Ayn Rand

[Skyrazer]

Yes I wouldn't call GRRM a "romanticist". His characters are full of conflicts, mixed emotions and denial. They are not so clean cut that they have clearly defined values that they never steer amiss from at any time at all. Throughout the series, many of the characters take actions that they to an extent regret or do not entirely approve of because the environment around demanded it from them at the given time.

[Galactus]

Quite frankly, [i]Les Miserables[/i] usually isn't considered a romantic work either: It's a realist work (although not a naturalist one) Valjean, despite everything, isn't Werther.

[Nous]

[quote name='Bruce Galactus' post='1662010' date='Jan 25 2009, 16.43']Postmodernists generally don't reject A=A, only our ability to say anything about A.[/quote]
My comment about postmodernists relied more on my general belief that if it's a lousy idea, I can find postmodernists who advocate it, rather than in any general or fundamental position of that way of thinking.

[Nous]

Nerdanel,
[quote name='Nerdanel' post='1662023' date='Jan 25 2009, 16.56']I didn't read like Devil the Bible. I wrote the whole thing pretty quickly and with relatively little thinking, actually. That should say something about the flaws of the text.[/quote]
I don't see how you writing quickly and with relatively little thinking says anything about the flaws of the text.

[quote]It turns out that Korzybski fellow invented something called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics"]General Semantics[/url]:
[...]
I think that isn't contradicting A = A. [...][/quote]
That Korzybski rejected the law of identity is well known; I don't know whether the snippet you posted is the argument he used.

[quote]Anyway, during my Internet trawl I found talk about Objectivists refusing to believe in things like evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, Big Bang, modern theories of human emotions... I have no idea if you think that way though.[/quote]
Well, yes I do. Everyone with half a brain knows that human emotions are caused by the balance of humours in the body. That, furthermore, is proof that the theory of natural selection is flawed, as they have no way of explaining the role of humours in body chemistry.

Sorry. I just have no idea how I should respond to that. You can find people who say they are Objectivists and don't believe in various things, or other people say they don't believe in various things. So?

[Nous]

Applying the categories of romanticism, or naturalism is not always as straightforwards as that. It's not like one work has to be completely one or the other. Of course, pure realists or naturalists would never even write fantasy. (Romanticism doesn't preclude inner conflicts, by the way; see Claude Frollo. or even Dostoyevsky characters)

And Les Miserables so is Romantic. Hugo is the granddaddy of French Romanticism, and Les Miserables is no less Romantic than his other works. It's theme-the injustice of society to lower classes-is something that Realists and Naturalists like to dwell on, and that's a superficial similarity.But those characters and that plot are not everyday life!

[Zahir al Daoud]

[quote name='StarkMyrmidon' post='1662056' date='Jan 25 2009, 15.49']Perhaps I should clarify the definitions of romanticism and naturalism in the literary sense. I did some online searching; it didn't take long.
[i]Naturalism involves the rejection of volition, whereas romanticism follows from the premise that man has free will and must choose his destiny, i.e., man is a being of self-made soul. For example, writers such as Ayn Rand, Victor Hugo, and Alexandre Dumas create characters who fight for their values and display extraordinary virtue. Meanwhile, writers such as Sinclair Lewis, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Ernest Hemingway create characters who muddle through life with little direction, are generally buffeted by inexplicable events, and show weakness in place of strong virtue. The essential difference between these two camps, then, is thematic.[/i][/quote]

Hmmmm...I'd be interested in knowing the source of this quote. Because here's what I got from wikipedia, which pretty much matches up with what I learned in school:
[quote]Romanticism is a complex artistic, literary, and intellectual movement that originated in the second half of the 18th century in Western Europe, and gained strength during the Industrial Revolution.[1] It was partly a revolt against aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment and a reaction against the scientific rationalization of nature, and was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature.

The movement stressed strong emotion as a source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as trepidation, horror and awe—especially that which is experienced in confronting the sublimity of untamed nature and its picturesque qualities, both new aesthetic categories. It elevated folk art and custom to something noble, and argued for a "natural" epistemology of human activities as conditioned by nature in the form of language, custom and usage.

Our modern sense of a romantic character is sometimes based on Byronic or Romantic ideals. Romanticism reached beyond the rational and Classicist ideal models to elevate medievalism and elements of art and narrative perceived to be authentically medieval, in an attempt to escape the confines of population growth, urban sprawl and industrialism, and it also attempted to embrace the exotic, unfamiliar and distant in modes more authentic than chinoiserie, harnessing the power of the imagination to envision and to escape.

Although the movement is rooted in German Pietism, which prized intuition and emotion over Enlightenment rationalism, the ideologies and events of the French Revolution laid the background from which Romanticism emerged. The confines of the Industrial Revolution also had their influence on Romanticism, which was in part an escape from modern realities; indeed, in the second half of the nineteenth century, "Realism" was offered as a polarized opposite to Romanticism. Romanticism elevated the achievements of what it perceived as misunderstood heroic individuals and artists that altered society. It also legitimized the individual imagination as a critical authority which permitted freedom from classical notions of form in art. There was a strong recourse to historical and natural inevitability, a zeitgeist, in the representation of its ideas.[/quote]
And here is Naturalism:[quote]Naturalism is a literary movement that seeks to replicate a believable everyday reality, as opposed to such movements as Romanticism or Surrealism, in which subjects may receive highly symbolic, idealistic, or even supernatural treatment. Naturalism is the outgrowth of Realism, a prominent literary movement in mid-19th-century France and elsewhere. Naturalistic writers were influenced by the evolution theory of Charles Darwin.[1] They believed that one's heredity and social environment determine one's character. Whereas realism seeks only to describe subjects as they really are, naturalism also attempts to determine "scientifically" the underlying forces (i.e. the environment or heredity) influencing the actions of its subjects. Naturalistic works often include uncouth or sordid subject matter; for example, Émile Zola's works had a frankness about sexuality along with a pervasive pessimism. Naturalistic works exposed the dark harshness of life, including poverty, racism, sex, prejudice, disease, prostitution, and filth. As a result, Naturalistic writers were frequently criticized for being too blunt.[/quote]Which, again, pretty much matches up with what I learned earning a BA degree.

[Lupigis]

[quote name='Zahir al Daoud' post='1663483' date='Jan 27 2009, 02.59']Hmmmm...I'd be interested in knowing the source of this quote.[/quote]
According to Google, the source appears to be "[url="http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=98&t=4123"]THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans[/url]"...

[Skyrazer]

[quote name='Lupigis' post='1663503' date='Jan 27 2009, 13.21']According to Google, the source appears to be "[url="http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=98&t=4123"]THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans[/url]"...[/quote]
:/

[Nerdanel]

When I was saying that I wrote my answer quickly I meant that the flaws in Ayn Rand's text were so obvious I didn't have to pore on them.

------

Here follows some links about Ayn Rand, her followers, and science.

At first. we have Ayn Rand's views on emotion and human mind, contrasted by modern research.

From [url="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/10/rands-theory-of-emotions-examined.html"]Rand's Theory of Emotions Examined[/url]:

[quote]This view of emotions, reason, and consciousness has been refuted by research done in cognitive science, neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology. These sciences have discovered that animals (including human beings) have "primary emotions," which are "innate" and "preorganized" and which depend on limbic system circuitry in the brain. They have discovered that emotions are critical in thinking, so that the notion that "man can live exclusively by reason," when accompanied by the additional notion that "emotions are not tools of cognition," misrepresents what actually happens in cognition. Human beings are not blank slates.[/quote]

[url="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tabularasa.html"]The Ayn Rand Lexicon on Tabula Rasa[/url]:

[quote]Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both.[/quote]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa"]Wikipedia on Tabula Rasa[/url]:

[quote]In the last few decades, twin studies, studies of adopted children, and the David Reimer case have demonstrated genetic influence on (if not strict determination of) personal characteristics, such as IQ, alcoholism, gender identity, and other traits.[/quote]

Ayn Rand's model of the human brain is hopelessly outdated, which doesn't make her claims that Objectivism follows directly from human nature that hot.

Along the same lines, [url="http://solohq.org/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Evolution.shtml"]Ayn Rand doubted evolution[/url] (although she didn't like Creationism either):

[quote]Her one-time associate Nathaniel Branden states in his well-known essay The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

[quote]I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable[/quote][/quote]

[quote]Rand’s hesitation about evolution calls for an explanation. As Rand must have been aware, many religious conservatives (who were a frequent target of hers) reject evolution. There are a few possibilities for this hesitation.

First, evolution is generally seen as a deterministic and ultimately hostile to free will. (Machan, Ayn Rand, pp. 142-43.) For example, evolutionist Ernest Haeckel (1834-1919) asserted that free will had to be rejected along with other “cherished ideas” such as human immortality and a personal god. (Schwarz, Creation, p. 7.) Even before the advent of Darwinian evolution, materialists from Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) forward often rejected free will.

Second, if biological evolution is true, then many areas of philosophy might need to be reexamined. For example, how can man have a qualitatively different value from animals if is every bit a part of nature as animals? Interestingly, a standard argument of religious conservatives against evolution is similar. [...]

Third, Rand may have been fearful of creating a biological or secular equivalent to original sin. Rand’s opposition to original sin is well known, but her opposition to original sin would apply to any argument that proposes a biological weakness in man’s will.[/quote]

The rest of this post is devoted to Ayn Rand's modern-day followers' wacky ideas about physics.

[url="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/11/objectivist-quote-of-week.html"]ARCHN quotes an Objectivist blogger defending an Objectivist "scientist":[/url]

[quote name='Diana Mertz Hsieh']"Since I'm not a scientist, I'm not competent to judge whether Dave Harriman's criticisms of Einstein are ultimately right or not. I can say with some confidence that although brilliant, Einstein was undoubtedly corrupted by Kantian philosophy. That's no small matter."[/quote]

[url="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2006/11/get-your-dim-on.html"]The comments of the article contain descriptions on the content of a series of video lectures held by the leader of Ayn Rand Institute and the "scientist" from the previous quote[/url]:

[quote]Wow! Einstein's mistaken approach to gravity! That'll teach all those dumb physicists who still think that Einstein's general theory of relativity is a highly successful theory of gravity that so far has been confirmed by all the experimental evidence. No, Objectivism, personified in the genius of Doctor Peikoff, shows us that Einstein was wrong about gravity! Even worse: Einstein was an M1! Now I'm not quite sure what that means, but I get the definite impression that it's not good.[/quote]

M is for Misintegration.

[quote]Harriman seems to have a degree in physics, but I wonder where he got it, he sounded more like an amateur scientist who has read a few popular books about physics than someone with real knowledge in that field. When someone in the audience asked him about chaos theory, his reaction was that those people "have given up causality!", apparently not knowing that chaos theory is a perfectly deterministic, causal theory. He also must have been sleeping when they taught him Quantum mechanics, as he asserted that QM states that the same particle can be at two different locations. Perhaps he should read about the double-slit experiment in a serious book and not in some bad popular text. His diagnostic powers equal those of Peikoff: when someone asked what he thought of Feynman, his immediate diagnosis was: D1![/quote]

D is for Disintegration.

[quote]As I'd already mentioned in an earlier reaction, Peikoff and Harriman attacked Einstein's general theory of relativity. It reduces everything to mathematics! shouts Peikoff, curved space-time has no physical content! Hmm... does Newton's gravitation theory of an invisible, immediate action at a distance really have more physical content than Einstein's curved space-time? Well, in the near future we'll probably see the Harriman-Peikoff theory of gravity which no doubt can explain astronomical data much better than uncle Albert's unphysical theory.[/quote]

By the way, I have some interest for popular science, and it's pretty shocking to see a self-described physicist being so utterly clueless about things like chaos theory, yet giving pronouncements on it. I mean, the underlying determinism of chaos theory is so very basic...

[Nous]

Nerdanel,
[quote]When I was saying that I wrote my answer quickly I meant that the flaws in Ayn Rand's text were so obvious I didn't have to pore on them.[/quote]
Yet none of those alleged flaws you mentioned (with the possible exception of the term 'lexicon' being used too literally) were left standing after my responses, or at least you didn't try to defend them.

I will refrain from posting detailed critiques of the contents of your link blitz. Attempting to refute every negative thing one can find in the Internet about Rand or her sundry admirers is not something I have time or inclination to do. I will just say that the Objectivist conception of the tabula rasa is not one that is necessarily contradicted by the wikipedia quote you posted. Ayn Rand's possible scepticism of evolution--let's remember that the source is a former lover turned enemy--would probably be more fairly illustrated by what she actually said about it in one of her articles, which was something like "I'm not a student of the theory of evolution, and therefore am neither its supporter nor opponent".

As for Diana Hsieh's--who is one of my favorite bloggers, by the way--comment on Einstein and Kant, so what? It seems entirely reasonable to me. If you want to read the actual discussion where it came up, [url="http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2007/11/false-friends-update.shtml"]here's the link[/url] that was missing from ARCHN post where the quote was used. I have actually listened to the lecture series that was the subject of that ARCHN thread; you will not get a fair understanding of the content from those posts. Some of their criticisms may be to the point; others are not.

[Watcher]

[quote name='Nous' post='1663124' date='Jan 26 2009, 14.36']Well, yes I do. Everyone with half a brain knows that human emotions are caused by the balance of humours in the body. That, furthermore, is proof that the theory of natural selection is flawed, as they have no way of explaining the role of humours in body chemistry.[/quote]

I just snorted my soda out my nose, I'd say thanks for that but I'm hurting to much.

[Gigei]

It's very simple. Her work is one of the most talked-about philosophical fiction in the world. You should read it, not only for entertainment, but also to be able to hold your own in an intelligent discussion of literature. Now, if you never have any literary discussion, you don't need it, but if you do, it's a must.

The other book I would consider absolutely necessary to read (if you are at all interested in philosophy) is Sophie's World. :) Feel free to rec any other works, btw. That and some Umberto Eco will see you through most college/university level discussions.

[Jon AS]

[quote name='Gigei']Her work is one of the most talked-about philosophical fiction in the world.[/quote]

Is it really? Because outside of the US (or possibly outside the English speaking world) she is virtually unknown. And if you happen to look her up in an encycopledia (which was what I did when I first read about her 10 years ago and found that none of the philosophy textbooks I checked had any info on her), you'll find her listed as a novelist, not a philosopher.

[A wilding]

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1666725' date='Jan 29 2009, 12.44'][quote]Her work is one of the most talked-about philosophical fiction in the world.[/quote]
Is it really? Because outside of the US (or possibly outside the English speaking world) she is virtually unknown.
[/quote]
Seconded. I asked a UK philosophy don, one of the most intelligent and educated people I know, about Ayn Rand when I first read about Goodkind considering her an influence. They had never heard of her. I will spare you all with the opinion they came back with a few weeks later having done some research. Suffice to say it was negative.

[Skyrazer]

[quote name='Gigei' post='1666703' date='Jan 29 2009, 22.46']It's very simple. Her work is one of the most talked-about philosophical fiction in the world.[/quote]
"It's very simple. Her work is one of the most talked-about philosophical fiction in [s]the world[/s] america. Everywhere else she's a nobody whom nobody really takes on seriously, [b]especially[/b] her 'philosophies'."

Fixed

[Galactus]

[quote name='Gigei' post='1666703' date='Jan 29 2009, 12.46']It's very simple. Her work is one of the most talked-about philosophical fiction in the world. You should read it, not only for entertainment, but also to be able to hold your own in an intelligent discussion of literature. Now, if you never have any literary discussion, you don't need it, but if you do, it's a must.

The other book I would consider absolutely necessary to read (if you are at all interested in philosophy) is Sophie's World. :) Feel free to rec any other works, btw. That and some Umberto Eco will see you through most college/university level discussions.[/quote]

As said, I'd never even heard of her (and I'm considered something of a philosophy buff) until the entire Goodkind thing.

Certainly Marx is FAR more important and probably read and discussed, than Rand.

Much love for Sophie's World though.

[Elrostar]

[quote name='Nous' post='1663124' date='Jan 26 2009, 16.36']Well, yes I do. Everyone with half a brain knows that human emotions are caused by the balance of humours in the body. That, furthermore, is proof that the theory of natural selection is flawed, as they have no way of explaining the role of humours in body chemistry.[/quote]
Is this for real? It's a joke, right?

[Elrostar]

[quote name='Gigei' post='1666703' date='Jan 29 2009, 06.46']It's very simple. Her work is one of the most talked-about philosophical fiction in the world. You should read it, not only for entertainment, but also to be able to hold your own in an intelligent discussion of literature. Now, if you never have any literary discussion, you don't need it, but if you do, it's a must.

The other book I would consider absolutely necessary to read (if you are at all interested in philosophy) is Sophie's World. :) Feel free to rec any other works, btw. That and some Umberto Eco will see you through most college/university level discussions.[/quote]

Sophie's world is a simple introduction to a lot of basic philosophy. Nothing wrong with that, although it's probably better to read some of the philosophers' works in their own words.
This of course gives some credence to the idea of reading them in their original language. However, I would tend to subscribe to the view that it is best to read Kirkegaard in translation; this has the advantage that [i]someone had to read it and make sense of it before translating it[/i], thus rendering it much more comprehensible :)

And if you really want to feel like a literary snob, don't read [i]Atlas Shrugged[/i] or [i]The Fountainhead[/i]. Go straight to the top and read the real classics. Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, Joyce. [i]Ulysses[/i] and [i]Finnegans Wake[/i] are really where it's at in terms of being able to sound pretentious in a discussion of literature. There are few things as good as being able to say
[indent][i]"Well, I'm a particular fan of the 'Cyclops' part, because of its unusual narration style. But then, you know, 'Penelope' is just so fascinating too. Have you ever even tried to properly compose even a paragraph of stream of consciousness? It's so profound and deep, it really speaks to the human condition in a way that no other work of literature can even begin to attempt to approach..."[/i][/indent]
Yeah, I'm the guy who cited Finnegans Wake (and Through the Looking Glass) in my Ph.D. Thesis. On experimental Particle physics. Quoted it, to be precise ;) I'd like to see some objectivist try to be snootier and more pretentious than that :)

[Vrana]

[quote name='Elrostar' post='1668968' date='Jan 31 2009, 04.45']Sophie's world is a simple introduction to a lot of basic philosophy. Nothing wrong with that, although it's probably better to read some of the philosophers' works in their own words.
This of course gives some credence to the idea of reading them in their original language. However, I would tend to subscribe to the view that it is best to read Kirkegaard in translation; this has the advantage that [i]someone had to read it and make sense of it before translating it[/i], thus rendering it much more comprehensible :)

And if you really want to feel like a literary snob, don't read [i]Atlas Shrugged[/i] or [i]The Fountainhead[/i]. Go straight to the top and read the real classics. Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, Joyce. [i]Ulysses[/i] and [i]Finnegans Wake[/i] are really where it's at in terms of being able to sound pretentious in a discussion of literature. There are few things as good as being able to say
[indent][i]"Well, I'm a particular fan of the 'Cyclops' part, because of its unusual narration style. But then, you know, 'Penelope' is just so fascinating too. Have you ever even tried to properly compose even a paragraph of stream of consciousness? It's so profound and deep, it really speaks to the human condition in a way that no other work of literature can even begin to attempt to approach..."[/i][/indent]
Yeah, I'm the guy who cited Finnegans Wake (and Through the Looking Glass) in my Ph.D. Thesis. On experimental Particle physics. Quoted it, to be precise ;) I'd like to see some objectivist try to be snootier and more pretentious than that :)[/quote]

Hahaha. Priceless.

I wasn't trying to be particularly snobbish, but a discussion I had with a friend sparked my interest. I am currently trying to go through the classics, but I wanted to see what Ayn Rand was about since she obviously has striked some chords as well. Although I can't right now since I'm too poor to buy books and my library only has atlas shrugged in swedish.

I'll check for Sophie's World though.

Oh, and in high school I had literary interpretation so we got to write an inner monologue, it was hard. ^^

Thanks again ya'll for the replies, I've been following the discussion pretty intently but I can honestly say that I have little to contribute with.

[Zoë Sumra]

[quote name='Elrostar' post='1668968' date='Jan 31 2009, 03.45']This of course gives some credence to the idea of reading them in their original language. However, I would tend to subscribe to the view that it is best to read Kirkegaard in translation; this has the advantage that [i]someone had to read it and make sense of it before translating it[/i], thus rendering it much more comprehensible :)[/quote]
The same applies to Hegel, IMO. :D