­_american_icon.html

Sorry, Rand was NOT a philosopher, and she doesn't even make it into many of the dictionaries of philosophy. She is not recognized as a philosopher by philosophers. Intelligent Design is NOT as reasonable as evolution. They are NOT equal theories. Rand's babble is NOT philosophy. It's junior high banter. slate.com/articles/arts/books/­2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an­_american_icon.html

[richardcadbury]

So, beyond survival - what then?? Man A has a code to keep his body alive as long as possible, and live a life Howard Roark style, producing buildings etc. Man B has a code to keep his body alive as long as possible, and spend the rest of his time in idleness. By what standard is one better than the other?

[robshaps]

I'm struggling with, "if you don't chose to think rationally, you might as well chose to die?"

What if there is no such a thing as "irrationality?" What if we don't know all the laws of the world.. and if someone is acting irrationally, maybe they are really using another means by which to do something "rationally?"

If nature gave us the ability to be "irrational," don't you think it has some kind of survival value???

Please assist.

[Sam26100]

"If nature gave us the ability to be "irrational" don't you think it has some survival value"

That's analagous to saying that since we have the ability to walk around with our eyes closed, that walking with your eyes closed has some survival value. Granted it would be possible (however unlikely) that you can survive without ever opening your eyes, but it certainly has no advantage over watching your step.

It's possible that we don't know all the laws of the world, however....

[Sam26100]

being rational means being consistent with reason, logic, and that which we know about reality through our senses. (Objective Reality)

If I act irrationaly and then by rare chance my actions end up benefitting me in some way (highly unlikely but it's within the realm of possiblity), that doesn't mean that irrationality is a good survival strategy

What Rand meant by choosing to die if not choosing to live rationally is that irrational people don't create values. They exist only as parasites

[robshaps]

@Sam26100 Our senses are limited. If you do psychedelics, or deep meditation, you start experiencing much more beyond our few "senses."

On a more scientific note, quantum physics is moving towards "mind" first, then reality. You should read about biocentrism.  Consciousness may come before reality.

In addition, we can never prove whether reality exists outside our mind. All we have are our thoughts. Because we can never prove or disprove, you get to create your own reality.

[Sam26100]

@robshaps Interesting, so you say that when you meditate you experience things which go beyond your senses, do you mean like when you fantasize?

I'd like to find out more about what you mean but I'd rather do it over live chat if you have Steam or Xfire or something like that let me know please. Thanks

[robshaps]

Okay, let me rephrase. We have the ability to be irrational. It's part of our creativity. Creativity has survival value. Much of the time, spontaneity wins over planning and goal setting. Sometimes, if we are irrational, good things happen where NOTHING would have benefited us if we acted completely rational.

I love some of Rand's ideas however, many of her religious followers are beginning to sound cult-like.

[Sam26100]

"I love some of Rand's ideas however many of her religious followers are beginning to sound cult-like"

can you give an example to demonstrate this?

I personally think that imagination is a very nice thing. I don't think that it beats rationality in terms of survivability or even happiness. I personally think that I have a very active immagination, and have had it my whole life. From my experience, imagionation without logic, or raitonality can lead one astray much more often than not

[Sam26100]

I don't think that Rand was against imagination in any way. I don't think that being imaginative necessarily means not being rational at the same time. Imagination can be a wonderful tool for progressing in our lives, but a person who spends his whole day daydreaming and doesn't spend time dealing with reality much, is not likely to achieve much. Edison had a wonderful imagination, but he also spent a lot of time reading, experimenting, and dealing with reality through logic and rationality

[robshaps]

Three questions I'm struggling with..

Where do objectivists stand on Einstein's quote, "Imagination is more important than knowledge?"

Is there really such a thing as irrationality?

Where does the universe come from? Can Rand accept that it has 'always' been there? What's Rand's answer to that?

[robshaps]

Why is "believing" that you can walk on water causing you to walk on water, illogical? What if everyone's reality is only in one's head?

Where do some of the new quantum physics' theories of reality come into play?

[CommodoreV]

First, you cannot deny objective reality. The mind is a way of comprehending reality, but it does not create reality. Ayn Rand used this quote: Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed (Francis Bacon). Modern philosophy tries to make a jungle out of this truth, but it is really just common sense. If reality is subjective, then good can be bad, an apple can be a banana, a gun can be a lollipop, etc. The only standard of truth would be whatever you said was true and whatever you said was false.

[robshaps]

I guess you have never heard of the double slit experiment or some of the new findings in quantum mechanics. We're finding out how strange reality really is when you get to a subatomic level. We're finding out that mind may actually come first before "reality." Just hold your horses.

[justinwlaurab]

I love this video. Damn good.

[FreethinkingFun]

I have never heard someone take so long to establish that you cannot walk on water. There were so many qualifications for the situation it made me chuckle.

[mashya]

And then to establish that a dead person can have no value. Good video though.

[Mrmikeshelton]

Why do you do all your videos driving in your car?

[Jazzper79]

Beautiful. It is that simple.

Jesper, Denmark

[mohamedbongfish]

ayn rand would smoke crack and have her way with you and if you didnt like it, she made you like it

[Jakomancer]

I was there, it's true.

[coolwhitedude]

hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

No no I like this video....I'm an idealist.....

[svanneman]

It does not follow that life is necessarily one's highest value. For example, when an Objectivist soldier enters into a defensive war for the sake of preserving their nation they have chosen to value the life of their nation over their own life. Likewise, when an Objectivist mother jumps in front of a car to save her child she has chosen to value the life of her child over her own life. Therefore, it is not the case that one's own life is necessarily one's highest value.

[Sarrisan98]

An Objectivist soldier would not enter a conflict purely to maintain a nation. Now, if that nation was a protector of his rights, then that would be perfectly consistent with his views; as by defending his nation, he also defending his right to live his life, something that would be impossible in a nation that did not respect his rights.

[Sarrisan98]

As for the mother - her child (I assume) is of great value to her life. If her child were to die, then she could not be able to enjoy her life any longer. Therefore, by protecting ehr child, she is protecting her ability to live life and have happiness.

Now if she did not value her child, then indeed, she would not jump into the street to save it. But I know of few mothers who do not value their children. And indeed, if they don't, then why have them in the first place?

[svanneman]

#3 - This is because the mother own life is her highest value and is therefore more valuable than her child's life. The [ability to enjoy life] and having [life as one's highest value] are not mutually inclusive. You can value one's own life above all else and still be miserable.

[svanneman]

#2 - If the mother's life was her own absolute highest value, then it follows that she would not knowingly end her life in order to preserve her child's life. If the mother's life was her own absolute highest value, then it follows that even if the mother knew that her own life would become miserable if she let her child die, she would still not risk her own life to save her child's life.

[Sarrisan98]

It's my understanding that Rand valued life and happiness equally (At least in a moral sense). So while the mothers own life may be her highest value, her happiness would be entirely crushed by the death of her child. I can remember no passage in Rand's books that say you must live in misery simply because protecting your loved ones was "putting them above your own life."

Perhaps someone a bit more experience could elaborate? I'm afraid I'm not quite an expert in this field.

[svanneman]

#1 - Let me rephrase. One's own life is not necessarily one's highest value. For example, when an Objectivist mother knowingly jumps in front of a car, which she knows will kill her, in order to save her child's life; then she has valued her child's life over her own.

[foxermcbride]

Rand is Rush Limbaugh in a dress. Is Limbaugh a philosopher? Who cares? Rand was a political hack. Was she a philosophical political hack? I don't know. Is Will Ferrel an artist? Is McDonalds "really" a restaurant? This guy thinks that instrumental rationality is something to deify. There seems to be a small cult of folks who, ironically, have banded together to babble a dogma concerning individual rationality. These "objectivists" are dogmatic and doctrinal. A little religion,hehehehehehe

[Obrian9819]

You are hot (not the old guy).

[henryfogg]

Rand is a philosopher - just not a very good one compared to say, Heidegger or Derrida or Rorty for instance. Just because gravity is 'real' does not help us with the complexities of so called 'values'...Good philsophy cannot give us a 'code of ethics in my opinion

[godlesstechnocrat]

What can give us a code of ethics?

[PaulMcKeever]

The facts of reality, as discovered by your own rational mind.

[AynRandOeuvre]

"Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice- and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be a man- by choice; he has to hold his life as a value- by choice; he has to learn to sustain it- by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues- by choice.

"A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality...

[AynRandOeuvre]

"Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value.

"All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is evil." (ThisIsJohnGaltSpeaking\AS\AR)