Sunday, December 19, 2004

Ayn Rand = L. Ron Hubbard?

Find out why I'm accustomed to saying Ayn Rand is to philosophy ("Objectivism") what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion ("Scientology").

Why arrogant people generally make crappy philosophers

In short, there is some value to what Ayn Rand thought about any number of things - unfortunately though, she was guilty of just as many assumptions as were those she (and her cult like following to this day) scornfully criticized. In particular, she does not take for granted that by design/inherent limitation, such lovelies as "logic" and the "senses" (upon which her philosophy heavily rely) are incredibly limited, or only wired to perceive a narrow "bandwidth" of this "objective reality" which her followers tend to think they are authorities upon (ex. their snotty atheism, and absolutely contemptuous posture toward those not like them...not uniquely "Randian" failings, but conspicuously universal amongst those who take this woman for their guru.)


4 Comments:

Blogger cparks said...

Agreed. They've puzzled me from the beginning, and the more I get into Aristotle, whom they appeal to, the more puzzled I become.

Found you via Crowhill. Nice to meetcha.

Cheers,

CP
skopos

7:57 p.m.  
Blogger The Rambler said...

Hiya!

Ayn Rand (from what I've read of her philosophy) didn't seem to actually understand Aristotle. The problem is the woman was an author, who dabbled...kind of like another author of fiction, who went on to found Scientology - though I get the suspicion that while Hubbard was probably laughing his ass off at how many people bought his nonsense, I think Rand took herself very seriously (too seriously from what I can see.)

What really gets me though is the smugness, particularly when it is founded upon a system that is so shamelessly presumptuous. There is simply too much reasonable doubt in this world to get THAT cocky about a system which (by your own admission) is of human origin. Perhaps I could forgive that kind of assuredness amongst religionists of various types (even if it often annoys me to no end), but not from a convinced atheist.

9:24 a.m.  
Blogger cparks said...

Ayn Rand (from what I've read of her philosophy) didn't seem to actually understand Aristotle. I don't know if she did, but her followers certainly don't seem to. I was more familiar with Plato than Aristotle when I got into a discussion over the summer with an old aquaintance who said she was an Objectivist.

She insisted that Oism had nothing to do with Plato (hated him, in fact) and that everything was based, rather, on Aristotle. I didn't say anything, because I hadn't yet studied him. However, I spent quite a bit of time with him this semester.

How you get atheism out of a philosopher that argued the necessity of a First Cause based on the need to prevent infinite regression is beyond me.

I wonder what they think of Anthony Flew's recent acceptance of theism. He mentioned Aristotle in the Biola review (have you seen that?) and basically states that he feels that science has now proved what Aristotle could only argue.

6:02 p.m.  
Blogger The Rambler said...

I think the only similarity between "Objectivism" and Aristotle is that both claim to base themselves primarily upon the observation of nature - many do not realize that Aristotle was in many respects a "naturalist" whose views began as observations. Apart from this, I don't see the similarity at all.

12:54 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home