Soycrates wrote:
It's still unreasonable to say that you disagree with Rand's Objectivism when you only mean to say you disagree with one concept in it.
No, it isn't. That's how language works. People do not assume that if you disagree with something, that you disagree with everything it is related to, even tangentially.
Like I said, I disagree with Christianity, but that doesn't mean that I disagree with the notion that vedic mythology is false, or that I disagree with loving one's neighbor. I disagree with certain core assumptions in the majority of Christian thought, and that which forms the foundation of Christian malethic and the Christian worldview- the blood sacrifice, and their god concept.
Soycrates wrote:
It's not even the concept she's best known for in some cases - for some, her views on capitalism come first, and then her views on general morality (though they support one another).
I think you answered yourself here.
Soycrates wrote:
And if we go back to when Rand was alive and doing philosophy, to the American viewers and readers what was most important was her atheism and her rejection of Christian-Moral Doctrine.
Unless you have a time machine and want to have this conversation in the past, then this is irrelevant. We're not then, we're now. And in the NOW, it doesn't matter because people don't think of it that way, so there's no risk of confusing people in that regard.
If I said I disagreed with Christianity 1985 years ago (before Saul's conversion), that would also mean something very different from what it means today.
Soycrates wrote:It's understandable to say that nobody really talks about Objectivism's metaphysical concepts anymore, but there are a lot more facets to it than just that.
That's fine, but disagreeing with something doesn't mean agreeing with the opposite of that thing in every minor respect.
If somebody disagrees with veganism, it might just mean they think it's OK to non-violently keep cows and drink milk as some in India do, and not that they're an unapologetic carnist.
If you're not sure what they mean, that means you need to ask more questions, and not make assumptions.
The proper response is "in what sense do you disagree with it?".
In the case of Objectivism, there are two major relevant factors, both of which are closely related and interconnected (one can not really stand without the other, though that's not to say that either actually stands at all when critically examined), and both of which I disagree with.
It's safe to say I disagree with Objectivism. If somebody comes along and doesn't understand what I mean, they can ask.
Soycrates wrote:If you were to make a perfect mirror version of Ethical Egoism, then sure, Ethical Sadism is what you're looking for. But that doesn't really oppose Ethical Egoism - it gets along with it quite well, I'd say. (Sometimes they're nearly indistinguishable! Ha)
I think you misread me. The opposite of Ethical Altruism is Ethical Sadism. Egoism is the default, and represents neither; it is outside the scope of ethics entirely.
It's like atheism, vs. Theism and Antitheism. Atheism is not a religion. Egoism is not ethics.
Rand would have disagreed with Ethical Sadism as much as Ethical Altruism, because she disagreed with anything that wasn't inherently beneficial to self interest.
Soycrates wrote:
I think that's a really big misconception about Rand's philosophy. To talk about the rejection of morality in her time was to talk about the rejection of heteronomous ethics.
Which is rejection of morality. It means nothing if it's completely arbitrary and up to each person to decide based on whatever whim, with no real qualifications for correctness.
Of course, she didn't reject her own. Randroids are glad to impose their "ethics" of rejection of ethics upon others.
Soycrates wrote:
Much like Nietzsche, she felt that a governing body (like the Church) could not decide what was right and wrong for the individual; that they would find it themselves in self-motivated action. She truly and honestly believed that what was right - or rather, obligation - for every person was to act in rational self-interest. This doesn't mean she was right, but she wasn't just lying in order to treat people like shit. I think it's clear she honestly believed, however misguided, that such behaviour would lead us to a fair and better future.
I didn't say she didn't believe it. Plenty of people believe all sorts of crazy and illogical nonsense. I believe she believed it, and I'm saying she was deeply confused. Confused does not mean lying.
I don't like the comparison to Nietzsche, and I don't think it's accurate. Rand went far beyond, and more irrationally so, anything Nietzsche explored. She didn't just reject governing bodies, she rejected it on an individual and philosophical level too. For her it wasn't just impractical and problematic, but impossible and morally wrong.
Soycrates wrote:
Rand is actually only one of many philosophers to believe in and advocate
Ethical Egoism. Nozick, Nietzsche, de Sade, von Hayek and Godwin are other well-known proponents of the ethical theory, with others arguing for Psychological Egoism, which is just Ethical Egoism Lite.
The problem with Rand beyond many others is that she tried to play both sides. Rejecting prescriptions as evil, and yet making them and calling them right. And more, that her insanity has become so popular, and taken on life as something of a cult (an impressive feat to achieve with a departed leader).
I don't consider egoism a valid moral philosophy in any regard, as I explained before. It's a null state- inherently amoral (distinct from immoral). No more morality than atheism is a religion.
Talking about "Ethical egoism" is about as meaningful as talking about flat square circles.
Rand is about as much a philosopher as contemporary thinkers like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham, if you want to lower the bar that far.
I'm not a fan. Please don't assume that means I don't understand what she was about though.
