Can someone give me some criticisms of Ayn Rand's views? Preferably in a few sentences?
Does she believe in free markets? If not fully, please, in a few sentences point out where she is flawed?
As I see it, Rand didn't consistently believe in free markets, because she advocated a minimal state (courts, police, and military).
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I've no quarrels with Rand apart from her minarchist leanings and some of her more bizarre quirks. I personally don't waste time criticising her because I think there's far bigger fish to fry. Rand's philosophy by and large is agreeable, and although her arguments don't always stack up, I think her positions are defensible. I don't think she had a good grasp on intellectual history though.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Oh, I also take issue with her value objectivism.
Well, she was kind of collectivist (if she really said that we should help the Israelis out because they're more civilized) and she liked patents.
I also prefer Dr. Rothbard's non aggression principle to the "selfishness is the ultimate virtue".
Of course, Dr. Rothbard and Rand were not polar opposites, so I'm failing to see the big picture as usual.
Rand liked IP because her entire business model depended on it.
No2statism:Of course, Dr. Rothbard and Rand were not polar opposites, so I'm failing to see the big picture as usual.
Indeed they weren't. Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty makes the same fundamental argument as Rand did in her "Objectivist ethics".
Seems like a good place to repost this ^_^
I was immersed in Rand before reading Rothbard, this is particularly hilarious.
Which in particular?
The entire thing. Value is subjective.
Rand was what I'd call a radical individualist. Other than that, I see no comparison between her an us Voluntaryists. And as somebody in this thread also said, Rand acted quite bizarre. It almost seems like she could have been downright obnoxious.
Yeah, chalk me up as another lover of Rand the author/philosopher (hence my username), but not Rand the woman, lol. All kinds of really strange anecdotes about her personal life floating around. For instance, I heard she insisted that her husband wear this chain or something so that she could always hear him around the house.
I too was a bit shocked when I heard her justify Israel's actions towards the Palestinians. I guess in her mind, people she feels are 'incapable of reason' are not as valuable. She seemed to succumb to a kind of neo-con attitude in foreign policy, unfortunately.
Other than that though, she gave us a lot. While the usual conservative argument for capitalism was that it just 'works better', she was at the forefront of championing it as also the only MORAL system.
Oh sure, I certainly won't deny her contribution to libertarianism. Speaking of which, I just recently watched the old black-and-white adaptation of The Fountainhead with Gary Cooper.
At the courtroom scene, I was saying "hell yeah!" Haha.
As was discussed in a recent thread, it's much easier to criticize Rand that Rand's beliefs. Rand was an intolerant dogmatist who lead a cult of personality (Mozart was a red is an absolutely brilliant parody of this). Rand's beliefs were well considered, thorough, and intelligent, with attention paid to the little things. I think that Rand is criminally ignored in modern philosophy, especially in terms of moral philosophy/political theory. The strength and scope of her vision can only be matched by powerhouses in philosophy like Marx. Indeed it could be argued that only Rand and Rothbard actually succeeded in making a coherent (although I believe ultimately false) political philosophy based upon individual morality.
I have never heard a thorough cirticism that didn't come from the left (and was bullshit) but here's a summary on what I see as the failings of objectivism
1. It fails to reject the is/ought dichotomy, I believe that this is because Rand misunderstood it. Rand never said why I SHOULD value life, nor has any objectivist I have ever talked to
2. It is filled with a huge amount of undue conflation. For instance: Man's life depends upon creative work and labor (I have some problem with this premise in the first place but we'll take it as true for now) therefore, because man values his life he must value productive work and labor IN ALL CASES. This is absolute bullshit, I will value productive labor only insofar as it advances my life. It's a marginal thing. Both 1 and 2 can be disproved through economic
3. It assumes a lot about the psychology of individuals. Rand's work is filled with this. For instance she says that if a man has sex with a slut who doesn't respect herself then a lot could be determined about this individual's soul and personality, ultimately we can tell that he's depraved and doesn't respect himself. Why? Maybe he just likes the experience of getting laid and doesn't care who provides the service, or maybe the woman in question is just extremely... Experienced... There's a whole lot of weird and utterly unscientific psychology which leads to weird and unscientific conclusions. Depression is a thing and Rand isn't the answer in many cases.
4. It assumes things which you cannot prove about reality. For instance their statement "existence exists". You can't prove that, it's an assumption. One that ultimately we have to make, but not one that we can prove, while the objectivist says that you can prove it. A is A don't ya know?
5. Objectivism assumes a perfectly causal physical universe, yet it somehow assumes that man has a choice which is not predetermined by the physical universe. This is a contradiction, and yet the world is supposed to have no contradictions, as was stated repeatedly in Atlas Shrugged.
Rand's message is strong and a lot of things about objectivism make a lot of sense and are very good for the individual. For this reason I don't hesitate to call myself partially objectivist, but ultimately an objectivist who benefits from the Austrian insights. Objectivism has good values, but they are just that, they are values, not THE values. They are not objectively or universally true.
Other than that the only problems I have with objectivism are Rand's minarchism (which many modern objectivist deny) and her stances on military inverventionism, which I would say are not only contrary to the entire philosophy, since there WILL be civilian casualites.
It's evil to confiscate someone's property to feed someone else. It's perfectly okay to kill that person, as long as it was by accident, if you're trying to overthrow a dicatator. That's absolutely disgusting. It is also unscientific in terms of how it views society, since the objectivist government would probably, not certainly, be unstable anyway.
I'd prefer to look at Lysander Spooner as the Karl Marx of Libertarianism.
I think that's wildley inaccurate. Insofar as such a comparison would be made I'd say that Rothbard (maybe Mises) was the Marx. Spooner would probably be the Owen.
I have to disagree. In my view Lysander was like the very first anarcho-capitalist...and an active one, for that matter.
By the way, you should watch School Days.
I'd say Rothbard was our Stalin.
1) Rand's moral philosophy is bizarre and anti-human. She advocates precisely the sort of vulgar misconception of Epicureanism that Epicurus denounces in his letter to Menoecus - people who distort the basic Epicurean principle of pleasure and pain as the twin governors of virtuous living:
When we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean the pleasure of debauchery or sensuality. Despite whatever may be said by those who misunderstand, disagree with, or deliberately slander our teachings, the goal we do seek is this: freedom from pain in the body and freedom from turmoil in the soul. For it is not continuous drinking and revelry, the sexual enjoyment of women and boys, or feasting upon fish and fancy cuisine which result in a happy life. Sober reasoning is what is needed, which decides every choice and avoidance and liberates us from the false beliefs which are the greatest source of anxiety.
The Randian conception of self-interest is to Epicurean/Misesean rationality what the Cyrenaic hedonism was to Epicurean pleasure. Pleasure-as-a-duty (even at the price of pain) is a contradiction as is self-interest-as-a-duty (even at the cost of isolation/alienation). We have no duty to be self-interested in any particular way and Epicurean philosophy clearly shows the juvenile error in this view. Rather, the Epicurean principle is simply an exposition of the natural facts of the human condition: act contrary to your nature and you will suffer pain, act consistently with your nature and you will avoid pain and attain the supreme pleasure of an unperturbed mind.
2) Objectivist metaphysics is confused and contradictory. "Existence exists" I've heard a self-described Randian say. What the hell does that even mean? Statements about existence are no different than any other kind of statement except in the degree of their pretentiousness - a statement about what exists is a statement which claims for itself an infallibility ... "this is the way the world really, really is and no one in the course of human history will be able to explain it any otherwise... these are the facts of existence and they are objectively true." A less pretentious approach to making claims is to simply take an inventory of what one knows and then derive conclusions on the basis of this a priori knowledge. That's all, in fact, that any human has ever done, irrespective of his or her fantasies.
Both points 1&2 are related as it is the metaphysical dogma that is the basis of the moral dogma. While there is an objective aspect of morality, it is not in the sense that Randians think (objective moral duties). But the Randian moral philosophy is built on their specious metaphysics and the dogma of their metaphysics is the basis for their moral dogma.
It's a big pile of steaming crap. I wouldn't last 5 minutes at Cato or any other organization that had a whiff of sympathy for Rand.
Clayton -
I don't think Cato is all that libertarian, to tell you the truth.
she was at the forefront of championing it as also the only MORAL system.
The only problem being that her absurd moral philosophy is nothing more than a poison-pill in this regard.
The Randian conception of self-interest is to Epicurean/Misesean rationality what the Cyrenaic hedonism was to Epicurean pleasure.
Have you even read that Wikipedia article you link to?
Autolykos: The entire thing. Value is subjective.
Can't we take life as an a priori value? It would be a performative contradiction to claim one did not value life. For one must be alive to make such a claim, and would be dead should they truly not value life.
Using Rand's own definition of "value" as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep", then death can be a value just as much as life can.
For one must be alive to make such a claim, and would be dead should they truly not value life.
Is that really true? What does that even mean? One cannot act to bring himself into life. So what do you mean by valuing life? If we can only understand value by action, what action demonstrates valuing life? Just because someone does not act to end his life does not mean that he somehow values 'life'. All we can say is that he prefers whatever actions he performs to that of suicide.
EDIT: So I see we're dealing with a Randian rather than a Misesian definition of value.
Autolykos:Using Rand's own definition of "value" as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep", then death can be a value just as much as life can.
But we don't need to worry about those who have come to value death, as they are dead and cannot be dealt with or transacted with anymore, and they can only be said to value death more than life at the moment in which they commit an act which causes them irrevocably to die.
If you are arguing with anyone about values, you can assume they value life, again, a priori by virtue of being alive. It's essentially similar to argumentation ethics.
Aristippus: For one must be alive to make such a claim, and would be dead should they truly not value life. Is that really true? What does that even mean? One cannot act to bring himself into life. So what do you mean by valuing life?
Is that really true? What does that even mean? One cannot act to bring himself into life. So what do you mean by valuing life?
Life isn't automatically granted to you, though you be now alive. You must act to keep yourself alive. You must drink suffucient quantities of water, breath sufficient oxygen, and eat sufficient calories and nutrients. That is, you continually act as if your life were a value to you, and if you didn't you would be dead in short order.
Aristippus:If we can only understand value by action, what action demonstrates valuing life?
The above and their corollaries, like obtaining shelter and the rest.
Aristippus:Just because someone does not act to end his life does not mean that he somehow values 'life'.
You must act to maintain your life or it rather quickly goes away. If you do not act as if life were a value then you quickly die, via inaction.
Aristippus:All we can say is that he prefers whatever actions he performs to that of suicide. EDIT: So I see we're dealing with a Randian rather than a Misesian definition of value.
What would be the Misesian def of value?
I'm really just recalling my old Randian readings, not necessarily taking this as a position. Feel free to show me Mises's superior reasoning on value.
Aristippus:EDIT: So I see we're dealing with a Randian rather than a Misesian definition of value.
Well I think it's always better to show inconsistencies in one's arguments using his own semantics. :P However, that can be challenge when his semantics differ significantly from your own.
I think the difference between the Randian and the Misesian definitions of "value" is subtle, but important. While Rand defines it as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep", Mises (essentially) defines it as "what one is willing to do to gain and/or keep something".
Anenome:But we don't need to worry about those who have come to value death, as they are dead and cannot be dealt with or transacted with anymore, and they can only be said to value death more than life at the moment in which they commit an act which causes them irrevocably to die. If you are arguing with anyone about values, you can assume they value life, again, a priori by virtue of being alive. It's essentially similar to argumentation ethics.
We need to worry about those who have come to value death in the sense that they disprove the notion that life is an (the?) objective universal value - which was my point. I'm sorry but you seem to be trying to move the goalposts with the above.
Well the answer to this question answers the rest, I think:
Value only exists in reality through demonstrated action, demonstrated preferences. It therefore only refers to preferred actions, not the state of valuing abstract things like 'life'. Does eating, drinking, finding shelter really show that one values life, or instead that they value - at those particular moments respectively - eating, drinking, and finding shelter to all other possible actions? And is it true that by eating an apple in the USA that I value being in the USA more than I value being in France?
EDIT:
Well that's true, but I don't think the Randian definition is very helpful, because it requires an extra level of verstehen, which might be faulty. Do I value growing facial hair just because I eat the food that allows me to do so?
That's a pretty good point, Ari :) So it seems that it would be a bit of a stretch to claim one values the abstract concept of life merely by taking acts that support it.
It seems like there might be something to that, though. But then we run into problems like, what if there's a guy murdering someone while he eats an apple. Well he must value only his life?
I think it would be valid to say that people actually value non-pain over pain states. Since most of the instinct to do things like eat and drink are actually about satiation rather than supporting life as a value. You are alive as a consequence of eating and drinking, for example, but what prompted you to eat or drink was actually an uncomfort.
But then, there is indeed a psychological compulsion to remain alive. If you don't eat or drink long enough, eventually you have the thought, "I'm going to die," and the pain of not eating at least dissapears within a few days of not eating, which seems to belie the idea that people don't have an inborn value to live.
If they didn't have a desire to live, couldn't they simply stop eating and live out their remaining days. They'd then have no preference towards life or death in that remaining period.
And if they wanted to live at that point, if that was a value, they'd have no other choice but to take steps to support life via eating and drinking.
It might be a bit like saying you like taking trips. And here you're saying, 'but you can't take trips directly, you can only put gas in your car and mechanically operate a vehicle, there is no abstract act of 'trip-taking'.'
Which I think belies your point a bit. So, color me a bit grayed out between these positions after all :\
Exactly - Mises calls it 'uneasiness'.
But I think we can much more easily understand specific actions which demonstrate directly valuing trip-taking than we can understand those which demonstrate directly valuing life.
Yes but what in particular? I guess you mean her dispute with Mises concerning whether value is "subjective". Her disagreement is mostly terminological from what I understand. I don't think she assumes value inheres in the object, but rather that it arises through a relationship between the valuer and the valued..
"Existence exists"
It means that reality is independent of consciousness as far as I can tell. You cannot deny existence without contradicting yourself anyway but I don't think she meant that.
reality is independent of consciousness
That might be the case, though I don't think we can actually know this (perhaps we are, after all, just existing in the mind of God as some religious metaphysics claim). Regardless, the part of reality that matters to moral issues - valuation - is not independent of consciousness. So the dependence/independence of existence on consciousness is irrelevant.
limitgov: Can someone give me some criticisms of Ayn Rand's views? Preferably in a few sentences? Does she believe in free markets? If not fully, please, in a few sentences point out where she is flawed?
I don't see many flaws in Objectivism. If I really had to criticize anything, it'd be her epistemology. Science functions by induction; due to the "direction of time," so-to-speak, we are always dependent on the future to validate hypotheses...thus there is no deductive theorem. Who knows: on day one of 14 billion years, maybe the entire universe will cease to exist. Basically, she maintains that induction equals knowledge, which it doesn't in the sense of being certain about an outcome.
This song always reminds me of Rand, particularly "The Fountainhead."