A thought provoking series of comments (well, to me anyway) on a Free Republic thread on Ayn Rand and Objectivism, and in particular her belief that self interest should be paramount-
“Always remember that, when it comes to philosophy, it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. Philosophy is nothing but a bunch of bullshit.”
Hahaha! So true. That’s why I never liked philosophy: They’re just arguing over the definitions of words. Using words to argue over their definitions is a stupid circular argument.
I guess what I referred to as a nakedly self-interested person is the same as what we would call a crony capitalist. Crony capitalists are crony capitalists because they found it profitable to use the police power of the state to protect and build their businesses.
TrueblueNZ 
22 responses to “Claim- Philosophy is Nothing But a Bunch of Bullshit”
The weird thing is that those attacking Rand typically fall in the same trap as Rand herself, namely the continual use of straw man arguments, setting up a debate by misrepresenting the position of the opponent.
There is much to say for Rand’s philosophy, but that isn’t to be ascribed to her genius, but to the simple fact that she is simply stating the bloody obvious, albeit admittedly in a concise manner once you get past the romantic nonsense she weaves around it in her novels. One of course also needs to overlook some of the more disturbing views that her prose provides into her own character and apparent opinions (or lack thereof) about issues ordinary adults deal with, such as procreation and the resulting responsibilities, on which Rand abstains from any serious discussion. Especially when it comes to sexual relations, Ms Rand entertains some ideas that would appear somewhat “off” to most, for instance her attractions to rape and male dominance.
All in all, I’d agree with the sentiment that many of those falling for Rand’s atheism do nothing but replacing what for others is “God” with an idealized personification of Ms Rand herself, who, by the way she is idolized simply represents the objectivist version of the Virgin Mary.
LikeLike
As Blair Mulholland once quipped . . .
LikeLike
I thought the following quote summed up the problem with Rand’s philosophy and Objectivism rather well:
When mankind rejects the Judeo-Christian God (as did Rand) all he does is end up worshipping a “god” of his own making; a “god” in his own image. I have always felt that ANY and ALL philosophies which are centred on man will always ultimately lead to a tyrannical dictorship. If man is ONLY accountable to “self” and is sought on persuing “self-interest” then he must invariably crush all opposition which would interfere with that objective.
The ONLY thing which ultimately prevents man from worshipping “self” is the shifting of his focus and worship to the One who both made him and designed him to worship his Creator. Anything else leads to both physical and spiritual destruction.
LikeLike
Kris – problem with that quote is that it is precisely what I stated, a straw man argument. The last line of the book is misquoted and given a meaning that it doesn’t represent at all. The main argument in Rand’s philosophy is not for atheism at all, but it rejects collectivism in all its forms, more precisely, it argues AGAINST giving man the right to determine what is to be the appropriate moral principle, which in the book is the creed “from every many according to his ability to another according to his need”.
While I won’t deny that Rand is inherently atheist in her own thinking, I can’t see “her” philosophy as anything other than leaving everyone free to choose a framework to organize his morals. In my view the strong atheist views of many Rand worshippers (as well as their preoccupation with homosexuality and drugs, to name a few) is something that has been tacked on.
After all, if you are that way inclined, there seems nothing wrong with the idea that, while reason may be the basis for man’s morals, there must be a source for the fact that man is equipped with reason.
LikeLike
Bez, but as Rand rejects collectivism would that not include “religion” – ie just another form of collectivism in her thinking? Doesn’t she believe(?) that religion is manmade rather than (Judaism/Christianity) a revelation from the Creator to His creation? And therefore all that is left to her is atheism?
And while, according to Rand, we might all be “free to choose a framework to organize [our] morals” would this not imply that ALL systems of morality must therefore be valid, and thus no one system is “better” than another? Which comes back to the idea that whoever “pushes hardest” will rule the roost. And like I said before, must ultimately lead to tyranny where the strong rule the weak; the “least moral” rule the “moral”.
I’m not sure if I’ve made myself clear, but hopefully you get what I mean.
LikeLike
Kris – I understand that debate to be one of individual choice rather than one that derives from some collective morality. There may well be a lot of people that choose the same sense or framework of morality, but that itself doesn’t make it collectivist. As a catholic by upbringing, I understand religious teaching as relating to individual behavior, not something mandated by the greater good, or directed by collective teachings , as is the case in for instance the Islam. The fact that all systems of morality are valid in theory doesn’t mean that one isn’t better than the other, after all one can have an utterly depraved system of morality, but a system nevertheless.
LikeLike
Bez,
The last line of the book is ..
Pretty clear symbolism to me. No one traces dollar signs in the air normally. Or any other symbols.
LikeLike
Lucia – to you maybe, but not to me, and it doesn’t take away from the fact that it was misquoted. I don’t know what you mean by “symbolism” in this respect anyway. Do you mean that all sorts of mystic beliefs or compulsions tend to seek expression by gestures and ritual movements? Do you mean that even the people in Gault’s gully are in fact driven by mythical concepts rather than their idea of reason?
LikeLike
Bez,
I can’t see how it was misquoted.
You cannot be serious? You can’t see the obvious connection with Signum Crucis, you who admit being raised Catholic? You would have seen the Sign of the Cross traced in the air many, many times. Who else does anything like that? The “sign of the dollar” obviously replaces it.
No, I am being very specific.
No, not mythical concepts. They seek to replace true faith, true symbolism with their own. Rand is trying to replace God and faith with her own religion. Some of her core concepts are a reversal of Christian faith.
LikeLike
Lucia, regarding the “Sign of the Cross” – I’m pretty certain this mythical gesture is unique to Roman Catholicism, and there is no equivalent in Bible-based Christianity.
But I do admit the above example of the “sign of the dollar” does equate to this RC ritual.
LikeLike
Kris,
Episcopalians and Orthodox also use it, and the earliest known mention of it is from Tertullian (160 – 220 A.D.) who wrote: “In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross.”
LikeLike
Lucia – your problem is that you are obsessed by what you know and have lost any possibility to look beyond it. I am not going to regurgitate kabbalistic, jewish, indian or any of the many other belief systems that use tracings in the air, just google it and you’ll see that many, if not most, “religions” (for lack of a better word) use mystical symbols of that nature. What is significant in my view is not that Rand would reject christianity or theism of any nature, but that she evokes the idea of rather mystical symbolism in what is purported as a purely objective and reasoned belief system. (The same goes for the golden dollar sign in Gault’s gully, or indeed the use of the dollar logo in other parts of the book, such as on cigarettes and as a sign to warn others). Indeed, as Kris observes, Rand’s sign of the dollar, particularly as it is used in that last sentence, equates a ritual found in many religions, not just RC, hence my point that rejecting theism is something different from replacing it.
LikeLike
Lucia,
“Episcopalians and Orthodox also use it …”
All this shows is that these two groups haven’t let go of all their RC hangovers. Even Luther, for example, clung to certain non-biblical RC hangovers after rejecting many other heretical RC teachings and traditions.
LikeLike
My mind is not open enough, huh, Bez? I really don’t see that as a problem.
Rand was not writing for kabbalistic, jewish, indian, etc audience, she was writing for a Western Christian audience who would understand her symbolism in the “sign of the dollar.” Right down to the wording. Yet, you refuse to accept this.
Yes, yes, I can see in her book that she goes to great lengths to make her readers think she is equating all religions, they are all controlled by mystics who “reduce you to the kind of pulp that has surrendered the validity of it consciousness.” Isn’t that what my problem is?
I think you’ve misread him, Bez.
So, are you a true Randian believer? Have you surrendered your mind to her? Because the more you write, the more you sound like one.
LikeLike
Lucia – I’d suggest you re-read my very first comment on this post, that’ll give you my position on this and on “Randians” generally. I am NOT a “true Randian believer” at all, quite the contrary, and have stated repeatedly why that is the case.
And indeed I believe your mind isn’t open enough to grasp my argument, and while I can see (and appreciate) that may not be a problem for you (praise yourself lucky to have a belief system that leaves no room for doubt), it restricts your capability to engage in debate.
LikeLike
Lucia,
“I think you’ve misread him, Bez.”
Actually, I think Bez understood my meaning, and it is you, Lucia, who misread me.
And I don’t know where you got the idea that Bez was a “true Randian believer”, when it was clear from the beginning that he held the contrary view.
Also, when I have tried to enter with you in debate I have often been confronted with essentially the same issue Bez outlined in the second half of his 18:26 comment.
Try reading what people actually write, rather than what you THINK they have written. I get the impression you often try to second guess people, and end up “guessing” wrong.
LikeLike
Bez,
Yes, you’ve got me.
I got absorbed by the terminology and didn’t go back to the beginning of this conversation.
Kris,
You did say, did you not: “But I do admit the above example of the “sign of the dollar” does equate to this RC ritual.”
Where do you then equate this a ritual found in other religions, as Bez says you do?
LikeLike
Lucia,
“Where do you then equate this a ritual found in other religions, as Bez says you do?”
I didn’t equate it with “other religions”, but cited the RC signing of the cross as an example. Not that I reject such symbolism may indeed exist elsewhere other than RC. Bez simply expanded on my RC example and stated that such symbolism exists elsewhere as well.
LikeLike
Kris,
I see.
Well I confess that while I may make guesses about people, it doesn’t extend into mind reading. For I cannot even extrapolate out that meaning from what you’ve actually said.
I’m glad you and Bez understand each other.
I note that he/she has said nothing on my points that he/she couldn’t counter.
Interesting aside, Rand was buried with a 6 foot long $ on her coffin. Normally there is a cross or a crucifix.
LikeLike
Lucia,
Whether or not Bez feels the need to counter your points I’ll leave with him. But I think your issues are more down to you misconstruing what he has said.
Maybe this is a RC practice, because of all the Christian funerals I’ve been to there were usually no symbols on the coffin as far as I can recall. Not to say there weren’t on the tombstone or plaque.
LikeLike
Oh, Lucia, I thought I had countered all of your points, really. Also, I think we may want to do a bit more context checking before we try to argue anything in future. For instance, we could see whether you had actually read Rand, how you and I understand her philosophy or what she tries to tell in her romanticism, with what parts we agree or disagree and so on. We could also skip that route and compare our own views, we could evaluate our understanding of RC dogma, we could see how our experiences of growing up in that faith have impacted on our lives, what remnants we consider to remain of value, how it has hurt or helped us, and on and on.
I am in little doubt that we’ll find ourselves to agree on many issues, but that we may disagree on matters that are particularly close to your heart and to the moral system you adhere to.
In the very end though, that may all be a pointless exercise as you have demonstrated to apply a very narrow focus and a very finely meshed filter through which you perceive reality. It seems you also use that filter to categorize people and to interpret what they say in a manner that fits within the dialogue you then seek to create.
I will not deny probably doing something similar, after all it’s just a human trait, albeit perhaps using a coarser mesh (hence my comment about you having an insufficient open mind to grasp my point on this issue).
I will not deny your right to stand up for what you believe in, nor will I vilify your faith for the purpose of debate, but please, realize that a perfect moral system hasn’t been invented yet; no system of principles will ever answer all questions that may be thrown at it, there is always a balancing exercise involved, where people with different beliefs may have to come to some compromise, simply to cooperate or abstain from living by the sword. You may find objectivism or libertarianism repugnant, another may have the same feeling about catholicism (whatever that exactly is), but in the end you may find there’s more overlap than you thought, read for instance the 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, which espouses some very libertarian and free market objectives.
As I said earlier, in theory there are many moral systems and most are at least theoretically valid, albeit that this doesn’t mean that there are some that are better by most standards. While we are bound to agree on much, you will never convince me of some of the positions you hold most closely, and which are, for you, beyond debate. There is, therefore, no point in us even arguing these issues. Let’s try to be polite about determining when that is the case.
LikeLike
Oh Bez,
You might want to read my comments again and see what you missed. Those with coarse filters tend to not notice the finer details.
I’ve done my context checking and now I see why we don’t get along. I’m surprised you are drawn to a conservative blog given your recreational pursuits that clash head-on with the more family-oriented values of conservatives.
As to my lack of open mind, try and consider the possibility that if your mind is too open, you can’t orient yourself towards truth as there is none when you are in that space. A person can live without truth for a while, especially when they are just living for themselves, but when they have children that depend on them and then it’s not about them any more, then it becomes a destructive indulgence. And yes, I speak from experience.
LikeLike