The following comments on this post are preserved:
Denise C. commented: Greg, I wrote my follow-up piece in response to the criticisms by Rand devotees who claimed I had never read her writings or that I had misunderstood her. In the follow-up, I proved both of these claims to be false by carefully documenting each of Rand's claims via direct quotes from her writings, writings that I have in fact read. I carefully refuted each of these claims through evidence and sound argument.
But the difficulty is that Rand devotees do not listen to reason, nor do they pay attention to facts that contradict Rand scripture. This is particularly ironic given that Rand supposedly grounded her beliefs in logic and evidence, and rational agents change their beliefs when evidence or sound reason requires it.
Your comments, like most of the comments directed at both pieces, consist mostly of personal attacks on my presumed motives and my presumed dislike of Rand. I read Rand with an open mind. What I found in her writings were factual errors, and ignorance of science, shoddy reasoning, and hysterical over-reactions to the very idea of altruism based on the trauma she experienced during the Soviet take over of her homeland.
Her followers cling to her writings the way creationists cling to a literal intpretrnation of the Bible, and just like creationists, they ignore or distort any proof that their beliefs are wrong. The dismissal of scientific investigations of the altruism is a case is point, as is their continued insistence that human beings are born as tabula rasa--a false belief which has been categorically disproved through decades of scientific research. The most glaring evidence that Rand's positions are wrong come from the economic melt-down of 2008, spurred primarily by finance industry experts (such as Alan Greenspan) who embrace Rand's celebration of selfishness as the pinnacle of rational thought and right action.
The objections of Rand devotees to her critics always devolve into ad hominem attacks on the critics, and claims that the critics somehow still doesn't understand Rand (because if they did, then they would, of course, agree with everything she says because she was infallible). There is no way to convince them that they are wrong because they inure themselves to evidence and impugn the motives of anyone who puts her reasoning to the test. It's time to move on.
Greg S. replied: Denise,
There are many people on every side of every issue who don’t listen to reason, who engage in arguments from authority and ad hominem attacks, who cherry-pick distort data and quotations, and who are too quick to accuse others of doing these things. You mention creationists as an example of this sort of thinking. But I’ve seen the same attitude also among science students who believe (as I do) in evolution, but who know little of the reasoning behind the theory. I often each a bit about evolution in the context of arguments about the existence of God and often pro-evolution students reverentially quote pro-evolution experts and internet memes with little genuine understanding, using them as a cudgel with which to attack the creationist students. It take work on my part and on the students' to get them to really reason with one another. Some students on both sides are not open to this, but many are, and when they do really engage with one another both sides learn something. Has this not also been your experience as a teacher? Being objective in our thinking and communication is something we all have to work at constantly, whatever side of whatever issue we’re on.
That said, I stand by my post. I did speculate as to your motivations, but I presented evidence to support my speculations, and I still find that evidence persuasive. Moreover, I didn't dismiss all the issues and challenges you raised. I noted that some warrant real thought. For example, I mentioned that I'd like to take up at some point the issue of how Rand's (and many other philosophers') rejection of innate knowledge and innate values relate to the various biological findings that are often interpreted as evidence of innate knowledge and values. As to the issue of the 2008 crisis, I think people on all sides are too quick to lay the blame at the feet of their political or ideological opponents. E.g., conservatives say the cause was the Clinton-era Community Reinvestment Act, and liberals say it was Bush-era deregulation of the financial sector (or else the more general deregulation of the economy that has been going on since the Carter administration). If you’re interested in what Objectivists who are knowledgeable about the economy think about the crisis, you might look at John Allison’s book *The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure*. (Allison discusses Greenspan’s role is discussed at some length in Ch. 3.) For my part, I’m not an economist or an economic historian, and I don’t know enough to be confident in any particular theory of this specific episode in economic history. Whatever Greenspan's role may have been, it's quite a leap to jump from his playing even a major role to blaming Rand's philosophy. It is, after all, hard to apply philosophical principles to making specific policy decisions; and, in any case, it's not clear that Greenspan even thought he was implementing Rand's ideas. After all, she didn't think that the Fed should exist, and while chief if the Fed he engaged in just the sort of attempts to manipulate the economy that she (and he) had criticized in the `60's (and he was regularly criticized for this by Rand-influenced economists and political commentators).
In any case, even if the 2008 crisis or the relatively high standard of living in Sweden or some other factor shows that there’s something wrong with the laissez-faire capitalism that Rand (and others) advocated, your comments about the structure of her moral thought and its relation to evolutionary biology would still be incorrect and ill-informed in the ways I explain in my post. And, as I also explain there, your interpretive claims about these issues (even if they were true) do not logically support the political and economic points you go on to make. It's this disconnect between the different points in your post that makes me think that, you're more interested in scoring points against an ideological adversary than in really understanding and evaluating another thinker. You claim to have read Rand with an open mind, but we both know how difficult it can be to give a fair hearing to views deeply opposed to one’s own, and how easy it is to be self-deceived about whether one has done so. Of course this point cuts both ways. It would be easy for me to think I was being fair to you, if I were not. We all need to work to be honest and objective on such issues. In this case, you and I each think the other has come up short. We’ll have to leave it to our readers to judge our respective posts.
The following comments on this post are preserved:
Denise C. commented: Greg, I wrote my follow-up piece in response to the criticisms by Rand devotees who claimed I had never read her writings or that I had misunderstood her. In the follow-up, I proved both of these claims to be false by carefully documenting each of Rand's claims via direct quotes from her writings, writings that I have in fact read. I carefully refuted each of these claims through evidence and sound argument.
But the difficulty is that Rand devotees do not listen to reason, nor do they pay attention to facts that contradict Rand scripture. This is particularly ironic given that Rand supposedly grounded her beliefs in logic and evidence, and rational agents change their beliefs when evidence or sound reason requires it.
Your comments, like most of the comments directed at both pieces, consist mostly of personal attacks on my presumed motives and my presumed dislike of Rand. I read Rand with an open mind. What I found in her writings were factual errors, and ignorance of science, shoddy reasoning, and hysterical over-reactions to the very idea of altruism based on the trauma she experienced during the Soviet take over of her homeland.
Her followers cling to her writings the way creationists cling to a literal intpretrnation of the Bible, and just like creationists, they ignore or distort any proof that their beliefs are wrong. The dismissal of scientific investigations of the altruism is a case is point, as is their continued insistence that human beings are born as tabula rasa--a false belief which has been categorically disproved through decades of scientific research. The most glaring evidence that Rand's positions are wrong come from the economic melt-down of 2008, spurred primarily by finance industry experts (such as Alan Greenspan) who embrace Rand's celebration of selfishness as the pinnacle of rational thought and right action.
The objections of Rand devotees to her critics always devolve into ad hominem attacks on the critics, and claims that the critics somehow still doesn't understand Rand (because if they did, then they would, of course, agree with everything she says because she was infallible). There is no way to convince them that they are wrong because they inure themselves to evidence and impugn the motives of anyone who puts her reasoning to the test. It's time to move on.
Greg S. replied: Denise,
There are many people on every side of every issue who don’t listen to reason, who engage in arguments from authority and ad hominem attacks, who cherry-pick distort data and quotations, and who are too quick to accuse others of doing these things. You mention creationists as an example of this sort of thinking. But I’ve seen the same attitude also among science students who believe (as I do) in evolution, but who know little of the reasoning behind the theory. I often each a bit about evolution in the context of arguments about the existence of God and often pro-evolution students reverentially quote pro-evolution experts and internet memes with little genuine understanding, using them as a cudgel with which to attack the creationist students. It take work on my part and on the students' to get them to really reason with one another. Some students on both sides are not open to this, but many are, and when they do really engage with one another both sides learn something. Has this not also been your experience as a teacher? Being objective in our thinking and communication is something we all have to work at constantly, whatever side of whatever issue we’re on.
That said, I stand by my post. I did speculate as to your motivations, but I presented evidence to support my speculations, and I still find that evidence persuasive. Moreover, I didn't dismiss all the issues and challenges you raised. I noted that some warrant real thought. For example, I mentioned that I'd like to take up at some point the issue of how Rand's (and many other philosophers') rejection of innate knowledge and innate values relate to the various biological findings that are often interpreted as evidence of innate knowledge and values. As to the issue of the 2008 crisis, I think people on all sides are too quick to lay the blame at the feet of their political or ideological opponents. E.g., conservatives say the cause was the Clinton-era Community Reinvestment Act, and liberals say it was Bush-era deregulation of the financial sector (or else the more general deregulation of the economy that has been going on since the Carter administration). If you’re interested in what Objectivists who are knowledgeable about the economy think about the crisis, you might look at John Allison’s book *The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure*. (Allison discusses Greenspan’s role is discussed at some length in Ch. 3.) For my part, I’m not an economist or an economic historian, and I don’t know enough to be confident in any particular theory of this specific episode in economic history. Whatever Greenspan's role may have been, it's quite a leap to jump from his playing even a major role to blaming Rand's philosophy. It is, after all, hard to apply philosophical principles to making specific policy decisions; and, in any case, it's not clear that Greenspan even thought he was implementing Rand's ideas. After all, she didn't think that the Fed should exist, and while chief if the Fed he engaged in just the sort of attempts to manipulate the economy that she (and he) had criticized in the `60's (and he was regularly criticized for this by Rand-influenced economists and political commentators).
In any case, even if the 2008 crisis or the relatively high standard of living in Sweden or some other factor shows that there’s something wrong with the laissez-faire capitalism that Rand (and others) advocated, your comments about the structure of her moral thought and its relation to evolutionary biology would still be incorrect and ill-informed in the ways I explain in my post. And, as I also explain there, your interpretive claims about these issues (even if they were true) do not logically support the political and economic points you go on to make. It's this disconnect between the different points in your post that makes me think that, you're more interested in scoring points against an ideological adversary than in really understanding and evaluating another thinker. You claim to have read Rand with an open mind, but we both know how difficult it can be to give a fair hearing to views deeply opposed to one’s own, and how easy it is to be self-deceived about whether one has done so. Of course this point cuts both ways. It would be easy for me to think I was being fair to you, if I were not. We all need to work to be honest and objective on such issues. In this case, you and I each think the other has come up short. We’ll have to leave it to our readers to judge our respective posts.