Why do philosophers ignore Ayn Rand?

[starblade_enkai]

It is clearly evident that not only are Ayn Rand's teachings sensible, at least in terms of people, or at least most people, being able to relate them to something completely knowable, but they are quite unique in that no philosopher before has made it a point to stand up for everything she is proposing. So why is it that philosophers pretend she

Comments

[starblade_enkai]

If Ayn Rand lacks rigor, then what of all the philosophers before her? What constitutes rigor? If you mean statements like sp(x)l->aq(zo);aq(sp<-rtt) then virtually no philosopher talks this way. If you mean using clear definitions then you are wrong. While I admit she doesn't always use the best possible English this hardly constitutes a lack of rigor.

[starblade_enkai]

Well the first time anyone argues a position it's going to be full of holes, yes, but even if she's wrong about many of the issues there is something to be said about choosing the lesser of two evils. Or in this case the least of many evils. I myself find it difficult to follow her every word, for the reasons you mentioned above

[moonrockmambo]

"If people are exploited it's because they let themselves be exploited, and why should we feel sorry for them? If people don't help themselves then why do they deserve help from others?"

Oh wow, what a horrible, incorrect, and incredibly myopic thing to say.

[dagfari]

Well, if Rand's (unoriginal btw) idea that using one's own rational self-interest is the -best- way to run the world, then that's correct.

Like Hayek would say: since the system acts only in the way that people want - though the combined purchases and non-purchases of many billions of agents, it is fundamentally more rational and intelligent than any agent within it. Therefore, who among us would be so arrogant as to suggest that he knows better? Also I hate charity and this is all a huge rationalization for why I think poor people deserve to starve to death.

[starblade_enkai]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it doesn't matter what the best way to run the world is. The best way to run my life is rational self interest. That other people aren't able to compete is not all that important, because it is THEIR inability to compete that makes them this way. Even if it isn't their fault, why should I burden myself with their incompetence just because they are burdened with it?

[moonrockmambo]

Perhaps because you'd wish to be something other than a sociopathic child?

[starblade_enkai]

So wait, refusing to help someone is now sociopathic? What kind of world do you live in? I guess if that poor person down the street needs money and I don't want to give him any the police should come over and 51/50 me for being a danger to him?

[moonrockmambo]

Of course not, but stating that one should be unconcerned with the plights of the less well-off because they are 'incompetent' is pretty damned close to sociopathy, not to mention incredibly short-sighted.

[meus_ovatio]

We can't all be John Galts.

[moonrockmambo]

And thank god for that.

Well obviously...

[starblade_enkai]

We can't all be John Galts, but there are those among us who know how to till soil... with machinery. And some of us know how to repair machinery. Some of us know how to provide fuel for the machine, et cetera.

[napoleonofcrime]

Apparently he's decided to ignore the "rational" part of the credo and focus entirely on "self-interest".

[dagfari]

Let us propose a hypothetical situation, and you tell me how you would behave.

You have just completed a course on CPR, a lifeguard course, and you know how to save a person from drowning. You are not employed as a lifeguard in any fashion, and any life-saving acts you perform will go completely unrewarded.

However one afternoon, you are at the beach, preparing to sunbathe. You notice someone drowning offshore. However, you are still wearing your clothes. If you stop to take even your shirt off, the person offshore will drown.

Do you save him, knowing full well that the cost to you may be catastrophic? (that is; your shirt will get wet)