1277: "Ayn Random"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Smylers
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:18 pm UTC

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Smylers » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:07 am UTC

Psydekick wrote:My personal take on the regex alt-text.

I don't know what the backspace (\b) [is] for.

In Perl-compatible regular expressions, \b doesn't signify backspace, but word boundary — see the PCRE documentation.

Original regex:

Code: Select all

/(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i

Modified regex:

Code: Select all

([plurandy]+ ?){2}

Without the \b assertions, your regexp will also match a sequence of those letters that begins or ends part way through a word. So “Mandy Rice-Davies” will match your pattern, because the sequence “andy R” in the middle matches. It wouldn't match the (corrected) original, because it would fail the assertions for word boundaries before the “a” and after the “R”.

And because the space is marked as optional in the pattern, your version would also match “Nostradamus”: the sequence “rad” would match the first [plurandy]+, followed by a successful match of no space character, then the second “a” would match the second [plurandy]+.

String to match:

Code: Select all

Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Ann Druyan, Paul Rudd, Alan Alda, Duran Duran

Matches:

Code: Select all

0:>Ayn Rand<                                                                (0->8)
1:>Paul Ryan<                                                             (10->19)
2:>Rand Paul<                                                             (21->30)
3:>Ann Druyan<                                                            (32->42)
4:>Paul Rudd<                                                             (44->53)
5:>Alan Alda<                                                             (55->64)
6:>Duran Duran<                                                           (66->77)


So in theory we could take a random number between 0 and 6 inclusive to find the actual Cult name.

Huh? Surely the name of the cult is the regular expression? As in, the name is something which matches all of its' members names.

endianx
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:55 pm UTC

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby endianx » Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:05 pm UTC

capefeather wrote:
endianx wrote:I don't think it was right for dipique to refer to those things as "intrinsically" better. Productivity is virtuous, not intrinsically, but because it furthers you life. In fact, it is necessary to sustain your life. So you ought to be productive, not because productivity is magically good, but because your life requires you to take action to sustain it. Rand specifies numerous virtues, but they are good for a reason, due to the nature of man and reality, and are not intrinsic.

You're just kicking the can by moving the intrinsic value from productivity to the reality of needing to sustain one's life. If you're trying to say that productivity is a moral imperative because that's just how it is in reality, you're committing the just-world fallacy. Reality is not inherently moral.


But it isn't intrinsic because it depends on your goals. Productivity is only of value if life is your goal. If death is your goal, productivity is not good, it's bad. Reality is not inherently moral, but it does have rules. If you want to move an object, you should apply a force to it. That doesn't mean apply a force is inherently good. It is only good if moving an object is your goal.

Ayn Rand wrote:There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.

The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, “intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an “arbitrary postulate” or an “emotional commitment.”

The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man’s consciousness, independent of reality.

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in the mirror.

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:46 pm UTC

learsfool wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
learsfool wrote:Currently nobody chooses their nationality, nor what economic or governmental systems they contribute to.


Not true. It just takes a while and is expensive.

How to become an American citizen.

That's hardly the 'freedom to choose' I was alluding to.

Also, what if one prefers to be something OTHER than an American Citizen? Suppose they want a fairer economic system or are opposed to a government that spends so much on their military?


so move. As I stated, its expensive, time-consuming, and difficult, but so is college, and plenty of people do that.

http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/medborgare_en.html
http://www.bfm.admin.ch/bfm/en/home/the ... recht.html

etc.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
learsfool
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:29 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby learsfool » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:41 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
so move. As I stated, its expensive, time-consuming, and difficult, but so is college, and plenty of people do that.

http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/medborgare_en.html
http://www.bfm.admin.ch/bfm/en/home/the ... recht.html

etc.

As we both said, it's tremendously difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Which is why I never considered the current option viable from the standpoint of the creation of any sort of self-governing system and why people generally never get the opportunity to 'choose their citizenship'. It's still mostly a birthplace lottery and a lot of luck, your responses haven't changed that. The time delay ALONE is beyond daunting for most people.

On top of that, if the option is utilized heavily then those timeframes explode.

As stated, this is one of the reasons why 'isms' don't work. Most people are pretty much stuck with the 'ism' they're born into, most people aren't vested in the system.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in the mirror.

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:00 pm UTC

learsfool wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
so move. As I stated, its expensive, time-consuming, and difficult, but so is college, and plenty of people do that.

http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/medborgare_en.html
http://www.bfm.admin.ch/bfm/en/home/the ... recht.html

etc.

As we both said, it's tremendously difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Which is why I never considered the current option viable from the standpoint of the creation of any sort of self-governing system and why people generally never get the opportunity to 'choose their citizenship'. It's still mostly a birthplace lottery and a lot of luck, your responses haven't changed that. The time delay ALONE is beyond daunting for most people.

On top of that, if the option is utilized heavily then those timeframes explode.

As stated, this is one of the reasons why 'isms' don't work. Most people are pretty much stuck with the 'ism' they're born into, most people aren't vested in the system.


I disproved your thesis, mate. You stated quite clearly, "Currently nobody chooses their nationality, nor what economic or governmental systems they contribute to." That is demonstrably false. People do, all the time (heck, my father works in visa & naturalization services in the State Dept. - his entire job is to help people choose their nationality, in this case, American (well, actually, most of his job is denying visas - seriously, if you've got multiple felonies for things like rape, breaking & entering, assault, etc. why on earth do you think the State Dept. is going to grant you a visa?!?)). Yes it is difficult, and yes it is a terrible system. But people still do it.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
learsfool
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:29 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby learsfool » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:11 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
learsfool wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
so move. As I stated, its expensive, time-consuming, and difficult, but so is college, and plenty of people do that.

http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/medborgare_en.html
http://www.bfm.admin.ch/bfm/en/home/the ... recht.html

etc.

As we both said, it's tremendously difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Which is why I never considered the current option viable from the standpoint of the creation of any sort of self-governing system and why people generally never get the opportunity to 'choose their citizenship'. It's still mostly a birthplace lottery and a lot of luck, your responses haven't changed that. The time delay ALONE is beyond daunting for most people.

On top of that, if the option is utilized heavily then those timeframes explode.

As stated, this is one of the reasons why 'isms' don't work. Most people are pretty much stuck with the 'ism' they're born into, most people aren't vested in the system.


I disproved your thesis, mate. You stated quite clearly, "Currently nobody chooses their nationality, nor what economic or governmental systems they contribute to." That is demonstrably false. People do, all the time (heck, my father works in visa & naturalization services in the State Dept. - his entire job is to help people choose their nationality, in this case, American (well, actually, most of his job is denying visas - seriously, if you've got multiple felonies for things like rape, breaking & entering, assault, etc. why on earth do you think the State Dept. is going to grant you a visa?!?)). Yes it is difficult, and yes it is a terrible system. But people still do it.

Egads.

Okay, you can correct my sentence to 'ALMOST NOBODY'.

Seriously, that's so far from the point it's almost funny.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in the mirror.

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:31 pm UTC

learsfool wrote:Egads.

Okay, you can correct my sentence to 'ALMOST NOBODY'.

Seriously, that's so far from the point it's almost funny.


you consider 50 million (in the US) 'almost nobody'? really? Even though that is ~7% of the population?
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
CigarDoug
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:31 am UTC

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby CigarDoug » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:39 pm UTC

Story wrote:It's not that she was a big influence. She is a big influence in America. She's required reading among right wing conservatives. In fact, a movie adaption of Atlas Shrugged recently came out.

It's funny to make fun of her because her views are pretty much insane.

When I first read Atlas Shrugged, my main take-away was that the state had no right to FORCE you to provide someone else's welfare. One of the main characters (Hank Rearden) was continually forced by the state to keep another businessman (Orren Boyle) afloat; when in a free market Boyle would have rightly gone bankrupt.

All of Ayn Rand's detractors forcus on other aspects of her philosophy, I have yet to hear one address this core premise: No one has the right to force you to live to provide their well-being. Any of you care to dispute this?
"If we all do one small thing to help; in our organizations, our churches, our community, how much can we accomplish together?"

User avatar
learsfool
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:29 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby learsfool » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:45 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
learsfool wrote:Egads.

Okay, you can correct my sentence to 'ALMOST NOBODY'.

Seriously, that's so far from the point it's almost funny.


you consider 50 million (in the US) 'almost nobody'? really? Even though that is ~7% of the population?

I was trying not to belabor the point, because it's absurd.

You're forgetting the tremendous amount of effort and time it takes, which we both agree on.

The point was, and is, that there's no EASY and LOW RISK way for people to 'choose their 'ism'', there are huge lags and penalties in many cases, it's not an option somebody gets upon reaching adulthood, there's no list of options where they can go 'I'm more naturally predisposed to be a socialist' or 'I'm more naturally predisposed to be a libertarian'. So each nation is stuck with a huge mishmash of people with completely different desires and goals and OBVIOUSLY here in the States that's a big problem.

Unless you're totally sure it isn't, in which case . . . well, I disagree enthusiastically. Because it clearly is, unless you haven't been paying attention to our government for the past few decades.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in the mirror.

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:59 pm UTC

learsfool wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
learsfool wrote:Egads.

Okay, you can correct my sentence to 'ALMOST NOBODY'.

Seriously, that's so far from the point it's almost funny.


you consider 50 million (in the US) 'almost nobody'? really? Even though that is ~7% of the population?

I was trying not to belabor the point, because it's absurd.

You're forgetting the tremendous amount of effort and time it takes, which we both agree on.


No, no I'm not. I just happen to understand the reality of the situation.

The point was, and is, that there's no EASY and LOW RISK way for people to 'choose their 'ism'', there are huge lags and penalties in many cases, it's not an option somebody gets upon reaching adulthood, there's no list of options where they can go 'I'm more naturally predisposed to be a socialist' or 'I'm more naturally predisposed to be a libertarian'. So each nation is stuck with a huge mishmash of people with completely different desires and goals and OBVIOUSLY here in the States that's a big problem.


That's a feature, not a bug.

Honestly.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

-The New Colossus



Unless you're totally sure it isn't, in which case . . . well, I disagree enthusiastically. Because it clearly is, unless you haven't been paying attention to our government for the past few decades.


Its only an issue when those goals are extremely divergent.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2644
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby orthogon » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:17 pm UTC

So I've been trying to identify other people who qualify for membership. Unfortunately I haven't found a really good list of famous/notable people yet (Wikipedia has lots of lists but they're divided into separate pages and some scraping and/or munging would be required).

One list I found yielded Alan Ladd, but he is probably disqualified on the grounds of having died in 1964.
Paul R. Erlich technically qualifies, though only because of the "R".

I can, however reveal that the following deliciously-named London 2012 Olympic Torchbearers can join the society:

Derin Ural Ural-Serpenguzel (of Tadcaster)
Lynda Lally (of Melton Mowbray)
Danny Dada (of Chatham), and
Anna Ryland Ryland (of Barnet, London).

Example command:

Code: Select all

grep -i -P "(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}" torchbearers.txt


Edit: Thanks to The Guardian for the Olympic Torchbearers data.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3052
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:42 pm UTC

CigarDoug wrote:
Story wrote:It's not that she was a big influence. She is a big influence in America. She's required reading among right wing conservatives. In fact, a movie adaption of Atlas Shrugged recently came out.

It's funny to make fun of her because her views are pretty much insane.

When I first read Atlas Shrugged, my main take-away was that the state had no right to FORCE you to provide someone else's welfare. One of the main characters (Hank Rearden) was continually forced by the state to keep another businessman (Orren Boyle) afloat; when in a free market Boyle would have rightly gone bankrupt.

All of Ayn Rand's detractors forcus on other aspects of her philosophy, I have yet to hear one address this core premise: No one has the right to force you to live to provide their well-being. Any of you care to dispute this?


Luckily, very few parents adopt this belief...

Yes, it is unquestionably wrong to attempt to enforce equality-of-outcomes onto people but that doesn't mean that all forms of welfare are wrong, any more than the fact that oxygen is toxic at high enough partial pressures means we'd be better off breathing oxygen-free air...

Ayn Rand would presumably have argued that the bailouts of 2008 were wrong - I would argue that it's complicated and that the consequences of allowing the banks to fail would have been significantly worse in the short term.

User avatar
learsfool
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:29 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby learsfool » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:47 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:No, no I'm not. I just happen to understand the reality of the situation.

I'm pretty sure we're not even having the same conversation.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9387
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby addams » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:04 pm UTC

learsfool wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
so move. As I stated, its expensive, time-consuming, and difficult, but so is college, and plenty of people do that.

http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/medborgare_en.html
http://www.bfm.admin.ch/bfm/en/home/the ... recht.html

etc.

As we both said, it's tremendously difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Which is why I never considered the current option viable from the standpoint of the creation of any sort of self-governing system and why people generally never get the opportunity to 'choose their citizenship'. It's still mostly a birthplace lottery and a lot of luck, your responses haven't changed that. The time delay ALONE is beyond daunting for most people.

On top of that, if the option is utilized heavily then those timeframes explode.

As stated, this is one of the reasons why 'isms' don't work. Most people are pretty much stuck with the 'ism' they're born into, most people aren't vested in the system.

This is an accurate assessment.
Vested in The System?

Victims of The System or Lack of System.
If a citizen is not Vested in The System then that citizen is a Victim of The System?

Is There A System? What is The System?

I don't intend to be argumentative.
Some people do not want to go to College.

Recently I have spoken to and listened to people that did not go to college.
They are often Proud of not having an education and think it is a waste of time for others, too.

We have had an effective advertisement campaign against intellectualism.
There is an "ism" for us to tear apart.

To be fair to an Intellectual I must admit, "There is nothing new under the sun."
Assope's Fables speaks to 'The Sour Grapes'.

It is easy to criticizes what one can not attain.
One woman stated it as, "The Fault is with The Grapes."

The way I heard the story. The Fox never tastes the grapes.
The Grapes may be sour. The Grapes may be sweet.

A education fundamentally changes the individual.
Who would want to change fundamentally?

A college education or immigration to a nation that supports education?
Most Americans do not have those two choices on their list of things to consider, today.

Do you?
Spoiler:
To be fair. I might be wrong. People don't want to Read and Write and look through microscopes at Bubbles! I spent 15 minutes attempting to ID Bubbles. I put the wrong slide in. Or; Someone else did. What a waste of time. (fun time suck. just a time suck.)


A college education was within reach of nearly everyone for a while there.
It was a hiccup in Time. Not a perfect time, but a good time for many.

STD's were preventable or curable.
Leprosy was curable!

No Ebola! No AIDS!
Anyone that wanted to go to school could do that.
There were programs.

Few hours of work, a few hours of school, a few hours of study, a few hours of sleep and some food. Life!
Are there programs, today that elevate our people? We can afford that, now?

oh. We went into debt.
How unwise of us.

We did not go into debt educating our people.
The individuals are in debt for that and they are sometimes finding they did not get what they are paying for.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:16 pm UTC

CigarDoug wrote:All of Ayn Rand's detractors forcus on other aspects of her philosophy, I have yet to hear one address this core premise: No one has the right to force you to live to provide their well-being. Any of you care to dispute this?
While I think that is a malformed question, I'm amused by the fact that it wholly justifies abortion and child abandonment.

(Not to equate the two, though it may be worth mentioning it justifies abortion up through every trimester, as well!)

edit: just for the record, I do dispute the premise that it is okay to abandon 2 year olds because you no longer desire to provide for them.

Kit.
Posts: 1006
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Kit. » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:21 pm UTC

CigarDoug wrote:
Story wrote:It's not that she was a big influence. She is a big influence in America. She's required reading among right wing conservatives. In fact, a movie adaption of Atlas Shrugged recently came out.

It's funny to make fun of her because her views are pretty much insane.

When I first read Atlas Shrugged, my main take-away was that the state had no right to FORCE you to provide someone else's welfare. One of the main characters (Hank Rearden) was continually forced by the state to keep another businessman (Orren Boyle) afloat; when in a free market Boyle would have rightly gone bankrupt.

All of Ayn Rand's detractors forcus on other aspects of her philosophy, I have yet to hear one address this core premise: No one has the right to force you to live to provide their well-being. Any of you care to dispute this?

I partially agree with you. It's not a right.

Spoiler:
It's a duty.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:58 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
CigarDoug wrote:
Story wrote:It's not that she was a big influence. She is a big influence in America. She's required reading among right wing conservatives. In fact, a movie adaption of Atlas Shrugged recently came out.

It's funny to make fun of her because her views are pretty much insane.

When I first read Atlas Shrugged, my main take-away was that the state had no right to FORCE you to provide someone else's welfare. One of the main characters (Hank Rearden) was continually forced by the state to keep another businessman (Orren Boyle) afloat; when in a free market Boyle would have rightly gone bankrupt.

All of Ayn Rand's detractors forcus on other aspects of her philosophy, I have yet to hear one address this core premise: No one has the right to force you to live to provide their well-being. Any of you care to dispute this?

I partially agree with you. It's not a right.

Spoiler:
It's a duty.

Neither of you are saying anything unreasonable here, but you're forgetting that her philosophy does a terrible job addressing a number of other important aspects of society, like fire departments, poverty line safety nets, and the fact that we're by no means the meritocracy she pretends the free market is.

I agree with CigarDoug, that most Rand detractors are focusing on the wrong part of her philosophy, and that her core premise is philosophically sound and *right*. What I think is important is learning how to tease out the good things she had to say from the bad, and not trying to swallow her whole.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:04 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Neither of you are saying anything unreasonable here, but you're forgetting that her philosophy does a terrible job addressing a number of other important aspects of society, like fire departments, poverty line safety nets, and the fact that we're by no means the meritocracy she pretends the free market is.

I agree with CigarDoug, that most Rand detractors are focusing on the wrong part of her philosophy, and that her core premise is philosophically sound and *right*. What I think is important is learning how to tease out the good things she had to say from the bad, and not trying to swallow her whole.
Except Ayn Rand does not tell us to accept her philosophy piecemeal; she tells us her philosophy is right in its totality and describes those who would disagree as evil.

It is fine and good to take some useful bits from her philosophy, but in doing so, you reject a fundamental component of her philosophy. Ayn Rand doesn't want you to find her interesting; she wants you to subscribe to her religion.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:19 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Neither of you are saying anything unreasonable here, but you're forgetting that her philosophy does a terrible job addressing a number of other important aspects of society, like fire departments, poverty line safety nets, and the fact that we're by no means the meritocracy she pretends the free market is.

I agree with CigarDoug, that most Rand detractors are focusing on the wrong part of her philosophy, and that her core premise is philosophically sound and *right*. What I think is important is learning how to tease out the good things she had to say from the bad, and not trying to swallow her whole.
Except Ayn Rand does not tell us to accept her philosophy piecemeal; she tells us her philosophy is right in its totality and describes those who would disagree as evil.

It is fine and good to take some useful bits from her philosophy, but in doing so, you reject a fundamental component of her philosophy. Ayn Rand doesn't want you to find her interesting; she wants you to subscribe to her religion.
I'm far from a champion of her philosophy, so I feel safe in admitting I don't recall that from the two books of hers I've read. But even if that's what she stated, I also feel safe in saying that's absurd, and she's absurd for saying as much.

I feel a lot of her ideas and positions are highly valid. I feel pretty strongly about the notion of a meritocracy for example. I find a lot of what she has to say kind of bunk.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:17 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I agree with CigarDoug, that most Rand detractors are focusing on the wrong part of her philosophy, and that her core premise is philosophically sound and *right*. What I think is important is learning how to tease out the good things she had to say from the bad, and not trying to swallow her whole.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. What is important is not to tease out what time that may be. What's important is to never use that clock to check the time.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby azule » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:24 pm UTC

azule wrote:It doesn't look like it's been pointed out that, while the regex code has been fixed, the "togther" typo persists. It should be "together", btw.

Typo now fixed. You're welcome. ;) :P
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9387
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby addams » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:32 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Neither of you are saying anything unreasonable here, but you're forgetting that her philosophy does a terrible job addressing a number of other important aspects of society, like fire departments, poverty line safety nets, and the fact that we're by no means the meritocracy she pretends the free market is.

I agree with CigarDoug, that most Rand detractors are focusing on the wrong part of her philosophy, and that her core premise is philosophically sound and *right*. What I think is important is learning how to tease out the good things she had to say from the bad, and not trying to swallow her whole.
Except Ayn Rand does not tell us to accept her philosophy piecemeal; she tells us her philosophy is right in its totality and describes those who would disagree as evil.

It is fine and good to take some useful bits from her philosophy, but in doing so, you reject a fundamental component of her philosophy. Ayn Rand doesn't want you to find her interesting; she wants you to subscribe to her religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8
This woman was, just, a woman.
She had opinions. People read her words. People listened to her voice.
Still do. That is impressive.

Man's search for meaning as an individuals and as part of groups.
That is very tough subject material.
My opinion is that we are All full of opinions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU
Who argues about Desmond Morris, anymore?
Desmond Morris wrote about Altruism.

She is one voice. Not the only voice.
I think the gifted can find great joy in working with and for all of us with those with fewer gifts.

She was a pampered Rugged Individualist. And! She got away with it.
Good on her. She wins.

It Is SO Great! We can listen to her voice and see her little face and wonder about her hair dresser.
How old was she getting to be?

The clip reminds me of another little old lady. What was her name?
She talked about Sex with the same air of authority Ayn Rand had.
She also spoke with a lot more humor than Ayn Rand did. Her subject matter was funnier.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:35 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I agree with CigarDoug, that most Rand detractors are focusing on the wrong part of her philosophy, and that her core premise is philosophically sound and *right*. What I think is important is learning how to tease out the good things she had to say from the bad, and not trying to swallow her whole.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. What is important is not to tease out what time that may be. What's important is to never use that clock to check the time.
Sure, which isn't to say anything of the fact that it's right twice a day. And a rather stupid analogy given I flat out said 'Don't swallow her whole'

Your mistake of throwing out the 'Ayn Rand's philosophy clock' in it's entirety because it's sometimes incorrect really just underlines the opposite of my point; throwing out the whole thing is just as stupid as accepting it in it's entirety.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

capefeather
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:23 am UTC

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby capefeather » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:08 pm UTC

I know people are antsy about Godwin's law and I'm sorry for mentioning Hitler. I'd just like to point out, though, that I wasn't even comparing anything to Hitler himself. I was just trying to drive home how misguided I think that claims of famous people having Asperger's are. I also watched a lot of atheism videos on YouTube lately, okay? Anyway...

I want to add to Pfhorrest's point about individualism without egoism, because I see a lot of people on the internet who can't distinguish "what should happen" from "what I think should happen". I generally shouldn't force my beliefs on other people because my beliefs are flawed and I could be wrong. However, there are exceptions in certain extreme cases where the need to help the person eclipses the likelihood that the helping method is wrong.

obfpen wrote:There are plenty of answers—and you've had a few—but I get the feeling you want something rational rather than the emotional/morality-driven if-you-don't-care-about-others,-you're-an-asshole, society-driven response.


Straw Vulcan fallacy

I'm sure that you probably don't think this way, but I think we should stop coddling people who do. Emotion and rationality are not at odds.

endianx wrote:But it isn't intrinsic because it depends on your goals. Productivity is only of value if life is your goal. If death is your goal, productivity is not good, it's bad. Reality is not inherently moral, but it does have rules. If you want to move an object, you should apply a force to it. That doesn't mean apply a force is inherently good. It is only good if moving an object is your goal.


If that were all there is to Rand's ethical theory, then why is it that people who tend to support her run around saying that bad things happen to people because they must not have "really" wanted to prevent those things from happening? Why is it that, when someone fails to move an object (to use your analogy), people assume that that person did not "really" want to move the object, rather than suggest that they couldn't for some reason (e.g. weakness, disability)?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2644
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby orthogon » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:36 pm UTC

OK, there appear to be data quality issues.
Derin Ural Ural-Serpenguzel of Tadcaster is in fact merely Derin Ural-Serpenguzel.
Danny Dada is actually Mohamed "Danny" Dada.
Lynda Lally (of Melton Mowbray) is the realy name of a local councillor.
Strangely, Anna Ryland Ryland (or even Anna Ryland) seems to have left no online trace at all. Have you seen this woman?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:39 pm UTC

capefeather wrote:If that were all there is to Rand's ethical theory, then why is it that people who tend to support her run around saying that bad things happen to people because they must not have "really" wanted to prevent those things from happening? Why is it that, when someone fails to move an object (to use your analogy), people assume that that person did not "really" want to move the object, rather than suggest that they couldn't for some reason (e.g. weakness, disability)?

More troubling to me has always been Rand's insistence that morality is simple, and that there are clear and obvious solutions for almost every problem. Property rights are natural, and flow logically from thought to reality.

This is, of course, nonsensical; property is a useful construct we made up. I never got the sense from her work that she understood this; indeed, she seemed to believe that property was somehow special and inviolable.

There is also this whole bizarre idea that the "right" morals lead to the "right"state of mind. That seemed to be something more objectivists today say, rather than Rand herself; I'm curious to know if that was a critical component of her philosophy.

User avatar
Monika
Welcoming Aarvark
Posts: 3631
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:03 am UTC
Location: Germany, near Heidelberg
Contact:

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Monika » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:04 pm UTC

CigarDoug wrote:When I first read Atlas Shrugged, my main take-away was that the state had no right to FORCE you to provide someone else's welfare. One of the main characters (Hank Rearden) was continually forced by the state to keep another businessman (Orren Boyle) afloat; when in a free market Boyle would have rightly gone bankrupt.

All of Ayn Rand's detractors forcus on other aspects of her philosophy, I have yet to hear one address this core premise: No one has the right to force you to live to provide their well-being. Any of you care to dispute this?

I don't know how you get the idea that most people who dislike Rand a lot focus on other aspects of her philosophy. This is the single main thing many people who dislike Rand focus on. Maybe it's not so clear, I will break it down in parts/steps:
Rand book: It's wrong to force one business man to keep another business man, who's not really good at his business, afloat. Free market economy (capitalism) is better than planned economy (socialism/communism).
Rand and Rand fans and other right-wing people (tea party, many Republicans): Not only is free market economy better than planned economy, also, states shouldn't provide any kind of welfare to the people. There should not be food stamps, support for paying rent, welfare, unemployment benefits, medicare, medicaid and similar things. Instead people who have enough money and feel like it will donate to soup kitchens and to individual fund raisers for paying for the medical costs for poor people.
People who dislike Rand and Rand fans and the tea party and most aspects of the Republican Party: You, Rand and Rand fans and co are uncaring animals. The state not only has the right, but the obligation to provide welfare. Money to buy food and pay rent and other essential stuff. Free health care for those who can't afford insurance. And this shall be paid by mandatory taxes, not by voluntary donations, because that simply does not raise sufficient funds and also it's not fair.
#xkcd-q on irc.foonetic.net - the LGBTIQQA support channel
Please donate to help these people e.g. Ragna needs these items and Frances needs money for food

rmsgrey
Posts: 3052
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:26 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I agree with CigarDoug, that most Rand detractors are focusing on the wrong part of her philosophy, and that her core premise is philosophically sound and *right*. What I think is important is learning how to tease out the good things she had to say from the bad, and not trying to swallow her whole.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. What is important is not to tease out what time that may be. What's important is to never use that clock to check the time.
Sure, which isn't to say anything of the fact that it's right twice a day. And a rather stupid analogy given I flat out said 'Don't swallow her whole'

Your mistake of throwing out the 'Ayn Rand's philosophy clock' in it's entirety because it's sometimes incorrect really just underlines the opposite of my point; throwing out the whole thing is just as stupid as accepting it in it's entirety.


I think you may be misreading nitePhyyre's point - it's not to say that Ayn Rand is wrong about all things, so you could find out the right answer to a binary question by discovering what she said and reversing it, but rather that, like the stopped clock, her views have no correlation with the correct answers.

You don't throw out Ayn Rand's philosophy in the sense of rejecting it entirely and in every detail, but in the sense of never consulting it to find out what it says.

Let's put it another way: fortune cookies and horoscopes often give cryptic advice and/or make cryptic predictions. Sometimes the advice or prediction is spot on; sometimes it isn't, but if you can reliably distinguish the good advice and the correct predictions from the bad advice and the wrong predictions, then you don't need the fortune cookie/horoscope in the first place. If you had some way of telling when a stopped clock was right, then you could use the stopped clock to tell what time it was at that moment, but for that to be useful you'd need to be able to tell whether the clock was right without knowing what time it was...

As I understand it, nitePhyyre's point is that you should ignore what Ayn Rand said entirely, not spend time looking for places where she happened to be right.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:37 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:As I understand it, nitePhyyre's point is that you should ignore what Ayn Rand said entirely, not spend time looking for places where she happened to be right.
Yes, I'm not sure why you would take my response then to indicate I misunderstood nitePhyyre's point, seeing as that I replied to just this sentiment.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3052
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:43 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:As I understand it, nitePhyyre's point is that you should ignore what Ayn Rand said entirely, not spend time looking for places where she happened to be right.
Yes, I'm not sure why you would take my response then to indicate I misunderstood nitePhyyre's point, seeing as that I replied to just this sentiment.


Sorry, I took your response as arguing against the idea that you should treat everything Ayn Rand wrote as wrong.

I would say that, once something's been shown to be sometimes wrong, treating it as always right is more wrong than ignoring it entirely and looking for truths elsewhere.

It may be possible to find good ideas in Ayn Rand's philosophy, but that doesn't mean that you're not better off finding those same ideas elsewhere with fewer (or at least different) wrong ideas mixed in...

slowcooked
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:38 pm UTC

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby slowcooked » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:49 am UTC

If you generated a name from a number, the {2} could be a three ({3}), and the name could be:
Rural Dandy Randy

...and it would match. I think the gist is that the name of the Cult is matching a combination of 'plurandy'.
That is a funny mix of people - right-wing, actor(esses), writers, and Duran Duran thrown in for nuf.

For myself, I'm in the Covenant of the Urdu Plan

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5458
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Eternal Density » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:49 am UTC

Blindposting from page 1:
BlitzGirl wrote:
ucim wrote:... aynd to think I always thought the best random number was 42

Me2
1 Big.
2 Not a footnote number. Or, I didn't mean it to be, but I guess it is now. Just think "too" in your head.
3 Math.floor(Math.PI)
4 I miss using footnotes. It's a shame they've gone out of OTT-vogue. Maybe if mscha was around we would use them more.

I still use them occasionally but not the One True Footnote numbers, which a) I tend to forget and b) ni ni ni ni ni chupacabra ping pong ball
zantrua wrote:The prisoner's dilemma is the dumbest thing to ever be imagined by pseudo-intellectuals. It ignores all real influences, sets up a hypothetical scenario which is baseless, manipulates the variables to come to a predetermined conclusion, and then pretends that it has deep meaning in reality.

Fun fact: snitches get shot. No one likes a rat.

Yeah I always found it telling that theories of social and economic behaviour are built upon a hypothetical scenario involving prisoners who are guilty of some crime. That's not a useful starting point.


What's this, 4 more pages to this thread? I guess I should blitz it, but looking at the way page 1 is going, I'm not sure it's a good idea.
ETA
BlitzGirl wrote:
Belial wrote:The presumption that everyone is always making an argument might be your issue here.

That's a terrible argument.
Okay now I'm very glad I'm blitzing this.
ETA
capefeather wrote:(Yes, I know Hitler was a Christian. That's the point.)
Source: Hitler. :P :shock:
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

Euphonium
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: Inland Empire

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Euphonium » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:16 am UTC

Kain wrote:The way her views get expressed (at least in the parts of the US I have been in) can be summarized as somewhere between "look after yourself, and don't worry about anyone else" and "screw the poor/non-creatives! They are holding us better people back!"
Among other things, she had a very fatalistic attitude (that if you were successful, it was because you were intrinsically better, not because of any chance, or help from other people, or what have you). This was taken to a bit of an extreme with her views on Native Americans (who she felt deserved to be conquered, because such conquering was possible).
Basically, to leftists like myself (or even more generally, those that use empathy as a value judgement), a number of her view tend to be seen as very harsh, not to mention a bit naive (Rand saw the state as holding back 'great people,' but did not consider how those great people would manage even basic logistics in an anarchic society she professed would be better).


Nothing about the authoritarian society that the freedom-hating Ayn Rand envisioned was "anarchic."

Anarchism is, and always has been, anti-capitalist, after all.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:53 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Sorry, I took your response as arguing against the idea that you should treat everything Ayn Rand wrote as wrong.

I would say that, once something's been shown to be sometimes wrong, treating it as always right is more wrong than ignoring it entirely and looking for truths elsewhere.

It may be possible to find good ideas in Ayn Rand's philosophy, but that doesn't mean that you're not better off finding those same ideas elsewhere with fewer (or at least different) wrong ideas mixed in...
I think you should reread my reply to nitePhyrre. Since you seem to be confused about what I meant;
I feel that Rand had some correct positions, things I can agree with and believe in. I also feel there was a lot of wrong positions, things I disagree with and don't hold to. I find that blithely accepting her philosophy is foolish (die hard liberaterians), just like I find blithely disregarding it to be foolish (what nitePhyrre was suggesting). I do in fact believe you shouldn't treat everything Rand wrote as wrong. Which I stated. I also feel you shouldn't take everything she wrote as right. I also stated as much.

Respectfully, I think this was pretty plainly outlined in my posts, and I'm not sure what turned you about.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3790
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:08 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:More troubling to me has always been Rand's insistence that morality is simple, and that there are clear and obvious solutions for almost every problem. Property rights are natural, and flow logically from thought to reality.

This is, of course, nonsensical; property is a useful construct we made up. I never got the sense from her work that she understood this; indeed, she seemed to believe that property was somehow special and inviolable.

The complicated fuzzy notion of property rights we currently have enshrined in custom and law doesn't in any way undermine an argument that moral property rights are simple and clear-cut. Rand is arguing that things ought to be some way and you're saying they aren't that way, which is a non-sequitur.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby ucim » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:32 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:The complicated fuzzy notion of property rights we currently have enshrined in custom and law doesn't in any way undermine an argument that moral property rights are simple and clear-cut. Rand is arguing that things ought to be some way and you're saying they aren't that way, which is a non-sequitur.
What are "moral" property rights, as opposed to just property rights? What distinction are you drawing here (that, afaict isn't in the original)?

Anyway, I thought Ayn's argument was that property rights exist as a natural thing (as opposed to an arbitrary human construct) ... and therefore they ought to be respected.

If you argue that property rights are not a natural thing, but are instead an arbitrary human construct, then the second part, which is the one that contains the "ought", would not follow logically from that train of thought. (... although it could follow logically from a different train of thought)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9387
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby addams » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:51 am UTC

At least she was thinking.

Some people Pride themselves in Not Thinking.
She was thinking. Within her experience her working hypothesis, Worked.

If an analytical life does not work for you, then you Must turn to a philosopher.
Ayn Rand did. She read and discussed and dismissed more philosophers than most people are aware of as choices.

She was simply a woman that did bother to Think.
She is not the first woman to have had a thought.
She was not the first woman to write that thought down on paper.

She was among the first to be taken seriously in the New Age of mass visual media.
Who would you want to hang out with?

A dead much, much too young guy like Martin King?
Or; A Cover Your Ass type like Rand?
Or; Another dead much, much too young type like Isadora Duncan?

Persons that think seem to enjoy knowing what other thinking people think.
We can reach out through time to so many good philosophers.

Dr. Ruth! She was a philosopher, too.
Dr. Ruth was no more shallow than Ayn Rand was.

Was Ayn Rand happy? She was successful.
Was she a joyful guy? She was a determined individual.

There does seem to be some truth to the notion, Some personalities are stronger than other personalities.
Do strong personalities have responsibilities to others? Was she exhibiting responsible behavior?

It is work to write clearly. She did that work.
Why? Why did she share her perspective?

Was it to get Money so that she could prove her proper place in the social order?
Often The Rugged Individual is very dependent on society.

Ayn was not arguing for us to walk into the Forest like Laozi.
She was a bit of a (what is that?)
aware of the social water we social fish swim in, but not at all soft and fuzzy about it.

Dr. Ruth was more fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sz8Sx5KzHc
Spoiler:
It's possible to skip straight to dinner.
Pasta?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3790
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:58 am UTC

The distinction is between legal rights and moral rights (i.e. "natural rights", but I'm not actually fond of the term "natural rights" because it has unnecessary ontological implications). That is, between what property rights our laws and customs hold people to have, and what property rights (if any) people really have. You can argue that nobody has any moral rights, or at least that nobody has any moral rights regarding property, but to say "but our laws and customs don't recognize those rights as being that way" is not a sound argument to that effect, because it is countering an argument to the effect that "our laws and customs ought to recognize these rights as being this way, because they are this way". Or as I said to Hippo, Rand is arguing that things ought to be some way and he's saying they aren't that way, which is a non-sequitur.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby ucim » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:09 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:The distinction is between legal rights and moral rights (i.e. "natural rights"...)...
Then it seems you're talking about two different things.

By definition, natural rights exist in their own right, and it is not a stretch at all to say they ought to be respected. It's kind of what the definition means. Legal rights do not have this property. Legal rights ought to be respected only to the extent that the legal system ought to be respected. Perhaps there is some "natural" reason why some legal system ought to be respected, or that any given legal system ought to be respected, but I don't see it. I don't think Ayn does either... unless they help protect her "natural" rights.

That takes us back to natural rights. The question is, do they even exist? And what does it mean for a right to "exist"? (other than the circular "it means it ought to be respected")

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3790
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1277: "Ayn Random"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:57 am UTC

ucim wrote:By definition, natural rights exist in their own right, and it is not a stretch at all to say they ought to be respected. It's kind of what the definition means. Legal rights do not have this property. Legal rights ought to be respected only to the extent that the legal system ought to be respected. Perhaps there is some "natural" reason why some legal system ought to be respected, or that any given legal system ought to be respected, but I don't see it. I don't think Ayn does either... unless they help protect her "natural" rights.

I think there's some kind of misunderstanding here, because I'm not trying to disagree with any of that but you seem to think I am.

Hippo seemed to say "Ayn Rand thinks property rights are simple and inviolable but look at the complicated and flexible mess of property rights on the law books! They're not simple or inviolable at all!"

I was responding to him to make the exact distinction you're talking about above. Rand isn't saying anything about what the law books say. She's saying that the properly-understood natural rights to property really are simple and inviolable, and that if our laws make a complicated and flexible mess out of the matter then the laws are unethical: an ethical set of laws would reflect the simple and inviolable essence which she holds property rights to naturally have. So saying "she's obviously wrong, look what a mess our property laws really are!" is a non-sequitur. It's like someone says "people shouldn't kill each other" and you reply "people kill each other all the time!" Yeah, but they shouldn't; saying they do is completely beside the point.

That takes us back to natural rights. The question is, do they even exist? And what does it mean for a right to "exist"? (other than the circular "it means it ought to be respected")

This is part of why I prefer not to talk about "natural" rights, or about rights "existing". I only use that language because it's well-established and a little more succinct than stricter and more technical language. That stricter language would talk about what people are morally (i.e. objectively, not just according to local law or custom or opinion) obliged or permitted to do; "Bob has a right to x" translates strictly to something like "Bob is permitted to x" or "someone is obliged to do x to Bob" or "...provide x to Bob", etc (depending on what kind of right we're talking about).

That still leaves open the question of what grounds are used to justify a claim that someone is obliged or permitted one way or another, but it dissolves the question of in what sense a right "exists" (there is no ontological problem, rights aren't things, existence is inapplicable), and it dissolves the question of in what sense they are "natural" (it doesn't make any claim to them being physical or empirically observable things, not the least because they're not things at all). If I were to translate the claim "natural rights exist" into stricter language it would be along the lines of "people are objectively obliged or permitted to do or not do certain things".
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests