Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Arrogance

Rate this topic


RichyRich

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure how to make myself any clearer. Another example: Trotskyism and Stalinism are different but they are close cousins. But lets not get bogged down. My point is simple. Ayn Rand is part of the American Right, and is not a part of the American Left.

Ayn Rand distinguished between the Intrinsicists (American Right) and the Subjectivists (American Left) pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand said her only debt was to Aristotle. She clearly was indebted to many people above all Nietzsche. Her Nietzschean influence is crystal clear throughout her novels and especially in her early works. To specifically not acknowledge this anywhere is arrogant to the extreme and really pisses me off. I think most people who aren't Objectivists would agree with me, but my question is do Objectivists think she was arrogant for not acknowledging her intellectual debts? And if so why doesn't this bother you enough to reject her and her philosophy?

One- you have already acknowledged misquoting Rand. To say one's only debt is to X is a very different matter than to say one's only philosophical debt is to X. I suggest if you don't understand the importance of that distinction you suss it out before continuing to argue this point as it is impossible to take your argument seriously as it stands- based on a (deliberate? misquote).

Two- What is it to be indebted? Please define. What is it to be influenced? Please define. Being indebted and being influenced are completely different things. I am influenced by many things that I can honestly say I have no debt to.

On these first two points I will advise you- Objectivists (and non Objectivists that are actually serious about gaining understanding) take these two things seriously- if you are going to quote someone and hold them in judgement over it use the actual quote or, if you must at least admit first and openly that you are paraphrasing. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. The second- definitions. Definitions are serious things. Words have real, actual meanings. Debt is a specific thing. A philosophical debt is an even more specific thing.

While you are at it define arrogance. Because even if you quoted Rand properly to begin with you must prove your assertion that it shows arrogance. Arrogance too, is a specific thing.

In other words, this whole thread is much ado about you deliberately misquoting Rand, then refusing to acknowledge the difference in the meaning of words all so you can go on a tangent about right vs left in politics.

It is a poor use of this forum and as you seem to have some education, your time.

edited-typo & clarification

Edited by SapereAude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're simply asserting something without any argument or proof.

I've given my proof on this thread, I'll paste it in if you want? Here's some more proof: ARI intellectuals are welcomed onto Fox News as valued commentators, they would NOT be welcome on left wing outlets even though Rand has many "left wing" opinions.

One- you have already acknowledged misquoting Rand. To say one's only debt is to X is a very different matter than to say one's only philosophical debt is to X. I suggest if you don't understand the importance of that distinction you suss it out before continuing to argue this point as it is impossible to take your argument seriously as it stands- based on a (deliberate? misquote).

Two- What is it to be indebted? Please define. What is it to be influenced? Please define. Being indebted and being influenced are completely different things. I am influenced by many things that I can honestly say I have no debt to.

On these first two points I will advise you- Objectivists (and non Objectivists that are actually serious about gaining understanding) take this two things seriously- if you are going to quote someone and hold them in judgement over it use the actual quote or, if you must at least admit first and openly that you are paraphrasing. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. The second- definitions. Definitions are serious things. Words have real, actual meanings. Debt is a specific thing. A philosophical debt is an even more specific thing.

I acknowledge the misquote and see the importance of the difference. I think its absolutely outrageous that Rand thought she had only one philosophical debt. Its the most arrogant thing that a philosopher could say. She is literally standing on the shoulders of giants and she spits on them. It really is annoying.

In other words, this whole thread is much ado about you deliberately misquoting Rand, then refusing to acknowledge the difference in the meaning of words all so you can go on a tangent about right vs left in politics.

I didn't deliberately misquote. I agree that Rand being left or right is a tangent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I acknowledge the misquote and see the importance of the difference. I think its absolutely outrageous that Rand thought she had only one philosophical debt. Its the most arrogant thing that a philosopher could say. She is literally standing on the shoulders of giants and she spits on them. It really is annoying.

You still haven't defined arrogance or debt.

Your argument is wrong minded and fallacious. As you are making the assertion it is upon you to prove the assertion.

What is debt? What incurrs debt?

What is arrogance? How does "arrogance" apply to a thing such as "debt"?

Once we know what debt is, what incurrs debt and how a debt is rightly paid then we must agree upon what arrogance is and how, knowing what a debt is, why it would be arrogant to claim one is not indebted.

Your argument, when put in terms of real meanings makes no sense whatsoever.

Edited by SapereAude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've given my proof on this thread, I'll paste it in if you want? Here's some more proof: ARI intellectuals are welcomed onto Fox News as valued commentators, they would NOT be welcome on left wing outlets even though Rand has many "left wing" opinions.

Yaron Brook was on the Thom Hartman show on christmas eve on Link Tv, so I guess there goes that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've given my proof on this thread, I'll paste it in if you want? Here's some more proof: ARI intellectuals are welcomed onto Fox News as valued commentators, they would NOT be welcome on left wing outlets even though Rand has many "left wing" opinions.
To the extent this is true, this would be evidence that the right is fine pushing Ayn Rand despite the aspects on which they disagree, while the left is not, presumably because the things they disagree on are overriding. This is evidence about the actions of others, not of Rand. By this logic, if Rand did not acknowledge a philosophical debt to Nietzsche, we would have to conclude that no such debt existed. In a previous post, I already explained one reason why people like Beck are fine with Rand. Another reason is that talk shows are heavily focused on politics, and within this fairly focused on economics: i.e. economic freedom. For instance, the typical traditional Catholic intellectual would probably be classified as "left" and would probably not push Rand, even though in epistemology he would be closer to her than Pat Robertson.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be noted that Rand championed Capitalism because it was an economic theory was applicable to the philosophy of Objectivism. People often reverse causation and correlation with Rand. She did not create Objectivism to champion Capitalism, Capitalism just happened to fit in with her philosophy because it is rights respecting.

It should also be noted that Rand WAS NOT a champion of the right exclusively. She had points that aligned with the right and points that aligned with the left. It just so happens that the right identifies itself with Rand more so than the left because her economics fall with the right. She did have points on gay marriage and abortion that would fall in line with the left though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaron Brook was on the Thom Hartman show on christmas eve on Link Tv, so I guess there goes that one.

Yaron Brook has been on his show on more than one occasion, actually. I've also seen members of the Cato Institute (who RichyRich claims is a "cousin" with the Right Wing) on many liberal news outlets over the years. If the Cato Institute and Ayn Rand are both "cousins of the Right Wing", shouldn't this not be the case? Shouldn't all liberal networks reject both Cato and Rand equally? This of course isn't the case, and the claim that they are excluded from conversation is fallacious.

I would like to know, however, what any of the above has to do with this posters outrage over her alleged arrogance. What difference does it make if the left likes her or not? How does that factor in to your claim that she was arrogant for not acknowledging a debt that you (RichyRich, not JayR) have yet to specify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaron Brook has been on his show on more than one occasion, actually.

Again last night for example.

And the percieved arrogance stems from the fact that Nietzsche presented an egoistic ethical theory. The fact that rational metaphysics and epistemology precede ethics (and certainly politics and economics) is irrelevant to most people. Just start with the most accessibe of her ideas, and hold her accountable without any inquiry as to how she came to them. Next thing you know Ayn Rand=Glenn Beck, as Aristotle=Aquinas=Locke=Kant=Hitler= whatever, theyre all the same. la ti da.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...