Boethius

"No conflicts among rational men"

7 posts in this topic

Ayn Rand writes that "There are no conflicts among rational men."

But one only needs to watch the antics on Objectivist blogs (and counter-blogs) and elsewhere to see that this is not true. The venemous name-calling, the finality of denunciations, the ends of "friendships", the divorces -- all those sorts of things and much more have occurred among contemporary (to say nothing of historical) Objectivists in full public view.

Either she is wrong, or it must be denied that these people are Objectivists, leaving us with a dilemma: either (1) there is some Nietschean super-humans who are the true Objectivists, and we are all just incapable sub-humans, or (2) Objectivism is an unviable and failed utopian philosophy.

In either case, the people who are supposedly living (figurativlely and in their yearning) in Galt's Gulch are existing in riotous irrationality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand said 'no conflicts over principle between rational people', not that there are no conflicts or that rational people do not have to deal with them. Sometimes it is appropriate to openly denounce someone, but as Rush Limbaugh says, he doesn't argue with fools because after a while people observing can't tell the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also remember "Betsy's Law #2 - In the long run you get the kind of friends -- and the kind of enemies -- you deserve".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People even argue about science (climate change). This doesn't mean that science per se is is in dsipute - only it's interpretation. It doesn't mean science "is an unviable and failed utopian philosophy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand writes that "There are no conflicts among rational men."

But one only needs to watch the antics on Objectivist blogs (and counter-blogs) and elsewhere to see that this is not true. The venemous name-calling, the finality of denunciations, the ends of "friendships", the divorces -- all those sorts of things and much more have occurred among contemporary (to say nothing of historical) Objectivists in full public view.

Either she is wrong, or it must be denied that these people are Objectivists, leaving us with a dilemma: either (1) there is some Nietschean super-humans who are the true Objectivists, and we are all just incapable sub-humans, or (2) Objectivism is an unviable and failed utopian philosophy.

In either case, the people who are supposedly living (figurativlely and in their yearning) in Galt's Gulch are existing in riotous irrationality.

First, you are misquoting her. Second, you have an invalid, unnamed premise in your argument. Her exact quote is "there are no conflicts of interests among rational men." I'll let you read the article for the specifics of her meaning in The Virtue of Selfishness. But, needless to say, disagreements, no matter how vociferously voiced, do not demonstrate conflicts of interest. The unnamed premise in your argument is that there is some other faculty besides reason to settle disputes; and that such reason is an attribute of the individual. When there is a disagreement among people, what else are they to rely on other than their own reason? If you find it astonishing that people disagree, then you need to investigate the facts, using your own reason, and determine who is correct, if anyone. Falling into skepticism because of disagreement is an ancient fallacy in logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites