Month: October 2015

Rand vs Hume 1.3

In the commonly accepted language of logic, “certain” refers to the conclusions we reach using deductive logic. For example, once the rules of an arithmetic are decided on, 2 + 2 = 4 every time we do it; i.e., it is “certain”. In the 17th century, David Hume found that inductive logic cannot be certain; we cannot know the sun will rise tomorrow, just because it came up yesterday. Hume’s knowledge of the world through inductive logic is “probable”. This is commonly called, “the Problem of Induction”.

Rand has written a straw man on this topic, which she ascribes to David Hume, “Don’t be so sure, nobody can be certain of anything.”i

This essay covers the second sentence of Rand’s attempted refutation, “The pronouncement means no knowledge of any kind is possible to man; i.e., that man is not conscious.”

Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is based on tabula rasa , the idea that sensory data makes a one-to-one impression of reality in our minds. “Conscious” means to be aware of your senses. By using the single law of her logic, A = A, we recognize similarities in the things we observe. That is “knowledge”.

For Rand, inductive logic and deductive logic are both the same logic of A = A, just working in different directions. Once we have a concept built from observation (inductive), we may or may not assign new observations to that concept (deductive).

Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology applies these ideas to every human’s mind. Since we all observe the same reality and logic is consistent, all our mental concepts are the same. People who claim to disagree with Rand’s concepts must be ignorant or telling deliberate lies.

Hume’s finding that deductive knowledge and inductive knowledge are separate and distinct; and that knowledge gained through observations and inductive logic is “probably” right and possibly wrong, contradicts every aspect of Rand’s philosophy. If Hume is right, Rand’s “objective” philosophy is just her personal interpretation of her sensory impressions. Her concepts are just “probable”. People can honestly disagree with her without being evil.

So, Rand uses her logic of “non-contradictory identification”. If her philosophy, considering inductive reasoning as certain, leads to her definition of knowledge; then Hume’s philosophy must lead to no knowledge at all. If Rand is “conscious” using her philosophy, Hume’s philosophy must lead to unconsciousness. Since those things are not possible, Hume must be an evil person spreading deliberate lies.

More footnotes are needed!

i paragraph 10, Chapter 2, Philosophical Detection; Philosophy Who Needs It? by Ayn Rand

Alan Greenspan 1.3 (Rand vs Greenspan)

Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand contradict each other when explaining commodity based currencies.

Greenspan starts by describing money. “… Durable…In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium…”i “More importantly, the commodity… must be a luxury… Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations… The term “luxury” implies scarcity and high unit value.”ii

Rand starts by describing the need of the individual for food to survive and the importance of savings. “You need the saved harvest of your good years to carry you through the bad ones; you need your saved seed to expand your production”iii. Rand’s story is about coping with productive abundance. “Grain and foodstuffs are perishable and cannot be kept long”iv, however “you don’t have to expand your storage, you can trade your grain for a commodity which will keep longer and which you can trade for food when you want it.”v.

In Rand’s example, the disposition of abundant food was the necessary cause of the monetary system. Increased production is funded by surplus. The goal is for people to have food to eat, in accordance with a person’s “ultimate value… the (person’s) life”vi.

In Greenspan’s example, the institution of a monetary system is a given. The material circumstances are irrelevant except for how they serve the requirements of the economy. If food has high unit value, hungry people are not to eat the food, but use it as money. Scarcity creates wealth. The goal is an efficient economic system. Feeding hungry people is not a factor.

Greenspan and Rand disagree on the fundamental purpose of an economy. Greenspan and Rand disagree on the function of food in an economy. Greenspan and Rand disagree on the value of human life.

iPg 96 Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal Signet, New American Library

iiPg 97 Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal Signet, New American Library

iii pg 126 and 127, Egalitarianism and Inflation, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, The Penguin Group

iv pg 126 and 127, Egalitarianism and Inflation, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, The Penguin Group

v pg 126 and 127, Egalitarianism and Inflation, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, The Penguin Group

vi Pg 17, Objectivist Ethics, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library

Alan Greenspan 1.2

Alan Greenspan presents an incorrect example of a luxury good and defines the common economic term “luxury good” incorrectly. He argues that “wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations… the term “luxury good” implies scarcity and high unit value.”i”

  • There are two necessary conditions for categorizing something as a luxury good which Greenspan omits: 1) A luxury good is not a necessityii. 2) The economic demand for a luxury good is elasticiii. Greenspan’s definition of the term “luxury good” is false through omission.
  • The vocabulary of economicsiv classifies food, especially staples such as wheat, as a necessity good, not a luxury good. The economic consequences are well knownv. Greenspan is incorrect.
  • Elastic demand for luxury goods means people buy disproportionately less as their income falls. Demand for food is “inelastic”, which means people have to buy a certain amount even if they are poorvi or if the price is high. The high unit value of wheat for the underfed people in Greenspan’s example is due to the necessity of food (demand) and the apparent lack of it (supply). Greenspan’s characterization of wheat as a luxury for underfed people is false and incorrect.

Therefore, Alan Greenspan presents an incorrect example of a luxury good and defines the common economic term “luxury good” incorrectly.

iPg 97, Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library

iihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods

iiiIbid.

ivhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_good

vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel’s_law

viIbid.

Rand vs Einstein 1.2

Rand disagrees with Einstein.

Rand’s philosophy says on Pg 152, “Man’s knowledge is acquired by… the application of logic to experience… Hence the method man must follow… The method is logic-‘the art of non-contradictory identification’.”

This disagrees with Albert Einstein who said, “There is no logical path leading to [the highly universal laws of science]. They can only be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love of the objects of experience.”

Rand disagrees with Einstein.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for Einsteins statement.

Rand vs S. I. Hayakawa

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents the position of the other side.

Defining the words “intensional” and “extensional” Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action says: “The intensional is the map, the extensional is the territory…. The map is not the territory. The word is not the thing… “ (pg. 19 and 20). Some things only have a definition and no concrete extensional existence, such as… “the mathematical point which has a position but occupies no space and the mathematical circle which is a closed figure in which all points are equidistant from the center… Actual points occupy some space and actual circles are never exactly circular…” (pg 122)

Compared to Rand/Piekoff, Objectivist Epistemology: “By extension of a concept, the theory’s advocates mean the concretes subsumed under that concept.”

When Rand says “concretes subsumed” she means the concrete things observed in the real world which inspired the concept in the first place (pg 21). However, since mathematical points and circles have no concrete extension, concretes cannot be “subsumed” and cannot be the extensional meaning intended by the theories advocates. Therefore, she misrepresents the other side.

And then she says, “by the intension of a concept, they mean those characteristics of the concretes which are stated in the concepts definition…” (pg. 141) However, since geometric points and circles have no concrete characteristics in their definitions, that cannot be the intensional meaning intended by the theories advocates. Again, she misrepresents the other side.

The nature of the misrepresentation is that her premise of concretes is assumed to be a premise the other side shares when it does not.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979 Ch. 2, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

S I Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, Harvest edition, Harcourt Brace & Co, 1992

 

Rand vs David Hume 1.1

Ayn Rand misrepresents Hume, from “Philosophy Who Needs It?[1] Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection, paragraph 10”:

The story so far: According to Hume and deductive logic, inductive logic is uncertain, or “probable” [2]. Because Rand’s epistemology of knowledge and certain truth is, essentially, inductive logic[3]; Hume and deductive logic directly contradict Rand. Drama ensues.

First sentence: “‘Don’t be so sure- nobody can be certain of anything.[4]’”

In the previous chapter, Rand says we “got this from Hume and many, many others”[5]. Despite the quotation marks, she is the actual author. It is a false, incorrect paraphrase of Hume’s Problem of Induction plus an anachronistic paraphrase of Bertrand Russell.

A) “Nobody can be certain of anything.”

  1. “… certain…” Certain refers to a conclusion proven with deductive logic, e.g. 2+2=4 is certain. Certain also means a psychological commitment to a belief, e.g. “I am certain I parked right here!” That is a different topic.
  2. “…Nobody can be certain…” If deductive logic is certain, then people using deductive logic can be certain. Therefore, Rand’s phrase is a) not logical and b) not a paraphrase of Hume.
  3. “Nobody can be certain of anything.” Rand’s phrase is reminiscent of the adolescent emotional hyperbole “you never let me do anything!” and is of similar nature; as though Hume said, “Inductive logic is probable”; to which Rand replied, “You’re saying nobody can be certain of anything!” and then wrote down her own words and said they came from him. Rand’s paraphrase is false.
  4. If Rand is referring to Russell’s Paradox, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory and/or Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory, then her paraphrase is anachronistic and not from Hume.

B) “Don’t be so sure…”

  1. This is an semi-accurate paraphrase of Bertrand Russell: “Do not feel absolutely certain about anything[6]”. The topic is our psychological certainty, which we can choose  to be absolute about. Rand leaves out the “feel” part.
  2. This phrase is not about inductive logic. The uncertainty of inductive logic is not a choice; if that were the topic, the correct word would be “can’t”- “Can’t be so sure”.
  3. Russell said this after Russell’s Paradox, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory and centuries after Hume, therefore Rand’s paraphrase is anachronistic and not from Hume.

Rand presents her straw man as though originating with Hume when it does not. Rand’s straw man misrepresents the issues Hume was concerned with. Rand’s straw man  is false, incorrect emotional hyperbole.

 

 

[1] Rand, Signet, Penguin Group, Penguin books USA 1984

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

[3] Rand For the New Intellectual page 29 Signet, New American Library, 1957

[4] Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg 36 Mentor, New American Library, 1979

[5] Rand, Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 1 Philosophy Who Needs It? p. 4 Signet, Penguin Group, Penguin books USA 1984

[6]https://books.google.com/books?id=dVBpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA553&lpg=PA553&dq=do+not+feel+absolutely+certain+of+anything+Russell&source

Rand vs Richard Dawkins

One difference between Ayn Rand’s selfishness economics and Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene economics is Dawkins’ open acknowledgment of cannibalism.

Dawkins says, “We might suppose intuitively that the runt himself should go on struggling to the last, but the theory does not necessarily predict this… he should give up and preferably let himself be eaten by his litter-mates or his parents.[1]” “Indeed it may pay (the mother) to feed (the runt) to his brothers and sisters, or to eat him herself, and use him to make milk.[2]”

As Dawkins points out, the logical extension of the selfish gene theory is cannibalism; therefore, application of the selfish gene theory to economics would result in an economic system we could call cannibalistic.

For example, the fad economic concept of “lions and gazelles” has a cannibalistic subtext. Supposedly, some among us in the market place are “gazelles” being chased by others of us who are “lions”. In the fable as promulgated by Thomas Friedman, the daily result is infinitely faster lions chasing infinitely faster gazelles[3]. In the version as expressed by Dennis Miller[4], gazelles are eaten by lions.

Abstracting people into make-believe animals is not as horrifying as saying that some people, calling themselves lions, prey on their own kind causing death, starvation and deprivation through economic ruin.

Rand says: “No man or group may initiate the use of force against others.[5]” Rand gives a clear injunction against coercive violence in business dealings. Her injunction by extension prohibits predatory cannibalism. Her invective against leeches, moochers and parasites in altruistic economic systems are anti-cannibal. She calls altruism moral cannibalism, and it seems to be an insult[6].

However, Rand’s restriction of the government to retaliatory action in her laissez-faire system[7] would mean there would be no regulatory monitoring to ensure consent or prevent deception.  She is against any “laws to protect the weak, the uninformed, the unsuspecting and the gullible” (pg. 183,  Philosophy: Who needs it) from the predatory among us.

 

[1] The selfish gene pg 140

[2]The Selfish Gene, pg. 134

[3] Lexus and Olive Tree, what page?

[4] on You Tube

[5] What is capitalism pg 19

[6] The objectivist ethics, pg 30, The Virtue of Selfishness

[7] What is capitalism pg 19

Rand vs Bertrand Russell 1.1a

Rand’s argument against Russell is not rational.

“… the disastrous, paralyzing, stultifying consequences are the greatest single cause of mankind’s intellectual erosion… As an illustration, observe what Bertrand Russell was able to perpetrate because people thought they ‘kinda knew’ the meaning of the concept ‘number’.” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Pg 66 and 67).

Rand accuses Russell of perpetrating something. “Perpetrate” means to commit a crime or violent act. That is not what Bertrand Russell did. Rand presents the false premise that Russell’s work in mathematics and logic was foisted on an uneducated public instead of being evaluated by mathematicians. That is not true. What Rand calls an example of the greatest single cause of mankind’s intellectual erosion is cited by many as one of the foundations of modern mathematics – Russell’s Paradox.

Rand cannot disprove Russell’s logic, so she resorts to ad hominem attack. Rand’s argument against Russell is not rational.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/plato.stanford.edu is my immediate source on Russell, but any error in paraphrasing is my own.

Rand’s philosophy supports unemployment compensation

Rand states profitable businesses require people to be unemployed, yet applying for jobs: “that business concern requires the availability of more than one applicant for any job – that if only one applicant existed … the business concern would have to close its doors”[1].

Rand says this is justice: “… giving value for value… the principle of trade… is justice” [2]

If a person’s unemployment is a service of value which keeps a business open, separate from the value of being employed, then that service should be paid for separately as well, according to Rand’s philosophy. By the same reasoning, maintenance of a national pool of unemployed should be paid for.

Therefore, Rand’s philosophy supports unemployment compensation.

 

 

 

[1] The Virtue of Selfishness, The “Conflicts” of Men’s Interests Pg. 56

[2] The Virtue of Selfishness, The Objectivist Ethics, pg 31 .

Rand proves I don’t exist.

Rand’s philosophy proves there is no word for “me”.

According to Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism:

Pg 12: Every word we use… …is a symbol that denotes a concept…

Pg 11: A concept is a mental integration of two or more units…

Pg 7: A unit is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members.

Pg 6: …an “existent” – something which exists.

According to Rand’s philosophy, there must be two of anything before we can have a concept of it or a word for it. Therefore, according to her philosophy, there can be no words for single things.

For example, there is only one of me. There is only one sky. There is only one sun and one moon. None of these things could have a word or a concept according to Rand’s philosophy until another sun, moon, sky or me was discovered. Then only the similarities would be the basis of a concept or word (Pg. 17). My individuality would not be part of that concept.

Therefore, Rand proves “I” do not exist.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, New American Library, Mentor edition, 1979.

 

Rand contradicts herself 1.7 (Rand vs Science 1.8)

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents falsification with an inconsistent argument.

Falsification tries to identify and observe any possible evidence which contradicts the predictions of a theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Rand’s philosophy rejects the Positivist process of falsification, pg. 159, claiming it requires us to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

Yet, on Pg. 77, Rand identifies the contrary of any concept as being all other concepts – “the contrary of the concept “table” – a non-table- is every other kind of existent”.

The argument against falsification is inconsistent with her general point. If she knows any concept then she knows what is the contrary; just as the Positivist knows what evidence will contradict a theory’s prediction. The argument is inconsistent with her example of the table, where non-tables don’t have to be specifically identified in impossible circumstances.

Rand’s argument is inconsistent. Rand contradicts herself.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs Science 1.7

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents the Positivist practice of falsification. Rand’s argument against falsification is illogical and false.

The Positivist process of falsification evaluates propositions by trying to identify and observe evidence of corroboration and contradiction. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ )

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, pg. 159, saying it requires us to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

A) To say a contradictory circumstance is impossible is to say the proposition is true before it is tested. That argument is not logical.

B) The Positivist process of falsification is to identify contradictory evidence which is possible to be observed. If impossible circumstances were knowingly invented, there would be no need (or funding) to try to observe it. Rand’s argument is false.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs Science 1.6

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents Positivism.

The Positivist process of falsification evaluates statements by trying to identify and observe contrary evidence. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ )

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, Pg 159 and 160, calling it a “way of invalidating all of human knowledge”, describing falsification as “For instance, the proposition ‘Cats give birth only to kittens’ is empirically falsifiable because one can invent experiences that would refute it, such as the spectacle of tiny elephants emerging from a cat’s womb.” and “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

Rand’s argument relies on misrepresentation and emotionalism. It is not necessary to invent specific comical tiny elephants. A Positivist would say the proposition “Cats give birth only to kittens” is false if we see something else happen. Nothing gets invented.

Rand, herself, uses this same process on Pg. 77, where Rand identifies the contrary of any concept as being all other concepts, using as an example: “the contrary of the concept “table” – a non-table – is every other kind of existent”. If someone tells us there is a table, we know the statement is false if we see something else. Nothing gets invented.

Since Positivism does not require the invention of a set of impossibilities, Rand misrepresents Positivism.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand contradicts herself 1.6 (Rand vs Science 1.5)

By disagreeing with Positivist philosophy, Rand’s philosophy disagrees with itself.

Rand’s logical process identifies statements as being true or false by first observing the world around us, then identifying what we observe as being either contradictory or non-contradictory to the statement.

On Pg. 77, Rand identifies the contrary of any concept as being all other concepts we observe – “the contrary of the concept “table” – a non-table- is every other kind of existent”. And on Pg 152, “In reality, contradictions cannot exist; in a cognitive process, a contradiction is the proof of an error. Hence the method man must follow: to identify the facts he observes, in a non-contradictory manner. The method is logic-‘the art of non-contradictory identification’.”

The Positivist process of falsification evaluates statements by trying to identify and observe contrary evidence. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/) Falsified is the same as contradicted. The process of observation, evaluation and classification are the same for both Positivist and Objectivist.

But Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, Pg 159 and 160, calling it an “inversion” and a “way of invalidating all of human knowledge.”

If Positivist falsification by observation is incorrect, then Rand’s observation of contradiction must be incorrect.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs Science 1.4

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents Positivism.

The Positivist process of falsification tries to identify and observe any possible evidence which contradicts the predictions of a theory, especially “predictions which are ‘risky’ (in the sense of being intuitively implausible or of being startlingly novel) and experimentally testable”. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, pg. 159, claiming it requires us to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

“Risky, implausible and novel” are not the same as impossible. Their predictions must be testable, therefore not impossible. Her argument is false and misrepresents Positivism.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for the quotes and my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs. Science 1.3

 

Rand’s argument against Positivism is false.

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, saying on pg. 159 that falsification is to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

According to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ , The Positivist process of falsification evaluates theories by how well they predict what we then observe. If what we observe contradicts the prediction then the theory is falsified.

A) Since what we observe is a fact of experience, facts of experience are not being evaded. Rand’s argument is false.

B) Since the observed facts will be used to confirm or contradict the proposition, facts are not being contradicted by the proposition. Cart before the horse. Rand’s argument is false.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs Science 1.1

Rand uses a false argument to disagree with modern scientific methods.

Rand, For the New Intellectual, Pg 34-35: The scientist was offered the combined neo-mystic Witch-doctory and Attila-ism of the Logical Positivists. They assured him that… …the task of thoretical science is the manipulation of symbols, and scientists are the special elite whose symbols have the magic power of making reality conform to their will (“matter is that which fits mathematical equations”)…

Stephen Hawking The Universe in a Nutshell Pg. 31: .. According to (the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others), scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make… and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test. On the other hand, if observations disagree with the predictions, one has to… discard… the theory.

Rand misrepresents Positivism as bending reality to fit the math, while Hawking states observations are the criteria by which the math is judged. Rand’s argument is false.

Rand suggests scientists believe their symbols have magical powers. Contemporary scientists do not believe that. Rand’s argument is emotional and not rational.

Hawking cites Karl Popper, a member of the Vienna School which developed Positivism. Rand quotes herself to define Positivism; but does not say so, which makes a false impression she is quoting an actual Positivist. Rand’s argument is sophistry.

While Popper’s version of Positivism is not in all ways like Logical Positivism, the issues addressed here and cited by Rand are the same.

Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, Signet Book, New American Library, 1961

Stephen Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, Bantam Books, Random House, 2001

 

Close analysis 1.4

The close reading of the beginning of the Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness continues:

Sentence 8: “Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of ‘selfishness’ is: concern with ones own interest.”

  • Her statement is false. That is not the exact meaning.
  • Her statement is false. That is not the definition in the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, which is “regard for one’s own interest or happiness to the disregard of the well-being of others.”
  • Leaving out half the definition is a lie by omission.
  • She is setting up a straw man, to create a false choice.

Sentence 9: “This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests.”

Sentence 10: “It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.”

  • Abstract concepts do not perform tasks. It is the task of people to answer such questions, and those answers are called ethics. Cart before horse.

Sentence 11: “The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one’s own interests is evil, regardless of what these interest might be, and (b) that the brute’s activities are in fact to one’s own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).”

There are several statements in this sentence, all of which are false.

  • She states the image of a selfish person killing others for personal gain is “created”, thus fictional; when daily news, the history of mankind and personal experience lead rational people to accept that there are such people in the world.
  • She states the image of the brute is a deliberate rhetorical trick to mislead; when there is no evidence of that and none is presented.
  • She states the “Ethics of altruism” create, answers and makes men accept; when abstract concepts don’t “do” anything. People do things.
  • She states Altruist tenets are that concern for one’s own interest is evil, no matter what that interest is. But, since Altruism is a Christian philosophy concerned with benefits to the personal soul after death through salvation for good works, concern for one’s own interest is what prompts Altruism and therefore cannot be evil in that system.
  • When Rand leaves out the fact that Altruism is a Christian belief, she is lying through omission.
  • She states Altruism accepts her position that selfishness is in fact to one’s own interest; when Altruism considers the long term effect of selfish behavior as counter-productive for the selfish person.
  • She states renunciation is for the sake of neighbors; when it is for the sake of one’s own soul.

Now that Rand has set up two straw men with her false definition of selfishness and her misrepresentation of the Christian philosophy of Altruism, she uses them as though they are the only ethical options for us. That false choice drives the rest of her philosophic argument.

(Analysis of sentence 11 has been previously published)

Close Analysis 1.3 One sentence, seven false statements

From the Introduction to “The Virtue of Selfishness” by Ayn Rand.

Sentence 11: “The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one’s own interests is evil, regardless of what these interest might be, and (b) that the brute’s activities are in fact to one’s own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).”

There are several statements in this sentence, all of which are false.

  • She states the image of a selfish person killing others for personal gain is fictional; when daily news, the history of mankind and personal experience lead rational people to accept that there are such people in the world.
  • She states the image of the brute is a deliberate rhetorical trick to mislead; when there is no evidence of that and none is presented.
  • She states the “Ethics of altruism” create, answers and makes men accept; when abstract concepts don’t “do” anything. People do things.
  • She states Altruist tenets are that concern for one’s own interest is evil, no matter what that interest is. But, since Altruism is a Christian philosophy concerned with benefits to the personal soul after death through salvation for good works, concern for one’s own interest is what prompts Altruism and therefore cannot be evil in that system.
  • When Rand leaves out the fact that Altruism is a Christian belief, she is lying through omission.
  • She states Altruism accepts her position that selfishness is in fact to one’s own interest; when Altruism considers the long term effect of selfish behavior as counter-productive for the selfish person.
  • She states renunciation is for the sake of neighbors; when it is for the sake of one’s own soul.

Close analysis 1.2 Intro to The Virtue of Selfishness

Sentences 5 through 8[1]:

Sentence 5:

“This is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice.”

  • She introduces the words “mere” and “arbitrary”. These words are used frequently by Rand to impart disparagement.
  • She disparages “semantics” because it implies choice in language use, contrary to her philosophy that language is a mechanical translation of sensory data[2].
  • She disparages “choice” because it implies there is more to words and concepts than the mechanical mental processing of sensory data. As she says, “This does not meant the content of concepts depends on an individual’s subjective (arbitrary) choice. The only issue open to an individual’s choice in this matter is how much knowledge he will seek to acquire… …of the facts of reality.”[3]

Sentence 6:

“The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word ‘selfishness’ is not merely wrong; it represents an intellectual ‘package-deal’ which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.”

  • She believes all of mankind are morally arrested.
  • She believes the way most people speak English is wrong.
  • Her topic is the most important factor affecting all mankind’s moral problem.

Sentence 7:

“In popular usage, the word “selfishness “ is a synonym of evil: the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.”

  • She creates a straw man by using an extreme example. Suppose the example of “selfishness” for most people was: a foolish child who ruins the birthday party by eating all the cake. The rhetorical argument would be necessarily different.
  • She uses repellant imagery which arouses strong emotional response- “murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses’’
  • She ascribes the repellant imagery to other people, the “popular usage”. She is as shocked as you are…
  • She packs the sentence with negatively charged words- “evil, murderous, brute, tramples, corpses, no, nothing, mindless..”
  • She continues to denigrate choice as “the mindless whims of any immediate moment”.

Sentence 8:

“Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word ‘selfishness’ is: concern with one’s own interests.” (italics in original)

  • The Oxford Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language has a different definition of that word[4]. Her statement is false.
  • The “dictionary” definition of any word is a documentation of the historical popular usage of that word[5]. When Rand draws a distinction between popular usage and a dictionary definition she is making an error.
  • No English word has an “exact meaning”[6], contrary to Rand’s philosophy wherein all words have a one-to-one meaning with an objective sensory data point[7].
  • When Rand claims a word’s exact meaning in her philosophy and the word’s dictionary definition in the real world are the same thing, she is making an false claim.

To sum up the first eight sentences:

Rand refers to herself twice. She refers to other people 15 times:

People who question her- three times. Then people who are antagonized, people who fear her words, people who are moral cowards, people who cannot formulate ideas, people who cannot identify profound moral issues, people with arrested moral development, people who define “selfishness” incorrectly, a murderous brute, corpses, no living being, a person with ends, a person with interests.

10 of the 15 references to other people are negative. Five are neutral. None are positive. Four of the five neutral references are associated with a negative reference, e.g. a questioner (neutral) is also a moral coward (negative).

Rand makes one objective statement which is false.

[1] Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction, pg. vii

[2] Intro to Objective Epistemology pg 11

[3] Intro to Objective Epistemology pg 56

[4] Oxford Unabridged

[5] Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, pg. 34, 35.

[6] ibid

[7] Intro to Objective Epistemology pg 56

Talking to Rand Fans 1.3A

Introduction, The Virtue of Selfishness, Sentences 1 through 4i:

In Rand’s first four sentences are elements of Rand’s rhetoric which can be found throughout the Objectivist canon. Rand’s rhetoric may affect a Rand Fan’s ability to converse with other people.

Sentence One: “The title of this book might evoke the type of question that I hear once in a while, ‘why do you use the word “selfishness” to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people for whom it does not mean the things you mean?’”

  • Rand introduces the first strong, negative emotion, “antagonizes”.
  • Rand tells us that she is important. People ask her questions. Her words cause strong reactions in the general public. “So many people” are “antagonized”; instead of puzzled. Or dismissive.
  • Rand has been told that her definition of “selfishness” is different than most English speakers.
  • Rand is aware that her use of words is not emotionally neutral.
  • Rand’s world is a world of conflict. There are so many antagonists out there.
  • The population of this sentence is Rand, several questioners, the many people who have been antagonized and the reader. There is no single individual in Rand’s rhetoric. It’s crowds of people.

Sentence Two: “To those who ask it, my answer is, ‘For the same reason you fear it.’”

  • She introduces another strong, negative emotion in the second sentence, “fear”.
  • She makes an accusation based on a ridiculous assumption. Who reading the phrase “Virtue of Selfishness” felt fear? Nobody. It is purely a product of Rand’s rhetoric.
  • Since nobody felt fear, there is no way to know what reason she is talking about. We are more in the dark than when we started.
  • She says she is deliberately antagonizing people.
  • Rand claims to be responding to people’s questions. She  didn’t start this.

Sentence Three: “But there are others who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, but who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved.”

  • She introduces more people.
  • She introduces a third strong, negative emotion in the third sentence, “cowardice”.
  • She makes an accusation of moral cowardice for simply asking what she means.
  • Her new characters are not capable of “formulating” or “identifying” what Rand is talking about. Rand is saying that these folks are without the necessary intellectual ability to understand her profound issues and clever reasoning. Or she is saying that she is incomprehensible, but that is unlikely.
  • These new people aren’t using rational thought, but “sensing” things accurately- seemingly in contradiction to Rand’s philosophy of rationality.
  • Rand’s new friends agree that questions are for cowards.
  • If these people do not ask questions and cannot verbalize her reasoning or discuss the issue, Rand cannot know they sense cowardice; and she cannot deduce an inability to formulate or identify from their silence. Perhaps they are fictional.
  • She claims her choice of words is due to a “profound” moral issue; reminding us that she is an intellectual, plumbing depths others cannot formulate or identify.

Sentence Four: “It is to them I will give a more explicit answer.”

•     She deigns to inform the stupid, but not the cowards. The ignorant people and the cowardly evaders show up repeatedly in Objectivist material. The premise of her philosophy is that it is objectively true, meaning you can see it. Therefore, everybody already agrees with Ayn Rand; except through lack of knowledge or suicidal pretense. There is no other reason for questioning Rand, for it is simply not possible to have any other concept of reality. “Only through ignorance or evasion can a man project such an alternative.”ii

Summing up the first four sentences: In a barrage of emotions and accusations, Rand has just told us what she thinks of people who question her. If you ask a Rand Fan questions, they have already been told you are a moral coward and an antagonist. Or you are ignorant and inarticulate. If the conversation doesn’t go well, maybe one of the reasons is Ayn Rand’s rhetoric.

For sentences five through eight, please see “Talking to Rand Fans 1.3A, B, and C.”

ipg. vii, The Virtue of Selfishness Introduction, Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1964

iipg. 157, Piekoff, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library 1967

Rand untruth 1.2

Ayn Rand’s incorrect definition leads to an error in logic, which makes her ethics a false choice.

Rand defines selfishness as “concern with one’s own interest”[1]. The form of this statement is “selfishness = (A)”. She gives us the mutually exclusive opposite choice of altruism. Altruism is (non-A). She puts it as a choice between black and white[2], as well as between good and evil. It is two-valued, Aristotle logic.

This conflicts with the form of her definition of altruism when she says “altruism claims ‘action taken for the benefit of others is good, while action taken for the benefit of one’s self is evil’”[3]. The form of this definition is “altruism = (B + not-A)”. In other words, if self benefit is (A) then benefit for others (B) is distinct from the prohibition of self benefit (not-A).

Altruism is (B) or (not-A) in some of her definitions and (B + not-A) in another definition. It cannot be all three. She is in contradiction of herself.

Rand falls into contradiction because she has given only half the definition of the word “selfishness”. The full definition of selfishness in the Oxford Unabridged is: concern for one’s own interest to the exclusion of concern for the interests of others[4].

The form of the full definition is “selfishness = (A + not-B)”. This form is consistent with her definition of “altruism = (B + not-A)”.

Both full definitions have two variables: one’s own interest (A) and the interests of others (B). Those variables each have two possible states: care or not-care. Therefore the situation has four possible permutations to choose from:

(A + B): Care for self and also care for others at the same time;

(not-A + not-B): Not care about self, nor care for others (nihilist);

(not-A + B): Not care for self and only care for others (altruist);

(A + not-B): Only care for self, while not caring for others (selfish).

Ayn Rand presents the choice as between selfishness and altruism only. Some would see that as two-valued, some as Aristotle’s. Because she brings up good and evil, some would call it Manichaeism.  Regardless, it is a false choice.

Her erroneous logic arises from her incorrect definition. Her incorrect definition is an untruth due to omission.

(Altruism is a non-A morality promulgated by “the Witch Doctor” in For the New Intellectual, pg 17 & 18, Signet edition, New American Library)

 

[1] The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction

[2] The Cult of Moral Grayness

[3]  The Cult of Moral Grayness

[4] oxford unabridged

Rand contradicts herself 1.5

Ayn Rand’s philosophy contradicts her economic theory.

Ayn Rand asserts that capitalism has never existed.i Economic systems in her history have all been “statist” (for the state).ii She calls some of these statist economies “mixed” because capital investment played a part:

  • “Thus what existed in practice in the nineteenth century was not pure capitalism but variously mixed economies… … it was the statist element of the mixtures that wrecked them; it was the free capitalist element that took the blameiii
  • “It must be remembered that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies. The element of freedom however was dominantiv…
  • when the repressive element of England’s mixed economy grew…”v

Rand is dividing the observed characteristics of an economic system into two groups. She claims one group of characteristics to be the separate concept of “capitalism”; excluding the other characteristics.

However, her philosophy says not to do that : “Observe that concepts mean existents, not arbitrarily selected portions of existents. There is no basis whatever… … for a division of the characteristics of a concept’s units into two groups one of which is excluded from the concepts meaning”vi.

She violates her own philosophy.

iCapitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library 1967

iiThe Roots of War, Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

iiiWhat is Capitalism? Pg 31, Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

ivThe Roots of War pg 38. Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

vThe Roots of War pg 39 Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

viThe Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy pg 133, Leonard Piekoff, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library 1967

Rand contradicts herself 1.4

Ayn Rand’s philosophy invalidates her concept of capitalism.

On the one hand, according to Rand’s philosophy, “There are invalid concepts, i.e. words… without referents…”[1] In Rand’s philosophy, a word without a referent is a word without a real world example.

On the other hand, according to Rand’s economic history, capitalism has “never yet existed”[2]. There is no real world example of capitalism according to Rand.

Capitalism has no referent, therefore it is an invalid concept according to Rand’s philosophy.

According to Rand’s philosophy, “An invalid concept invalidates every proposition or process of thought in which it is used as a cognitive assertion.[3]”

Therefore, all of Rand’s propositions and processes of thought regarding capitalism are invalidated by her own philosophy.

 

[1] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, Pg 65

[2] The Objectivist Ethics pg 33. Also Atlas Shrugged.

[3] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, Pg 65

Rand contradicts herself 1.3

Rand’s concept of capitalism is overly broad according to her philosophy.

According to Rand’s philosophy, “The requirements of cognition forbid the arbitrary integration of concepts into a wider concept by means of obliterating their essential differences[1]”

She gives the example of running. Running is a characteristic. Running is not an entity in and of itself. People run. In her philosophy, classifying running people, running clocks and running stockings together as “running things” is an error because it makes the action of running the “higher order concept” over the entities with that characteristic .[2]

According to her, the consequence of this error is “the panic of facing an immense, undifferentiated chaos of unintelligible data – which means: the regression of an adult mind to the perceptual level of awareness, to the helpless terror of primitive man.”[3]

A business structure of capital investment is an activity characteristic of people in just the way running is. It is one of many very different activities in an economic system, which is one system among many in a society of very different people.

Rand proposes the capitalist attribute to be the entire economic system. By obliterating essential differences, she imagines a capitalist legal system, a capitalist medical system and a new entity, the capitalist state[4]; not merely operating on capitalist principles, but existing only as a function of capitalism. The state would be an attribute of the capitalist ideal.

Rand’s proposal is that the concept of capitalism is the higher order concept above the entities which have that characteristic. That is a violation of her philosophy.

 

[1] Page 95 the cognitive role of concepts

[2] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology pg 95

[3] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology pg 95

[4] The Virtue of Selfishness, The Nature of Government

An irrational statement by Ayn Rand

An irrational and ungrammatical statement by Ayn Rand from “Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection” (excerpt):

“…if nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of everything he pleases…[1]”

Seeing Rand’s logical error is easy by replacing the adverbial clause: “If nobody is anywhere, then everybody is nowhere” would be correct. “If nobody is anywhere, then everybody is everywhere” would be incorrect. Try to imagine everybody everywhere at the same time nobody is anywhere. Not possible.

In the same way, when Rand makes “everybody can be certain of everything” out of “nobody can be certain of anything”, she is committing a logical and grammatical mistake. “If nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of nothing” would be correct.

Her irrational statement is part of an irrational paragraph, which will be presented in the next post.

[1] “Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection” pg 14. Signet, Penguin Books, 1984.

Rand is untruthful 1.1

Ayn Rand says, “… the exact meaning and dictionary definition of ‘selfishness’ is: concern with one’s own interests”[1].

The Oxford Unabridged says selfishness is: “concern for one’s own interest to the exclusion of concern for the interests of others[2].

The definition provided by Rand is not the exact meaning. That was an untrue statement.

Her claim to present the “dictionary definition” is false. There is no one official dictionary definition of any word.

Her claim to present the “dictionary definition” is unsupported. She does not footnote her claim.

Her claim to present the “dictionary definition” is demonstrably false. Her definition is not the definition in the Oxford Unabridged.

Because her definition provides only half the full meaning, her definition of selfishness is an untruth by omission.

 

[1] The Virtue of Selfishness, Intro

[2] oxford unabridged

Rand vs unemployment 1.1

Rand states profitable businesses require people to be unemployed, yet applying for jobs: “that business concern requires the availability of more than one applicant for any job – that if only one applicant existed … the business concern would have to close its doors”[1].

On a national level, what Rand is talking about is the supposed need for an economy to maintain unemployment rates around 6 percent. One reason businesses close their doors is that banks stop investing when national unemployment gets too low.

On the other hand, Rand also says “is a man a sovereign individual who owns his… work…? Or is he the property of the… tribe… that may… control his work…?[2]” and “a man has the right to support his life by his own work… the right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him”[3]  and “no man’s rights may be left at the mercy of the unilateral decision, the arbitrary choice… of another man.[4]”

If unemployment is necessary for businesses to be profitable, the businesses should pay for unemployment.

Rand’s tribe of investors prevents employment. Businesses want to hire, people want to work, but the investment community decided otherwise. Therefore, unemployment should be compensated for by those who cause it and profit by it.

 

[1] Virtue of Selfishness, The conflicts of men’s interests Pg. 56

[2] Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, What is capitalism? Pg 18

[3] Virtue of Selfishness, Man’s rights. Pg 97

[4] The virtue of selfishness, The nature of government Pg 111

Talking to Rand fans 1.2

If you are talking to a serious Ayn Rand fan (called an Objectivist) and they get angry for no apparent reason, maybe it’s because Ayn Rand called you an evil liar.

She explains to her fans that people can have (A) correct mental concepts which “… may be a product of genius, perceptiveness, ingenuityi” or (B) wrong mental concepts, which “may be a product of stupidity, deception, malice, evil…”.ii

(A) Correct mental concepts, such as Rand’s ethicsiii

  1. are logically derived from the objective reality we see around usiv, by “observing the differences and similarities of the existents… From a child’s grasp of the simplest concept… to a scientist’s grasp of the most complex abstractionsv.” .
  2. Everybody applies the same logic to the same reality, so all our concepts must be the same; “even if the scope of his knowledge is modest and the content of his concepts is primitive, it will not contradict the content of the same concepts in the mind of the most advanced scientists.”vi
  3. It is not possible to disagree, for “a man cannot conceive the opposite of a proposition he knows to be true… vii.

(B) People who contradict Rand have wrong mental concepts, which happen in two ways:

  • “… (a) human errors of knowledge or (b) human errors of evil.”viii
  • “…only (a) ignorance or (b) evasion can enable a man to attempt to project such an alternative”ix,
  • “… (a) he can make innocent errors through lack of knowledge, or (b) he can lie, cheat and fakex”.

(a) If you think you disagree with Rand, Objectivists generously first assume that you are ignorant or stupid. The ignorant are innocent, because “errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality”xi.
(b) If you demonstrate knowledge of the issues and show you are not ignorant, Objectivists realize you agree with Rand, as does everybody from child to scientist; yet you deliberately refuse. You are liars, cheats, fakes and evaders.

  1. “…if he evades the facts of the issue and struggles not to know, morally, he is as black as they come.xii” .
  2. “The source of all his evils… not blindness, but the refusal to see. Not ignorance, but the refusal to know.xiii”
  3. “…rationality is a matter of choice.. the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animalxiv”.

So if an Objectivist gets angry, maybe it’s because you are ignorant and stupid; or you secretly agree with Ayn Rand and deliberately choose to evade reality because you are suicidal; and/or you secretly agree and you are lying because you are evil.

Footnotes:

i Philosophy who needs it pg 27. There are three different kinds of concepts in Rand’s philosophy. This essay deals only with the first two types. 1) Concepts about the natural world; 2) subsequent logically derived “man-made” concepts such as justice, capitalism, math, science and Rand’s philosophy; and 3) arbitrary man-made concepts such as national borders or the number of states in the Union.

ii Philosophy who needs it pg 27.

iii Pg 28 Philosophy Who Needs It? The Objcectivist Ethics, The Virtue of Selfishness pg. 14 et al.

iv Pg 62 Philosophy Who Needs It? ch. 7

v Pg 55 Intro to Epist Chpt 5 Definitions.

vi Pg 56 Intro to Epist Chpt 5 Definitions.

vii Piekoff, Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy pg 157 Intro to Epistemology

viii Rational life in an irrational society? Pg 73 The Virtue of Selfishness

ix Piekoff, Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy pg 157 Intro to Epistemology

x Pg 27 Philosophy Who Needs It?

xi The cult of moral grayness pg 76 The Virtue of Selfishness

xii The cult of moral grayness pg 76 The Virtue of Selfishness

xiii That’s a really good quote. I can’t find right now. I stand by it.

xiv Objectivist ethics: Pg 23 The Virtue of Selfishness

Ayn Rand contradicts herself 1.2

Ayn Rand’s concept of capitalism violates the rules of her philosophy.

In Rand’s philosophy, mental concepts must be observed in the real world. What we observe are the characteristics of the concept, what she calls an “existent”. We can’t take part of what we see and make the part into a new concept:

“Nor can the concept of an existent mean its characteristics (some or all) apart from the existent which possesses them. A characteristic is an aspect of an existent. It is not a disembodied Platonic universal[1]…”

Rand says that her concept of capitalism has never existed in the real world[2]. Rand says her concept of capitalism is an “Unknown Ideal”[3], which is a term referring to a disembodied Platonic universal. She says her concept of capitalism is based on elements of other economic systems which have existed[4]; which means she parted characteristics from real things to create her ideal.

Therefore she is in violation of her philosophy.

 

 

 

[1] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology: The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy pg 143

[2] The Virtue of Selfishness:  The Objectivist Ethics pg 33.

[3] Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

[4] The Virtue of Selfishness: The Objectivist Ethics pg 33. Capitalism: The unknown ideal: The Roots of War pg. 39

Alan Greenspan 1.1

Greenspan makes a false equivalency and misuses common economic terms.

1: “Desires for luxuries are unlimited, therefore luxuries are always in demand”i.

Greenspan draws a false equivalency between “desire” and “demand”. “Desire” is an emotional “wish” for something. “Demand” is a technical term of economics which means someone has both desire and the ability to pay a price for something. A person, or society, may desire luxuries and yet not be able to pay, therefore no demand.

2: “Luxuries are always in demand”.

Greenspan’s conclusion contradicts the definition of luxury good. The demand for a luxury good, by definition, is elastic. Poor people don’t buy luxury goods, therefore luxuries are not always in demand. “Always in demand” is the definition of a “necessity good”. It’s as if Greenspan is saying luxuries are necessity goods, which is incorrect.

Alan Greenspan makes a false equivalency between “desire” and “demand”, and misuses the economic terms “demand” and “luxury”.

Pg 97, Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan, in Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand Signet Books, New American Library

 

i

Rand vs Hume 1.2

Ayn Rand vs. David Hume 1.2 (special guest star- Bertrand Russell)

The story so far: Rand is attempting to debunk Hume’s Problem of Induction. In the first sentence she created a straw man, a purported paraphrase of Hume (analyzed in previous post). In the second sentence of the paragraph, Rand tries to refute her straw man.[1]

Sentence #1, her straw man:     “‘Don’t be so sure- nobody can be certain of anything.’”

Sentence #2, her refutation:       “Bertrand Russell’s gibberish to the contrary notwithstanding, that pronouncement includes itself; therefore one cannot be sure one cannot be sure of anything.”

  • “Bertrand Russell’s gibberish…” Rand is referring to Nobel Prize Winner Bertrand Russell and Russell’s Paradox- considered by many to be one of the foundations of Modern Mathematics, Set Theory and Logic[2]. Rand sums up his work as “gibberish”; but provides no logical or mathematical refutation, missing out on a Nobel Prize.
  • “…to the contrary notwithstanding, that pronouncement includes itself…”. Russell’s Paradox agrees that “nobody can be certain of anything” includes itself. Self-inclusive statements are what Russell’s Paradox is about. Rand’s claim of contradiction is false.
  • “…therefore one cannot be sure one cannot be sure of anything”. Rand arrives at Russell’s Paradox but, rather than recognizing an axiom of logic, she thinks she can use it to disprove the first sentence.
  • Rand defeats her own position by ignoring Russell’s Paradox. For if by her logic the first sentence means that one cannot be sure one cannot be sure, then the sentence also means Rand cannot be sure that one cannot be sure one cannot be sure. Rand demonstrates that we can’t use the self-inclusive statement in a logical structure without contradiction. Therefore, Rand corroborates Russell’s Paradox which she just called “gibberish”. She is wrong twice with the same words.

Rand fails to refute her own straw man and fails to rebut Hume.

 

[1] Ayn Rand, Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 2: Philosphical Detection, paragraph 10 pg 16 Signet Penguin Books

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

The rape scene in The Fountainhead (Ayn Rand and Sex 1.1)

WARNING: Explicit content. Graphic description of Rape.

Ayn Rand’s The Fountainheadi has a unique take on male/female relationships. Here is Dominique Falcone’s first sexual experience. She is with the hero, Howard Roark. This is the beginning of their book-long romance:

“… she felt the blood beating in her throat, in her eyes, the hatred, the helpless terror in her blood. She felt the hatred… She fought in a last convulsion. Then the sudden pain shot up… …and she screamed. Then she lay still.

It was an act that could be performed in tenderness, as a seal of love, or in contempt, as a symbol of humiliation and conquest. It could be the act of a lover or the act of a soldier violating an enemy woman. He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement. And this made her lie still and submit. One gesture of tenderness from him- and she would have remained cold, untouched by the thing done to her body. But the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted.”

This is not a scene of consensual “play” between two loving equals.  The feelings are hatred and fear, scorn and contempt.

Later, Dominique describes the eventii, “He didn’t ask my consent. He raped me. That’s how it began.” After that, they only have sex when she is cheating on her husbands; until the end of the book, when the two unite.

It is important to note that the hero of this rape scene is, in Rand’s wordsiii, “an ideal man” and the story is a “presentation of a moral ideal”.

Pg 217 The Fountainhead, Signet, Penguin Books, 1952

Pg 671 ibid

Introduction, ibid.

i

ii

iii

Talking to Rand fans 1.1

Do you find it difficult to talk to serious Ayn Rand fans, called “Objectivists”? Maybe something Rand wrote explains why.

Here Rand describes the qualities an Objectivist should bring to bear and the type of conversation they are having: “Drop the… ‘open mind’”, she counsels. “An active mind… reaches firm convictions and holds to them…. an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants- a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear… . you will learn to recognize at a glance a given theory’s stand… and to reject the attacks without lengthy considerationi.”

The conversation is not a learning opportunity for the Objectivist, for whom she predicts “every challenge you examine will strengthen your convictions”ii and “your ideological enemies will make you invulnerable by providing countless demonstrations of their own impotence.”iii

Rand warns her fans about you. You are an assailant. You are the enemy. You are attacking them, but they are invulnerable; for you are impotent and they hold their firm convictions. Their certainty is untainted.  Their goal is to reject your challenge, to not examine your position beyond what it takes to identify it. She reassures them that they are without fear. When the confrontation is over, they expect to be more convinced they are right than when they started.

If that description differs from the conversation you thought you were having, perhaps that is one reason for the difficulty.

i Pg 21, ch 2, Philosophy, Who Needs It? By Ayn Rand. Signet edition, Penguin Books 1984

ii Pg 21 ibid

iii Pg 22 ibid

Ayn Rand contradicts herself 1.1

Ayn Rand claims her economic and political theories about capitalism are based on her philosophyi. But, according to the rules of her philosophy, her concept of capitalism is false.

According to her philosophy of Objectivist Epistemology, our mental concepts are the things which we observe in the real world. For example, our concept “table” is true only if we observe a real table. If we cannot see a table, we do not have a concept of it. If someone claims to have the concept “table” without observing a real table, their statement is false and so is their conceptii.

On the other hand, according to Ayn Rand’s economic theory, capitalism is an “unknown ideal”iii which has “never yet existed”iv. In her economic theory all the economic systems which have existed are called “statist”v.

Logically, according to her premises: if capitalism is unknown, then capitalism cannot have been observed and Rand’s concept of capitalism cannot be true.

Therefore, Rand’s concept of capitalism is false according to the criteria of her philosophy.

 

iThe Objectivist Ethics

iiIntro. to Obj. Ep. pg. 54

iiiCapitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Title

ivThe Objectivist Ethics, Pg. 33

vThe Roots of War, Pg 35 and on.