curi

Critical Review of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature

8 posts in this topic

Sure, but without having read the book, it's hard to discuss a critique of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've debated Greg Nyquist since alt.philosophy.objectivism on Usenet decades ago. His anti-Ayn Rand obsession has not abated nor have facts and counter-arguments ever changed anything he asserts. Since then, Nyquist has attracted more people like him (see Betsy's Law #2) and he and his followers have been cited by Rand-haters everywhere. This is a good sign.

It shows how threatened they feel by Ayn Rand's growing influence and how desperate they are to do something about it. It also exposes, as your review does so well, the impotence of evil. Their critiques are so ill-informed and their arguments are so fallacious and lame. If that is our enemy, we've already won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if anyone here would like to discuss my review and the philosophical issues involved.

No. Everyone who attacks Ayn Rand is not worth refuting. Better to spend one's time learning more about what is right than compulsively trying to swat the fleas attempting to parasitically cash in on Ayn Rand as the meaning of their lives. They don't understand and don't want to. They don't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're closed minded. If anyone disagrees with you, they should be ignored. That's bad. What if you're not right about everything and dismiss some improvements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're closed minded. If anyone disagrees with you, they should be ignored. That's bad. What if you're not right about everything and dismiss some improvements?

Ignoring what is inconsequential and wrong is not "closed minded". He who has an "open mind" quickly has it filled with trash.

"Open minded", in any legitimate sense, means open to new discoveries, not constantly regurgitating variations on what one already knows is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're closed minded. If anyone disagrees with you, they should be ignored. That's bad. What if you're not right about everything and dismiss some improvements?

Think of it this way; do you ever take the information from Jehovah witnesses and read what they have to say each time they present it in a different form? I doubt it, because an inquiring mind knows when it needs to shut out rubbish once it has checked the principles involved. Otherwise an "open" mind is indiscriminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also see how the smear "you have a closed mind (for not following any path I choose to herd you)" is an argument from intimidation, equivocating on the better meaning of "open mind" as meaning actively seeking to understand new discoveries and rational ideas -- in order to pressure someone by intimidation on false grounds. Ayn Rand rejected the appeal to an "open/closed mind" as an anti-concept. She emphasized instead the distinction between an active mind and a passive mind. The passive mind can just as easily not think about anything new and valuable as follow along and do what it is told because it is told. Irrational psycho-epistemologies elevate that to an epistemological principle in the form of arbitrary rationalism as a way of thinking on principle, then cash in on the intimidation to try to force acceptance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites