This is great forum

[Guest Raidne]

Nous, if I could ask a favor, links to Rand's direct works have been hard for me to find - instead I'm just getting quotations and summaries when I look them up. Do you know of an online resource? I share your frustration with having to quibble over what she did and did not say.

Secondly, Rand is radically anti-skeptic, as far as I understand it. Is that not true?

Thirdly, is it just me, or do a lot of Objectivists not have children?

Fourthly, on the subject of Objectivists in academia, I actually did have a law professor who was a former philosophy student that was an ardent Objectivist. We did not agree on much, but he was one of my favorite professors.

Lastly, I'm interested in what Rand's ethics are based on. Is it her idea of what works best? Is it like Plato, where she tries to derive it from the natural order? To me, in her novels, it actually seemed like an aesthetically-based ethic, like the same source as the morality of the uber-aliens in Ursula le Guin's worlds, with the opposite conclusion.

[Piper]

Likewise, we make errors of reasoning on a regular basis. That means we need to be careful about the way we reach our conclusions, and correct them if we find out we're wrong. That doesn't mean that the mere fact that we can be in error has bearing on whether we are in error in this particular case.

I think the key phrase here is "has bearing on." Does it have bearing in the sense that we should live by it? No, I wouldn't, nor would I think Descartes would, say that. Skeptics don't walk into wells or over cliffs because they're not 100% sure there's no well or cliff.

But it also doesn't mean we can reject it conclusively, just because its so unlikely. The fact that we've been mistaken in dreams shows a capacity for a certain kind of error, and one we can't be sure isn't afflicting us now.

I'm not certain what you mean by potentially true theory. A theory that doesn't contradict itself, or a theory that doesn't contradict any facts of reality of which we are aware, perhaps?

I meant a theory that has not been proven wrong, either by a priori contradiction or empirical evidence, yes.

If either of the former, I can make up any theory I want to that is not self-contradictory, and you'd be bound not to reject it. If it happens to contradict any facts, I'd just incorporate an arbitrary explanation for why those facts are not actually true into my theory.

How much credence are you willing to give to my suggestion that I'm in control of a horde of vampire rabbits that will descend upon you as you sleep unless you send me all your money? You can come up with enough scenarios like that to keep you cognitively occupied for the rest of your life, even if you only give them small consideration. The point here is to proceed from the positive--you need to have some reason to think something is possibly true.

I cannot disprove that theory. I cannot be absolutely, 100% sure that theory is wrong. I wouldn't live my life around it in any way, shape or form, so small are the chances it is true, but in a philosophical sense, I cannot say its false.

ETA: Typo

[Nous]

Nous, if I could ask a favor, links to Rand's direct works have been hard for me to find - instead I'm just getting quotations and summaries when I look them up. Do you know of an online resource? I share your frustration with having to quibble over what she did and did not say.

Unfortunately, with the exception of Anthem, Rand's works are not in public domain.

Secondly, Rand is radically anti-skeptic, as far as I understand it. Is that not true?

That is a fair description, provided that the term "skepticism" is delimited to philosophical skepticism.

Thirdly, is it just me, or do a lot of Objectivists not have children?

Yes. I don't know for sure whether and to what extent Objectivists have less children than average, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. The same would apply to atheists and educated people--I haven't looked it up, but I'm betting that they have less children, on average.

Lastly, I'm interested in what Rand's ethics are based on. Is it her idea of what works best? Is it like Plato, where she tries to derive it from the natural order? To me, in her novels, it actually seemed like an aesthetically-based ethic, like the same source as the morality of the uber-aliens in Ursula le Guin's worlds, with the opposite conclusion.

I have not read those Le Guin novels, but Rand's ethics are not esthetic, although dramatic considerations have effect on what her characters do, of course. What works best sounds something like what a pragmatist might say; though her ethics can be seen from that perspective, it's not how she would describe them. If you want a historical comparison, think Aristotle's eudaimonia--well-being, happiness, flourishing as the goal of ethics. Although Rand's ethics are developed differently, the goal is the same. For an in-depth treatment of Rand's normative ethics that is suitable for academic and intelligent layman alike I'd recommend Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, and for meta-ethics Viable Values by the same author. They might be available in a nearby university library.

[Nous]

I think the key phrase here is "has bearing on." Does it have bearing in the sense that we should live by it? No, I wouldn't, nor would I think Descartes would, say that. Skeptics don't walk into wells or over cliffs because they're not 100% sure there's no well or cliff.

But it also doesn't mean we can reject it conclusively, just because its so unlikely. The fact that we've been mistaken in dreams shows a capacity for a certain kind of error, and one we can't be sure isn't afflicting us now.

I'd say that our capacity for errors of different kind is no reason to think we are in error in a particular case. The rational approach is not to ask what kind of error we are capable of, and then surrender any claim to knowledge since we can't prove lack of error, which is impossible. It is to ask what is the evidence, and where does it lead us.

I cannot disprove that theory. I cannot be absolutely, 100% sure that theory is wrong. I wouldn't live my life around it in any way, shape or form, so small are the chances it is true, but in a philosophical sense, I cannot say its false.

I wouldn't say it's false, either. I would say it's arbitrary, which has a lesser status, cognitively, than false, and reject in on that basis.