Help me understand Rand's Logic?

[Nxixcxk]

Pg 118, VOS, Miss Rand writes: "Just as the growth of controls, taxes and "government obligations" in this country was not accomplished overnight--so the process of liberation cannot be accomplished overnight."

I agree with her here; however, I don't understand her logic--or would the above be considered an analogy?

By her logic (or analogy?), if I said, "Just as the construction of a building does not happen overnight, so the destruction of a building cannot happen overnight," I'd be applying the same means of obtaining a conclusion as Rand did, but it would clearly be false, since one can simply dynamite a building "overnight," thus destroying it.

I've noticed this type of arguing occurs a lot in OPAR and in other books by Rand (if need be, I can find many more examples). So I'm wondering what it is, if there's a name for it, and if it's a sound way of reasoning.

Peace,

Nick.

..had to edit b/c I somehow accidentally hit the tab button+enter which posted something I didn't want posted.

Edited April 7, 2005 by Nxixcxk

[Nate T.]

I've noticed this type of arguing occurs a lot in OPAR and in other books by Rand (if need be, I can find many more examples).  So I'm wondering what it is, if there's a name for it, and if it's a sound way of reasoning.

I think she's just transitioning to the subject of creating more liberty from the previous subject of the lack of liberty. I don't she's trying to make an argument that because liberty is lost gradually, liberty must therefore be restored gradually. She's just saying that just as the loss of liberty was gradual, so the reclaiming of liberty would be gradual.

[the tortured one]

also, consider the nature of demolition. When you use dynamite, what is left over? A huge pile of debris, which takes a lot of effort to clean up. When a Building is taken apart by a controlled measure, the pieces can be removed in an orderly manner, and there is less chaos after the building has finally come down.

In the same way, we could blow up every public school in America, and that would be a step in the right direction. But it would leave a huge gap in the system, a gigantic mess which would take some time to clean up. On the other hand, we can gradually pick the system apart, so that after the edifice has been demolished, there is no mess left. Ayn Rand demonstrated such far-sightedness by endorsing school vouchers as a stepping stone in the right direction.

[unskinned]

Pg 118, VOS, Miss Rand writes:  "Just as the growth of controls, taxes and "government obligations" in this country was not accomplished overnight--so the process of liberation cannot be accomplished overnight."

I agree with her here; however, I don't understand her logic--or would the above be considered an analogy?

By her logic (or analogy?), if I said, "Just as the construction of a building does not happen overnight, so the destruction of a building cannot happen overnight," I'd be applying the same means of obtaining a conclusion as Rand did, but it would clearly be false, since one can simply dynamite a building "overnight," thus destroying it.

I've noticed this type of arguing occurs a lot in OPAR and in other books by Rand (if need be, I can find many more examples).  So I'm wondering what it is, if there's a name for it, and if it's a sound way of reasoning.

Peace,

Nick.

..had to edit b/c I somehow accidentally hit the tab button+enter which posted something I didn't want posted.

For reasons that other posters have already given, the better example of Rand's kind of logic, and of how that logic is not flawed, is:

"Just as the water didn't damage the concrete pylons overnight, so the building cannot be repaired overnight."

[Bryan]

I've noticed this type of arguing occurs a lot in OPAR and in other books by Rand (if need be, I can find many more examples).  So I'm wondering what it is, if there's a name for it, and if it's a sound way of reasoning.

I don't think it is a well defined argument style as much as a direct argument to a concrete situation.

Directly applied to the example you provided, it is true that we cannot just flip a switch and all of a sudden have a Laissez Faire Capitalist government tomorrow. Doing so would cause a huge societal collapse. Reducing the size and function of government to the way it should be is something that would take several years, possibly an entire generation.

Perhaps you could provide some of the other examples we could examine them.

[Cole]

In the same way, we could blow up every public school in America, and that would be a step in the right direction.

You might want to watch the wording you use. People like to take out-of-context quotes from groups that they view as being irrational extremists.

[DavidOdden]

I agree with her here; however, I don't understand her logic--or would the above be considered an analogy?

By her logic (or analogy?), if I said, "Just as the construction of a building does not happen overnight, so the destruction of a building cannot happen overnight," I'd be applying the same means of obtaining a conclusion as Rand did, but it would clearly be false, since one can simply dynamite a building "overnight," thus destroying it.

Logic doesn't work by automatically subsituting phrase for phrase. An analogy is valid only when you are speaking of a causal relation and have properly identified the essential causal characteristics. To make the use of proper analogy more obvious consider the following: "Just as the construction of a barn does not happen overnight, the construction of a house does not take place overnight". Since Rand is putting a bit of a literary embellishment on her statement, you have to identify the underlying literal causal principle: that non-violently changing the behaviosr of the government takes time. Your house-demolition analogy fails, then, because it doesn't have the essential characteristic.

[Nxixcxk]

Ahh now I understand, thanks for the responses.

Since Rand is putting a bit of a literary embellishment on her statement' date=' you have to identify the underlying literal causal principle: [b']that non-violently changing the behaviosr of the government takes time.

Bold mine.

[Crow]

You are not using logic you are just grabbing fallacies at random and gluing them together. Your little strawman sentence you built is a fallacy that is not derived from the original Ayn Rand quote but is only taken out of context by converteing the abstract into the concrete. Ayn Rand's whole sentence communicates abstract ideas, yours is nothing but a concrete mimic and therefore false.

"My brain was swimming happily because I had just completed my masterpiece."

The above is an abstract sentence, while it is open to interpretation it does not in a concrete bound way mean that my brain was doing backstrokes in my pool and it would only seriously be interrupted to mean such by someone who has trouble thinking in terms of principles or is trying to prove that logic has it's limits.

Apples are apples and oranges are oranges.

Edited April 10, 2005 by Crow

[y_feldblum]

"The growth of controls" etc. refers to the general acceptance of bad ideas and its concrete consequences re: government, viz, the growth of controls, etc. "The process of liberation" refers to the general acceptance of good ideas and its concrete consequences re: government, viz, liberation, etc.

The consequences of the general acceptance of any given set of ideas can only occur after that set of ideas has been generally accepted. And the general acceptance of a set of ideas cannot be dynamited, only replaced by the general acceptance of another set of ideas: this takes time.