Obligatory A Fish Called Wanda moment:
Otto West: Don’t call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?
Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.
FTR, Ayn Rand isn’t listed in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. She does get a short entry in the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which says that her ideas were expressed mainly through her novels.
Real question: did she publish any philosophical tracts that passed through peer review?
Yes. That and interest group politics made a shambles of 18th century enlightenment dreams of rationalistic government.
The OP: roughly speaking I’d say that a rationalistic system of governance would lean away from US populism and be more like western European elitism. Though I hasten to add that Europe has plenty of irrational aspects, some of which don’t have the same grip in the US (eg GMO perhaps). It would also enable all manner of special pleading and rationalization. If the OP is interested in rationalistic dystopia, a skeptical reading of Walden Two might provide that.
Yes, but not necessarily a set of policies that you or I might regard as especially good. The character of the moral system is crucially influenced by the foundational values and assumptions; if you start out with the values of a Nazi you can be as rational and empirical as you like, but the moral system you will construct on those values will still be fatally flawed. Conversely someone starting from an entirely different set of values and proceeding largely by instinct and sentiment might construct a moral system that you could comfortably live with.
You haven’t read *The Fountainhead, *have you? She would have less than zero interest in any kind of “peer review.” Same for any kind of award or prize or recognition. In her own words, she wasn’t a “second-hander.”
How nice for her. The point that’s being made here is that the claim of “writing about” various subjects – you list “metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics” – is an empty claim without standards of review and recognition. Lots of people have written lots of stuff. Some of them were crazy. Others were incompetent. There are lots of qualified philosophers and thinkers in the fields you mention, and they have generally tended to avoid even critiquing Rand as either being a waste of time or not wanting to be seen as taking her seriously.
So, World War II. We won the war and didn’t have to kill every last German or Japanese or Italian.
“If someone disagrees with you, threaten to kill him. If he still disagrees, actually kill him. Now there is no disagreement. Is logic.”
Except what if you’re wrong and he was right? That’s not logical, to kill the guy who had the right answer just because you illogically didn’t accept that you were wrong.
Of course in real life, even in a war, there are ways of resolving arguments that don’t involve killing people who don’t agree with you. Even in wars, battles are fought until one side runs away or surrenders, because running away or surrendering is more logical that fighting to the death after your side has already lost. And it is logical, if you are on the winning side, to accept the surrender of the losing side, because otherwise you’ll have to fight them to the death and more of your side will get killed even though you’ve already won the battle.
And this is where the panoply of “rules of war” developed, because wars aren’t about murdering each and every person you disagree with. Wars are fought over other issues–who gets to be king, where the border of our countries are going to be, how much tribute one side pays to the other. The people on the other side might be trying to kill you today, and might be fighting on your side tomorrow against a third party, or providing you with valuable goods and services. Or maybe you’ll be the one paying tribute, but still alive. You take his guys prisoner, he takes your guys prisoner, is it rational to kill them all or more rational to exchange them?
Or to take a modern example, the United States just had a war against Iraq, maybe you heard about it on the news. Should our strategy have been to exterminate each and every person in Iraq? I thought the point was to free them from the dictator Saddam? Or is the point to kill Saddam? Is he the enemy, or is his army the enemy, or is Iraq as a whole the enemy? What’s the point of the war?
War is just an attempt to use force to make the other guy do what you want him to do. The point isn’t to kill him, if he only would agree to do what you want you wouldn’t have to kill him.
The parts about war that you think are irrational only seem irrational to you because you don’t understand why human beings fight in the first place, and what they hope to accomplish by fighting.
Is an emoticon lacking emotion still an emoticon?
Besides, it should be a Vulcan emoticon, not a Spock emoticon. Being half human, he was cursed with more emotion than pure Vulcans.
Well, It was considered back in the day. The co-artists of Mr. Dubious were influenced by the Spock concept.
Yes. And if you overlaid Pax Romana with rationalism, empiricism and 17th century economics, I suspect it would remain an unsustainable system.
Of course there would! Their answer to the Great Question is illogical!
To be fair, I don’t think any of Aristotle’s or Descartes’ stuff were peer reviewed either.
If you’ve read *The Fountainhead, *can you imagine Howard Roark submitting his blueprints for peer review, by all the Peter Keatings in his profession? If you don’t understand this, you don’t know shit about the book’s author.
Panache: you realize that this is the defense of crackpots everywhere, right?
I mean heck, I’ve written about, “Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics”, but I don’t consider myself a philosopher, political scientist or art historian. I guess I am to some extent an autodidact, but I try not to be a crank.
More generally, critics of fiction note that Ayn Rand beats the reader over the head with the most contrived cardboard characters, but grant that her work may have some philosophical value. Philosophers take issue with her straw-man arguments, but demure in judging Rand’s literary qualities. Neither will inveigh upon her economics. Economists observe that any argument for libertarianism better have at least a passing notion of market failure. But perhaps Rand’s work has some philosophical or literary merit.
But also to be fair, such methodologies didn’t exist at the time. Today we have a plethora of quacks, incompetents, paid shills, and demagogues competing for attention with legitimate scientists and philosophers, and we have effective if imperfect methods of identifying scientific and intellectual legitimacy.
Not really interested in escalating this level of debate, but if you don’t understand Ayn Rand’s standing, or lack thereof, in contemporary philosophy then you know nothing about philosophy. If she had not been embraced by libertarian and right-wing ideologues she’d probably be forgotten by now.
It looks like you’ve proven my point rather eloquently. Think about it.
I think his point may have gone right over your head.
To be fair, perhaps not. panache isn’t a winger.
