(no subject)
So I can take the Randian libertarians apart in about fifteen seconds.
Their big thing is that everything ought to be dictated by pure logic and rationality, and that society is being ruined by liberals and religious people and idealogues and progressives and so on, because those people's actions are dictated by irrational passions which interfere with pure reason. But if you actually watch the Randians, you see that they absolutely hate these people, they're utterly consumed by fury and loathing for the weak-minded fools they're chained to; their constant concern is with how they're being dragged down by idiots. So how is that a detached, rational response? That's a profoundly emotional response, and it's quite plausible that it compromises their reasoning. They seem to claim a higher state of being where their irrationality doesn't interfere with reason, while everyone else's does, which simply is not arguable, unless one assumes that they are pre-ordained supermen. Not a rational argument.
This is aside from the distinct likelihood that logic, as a thought process which will always yield an accurate picture of external reality, is a fallacy. As I've said elsewhere, the human mind doesn't need to understand reality in order to function, it only needs to be self-consistent, and in this, internally generated information is just as valid as external stimuli.
I would also note that Randians generally have very strong opinions about matters dealing with economics and sociology. These are not sciences in the same sense as physics and chemistry and so-called hard sciences. They are relatively conjectural, and there is very little in these fields, other than extreme generalities, which you can consistently demonstrate. This is not to belittle economics and sociology; this is to acknowledge the overwhelming complexity of the systems they explore, and the difficulty economists and sociologists face in making sense of them. But most Randians I've encountered cite their understanding of these disciplines as the rationale for their arguments about what's wrong with society and where it ought to be going, as though their rules have been clearly established.
The internal logic appears to be this: I've demonstrated an understanding of science by thinking logically; therefore if I draw logical conclusions within these other disciplines, I must be correct. I know the truth, therefore this is the truth. But people constantly draw perfectly reasonable conclusions which nevertheless happen to be incorrect. The problem is simple hubris, assuming it isn't a frail human desire to reinforce a predisposition.
One other distinguishing characteristic of Randians I've noticed is a lack of empathy for other human beings. And that's consistent; empathy and love aren't rational. Supposedly when we're all dictated solely by market forces, that will be good for everybody, although I've never heard an objectivist argue this point with any conviction; it's kind of incidental to the main point of not being freighted down by the dull masses, whom they hate and resent. Nor is it easy to argue that the poor and the weak will flourish in a purely Darwinistic system... in fact, it's difficult to argue that most of the rich would flourish, given the observed results of unregulated capitalism. This, again, appears incidental.
Their big thing is that everything ought to be dictated by pure logic and rationality, and that society is being ruined by liberals and religious people and idealogues and progressives and so on, because those people's actions are dictated by irrational passions which interfere with pure reason. But if you actually watch the Randians, you see that they absolutely hate these people, they're utterly consumed by fury and loathing for the weak-minded fools they're chained to; their constant concern is with how they're being dragged down by idiots. So how is that a detached, rational response? That's a profoundly emotional response, and it's quite plausible that it compromises their reasoning. They seem to claim a higher state of being where their irrationality doesn't interfere with reason, while everyone else's does, which simply is not arguable, unless one assumes that they are pre-ordained supermen. Not a rational argument.
This is aside from the distinct likelihood that logic, as a thought process which will always yield an accurate picture of external reality, is a fallacy. As I've said elsewhere, the human mind doesn't need to understand reality in order to function, it only needs to be self-consistent, and in this, internally generated information is just as valid as external stimuli.
I would also note that Randians generally have very strong opinions about matters dealing with economics and sociology. These are not sciences in the same sense as physics and chemistry and so-called hard sciences. They are relatively conjectural, and there is very little in these fields, other than extreme generalities, which you can consistently demonstrate. This is not to belittle economics and sociology; this is to acknowledge the overwhelming complexity of the systems they explore, and the difficulty economists and sociologists face in making sense of them. But most Randians I've encountered cite their understanding of these disciplines as the rationale for their arguments about what's wrong with society and where it ought to be going, as though their rules have been clearly established.
The internal logic appears to be this: I've demonstrated an understanding of science by thinking logically; therefore if I draw logical conclusions within these other disciplines, I must be correct. I know the truth, therefore this is the truth. But people constantly draw perfectly reasonable conclusions which nevertheless happen to be incorrect. The problem is simple hubris, assuming it isn't a frail human desire to reinforce a predisposition.
One other distinguishing characteristic of Randians I've noticed is a lack of empathy for other human beings. And that's consistent; empathy and love aren't rational. Supposedly when we're all dictated solely by market forces, that will be good for everybody, although I've never heard an objectivist argue this point with any conviction; it's kind of incidental to the main point of not being freighted down by the dull masses, whom they hate and resent. Nor is it easy to argue that the poor and the weak will flourish in a purely Darwinistic system... in fact, it's difficult to argue that most of the rich would flourish, given the observed results of unregulated capitalism. This, again, appears incidental.