Ayn Rand

[Altherion]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1672522' date='Feb 3 2009, 21.17']Shroedinger's cat? Heisenberg?[/quote]
Ha! :) Yes, quantum mechanics threw a real wrench into the argument between the materialists and the idealists. That said, the materialists haven't lost, they just have to be very careful about how they phrase their arguments.

The reply to the Schrodinger's Cat argument is that the cat is either alive or dead (not a superposition of both) regardless of whether anyone has observed it. The fact that you (the observer) do not know (and in fact [i]cannot[/i] know without opening the box) is irrelevant. There is a moderately well accepted phenomenon called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence"]quantum decoherence[/url] which tries to explain how a quantum system (e.g. the decaying isotope) interacts with its environment (e.g. cat, poison, hammer, jar, etc.). Unfortunately, it gets really technical pretty quickly. The reply to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that while the act of observing perturbs the observed, the latter was in fact in whatever state it was (you just can't find out without altering this state).

Neither is particularly satisfying, but practically nothing in quantum mechanics is. It doesn't help that there are very few people who really understand both quantum mechanics and philosophy well enough to make decent arguments about this (and they tend to be... eccentric).
[quote name='Nerdanel' post='1672697' date='Feb 3 2009, 22.56']A man with X hairs on his head is a man with X hairs on his head. However, the concept of (non-total) "baldness" is a fuzzy one. We cannot clearly and unanimously say that a man with X hairs on his head is bald and a man with X + 1 hairs is not. Taken strictly that kind of thing could lead to things like non-bald man dropping a hair and without visible chance to other humans, even to himself or his wife, becoming bald and then next day starting to grow another hair and still without anyone noticing becoming non-bald again. Fuzzy concepts like "a little bald" and "mostly bald" make a great deal of practical sense here.[/quote]
The fact that our language contains words that are intentionally imprecise and we're capable of making use of these concepts is not relevant to A = A. At any given moment in time, the man does in fact have X hairs on his head and if another one grows he'll have X + 1, but, seeing as how we're creatures of limited memory and [i]very[/i] limited ability to count hairs, we make an approximation and call him bald if he more or less looks bald. This has nothing to do with what the man actually [i]is[/i], it's just a trick we use when something isn't important enough to go into great detail.

[Poobah]

With regards to Rand's popularity, prior to coming to this board and discovering TG, I'd only heard her name once when mentioned (derogatorily) in passing by my philosophy lecturer while he was speaking about Nietzsche.

As far as recommendations go, and while Nietzsche is on my mind, I think reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra would be a more worthwhile investment of time than The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, personally. Not least because Zarathustra is rather shorter.

-Poobs

[Kalbear]

[quote]The reply to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that while the act of observing perturbs the observed, the latter was in fact in whatever state it was (you just can't find out without altering this state).[/quote]This is absolutely, 100%, incorrect. That's the sort of point of QM; until you actually interact with the particle the particle is not in any given state or even a chance for a state. This has been scientifically proven via 100-year old experiments like the two-slit experiment.

You can't handwave Heisenberg's principle and say that something is in one state or another, you just didn't know it. That's the horrible power of it.

[HammerOfGod]

All you have to look at is

Enron

Madoff

World Com

All the Wall St. biggies that had to be bailed out



It would be wonderful if human beings were saints...but we are not...we are sinners...

In Ayn Rand's world you give a few people the keys to Fort Knox and walk away expecting them to be selfless for the next 30 years and not empty out the vaults...

[Altherion]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1672935' date='Feb 4 2009, 02.17']This is absolutely, 100%, incorrect. That's the sort of point of QM; until you actually interact with the particle the particle is not in any given state or even a chance for a state. This has been scientifically proven via 100-year old experiments like the two-slit experiment.[/quote]
You misunderstood what I meant by the word "state". I am using it in the more general sense of "how something is" rather than the more specific usage from quantum mechanics (e.g. "ground state"). The particles in the two-slit experiment or any other quantum phenomena are in some (general usage) state, it's just that this is something utterly bizarre by the standards of the ordinary macroscopic world: a linear superposition of all quantum states they can possibly be in. They have certain well-defined properties (such as the probabilities with which they are in a particular quantum state or the interference pattern they ultimately produce on the screen), but certain more common ones (such as where the heck the thing actually is) are unknown and trying to learn them destroys the (general sense) state by collapsing the superposition into a single quantum state.

[Sariel]

I remember back when I was at high school. We went to this TOK (theory of knowledge –yes, I am IB geek) conference in Oxford. There were lectures touching upon a lot of different philosophical thoughts and so on. One guy, an old professor from Cambridge, held a very interesting lecture about modern philosophers and how they've moved away from the older giants and so on. At the end, someone in the audience asked why he hadn't brought up Ayn Rand. The professor stared at the person for a little while, and then he said quite forcefully and with more than a little contempt: "Ayn Rand is for adolescent boys"

[Nous]

In regard to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Altherion has commented on it in a manner that, not unpredictably, indicates greater proficiency in the matter than I have. I'd just like to say that Schrödinger's thought experiment with the cat was a reductio ad absurdum against the Copenhagen interpretation, not something that he intended to be taken seriously. Not that that prevented people from seizing the idea and running with it.

[Nous]

Nerdanel,
[quote name='Nerdanel' post='1672697' date='Feb 3 2009, 16.56']And by the way, as I've already said the claim that a real-world object is itself is a fact-free tautology. Any "denials" of this I have seen on this thread have been more like claims that two-value logic isn't the right tool for handling fuzzy real-world concepts.[/quote]
That somebody misses a target and hits something else doesn't mean he didn't attempt to hit the target. I may attack Marxism on the grounds that it supports consumerism. That Marxism does not, in fact, support consumerism doesn't mean I didn't try to attack Marxism.

[quote]Anyway, in the Crazy Objectivist "Science" department I have found the following link about [url="http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=2984&st=0"]whether one = 0.9999... violates the Law of Identity[/url]. The thread is ten pages long and although it contains viewpoints both pro and con the very fact that there is such a controversy tells something about the intellectual level of the local Objectivist laity on that board (no insinuations about the present company meant since I have no information on that point).[/quote]
I think that looks like a rather interesting discussion. The word 'controversy' is too strong. Why would you expect everyone on that board to have the kind of understanding of mathematical notation and irrational numbers that is required to immediately understand what that notation is meant to convey? You'll notice the discussion goes beyond the original question, into stuff like formal languages and set theory.

[quote]Meanwhile the primary sources for Crazy Objectivist Official Hard "Science" (I'm thinking of physics and the like) have been scarce. There doesn't appear to be that much of it, and "Einstein was wrong and corrupted" Harriman's articles are locked behind a pay wall except for their very beginnings which don't have enough material to critique. I would like to look at some, though, but:

1. It must be available for free on the Internet. (If you think I'm going to spend money on this you're very wrong.)

2. It must be in text form. (I'm not going to annoy myself with multimedia, assuming it even works on my system. I read faster than I listen and am a visual rather than auditory learner.)

3. It must be in popular English. (This is as much for the benefit of others reading this thread as it is for mine.)[/quote]
There is no Objectivist hard science as such. There are various Objectivists that have different positions in scientific issues that may or may not have been inspired by epistemology or metaphysics of Objectivism. Objectivism is a set of philosophical positions, not of scientific ones.

[Nerdanel]

For an ideology that talks as much about the importance of reason as Objectivism, it's rather strange that highly-placed people in the movement are writing articles and holding lectures about how commonly accepted theories with a lot of evidence and testing behind them like relativity and Big Bang are "philosophically corrupt" and therefore false. I think this is a telling sign of the degree Objectivism is really a reality-based philosophy and not just a secular religion with its own unchallengeable dogmas, just with the collected writings of Ayn Rand in the place of the Bible.

Re: emotions, according to what I've read, the Objectivist line is that people are born tabula rasa and emotional responses are formed as a result of rational reasoning.

So when a newborn baby is crying of hunger, tears streaming from its eyes...

a) The baby is not sad even though it appears to be, since it is still mostly in the tabula rasa state, not yet having reasoned itself into a system of emotions, and any crying is just it trying out random stuff.

b) The baby is sad since it has used its capability for rational reasoning and concluded that i) it wants to live, ii) if it does not eat it will die, iii) that feeling in its stomach is a sign of needing to eat, iv) eating is such an important thing that it should feel sad if it does not succeed in its goal of attracting the mother's milk-providing attention right away.

While the modern, non-Objectivist answer would be:

c) The brain of the baby has been hard-wired by evolution into feeling sad when hungry and crying when sad. This explains how the baby can act so "rationally" in attracting the mother when it won't recognize its own image in a mirror for a long time yet, something that even adult chimpanzees and dolphins are capable of doing.

(By the way, Ayn Rand had no children.)

That kind of thing is actually pretty important to Objectivism, since it pretends to be the only philosophy with a handle on the true human nature and the nature of reality and claims that everything in Objectivism follows from that.

[Guest Raidne]

[quote name='Bellis' post='1651957' date='Jan 16 2009, 18.14']I just thought of something else: if you want to save yourself reading her books, you can try to track down the 1999 movie, The Passion of Ayn Rand. It features and all-star cast led by Helen Mirren, and does a good and fairly objective job of showing how Rand (and perhaps her philosophy) messed up the lives of everyone around her.[/quote]

This would be my recommendation as well. It's not very flattering.

It's worth noting that Rand actually grew up under a communist regime, and this somewhat tempers the harshness of the criticism I would otherwise have for her.

Also, the movie Atlas Shrugged is coming out in 2011.

Here's a chapter summary of what pretty much summed up the philosophy in the book for me. Hank Reardon owns and runs a steel mill. His brother is disabled.

[quote]Rearden's mother - against Rearden's wishes that his family does not visit the mills without asking him first - comes to see him. She wants Rearden to give his skillless brother Philip a job in the steel mill. Rearden refuses because Philip can't do the work. His mother tries to manipulate Rearden by saying he only thinks of justice and has no love. To the astonishment of is mother, Rearden responds saying, "Mother, I'm running a steel plant--not a whorehouse." His mother retaliates by saying, "What are... your mills--a holy temple of some kind?" Despite her tone, Rearden finds himself agreeing in the sacredness of his mills. His mother attempts to broach up morality, "Don't you ever think of people and of your moral duties?" Rearden says that if he ever gives a job to Philip, he wouldn't be able to face any competent man who needs work and deserves it. His mother then attempts to warp morality with the statement that, "Virtue is the giving of the undeserved." Rearden ends the meeting with finality, "You don't know what you're saying. I'm not able ever to despise you enough to believe that you mean it."[/quote]

The uncharitable view is that Rand would think the Americans with Disabilities of Act is one of the great travesties of the 20th century.

The charitable view is that it's Reardon's mother's way of asking that's really the problem - that she acts as if he owes something to the world because of his success - and that it's that same sort of thinking that infected the Soviet Union and made it impossible to have any pride whatsoever in individual achievement.

You can clearly see, too, the influence on Goodkind, from that one book and thankfully I've nearly forgot where Richard convinces Nikki of the evilness of her commitment to charity.

[Nous]

Nerdanel,
I have no children either, but I think the reason the child cries is probably that he's feeling hungry, which is an unpleasant sensation, but not an emotion. I don't know any adults who become [i]sad[/i] when they're hungry, and I doubt babies do either. People in pain do not cry because the pain makes them sad; they cry because it hurts.

The Objectivist position is not that emotions are formed as a result of rational reasoning; it is that our beliefs and fundamental ideas, no matter whether they are rational or not, drive the emotions we feel. One example used is several people who see the same image of tissue sample, but have different emotional responses. An art critic may feel loathing, since the picture reminds him of a Kandinsky painting. A medical researcher sees a confirmation of his theory and feels joy. A doctor sees that these samples belong to an old friend of his and indicate terminal illness; he feels crushing grief. In each case, the emotion was automatic but not causeless. It was different for each person, depending on their context and knowledge.

[Nous]

Raidne,

Where do you get this stuff? Philip is not disabled, unless character flaws count. Rearden's mother is asking for a job for Philip, not because he needs the money (Rearden already provides for him), but because having a real job would be good for Philip's self-esteem.

I haven't seen the movie [i]The Passion of Ayn Rand[/i], but I have not heard good things about it. The book it was based on already had some severe flaws.

[Guest Raidne]

[quote name='Nous' post='1675234' date='Feb 5 2009, 14.01']Raidne,

Where do you get this stuff? Philip is not disabled, unless character flaws count. Rearden's mother is asking for a job for Philip, not because he needs the money (Rearden already provides for him), but because having a real job would be good for Philip's self-esteem.[/quote]

Oops, my bad. I must have exaggerated the bit about him being in constantly fragile health in my memory into an identifiable physical disability.

But at any rate, I do kind of think that Rand would be against the ADA, don't you?

[Nous]

That's safe to say. Rand would certainly believe that who an employer chooses to hire, and the standards he uses, are properly up to the employer, and the government has no right to force him. I very much doubt she'd use a word choice such as 'one of the great travesties of the 20th century'. Just think about things various collectivist states did during said century.

[Guest Raidne]

[quote name='Nous' post='1675314' date='Feb 5 2009, 15.05']That's safe to say. Rand would certainly believe that who an employer chooses to hire, and the standards he uses, are properly up to the employer, and the government has no right to force him. I very much doubt she'd use a word choice such as 'one of the great travesties of the 20th century'. Just think about things various collectivist states did during said century.[/quote]

Indeed. I [i]said[/i] it was uncharitable. :)

I think the right way to read Rand [i]is[/i] with the Soviet Union and other collectivist states in mind.

Question: in Atlas Shrugged, is Reardon's sympathy for his family members supposed to be a weakness, do you think? Probably, since, if I remember correctly, Dagny helps him triumph over his feelings of pity for them, yes?

And what do you think Rand would recommend that we do about disabled people? Particularly the severely disabled. Take them out and shoot them?

Kidding! I kid. But seriously, what would she say?

[Skyrazer]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1675467' date='Feb 6 2009, 08.52']Kidding! I kid. But seriously, what would she say?[/quote]
Sell 'em off to wealthy, [i]successful[/i] donors so they can harvest them for their working organs and sell the organs to the privileged who happen to have a disease or sickness themselves?

I mean hey, they're disabled and so thus are underserving of functional, healthy organs right?

[Tes'thesula]

She would say we shouldn't do anything.

If private individuals decide that they want to use their money to support disabled people, that's up to them.

If they don't - well, too bad for disabled people.

[Galactus]

I thought that was the difference between say, Nozick and Rand?

Nozick would say that while no one can force you to do anything (except in a negative way by shunning, etc.) it's up to you to decide what do you want to do. (although he would probably qualify that helping the disabled would be the morally correct thing to do, but no one can FORCE you to do it)

Isn't the point though that according to Rand your self-interest is objectively defined, and not simply based on "what you want to do" (ala Nozick) and so if you are acting altruistically (even if you WANT to act that way and thus are acting selfishly in a sense) you are in fact acting contrary to life and, essentially, shouldn't do it?

[Nous]

Raidne,

[quote name='Raidne' post='1675467' date='Feb 5 2009, 17.52']Question: in Atlas Shrugged, is Reardon's sympathy for his family members supposed to be a weakness, do you think? Probably, since, if I remember correctly, Dagny helps him triumph over his feelings of pity for them, yes?[/quote]
It's not the feeling of pity that Rearden overcomes, and his intellectual development is more simulated by Francisco, rather than Dagny. Rearden is a puritan, in the sense that he's very strict about adhering to his moral code. But he's also initially altruistic in certain respects, willing to let his family take advantage of him, and not holding them to the same standard as he does himself, making excuses for them. He willingly accepts undeserved guilt and tells himself that his family must at the root have benevolent motives, even if he doesn't understand them. When he loses the idea that he is an immoral person with a duty to accept his family as they are, no matter how they treat him, he loses his pity for them, as well.

[quote]And what do you think Rand would recommend that we do about disabled people? Particularly the severely disabled. Take them out and shoot them?

Kidding! I kid. But seriously, what would she say?[/quote]
This is what she said on the rights of children, and on the rights of severely retarded people, in Q&A periods after two separate Ford Hall Forum lectures.
[quote][b]How do the rights of the children differ from those of adults, particularly given a child's need for parental support?[/b]
Both the adult and the child have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Buth these rights depend on one's reason and knowledge. An infant cannot earn his own sustenance, nor can a child exercise his rights and know what the pursuit of happiness is, nor know what freedom is and how to use it. All human rights depend upon man's nature as rational being; therefore, a child must wait until he has developed his mind and acquired enough knowledge to be capable of full independent exercise of his rights. While he's a child, his parents must support him. This is a fact of nature. Proclaiming some kind of children's rights does not make such "rights" real. Rights are a concept based on reality; therefore, a parent doesn't have the right to starve his child, neglect him, injure him physically, or kill him. The government must protect the child, as it would any other citizen. But the child can't claim for himself the rights of an adult, because he is not competent to exercise them. He must depend on his parents. If he doesn't like them, he should leave his home as early as he can earn his living by legal means.

[b]Do severely retarded individuals have rights?[/b]
Not actual rights--not the same rights possessed by normal individuals. In effect, they have the right to be protected as perennial children. Like children, retarded people are entitled to protection because, as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own. The protection of their rights is a courtesy extended to them for being human, even if not properly formed ones. But you could not extend the actual exercise of individual rights to a retarded person, because he's unable to function rationally. Since all rights rest on human nature, a being that cannot exercise his rights cannot have full human rights.[/quote]

[Nous]

Galactus,
.
Yes. To Rand, morality comes before, and is the foundation of, politics. Libertarians tend to reduce morality to political principles, or see political principles as somehow unconnected from morality. That is not the case with Rand.