As an aside, I know that I find it useful to find a critique on any given subject so I can put any claims to the test with my own research and compare them to the arguments made by proponents.
I’ve been trying to “poke holes” in Miss Rand’s ideas for years, as a good scientist should, and cannot. Does anyone know of a reasonable attempt? Is there a book that comes close?
Why? Or maybe it’s that I think you’re wrong that a good scientist should “poke holes”. Can you defend that practice?
I think that a good way to learn and integrate a subject is by trying to “poke holes” in it. It leads to interesting questions and encourages critical thinking.
However, such approach can only be effective if you have enough knowledge already. If you want to learn trigonometry, trying to see if you can find contradictions as soon as you know what sin(x) means is ineffective.
On another note, I think great many people (non-Objectivists) are eager to find a hole in Objectivism not for the sake of gaining knowledge, but for the sake of proving how smart they are. This is also the reason why their criticism has such poor quality: they are not interested in actual knowledge, instead they are interested in proving superiority.
The more problematic a person’s self-esteem is, the harder they will cling to trying to disprove Rand (which means cling to irrationality).
It looks pretty ugly (something of the style “I will lie to myself, to you, and cling to everything, at all costs - I will not think logically or look at facts. If I admit you’re right it’s gonna kill me”).
I think that a good way to learn and integrate a subject is by trying to “poke holes” in it. It leads to interesting questions and encourages critical thinking.
That’s just restating the conclusion. I do not fully understand the nature of “poking holes” in a subject, so I don’t understand why it would be a good thing to do. In particular, I would not think that mindless vandalism is the last form of intellectual effort that a scientist should engage in. Although maybe this is part of the method of neo-emergent science.
I don’t think that this statement left her open to anything. Do you think she thought there were imperfections in her life? By what standard do you think so? They are only imperfections by someone else’s standard of morality. Or do you think they were imperfections by hers. That is, do you think her affair was a breach of her morality or an intellectually honest mistake, (which would not be such by her standard)?
I think that they would argue that the affair was in fact consistent with her philosophy and that it was a disaster. Now for the sneaky part–many anti-Objectivists who take this tack will then claim that this is a problem with all affairs and that a philosophy that condones affairs is therefore wrongheaded.
The argument being: Person A holds and propounds Philosophy O. Person A claims to follow Philosophy O consistently. Person A made a huge mistake. Since Person A claims to be following Philosophy O, the mistake was a logical outcome of following Philosophy O. Therefore Philosophy O is a bad guide to how to live one’s life.
Mind you I do not agree with this! But that is the argument that has been presented to me (by Christians trying to contrast it with the alleged positive results of following (their conception of) Christianity). This happened about ten years ago; today I could probably have made some intelligent response; back then I could not.
As an aside, would the affair have been a mistake if Branden hadn’t turned out to be a deceitful, underhanded, manipulating weasel? (My apologies to weasels and any related species that might feel insulted by association.) My observation has been that “open” marriages tend to be very, very tricky.
Those who are going to quibble that Rand doesn’t live by their morality would find reason to do so, regardless of what she actually said.
Not really what they were trying to do–they were trying to discredit Objectivism through some sort of reducto ad clusterf***, if I may coin a phrase.
reducto ad clusterf***, if I may coin a phrase.
As far as I am concerned you may, but what does it mean?
As far as I am concerned you may, but what does it mean?
Sorry to thread-necro, but I believe it was a play on ‘Reductio ad Absurdium’ - which is the practice of negating a position by extending it logically to an absurd conclusion.
A recent example from modern culture: In the sitcom, “The Big Bang Theory”, (a very funny show about 4 geeks and 1 hot babe), the babe, Penny, asks to crash on the couch of 2 of the geeks who live across the hall from her. The show’s uber-geek - Sheldon - objects, on the grounds that they have insufficient earthquake supplies for 3 people. Leonard (the coolist of the geeks) counters by making Penny promise not to eat Sheldon in the event of an earthquake, as Sheldon’s objection to Penny’s staying is that should an earthquake happen, with insufficient food, resorting to cannibalism would become a necessity.
As far as I am concerned you may, but what does it mean?
[in regards to Reductio ad clusterf***]
They are attempting to refute Objectivism by claiming that it reduces to a clusterf***–and yes it is a play on reductio ad absurdum. Now it’s possible you don’t know that particular piece of slang; it’s any horribly messed up. tangled, confused thing. situation or person. (Often when it’s a person it’s a “walking clusterf***” or WCF (whiskey charlie foxtrot).)
[in regards to Reductio ad clusterf***]
They are attempting to refute Objectivism by claiming that it reduces to a clusterf***–and yes it is a play on reductio ad absurdum. Now it’s possible you don’t know that particular piece of slang; it’s any horribly messed up. tangled, confused thing. situation or person. (Often when it’s a person it’s a “walking clusterf***” or WCF (whiskey charlie foxtrot).)
Sorry, but now I do not know what “reduces to a cluster” means. 
EDIT: I initially used the wrong smiley.
Sorry, but now I do not know what “reduces to a cluster” means.
In other words it reduces to a lot of problems (think of it as the typical “snowball” argument). Take Kant’s non-lying maxim for instance. He says that everyone should tell the truth regardless of circumstance because if we lived in a world where people were allowed to lie all they wanted, there would be a (in the slang terms used above) clusterf*** of problems.
In other words it reduces to a lot of problems (think of it as the typical “snowball” argument). Take Kant’s non-lying maxim for instance. He says that everyone should tell the truth regardless of circumstance because if we lived in a world where people were allowed to lie all they wanted, there would be a (in the slang terms used above) clusterf*** of problems.
Oh, ops, I somehow missed the “f” until now. All I saw was “cluster***” and I couldn’t figure out what the “***” was in aid of. Now I see what that is in aid of now that I’ve noticed the “f” and as a result I understand what was meant. Thanks for unknowingly helping to realise I’d missed a letter.