View Single Post

Default 

August 19th, 2012, 22:13
Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
Are you comparing Ayn Rand to Hitler?
Nope. I'm comparing the statement "Ayn Rand was amoral" to the statement "Hitler was amoral".

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
Really? How is a comment like that supposed to be considered legitimate?
While that wasn't what I did, now that you mention it: the biggest problem with Hitler's views/ideology from a moral point of view was his hatred for those who don't fit in. And the biggest problem with Ayn's views/ideology from a moral point of view was her hatred for those who don't fit in. And both were pushing for a societal order that would completely screw over those pepole.

There are differences, but this is a problem they both had, at least.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
Have you ever considered that she didn't care what most people thought, she cared about what is universally right? How is that immoral?
The immoral part was that she was wrong. She thought that she was right? Yeah, well, so did Hitler. And yet pepole don't have any problems writing him off as immoral.

(And Ayn don't need to have actually been wrong for pepole to think she was wrong. In a lot of places in the world I'm sure pepole would view me as amoral for thinking gays ought to be allowed to marry.)

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
Your method of debunking her philosophy is calling it a name? 'Objectivism' in itself is pretty clearly about there being one correct world view. You're dismissing the possibility that this is the case?
The problem here is that Ayn Rand's theory isn't the only theory out there called 'Objectivism'. Like you said, Objectivism is a theory that there is one objective world out there. However, Rand's theory not only states that, it also states what we percieve of this objective world is the objective truth. Our minds are like cameras, so to speak. My brother, who is an adherer of "normal" objectivism (and so am I, by the way) called her verision naive objectivism because, pretty much, those claims are pretty naive - human beings have a very limited perception of the world.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
You in no way demonstrated how her premise is flawed.
Like I said, I am fully aware of that.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen View Post
I don't expect anyone to systematically disprove every little thing she ever wrote or said, but the basic premise is pretty simple. Talking about anything other than her ideas is just a distraction.
Her basic premise, as described by wikipedia, is two and a half A4-pages. And that's a summary. I gave you a really brief verision, along with two very brief counter arguments. If I am to go beyond that I have to read up more carefully on the theory, which isn't really something I want to do. There's quite a list of things I'd like to read up on, you see.

You want me to argue against what she said? Then it appears you and me want different things from this discussion.

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#28

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263