NEG 2 - Ayn Rand as an insignificant philosopher

[xxFortunadoxx]

"This is very different if you read Hegel or Kant or Descartes or any of the modern physicists. At some point, you get where you just have to accept what they say."

Yes. And this is one of the many reasons why Objectivism is ridiculous tripe.

Your example using Kant is particularly ridiculous considering that Kant's objection to the inability to perceive the external world is apriori and not a base assertion. To explain this would require far more than 500 characters.

[EliasCrowe]

Everyone is significant, even those stupid enough to deny what cannot be perceived.

[dharmahooligan56]

who cares about Ayn Rand? She was an untalented writer that committed adultery, and condoned rape.

[CannTankerous]

Science and philosophy should be complimentary with one proving the other out. A society taught to believe their senses and reasoning faculty are insufficient to the task of apprehending and influencing reality isn't going to invent crap. So here's to those brave souls who stood forth in those oppresive societies and espoused the opposing philosophy and had the courage to use their minds in the physical sciences to pursue the truth and thanks to them for the good they brought to civilization.

[CannTankerous]

Yes, I agree it doesn't follow that a philosophy will gain future acceptance because past scientific theory has been accepted after initial rejection. But the philosophy of those who moved humanity forward must have incorporated a belief that the world was perceivable and knowable, and that it is for us to perceive and know it, using our senses to conduct experiments to form or prove out our hypothesis. Religion taught a static, mystical world where knowledge is gained by divine revelation.

[CannTankerous]

There is actually a grand experiment that has been occurring throughout human history which has produced graphic empirical results. These results have far greater impact upon human civilization than science and math individually and are, in fact the foundation with which these sciences cannot flourish. Philosophy is the basis of all. What values a society holds in general determines the success or failure of that societal experiment. Our beliefs create the success or failure of human progress.

[twitch3111]

Philosophy has had a huge impact on the human condition, Im not denying that.

Saying that since research based on scientific theory was rejected in its time because they clashed with the current philosophy (ie not science) of the day was became accepted, a radical philosophy (ie not science) will one day also be accepted because its currently rejected is absurd.

[twitch3111]

This is total crap. Comparing a pseudoscience like philosophy to an actual science like physics or mathematics is just bad and wrong.

[bioperluc]

plz establish the difference. I doubt it's possible to differentiate the two.

[twitch3111]

your kidding right?

One is based on scientific theory and math, the other is based on thought experiment done in the authours head, based on what she believes is the best society.

Heres a good exercise, take out all references to ann rand in this video and replace them with the turner diaries. It fits perfectly, so i guess one day the world will reconise the genius of that book eh?

[Questfortruth86]

The same reason why Mises wasn't accepted.

[kbkushalutube]

this debate is ridiculous

[nobleowl]

There is one inconsistence in her theory that relates to the issue of abortion, the other one thing is questionable when she requires the people to be responsible for the evil acts of their (often unwanted) "leaders" (eg. Nazi Germany ,but also communist countries), and that democracy ( which is never flawless) has moral right to attack tyranic dictators. I would buy however her all other premises and conclusions with all of my money.

[knab69]

As someone who has given several speeches, it is important to be relaxed and natural to be persuasive. Don't sound "lectury." Try to be more relatable with your audience.

I don't disagree with your angle.

[zarxo]

When you say the word phioloshy, you speak down? Why do you do that? You need to stay focused into one branch. Philosophy then now art? Way too much there bud. In fact, lit is a temporal art and ART is a plastic art. There is a difference. One is timeless and one has an end.

The areas of logic and metaphysics are so specialized, a person would be crazy to attempt to explicate it all on his or her own. You would need a team.

[zarxo]

Furthermore, science and religion have now been separated into their own metaphysics.

Ayn's philosophy is about 75-80% accurate. For instance, I can show were egalitarianism can support capitalism: during the 70s, Mr. Smith buys a garage door and opener. Mr. John see's it and buys his own but better. Mr. John didn't do research; he just wanted something better. This is consumerism coupled with capitalism inspired by egalitariansim. Nothing to do with product value. Only competition.:)

[Jazzper79]

Zarxo

"Ayn's philosophy is about 75-80% accurate" -- how did you come up with that number? -- So what you are saying is, that you know something Ayn Rand did not know -- and you are smarter than Ayn Rand was? -- That is pretty impressive... you most be getting all A's in school?

If you study Ayn Rand and are willing to think yourself, you will find no contradictions. But people want to think she was wrong, so they don't have to do something about it you see.

Jesper, Denmark

[zarxo]

I am cum laude currently: however, after sociology, she goes down to 60% since she never equated capitlaism with people being socilized, or how they are socialized, which is what her protege (Branden) tried to open to Ayn Rand. Economics is the dominace of culture, culture presupposes socialization and therefore a human comes to be. Humans can be socialized to be anything. :) even deviant.

[abgjp1]

"This is consumerism coupled with capitalism inspired by egalitariansim. Nothing to do with product value. Only competition.:) "

What is your definition of egalitarianism? Wanting to own something better?

Are you saying that Mr. John purchased a car because he wanted to have more rights or privileges??

(Perhaps he did it because he saw it as added convenience, or maybe because he could afford a better one, maybe because the store was out of stock of Mr. Smith's garage opener..)

[zarxo]

Consumerism is a byproduct of the ecnomomy to classify it by itself is reification. Consumerism cannot stand alone. try again.

[danroduw06]

Ayn Rand is not significant.

[tibieryo]

Ayn Rand is significant.

[danroduw06]

Just because a person buys a book does not mean that they have read it.

[Jazzper79]

Great -- I am an objectivist myself and only care about the truth, you do too, I can tell.

Very nice.

Jesper

[thexjib]

I personally believe that Aristotle is the greatest thinker in History and his ideas, and especially his methods, cant be dismissed as simple being "outdated"... I believe Rand was a great thinker in the vain of Aristotle and made a great contribution to philosophy much the way Aquinas did in 13th century by integrating "the Philosopher" with values. I am not really an opponent... just a fellow truth-seeker who has studied and spent and great deal of time thinking about this one issue

[thexjib]

I think it is a serious weakness of Rand, Aquinas and Aristotle's Philosophy.

[thexjib]

The question concerning the correspondence between perception and reality is not, in my opinion, so easily dismissed... as if it were simply an assertion. The analysis of primary and secondary properties of objects by the English Empiricist (John Locke, George Berkley especially) illustrate the difficulty of simply asserting that "the five senses" give an accurate, objective, picture of reality. I would really like to discuss this matter with you more.

[thexjib]

At 6:30 you make a false assertion "you just have to accept" as if Kant presented his views without an argument to back them up...

[Connerisawesome]

Very well done sir.

[foxermcbride]

maybe she's passionate and articulate, but not insightful or original. maybe she's Rush Limbaugh in cute little cotton panties.

[Jahandaar]

This is kind of a moot point, but its pretty simple. You won't find much coverage of Miss Rand's philosophy among traditional academia because she blamed that same academia for the intellectual degradation of society.

The Left hate her because she was an atheist.

The Right hate her because she was a capitalist.

The middle hate her because she was radical.

None of which makes her necessarily wrong or insignificant.

[Jahandaar]

err.. swap left and right there :)

[Sindicutt]

Ayn Rand has influenced alot of people. This issue of "significance" shouldn't even be up for debate. WTF? She's a household name among all educated people, whether you agree with her or not.

Shouldn't you guys be debating whether she was right or wrong? Or the actual convictions and rationale she held?

I applaud you, Mr. Cropper. A good debate, not perfect but you clearly had the advantage of being correct.

[smacksim]

MUCH better than your first attempt. You do well to address and destruct SD's premises (some of them). However, you still do not make the positive case. You guys might think to set up your future debates around positive--positive case, and negative--negative case, rather than assertion of negative case / negation of negative case. I believe this is part of why your debate got stuck in premise formation.

[rrbowker2002]

I vote negative, absolutely. I don't agree with half of what Ayn Rand professes, but from an "objective" standpoint, the negative has crushed the positive in this debate, utterly.

[InfoJunkieHolland]

i plead the fifth on this one.

[Phrozenbot]

Nice debate :o

[TheIncredibleEgg]

The criterions for a philosopher to significant in this debate are invalid. Mr.Cropper showed that quite well throughout his videos. Especially in his reference to the discoveries of Copernicus.

I also think it's more important to debate Ayn Rands actual philosophy than all the crap around it.

[GrowthSpiral]

I vote in the Positive - MrCropper's main arguements are full of emotional fallacies,etc - there is no objectivity because Mr.Cropper, you have a personal stake in seeing Rand being included as significant

[kozmostony]

you suck dude...learn how to debate

[SBX1987]

I vote negative!

[bpope123]

Just because certain ideas aren't available to our five senses doesn't mean they don't exist. If you can conceive of something and developed rational arguments for its existents then not understanding may stunt our growth. There are lots of things we rely upon that are purely conceptual, math being one of them and constructing language for things we see another. These purely conceptual ideas are fundamental for practical application, so perhaps the notion of a god is fundamental for behavior.

[Rich711]

I know an unknown pianist who thinks Beethoven was an insignificant composer. You two losers should meet and wack each other off.

[itismejeremy]

I think you're confused; this guy is arguing that Ayn Rand IS significant.

[bapyou]

Just accept the thought of the unprovable? Kind of like we're supposed to accept your assertion that humans had wooden tools before 7 million years ago just because YOU THOUGHT IT, not because there is a shred of tangible evidence! You double-standard-for-yourself, illogical, un-objective ASS. Yeah, a private email. There's a difference between your private thoughts and your public ones? DOUBLE ASS!

[eastocean2000]

Well done. Not only will she have her day, but if civilization continues on its present course, Atlas Shrugged will prove to be prophetic.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

I think she is great.

[shakanunu]

The definition! It's the definition. AAAAH. You guys did a good job, but I would have loved it if one of you had precisely defined what the word significant means before you went on to use it in this debate! That is an important aspect of Rand's thinking: defining terms clearly and precisely.

[maugustyniak]

Dude, you're a fanatic.

[Sindicutt]

It sounds like you disagree with Ayn Rand's significant philosophy. She's a very polarizing figure among intelligent people, but that only proves she IS significant. Significance has nothing to do with popularity.

Ayn Rand is a household name, the founder of a philosophy debated by many intelligent people. (I don't know many stupid people who read philosophy or care about it.)

Ayn, like most great thinkers are almost always before their time,

and thus rejected by those living in their time.

[maugustyniak]

Ayn Rand will never become significant. Most well-known philosophers were big in their time, namely Kant, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. They taught and were well-recognized. Ayrn Rand is a popular author. Her philosophy has been thoroughly ignored and ridiculed. It's an extreme form of childish selfishess. A spoiled 8 year old fully encompases the results of applying her psedo-philosophy. She'll just continue to sell her own books until people get bored.

[cropperb]

"Ayn Rand is a popular author. Her philosophy has been thoroughly ignored and ridiculed."

Very polular, but only among intelligent people.

Her philsophy has been thouroughly ignored and ridiculed BY ACADEMIA. You forgat that essential qualification. Almost every major innovator in intelectual history was ignored or ridiculed. Besides, lots of people have NOT ignored Ayn Rand. Don't forget them.

[maugustyniak]

"Very popular, but only among intelligent people" YET "Her philosophy has been thoroughly ignored and ridiculed BY ACADEMIA!" You've missed your own point and mine; Academics, i.e. college professors and their students ARE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE and they've been RIDICULING AND IGNORING Ayn Rand since her beginnings, you dolt! Don't even get me started about this; you skill at logic is only matched by your awful typing and grammar. Ayn Rand is PULP! PULP FICTION. Respect for Tarentino.

[cropperb]

"Academics, i.e. college professors and their students ARE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE"

I believe that is a very, very hasty generalization.

[maugustyniak]

Nay, they're usually well read and pretty smart. But I'll leave it at that, I've been done with Objectivism for a while. With that, Van Gogh was largely discovered ater he was dead. Don't compare Copernicus to Ayn Rand, he went up the then World Power of the Roman Catholic Church. Big difference. Rand is a commerical author, nothing else.

[BlueKenshin]

Dude, I would have been willing to do this with you. Doing it by yourself is not cool. Lets have a text debate on a forum.

[0neironaut]

charles darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger (as already mentioned), Jacques derrida... Just a few thinkers that have been a wrecking ball to acadaemia... yet, they were still invited to the party? Why should Ayn Rand be any different? must be some kind of conspiracy....

[cropperb]

Darwin wasn't invited to the party. Do you know his biography?!? But today, Darwin is on Britain's 10 pound note.

Perhaps in 100 years, Ayn Rand will be on our $10 bill... Did you know there is an American postal stamp with Ayn Rand's portrait on it?

[0neironaut]

yea, i know darwins biography... i dont see how im wrong. He may have been extremely controversial during his time, but he was at least taken serious enough to be even that; argued against, defended, contemplated... significant.

But thats a silly comparison, the theory of evolution via natural selection vs... Rand and her tight cunt. laughable.

[cropperb]

And Heidegger, Derida and Nietzsche did NOT constitute wrecking balls for academia, but more like wrecking balls against civilization. Like most other philosophers, they preached altruism, which despite misconceptions by uninformed people, is not benevolence - altruism is hatred of the good for being the good. Nihilism.

[0neironaut]

"more like wrecking balls against civilization"... haha You have some serious issues. Maybe you should go and read some Nietzsche, Derrida, Heidegger... nowhere do they endorse altruism. Saying such is just plain ignorant... haha especially of Nietzsche (slave morality, hulloh?!)

[cropperb]

Nietzsche did not reject altruism - he merely reversed it. He said you should sacrifice others to yourself, instead of yourself to others. But he accepted sacrifice and the malevolent universe premise. Nietzsche was an altruist.

And Heideggar was a Nazi, so don't even try to say he wasn't an altruist.

[0neironaut]

ok, I 'understand' altruism as the sacrifice of ones benefit for the benefit of others. Better to see Nietzche as exposing altruism as a fraud... altruism is not possible because one always has personal motives, conscious or unconscious benefits; one feels a sense of "i am just, how kind i am to sacrifice myself".

[0neironaut]

then again, there is an irony arguing over interpretations of Nietzsche. He was pretty experimental with his thinking... intentionlly ambiguous at times, full of contradictions, bombastic, polemical, and fallacious. But thats why i like him... he gives us tools for thinking differently, varying perspectives and approaches. He looked to challenge people so theywould challenge themselves, no philisophical recipes.

[christopherockman]

It's quite amusing seeing the more left brain types going on about Nietzsche and his intentions. Nietzsche was more the anti-philosopher, kind of a play on the Dostoyevskyean anti-hero. He looked to pull the rug out from pretention and give way to a more Dionysian spirit. Chaos theory backs this up well.

[0neironaut]

Chaos theory does not back him up. chaos theory is not literally chaotic... it is a rational system. indeed, it is rational to the highest degree: it proposes that even the slight 'disturbance' of initial conditions will 'upset' the whole system... it is still a deterministic view of the universe.

[0neironaut]

you might be better off citing quantum theory... chance, paradox, randomness, multi-verse and dimensions 'obeying' unthinkable physical laws, and the notion of infinity!

[christopherockman]

Chaos theory observes that we have no control of certain forces due to the unpredictability of complicated systems. Nietzsche believed there were irrational forces from our environment controlling our actions. Nietzsche's will to power was about being conscious of this and using it.

Am I being too vague? I have a bad habit of doing that.

[0neironaut]

no no, i know what youre trying to get at. I just disagree with your understanding of chaos theory... it is a rational system, complicated, but ultimately rational. Also, i interpret Nietzsches will to power as the creative urge... to create life, values, meanings, discourses, etc etc...

[christopherockman]

Well, I've never read too much into chaos theory, so you're probably right.

[christopherockman]

...Chaos theory is irrational in the way that it doesn't follow a set of laws. It acts randomly. It takes its own course. The essence of chaos itself is not rational, just what it controls. It's a duality of determinism and free will.

[0neironaut]

As for Heidegger being a Nazi, it is true, but there is a seperation between his life and his philisophical work. Being and Time is his greatest work, and youd be hard pressed to convince me that that work has anything to do with altruism.

[politEgoEgonomics]

aGreed fOR the Negative. Well done, Mr.Cropper. She would have been very proud of you. "Here" where pride is a virtue.

[politEgoEgonomics]

After viewing the 3rd-Aff MI vote stays "Here" with reasoned,quality arguement: whereas - SD:focused primarily on the quantitative(even use of many props;how much,how many)very tactical for swaying the superficial vote and will always win these types of contests in the past. Reality, Reason and Romanticism belong and have all of their future. Egoïsts don't consider themselves debatable nor insignificant. Let this pronounce- "The first of their return."

[zorio]

You contradict yourself with these two videos. How can Ayn Rand "go against" everyone else, when you have admitted that she is regarded to have appropriated the ideas of others. Also, one of your later points, that it is this "going against" the history of philosophy that makes her unpopular. Heidegger destroyed the entire history of philosophy and yet Heidegger has become THE 20th Century thinker.

[DebateTeam]

Heidegger supported Hitler. And I've read Heidegger. He should have been locked up or shot after WWII so he couldn't corrupt others. Or he should have been pushed down a (huge) flight of stairs. Hell, why not all three?

[zorio]

I don't think you understand Heidegger's support of fascism at all. By his philosophy of Dasein and his critique of technology he couldn't support the Capitalists of Western Europe, or the Communists of Eastern Europe. If you read his later essays, you can see that he supported the Nazis not for their racism but because they advocated the German people remaining unique, because he was against the whitewashing of cultures and people in the two other systems.

[zorio]

Cont. He thought that all Volk were uniquely connected to their soil and that the world should not become one cultural amalgam. This is why he never apologized for his support of them, he thought he was supporting something, but they ended up not being what they promised, so he continued to support his philosophy in hopes the Nazis would become what they promised to be.

[cropperb]

So he was a racist and believed in ethnicity. Great. Shoot him twice.

[zorio]

Das Volk is not determined by race and nowhere did a say it was. Please stop putting words in my mouth. His ideas have nothing to do with race and everything to do with peoples ability to fashion their own lives while not being determined by outside sources. He didn't hate the Jews, in fact his assistant was Jewish and he thought that German-ness (as an example) had nothing to do with race, but instead was something beyond appearance.

[cropperb]

Beyond appearance... so he was a mystic. I already knew that from his writing.

"...peoples ability to fashion their own lives while not being determined by outside sources..." That's called freedom. If he believed in that, why did he support the Nazis? You make no sense. Oh,.... wait... you're defending Heideger?... no wonder you make no sense.

[zorio]

"If he believed in that, why did he support the Nazis?"

Because the Nazis lied. I thought you knew that. They claimed to defend the German people, while instead enslaving them. This is why Heidegger left his position at his University.

I'll remind you that this wasn't an argument about Heidegger. Whether you like him or not, he has had a huge impact on philosophy, unlike the person you claim to be arguing in favour of.

[Sindicutt]

The Nazis were really socialists who believed in universal healthcare, big government, and the destruction of private enterprises, similar to popular belief in America today. Ayn Rand rightfully compared them to Soviets, because as the soviets used the bourgeois as a scapegoat, the Nazis used the jews as a scapegoat, and Americans use the businessmen as scapegoats.

I've never heard of this "Heidegger" fellow. He must not have written the second most influential book of all time. Ayn Rand did.

[zorio]

Oh, well if YOU'VE never heard of Heidegger, he can't be important.

[Sindicutt]

Hey! Good point! All those points and the only thing you could debate was one sentence about a Nazi philosopher. Thanks for proving I was right about everything else.

Nice work, detective!

[Publicola509]

Vote Negative on Resolution "Ayn Rand is Insignificant in Western Philosophy".

I like your approach here. A thing is to be properly judged by the degree to which is fulfills its purpose. Philosophy is made to describe reality and man's purpose in it. The philosopher who does it best, must be the best philosopher qua philosopher.