Comments (13)

• Pablo

  The video does not play, please some assistance.

  Published: November 6, 2009 11:28 AM

• spaztwelve

  Does it bother anyone that Greenspan was one of her closest followers and 'disciples'?

  I think Michael Shermer disected Objectivism best. Here's a quote:

  "As long as it is understood that morality is a human construction influenced by human cultures, one can become more tolerant of other human belief systems, and thus other humans. But as soon as a group sets itself up to be the final moral arbiter of other people's actions, especially when its members believe they have discovered absolute standards of right and wrong, it is the beginning of the end of tolerance and thus, reason and rationality. It is this characteristic more than any other that makes a cult, a religion, a nation, or any other group, dangerous to individual freedom. This was (and is) the biggest flaw in Ayn Rand's Objectivism, the unlikeliest cult in history. The historical development and ultimate destruction of her group and philosophy is the empirical evidence to support this logical analysis." - Michael Shermer, Skeptic vol. 2, no. 2, 1993, pp. 74-81

  Published: November 6, 2009 3:01 PM

• Dan

  I don't think Greenspan was one of her closest followers. After all, he didn't follow through on any of her teachings once he got involved with the Nixon Administration and after that. In fact, reading his recent book, it seems he pretty well "compartmentalized" anything he got from Rand -- in much the same way he compartmentalized his beliefs about sound money and free markets. Would one argue that being for free markets, too, makes one into a cultist because lots of people, including Greenspan, pay lip service to free markets and then, when it comes time to walk the walk, support all sorts of government meddling?

  Also, regarding Shermer, he's making an argument that the only way to tolerate over people is not to have any firm standards of morality. He's also overlooking that an objective morality could include tolerance as a virtue.

  Finally, that Rand and some (or many) of her seconds messed up, too, is not much of an argument. I trust most here wouldn't argue that because the classical liberals made mistakes (and some were downright nasty people), we should just give up on individualism, freedom, and the like and opt for the total state.

  Published: November 6, 2009 3:15 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Does it bother anyone that Greenspan was one of her closest followers and 'disciples'?
  
  No, because, quite simply, he wasn't. Yes, he was a close friend, and even had an article of his printed in one of her nonfiction books, but he never claimed to be an Objectivist himself, however much Rand may have liked him.

  Published: November 6, 2009 3:15 PM

• spaztwelve

  Dan, I would read more into the criticism of Objectivism. It's not a philosophy that holds up.

  Michael, he does in fact maintain that he is an Objectivist. I'd look into that some more.

  Objectivism has some fatal flaws that tear at it's underpinnings. It's quite creative and interesting, but I find it unfortunate that so many are willing to jump on this band wagon without truly questioning/testing it's claims.

  Published: November 6, 2009 3:52 PM

• machinephlosophy

  It is interesting that critics of Rand and objection morph intellectually into little randian objectivists in order to do so, much like Quine uses an implicit foundationalism both to reject foundationalism and to provide supervisory operational assumptions for the revisability principle of his relativistic theory of belief networks. Will the real analysts and postmoderns please stand up and fully abandon your foundationalist objectivism hobgoblins?

  Published: November 6, 2009 5:23 PM

• Bala

  spaztwelve,

  " As long as it is understood that morality is a human construction influenced by human cultures, one can become more tolerant of other human belief systems, and thus other humans. "

  Actually, it is precisely this understanding of the definition and origin of morality that Ayn Rand wrote against. So, to base a debunking of what Ayn Rand wrote by accepting as the basis, precisely that which she spent all her energy debunking and revolting against, is nothing more than begging the question.

  Therefore, Shermer's "dissection" seems highly incorrect and poorly framed.

  Just to make it clear, as per Ayn Rand, morality is something that springs from man's nature. It is an outcome of the fact that he is a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. It is a product of the reality that he is born with no instincts for survival, that he needs to choose his values and order them suitably and hierarchically so as to make wise choices when faced with the need to act.

  It is this hierarchy of values that enables a man to act in the face of choices that Rand called morality.

  Rand's work was precisely to debunk the notions that morality is a social or cultural norm. So, unless you present something better, one would have to dismiss Shermer's objection on the grounds of circular logic or begging the question.

  Published: November 6, 2009 10:33 PM

• Neil Parille

  I think Greenspan did claim to be an Objectivist. It's clear, however, that he gradually drifted away from Objectivist politics, a fact that Rand was aware of.

  Rand liked Greenspan because he was older than most of her other followers and had an established career. That's why she cut him slack.

  -Neil Parille

  Published: November 7, 2009 6:49 AM

• scineram

  It is a product of the reality that he is born with no instincts for survival

  That is failure right there.

  Published: November 7, 2009 7:24 AM

• Bala

  scineram,

  " That is failure right there. "

  The question is - Whose failure? Rand's or mine? - The answer depends on whether I got the idea and words right or whether I destroyed the meaning in an attempt to keep it short. I'll read the right books to clarify it. Thank for pointing it out.

  Published: November 7, 2009 9:17 AM

• Paul Vahur

  This talk by Tibor Machan is a great companion to the video in this blogpost: http://vimeo.com/7446265

  Published: November 10, 2009 4:29 PM

• Dan

  Spaztwelve, over the years, I have read many criticisms of Rand and Objectivism, but what has this to do with either Greenspan not being a valid test of Objectivism's problems or Shermer's overbroad attack on moral standards? To wit on the former, if Greenspan is used to invalidate Objectivism, we might just as well use him to invalidate free markets. The wider point here is that people can mix and match any ideas that want in their professed views -- even contradictory ones. So one must be careful in using someone like Greenspan -- especially him because he seems to talk the free market talk when it suits him, but he almost always walks a statist walk -- to point out flaws in some philosophy or idea.

  Regarding the latter, Shermer's view attacks all absolute standards of morality -- not just Objectivist ones. This seems to be giving up too much -- chucking out the baby with the bath, don't you think? Also, his view overlooks that there are absolute standards that include tolerance. He's creating a false choice between absolute standards and tolerance. In other words, there's no contradiction between holding absolute standards -- and, yes, judging people's actions by them -- and being tolerant.

  Published: November 10, 2009 4:38 PM

• Dan

  Neil, I'm not sure why she cut him slack, as you say. I don't have much insight into what she believed here or her "deep psychology." But I can hazard a guess. You're probably partly right, but I also think she overestimated her influence on him -- as she probably did with many people.

  I think perhaps her influence was both more and less than she believed. The less part is that she probably didn't change people in exactly the way she thought -- with her basic view, it seems, being that a little philosophical surgery would go a long way.

  Granted, this is somewhat of a simplification. She did believe in a deeper emotional core that only changed slowly, but I get the feeling, from reading about her, that she was overconfident in her powers of persuasion and in the ability of people to be changed via logical arguments.

  It was more in the sense that some of her bad habits obvious had an impact.

  Published: November 10, 2009 4:50 PM