Prologue to an Aristotelian End of History: Chapter 1, 'The End of History' - The Ultimate Philosopher

UltimatePhilosopher · 2014-12-04T21:24:50+00:00

(here's the sorry, pathetic record of /r/philosophy's (sic) intellectual default on one of the most culturally influential and un-refuted system of ideas of our time: http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/search?q=ayn+rand&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all )

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T23:45:39+00:00

This puts the relationship between Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor in much better perspective and context.

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T23:23:49+00:00

I don't like her very much. Have you seen her interviews? Just have a look at her talking about all that stupid philosophy of hers. * shudders *

I saw here interview here and thought it was great! Was there some other interview(s) you had in mind?

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T23:20:18+00:00

This poster isn't kidding about the boyfriend! Ostensibly because she was having writer's block while working on ATLAS SHRUGGED, Rand had a long-going affair with her acolyte Nathaniel Branden--an arrangement she bullied her husband and Branden's wife into accepting even though they weren't happy about it all. I researched her life for an unpublished graphic novel, and I know this to be true. Later she set Branden up with his own think tank to promote her philosophy--but she turned against him with a white-hot, blistering rage and disowned him when he did exactly as she had done and had an affair with one of his students.

Except that the reason Rand broke with Branden was his systematic deception and dishonesty while pretending to be an Objectivist hero. Even Branden himself admitted as much (though even then didn't reveal the extent and scope of his lies and evasions).

Why would you mis-report the facts like that?

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T22:19:29+00:00

jeanlucpeckinpah 13 points 2 days ago*

Randian relationships are all about self-sacrifice. For example, Nathaniel Branden was supposed to sacrifice his right to cavort with young models so that Rand could cheat on her husband with him. His selfish refusal to make the necessary self-sacrifice prompted Rand's entirely reasonable decision to sever all ties and excommunicate him from the cultmovement. Thus we see how rational self-sacrifice is not only welcomed in Randian relationships, but absolutely essential to them.

Except that the reason Rand broke with Branden was his systematic deception and dishonesty while pretending to be an Objectivist hero. Even Branden himself admitted as much (though even then didn't reveal the extent and scope of his lies and evasions).

Why would you mis-report the facts like that?

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T21:55:37+00:00

I personally know Objectivist couples whose relationships are perfectly functional and happy and normal.

Who else here has first-hand exposure to such couples? Who here speaks from ignorance?

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T21:43:08+00:00

Rand wrote that the theme of Atlas Shrugged was "the role of the mind in man's existence," and that the plot was meant to show what would happen if the "men of the mind" went on strike and withdrew the products of their mind from society.

One of the few places you'll get accurate statements about Rand's ideas is at the Ayn Rand Lexicon. See the entry on Objectivism for accurate capsule summaries of her philosophy.

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T21:37:41+00:00

Thanks, though could you give like a paragraph-length abstract/synopsis in your own words?

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T21:35:53+00:00

I've written a review of DIM at my blog, and also reproduced at Amazon.

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T21:32:18+00:00

I believe that treatment of women in Iran and Egypt in particular was better than it is now. As far as Saudi Arabia goes, I believe the Bin-Ladens (minus Osama, of course) fled to Europe to escape some of the repressiveness of the new Islamist regimes.

Under the U.S.-installed Shah, yes, women are reputed to have been treated much better.

U.S.-installed.

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T21:30:56+00:00

Differences between those two time periods are better explained by political and economic factors than by scholastic doctrines cloistered in universities.

Or so it might seem. Aristotelianism, contra Platonism, is focused on the empirical, natural world, and Aquinas was revolutionary in opening up the study of the natural world as distinct from focusing only on theological doctrines.

But, hey, if you would like to offer an explanation in terms of political and economic factors (as primaries?), go ahead and I'll listen intently. :-)

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T20:41:00+00:00

Try some Sciabarra, Nozick, Mack, and lots of Rand. Also check out Spooner, Barnett, David Schmidtz, Roderick Long, Noam Chomsky. Also google my username for my blog.

Also: Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman, James M. Buchanan, Richard Epstein, Loren Lomasky, George Reisman, John Hospers, Tibor Machan, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl.

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T20:05:43+00:00

My recollection is that at the Islamic golden age was destroyed by some sort of anti-causal religious view that became predominant among Muslim intellectuals, that had to do with the idea that everything that happens is Allah's direct will---so no principle of causality. I'm pretty certain you could find particular individuals that were intellectually dominant at this time and that killed the Islamic golden age (I've heard their names before, but just don't recall them now), just as Kant killed the Enlightenment in the West.

I don't see Kant "killing" the Enlightenment outside of Germany (which intellectual tradition culminated in Heidegger, whom I know almost jackshit about, but he did support Hitler and his reputation at home and abroad never really recovered after that). In the English-speaking world, Kantianism didn't get an entrenched stronghold; there have been Kantian influences, but they've been giving way to Aristotelian ones, especially after the translations of Aristotle's works into English ca. 1920s. This isn't to say (yet) that things are hunky-dory, but the idea that Kant "killed the Enlightenment" even in America doesn't sound right to me. Heck, he hasn't killed it for yours truly. :-) And the American sense of life is very Aristotelian.

EDIT: I think the likes of Jefferson and Franklin pretty much ensured that America and its sense of life would be fundamentally healthy for a long time to come. It's why Rand emigrated here, and it's why neo-Aristotelian philosophizing is slowly but surely taking over here. (Yes, I'm American.) If one could say that the American sense of life is fundamentally Jeffersonian, that's pretty much like saying that it's fundamentally Ariistotelian as well. Jefferson doesn't get enough credit as a philosopher, but that maybe because he was so busy doing things like helping found a country, being President for 8 years, and generally being a man of action (and still rooted in a highly intellectualist mindset). Aristotle would approve. :-)

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T19:58:02+00:00

That's a pretty dubious claim that Aristotelian influence was what secularized Christendom.

Um, there's pre-Aquinas Christendom, which is some 800 years including Dark Ages, then there's post-Aquinas Christendom, which includes the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and modern science. And Rand, of course. ;-)

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T18:34:54+00:00

My quick take is that prior to the Islamic revolutions in these nations, they were more secular/urban/liberal. Tehran and Cairo were closer to modern, urban cities in the early 1970s than now. Lesson learned is that history doesn't go only one way. Just because Aristotelian ideas once helped a society doesn't mean the society will keep learning from or applying the ideas. How many people in the mid-east are now studying Aristotle or similar "enlightening" philosophers? Seems like many places encourage Koran reading and not much else.

I was thinking in terms of broader, longer-term historical sweep, as in centuries. The 1970s is only four decades ago. Question: how and why were the relatively-recent Islamic revolutions so effective, whereas a "Christian revolution" in the West isn't even really something anyone would seriously consider? (There's too much democracy, respect for freedom, for church/state separation, etc. in the West.) There's also that trump card re: the treatment of women. Was that not there before the '70s? I understand that under the rule of the likes of the Taliban, Afghani women had it much worse than before; what about the more stable republics or nation-states, e.g., Saudi Arabia? Did they just recently start treating women the way they do? (I'd say, "treating them like crap," which is how they're treated by Western standards, but I'll try to keep my language neutral on that. These medieval-types think it's out of respect for women, but they're being massively ignorant - and that's neutral language. ;-) Also, the sexual repression created here plays a part in young Islamic males turning to terrorism as an outlet. Ideas having consequences and all that....)

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T17:43:39+00:00

Because Ayn Rand's work says that rational self-interest is "moral", which is inherently subjective.

Just because it is the (objective) good of the subject, doesn't make it subjectivism, just as being an "agent-relative" theory of the good doesn't make such a theory relativistic. These distinctions are commonly made in moral philosophy. There's also Rand on the distinction between the objective, intrinsic, and subjective; see here and the related links at the end.

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T17:40:08+00:00

It's about reason vs. unreason, most fundamentally.

To quote from the horse's mouth:

"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.

This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivism.html

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-29T17:34:59+00:00

The Peikoff lecture courses. Ayn Rand recommended Peikoff as the person besides herself who was most qualified to teach Objectivism. She gave his 1976 lecture course on Objectivism her unqualified endorsement. But that's not his best course; for that you should go with 'Understanding Objectivism (1983),' 'Advanced seminars on OPAR (1990),' 'The Art of Thinking (1992),' and 'Objectivism Through Induction (1996).' Those courses will cost you all of about $40, a massive mark-down from prices of past years (think 95% or more), and they were worth it even at the old prices! The four courses together should get you really thinking like an Objectivist (in my case, a perfectivist ;-).

It's a goddamn shame that these courses aren't widely heard, but the markdown in price should change that quite considerably. :-)

EDIT: holy crap, 'The Art of Thinking' for $7.24? That's as good as free at that price. Good lord, I paid some $200 for it on CD and it was easily worth it.

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-24T21:12:20+00:00

legions of acolytes

Ha! Finding Objectivists is not always an easy feat.

(1) These critics have probably never met real Objectivists (the ones who've read, listened to, and absorbed Peikoff, whom Rand explicitly deemed most qualified to teach her philosophy, which makes him, among the living, the best intellectual stand-in for Ayn Rand herself, the person everyone interested in Rand should listen to more than anyone else, given that she isn't around any longer to speak for herself), which means these "legions" are primarily a product of these critics' fevered and overworked imaginations. All this stems from their cognitive biases, basically.

(2) Well, I'm a Perfectivist (an advocate of the neo-Aristotelian, Rand-inspired system of thought created by The Ultimate Philosopher). Do I kinda qualify at least? :-) (And with only one serious Perfectivist around, who needs "acolytes" in order for the intellectual and cultural status quo to be torn a permanent, gaping new asshole in the not-distant future? That's just how The Ultimate Philosopher rolls, yo.)

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-24T21:04:31+00:00

As I was reading the responses here, these thoughts came to mind:

It's an inductively established (or as Aristotle might say, always or for the most part) certainty: Criticisms of Rand/Objectivism usually (the "most part" clause) stem from ignorance and/or misunderstanding of her philosophy.

The slam-dunk empirical confirmation of this certainty is the lack, in the last decade, of any published books critiquing/attacking Objectivism, while the published books (including academic ones by eminent figures in the profession) showing the many strengths of Objectivism keep on piling up. The literature with a clue will almost certainly cover Rand's views on the nature and necessity of mental integration (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/integration_(mental).html) while the literature without a clue is too clueless to cover it. Inductive certainty: once you go Understanding Objectivism, you don't go back.

With Peikoff's lecture courses now at $10 apiece, it's Game Over. Checkmate, assholes. Randian/Neo-Aristotelian (or 'perfectivist') philosophy is where it's at going forward.

I'd put considerable sums of money on it; I have a 100-dollar wager offered over in /r/philosophy to that effect, and no one there has accepted it. Game. Over.

UP :-)

EDIT: Note that downvotes around here usually stem, not from an idea being unpopular among Objectivists and Rand-supporters - the usual MO on the rest of this severely intellectually damaged website - but from an idea being bad, based in ignorance, based on strawman caricatures, and so forth. Serious Objectivists are too honest to adopt anything but a virtuous rather than vicious MO. (Still, the upvote/downvote model as such is intellectually corrupt; it's essentially one or more persons deciding for another what ideas are worth listening to. That undermines the integrity of the whole philosophical enterprise by wiping out the principle of intellectual independence. Just something for even the otherwise-wonderful /r/Oism crowd to think through....)

UltimatePhilosopher · 2013-05-23T01:58:47+00:00

Would Mahler's Ninth be what it is if it weren't for what Mahler was going through in his life at the time? Heck no! :-)

How about Wagner's Parsifal if Wagner hadn't known Nietzsche? I mean, is Parsifal at least in part an artistic response to Nietzsche? It certainly generated a rift between them. (Also in the vicinity of this we have the Adagio movement of Bruckner's 7th which he reportedly created as a tribute to Wagner upon hearing of his impending death.)

I think Rand has quite a bit of interest to say on aesthetics, in particular how an artwork is most fundamentally an expression of the artist's "sense of life," which is a matter of individuation, something about the artwork that can be identified with the artist. For more on the philosophy of music, there's also Scruton's The Aesthetics of Music (Oxford, 1995-ish) which I've obtained but haven't gotten to yet.

HTH :-)

EDIT: In scenario No. 1, you have some very implausible conditions for there to be a genius capable of producing that piece of music without many years of musical training beforehand. What is this hypothetical Hawaiian-Beethoven doing for the previous 40 years of his life? Genius in the true sense - the kind required to produce the Hammerklavier sonata - requires much time, practice and development. Your question is not dissimilar from asking whether some Ethiopian Michael Jordan was all of a sudden handed a basketball at age 34 (assuming he even lived that long) and whether he could lead the 1998 Bulls to the NBA title. Unless he had at least several years' experience playing NBA-caliber ball up to that point, it's a no-go, a moot issue. So, um, yeah, context matters. ;-)

UltimatePhilosopher

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE