Posts

Greenspan contradicts Rand’s philosophy 1.5A, II.1 and II.2

Part II: Greenspan contradicts Rand’s philosophy.

  1. Bank reserves, Greenspan vs Brandon
  2. Inflation, Greenspan vs Rand

II.1:Bank reserves, Greenspan vs Brandon

Many people incorrectly think banks loan part of the customer’s deposit and keep part as a reserve. For example, Nathaniel Brandon, a psychologist writing in the same book as Greenspan’s essay, published by Ayn Rand,

“… Banks do not have unlimited funds to loan; they are limited in the credit they can extend by the amount of their gold reserves.”v

Mr. Greenspan, a trained economist, is clear that is not the case,

“This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits…vi”. “… holds claims to gold rather than gold as security…vii”. Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

Many people think a gold standard will regulate the supply of money. For Mr. Brandon, the requirements of production must be within how much gold already exists,

“On a gold standard… the supply of money and credit needed to finance business ventures is determined by objective economic factors… the principles governing money supply…viii”

In Ayn Rand’s philosophy, the “objective” economic factor in this case would be the presence or absence of the physical gold.

Mr. Greenspan says gold based banks do the opposite, as they

“create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy.”ix Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

For Mr. Brandon, the limited supply of gold money tells banks to slow down business activity:

“… in response to the shrinking availability of money… funds are more difficult to obtain… curtailment and contraction of business investment.x ”

For Mr. Greenspan, slow business activity tells banks to limit the supply of money,

“But when business ventures financed by bank loans are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon… curtail new lending… restrict financing…xi ” Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

Once Greenspan is deciphered, the meaning is highly controversial for people who think a laissez faire gold economy automatically does the right thing; that is – the amount of gold available is what determines “the production requirements of the economy”; that people shouldn’t decide production requirements and create currency to match. The idea that money has to be deliberately manipulated to make the economy work is offensive to them. Many people who want a gold standard, want it because they think it prevents human interference with the natural order of things.

Those people are strongly represented in the fan base for Ayn Rand. Greenspan didn’t want to offend them. But he also had to reassure bankers that Objectivism was on their side. So he used technical terminology that regular folks wouldn’t recognize and simply left out any explanation of actual practices.

II.2: Inflation, Greenspan vs Rand

Greenspan advocates “created bank notes” generated by extending credit, based on debt.

This contradicts Rand, who wrote,

“The most disastrous loss… is the loss of the concept that money stands for existing, but unconsumed goods.”xii

Rand disapproves of

“…paper money which is used as a claim check on actually existing goods- but that money is not backed by any goods, it is not backed by gold, it is backed by nothing. It is a promissory note issued to you in exchange for your goods to be paid by you… out of your future production.xiii” “… this dear readers is the cause, the pattern, and the outcome of inflation.xiv”

Rand denigrates what Greenspan advocates. Bank notes are also called promissory notes. The ones the Borrower spends are created out of nothing, cost the banker nothing and are backed by nothing except the future production of the market, which must generate enough income for the Borrower to pay the loan. Yet these promissory notes are in the marketplace competing with actual gold. It is the definition of inflation in a gold economy.

Rand’s philosophy requires money to represent savings from past production. Money based on future production is a major violation. Rand and Greenspan contradict each other.

Rand was wrong when she said,

“Only one institution can arrogate to itself the power legally to trade in rubber checks: the government. And it is the only institution that can mortgage your future without your knowledge or consent: government securities (and paper money) are promissory notes on future tax receipts, i.e., on your future production.”xv

Greenspan asserts the bank based on gold can do the same thing. Merchants and communities don’t have knowledge of, or consent to, the risk these bank notes represent. Greenspan contradicts Rand.

Ayn Rand authorized the publication of Greenspan’s contradictory essay in her magazine and book as appropriate for her economic philosophy; therefore, Ayn Rand contradicts herself.

vPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viiPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viiiPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

ixPg 97 and 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xiPg 97 and 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xii133 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xiii133 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xiv128 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xv129 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

Talking to Rand Fans 1.3A, B, and C.

Talking to Rand Fans, 1.3A. Introduction, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1.3B and C are further below.

Sentences 1 through 4i:  In Rand’s first four sentences are elements of Rand’s rhetoric which can be found throughout the Objectivist canon. Rand’s rhetoric may affect a Rand Fan’s ability to converse with other people.

Sentence One: “The title of this book might evoke the type of question that I hear once in a while, ‘why do you use the word “selfishness” to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people for whom it does not mean the things you mean?’”

  • Rand introduces the first strong, negative emotion, “antagonizes”.
  • Rand tells us that she is important. People ask her questions. Her words cause strong reactions in the general public. “So many people” are “antagonized”; instead of puzzled. Or dismissive.
  • Rand has been told that her definition of “selfishness” is different than most English speakers.
  • Rand is aware that her use of words is not emotionally neutral.
  • Rand’s world is a world of conflict. There are so many antagonists out there.
  • The population of this sentence is Rand, several questioners, the many people who have been antagonized and the reader. There is no single individual in Rand’s rhetoric. It’s crowds of people.

Sentence Two: “To those who ask it, my answer is, ‘For the same reason you fear it.’”

  • She introduces another strong, negative emotion in the second sentence, “fear”.
  • She makes an accusation based on a ridiculous assumption. Who reading the phrase “Virtue of Selfishness” felt fear? Nobody. It is purely a product of Rand’s rhetoric.
  • Since nobody felt fear, there is no way to know what reason she is talking about. We are more in the dark than when we started.
  • She says she is deliberately antagonizing people.
  • Rand claims to be responding to people’s questions. She didn’t start this.

Sentence Three: “But there are others who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, but who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved.”

  • She introduces more people.
  • She introduces a third strong, negative emotion in the third sentence, “cowardice”.
  • She makes an accusation of moral cowardice for simply asking what she means.
  • Her new characters are not capable of “formulating” or “identifying” what Rand is talking about. Rand is saying that these folks are without the necessary intellectual ability to understand her profound issues and clever reasoning. Or she is saying that she is incomprehensible, but that is unlikely.
  • These new people aren’t using rational thought, but “sensing” things accurately- seemingly in contradiction to Rand’s philosophy of rationality.
  • Rand’s new friends agree that questions are for cowards.
  • If these people do not ask questions and cannot verbalize her reasoning or discuss the issue, Rand cannot know they sense cowardice; and she cannot deduce an inability to formulate or identify from their silence. Perhaps they are fictional people.
  • She claims her choice of words is due to a “profound” moral issue; reminding us that she is an intellectual, plumbing depths others cannot formulate or identify.

Sentence Four: “It is to them I will give a more explicit answer.”

•     She deigns to inform the stupid, but not the cowards. The ignorant people and the cowardly evaders show up repeatedly in Objectivist material. The premise of her philosophy is that it is objectively true, meaning you can see it. Therefore, everybody already agrees with Ayn Rand; except through lack of knowledge or suicidal pretense. There is no other reason for questioning Rand, for it is simply not possible to have any other concept of reality. “Only through ignorance or evasion can a man project such an alternative.”ii

Summing up the first four sentences: In a barrage of emotions and accusations, Rand has just told us what she thinks of people who question her. If you ask a Rand Fan questions, they have already been told you are a moral coward and an antagonist. Or you are ignorant and inarticulate. If the conversation doesn’t go well, maybe one of the reasons is Ayn Rand’s rhetoric.

Next: Talking to Rand Fans 1.3B, continuing a close analysis of The Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness[1], sentences 5 through 8.

The story so far: Rand is explaining the meaning of the word “selfishness”.

Sentence 5: “This is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice.”

  • Since “semantic” means “having to do with signification and meaning” and Rand is explaining the meaning of a word; then this by definition is a semantic issue. Rand’s statement does not make sense.
  • The word “mere” is used frequently by Rand to impart disparagement.
  • The phrase “mere semantic issue” is a cliché which means that semantics are a petty concern. Since we see below that Rand feels the issue is one of the most important facing mankind and not “mere” at all, the cliché is not applicable.
  • She disparages “semantics” because the field of semantics contradicts her theory that language has no meaning beyond words which refer to things.
  • She disparages “choice” because it implies there is more to words and concepts than the mechanical application of her “Logic of Non-contradictory Identification”[2]. As she says elsewhere, “This does not meant the content of concepts depends on an individual’s subjective (arbitrary) choice. The only issue open to an individual’s choice in this matter is how much knowledge he will seek to acquire… …of the facts of reality.”[3] (Parenthesis in Rand’s original.)
  • The word “arbitrary” is often used by Rand to disparage individual choice and subjectivity.

Sentence 6: “The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word ‘selfishness’ is not merely wrong; it represents an intellectual ‘package-deal’ which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.”

  • Rand provides no evidence for her assertion that mankind, comprised of all humans on earth, possesses a unified belief system which, as a whole, can develop or be arrested.
  • Rand’s assertion that the morality of the human race is arrested is contradicted by Rand’s usage of the word selfishness. Since Rand’s use of the word is not the popular usage and her ethics are in opposition to the “package deal” about to be explained, her morality and the morality of people who share her views must not be arrested. Since she, and they, are human beings; mankind cannot be said to have arrested moral development. Her statement is meaningless.
  • Her statement assumes the premise that morality “develops”.
  • She believes the way most people speak English is wrong.

Sentence 7: “In popular usage, the word “selfishness “ is a synonym of evil: the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.”

  • She packs the sentence with negatively charged words- “evil, murderous, brute, tramples, corpses, no, nothing, mindless”. While it is her choice to do so, she ascribes it to “the popular usage”.
  • She chooses repellent imagery of violence which arouses strong emotional response- “murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses’’. She blames the other side for this, hoping that if you reject the imagery, you should reject the other side.
  • The level of hyperbole invites ridicule of the purported popular usage.
  • She creates a straw man for her argument. Suppose the image of “selfishness” for most people was: a child who refuses to share and ruins a birthday party by eating all the cake. That example would not support her claim for a synonym of evil. Or suppose the image of a pathetic miser, calculating and scheming alone with his gold. That would not support her characterization of “mindless whims of the immediate moment”. Neither of those examples suit her violent rhetorical style; yet, both of those examples fit the popular usage of “selfishness”.
  • Rand disparages choice as transient conviction, mindless and a word she frequently uses for it, “whim”. By nestling her disparagement within the purported popular usage, she creates a false agreement with her premises.

Sentence 8: “Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word ‘selfishness’ is: concern with one’s own interests.” (italics in Rand’s original)

  • The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language provides a different definition[4]. Rand’s statement is false. This is the only fact-checkable statement in eight sentences and it is false.
  • A “dictionary” definition of any word is merely a documentation of how that word has been used by people[5]. If people change their use of a word, dictionaries change their definitions. When Rand draws a distinction between popular usage and a dictionary definition, she is making an error.
  • Since dictionaries are a record of popular usage; if this sentence were true, then Rand’s description of popular usage in the previous sentence would be false.
  • No word has an “exact meaning”[6]. Rand’s statement is nonsensical.
  • If Rand’s definition were true, it would mean that the moral development of the entire human race would not have been arrested if only somebody had read the dictionary.
  • If Rand’s definition were true, the people who read dictionaries and the people who write them would not be subject to arrested morals. Therefore, mankind as a whole would not have arrested morals. Rand has contradicted herself.

Talking to Rand Fans 1.3C: Summing up the first eight sentences of the Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness.

In these eight sentences, Rand refers to people 29 different ways. She makes six references to herself: she hears questions, her use of the word selfishness is known to other people, she uses selfishness differently than other people, she has an answer, she has an actual reason, she gives a more explicit answer.

Of the 23 references to other people:

  • 13 references are negative: People who are antagonized, fear the word selfish, are moral cowards, cannot formulate her reasons, cannot identify profound moral issues, have arrested moral development, are the populous which uses “selfishness” incorrectly, pursue immediate gratification. Also, murderous, brute, corpses, uncaring, and mindless.
  • Nine references are neutral: People who question her- three times. Then; many people, people who have a different meaning for selfishness, a person with ends, a person with interests, living being and those who do not question her.
  • Six of the nine neutral references are associated with a negative reference, e.g. a questioner (neutral) is also a moral coward (negative), “many people” are “antagonized”, etc.
  • Only one reference to other people could be interpreted as positive: the people who do not question her because they sense moral cowardice. However, this reference is associated with the negative references of being unable to formulate reasons or identify moral issues.

The first eight sentences of the Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness are an introduction to Ayn Rand’s violent, demeaning rhetorical style. Verbal abuse is what Rand Fans are used to. If you question a Rand Fan and get an aggressive tirade of insults, violent imagery and hyperbolic bombast- Ayn Rand’s rhetoric might be why.

[1] The sentences are all from pg. vii, Introduction, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1964

[2] pg 11, Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library, 1967

[3] pg 56, Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library, 1967

[4] Oxford Unabridged

[5] pg. 34, 35, Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action,Harcourt Brace & Co. 1992

[6] ibid

[7] pg 56, Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library, 1967

ipg. vii, The Virtue of Selfishness Introduction, Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1964

iipg. 157, Piekoff, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library 1967

Ayn Rand and Sex 1.2

Ayn Rand has a unique take on love. In “The Fountainhead”, Gail Wynand and his wife, Dominique Falcone, are chatting:

Gail: “… I don’t want anything- but to own you. Without any answer from you. It has to be without any answer…”i

And then,

Dominique: “I don’t love you, Gail.”

Gail: “I can’t even care about that.. …I love you, Dominique. I love you so much that nothing can matter to me, not even you… Only my love- not your answer. Not even your indifference… …it’s not the object that matters, it’s the desire. Not you, but I.”

The woman’s status is that of an owned object. She doesn’t matter, only he does. This kind of love, where the woman’s feelings are irrelevant to the man’s desire, is presented as admirable.ii

iPg 496, The Fountainhead, Signet, Penguin Books, 1952

iiPg 502 The Fountainhead, Signet, Penguin Books, 1952

Ayn Rand and Sex 1.3

Rand describes the type of sexual relation she approves of as the following: “…sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which (a man) cannot perform for any other motive but his own enjoyment… He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself… …whose surrender permits him to experience- or fake- a feeling of self esteem… The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer- because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut.”i

The woman’s function is not to be of worth in her own right, but to be a reflection of the man. Rand doesn’t say what “The Meaning of Sex” is for women. The above implies it is to be conquered and possessed; and no action other than surrender necessary to achieve an appropriate sexual relationship.

This is in accordance with what Rand writes in “Fountainhead”, where the heroine’s motivation is described, “…the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted.”ii Later, the heroine describes the beginning of the relationship, “He didn’t ask my consent. He raped me. That’s how it began.”iii

The red-flag words Ayn Rand uses to describe her ideal sexual relationships are: selfish, for his own enjoyment, conquer, possess, master, shameful, contemptuous, rapture, he didn’t ask, and rape. Is it any wonder most of Ayn Rand’s fans started as conservative teen-aged boys?

iNew Intellectual pg 99 Quoting her book, Atlas Shrugged.

iiPg 217 The Fountainhead, Signet, Penguin Books, 1952

iiiPg 671 The Fountainhead, Signet, Penguin Books, 1952

Alan Greenspan 1.2B

Alan Greenspan thinks food is a luxury for hungry people. He uses a common economic term incorrectly when explaining commodity based currencies. He displays insensitivity.

Greenspan describes money, “… Durable…In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium…”i “More importantly, the commodity… must be a luxury… Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations… The term “luxury” implies scarcity and high unit value.”ii

In an underfed nation, desperately hungry people require food for nourishment. Because it is necessary, scarce food has high unit value; but that doesn’t make food a luxury. Greenspan is using an incorrect definition.

In the field of economics, “luxury” is a technical term which refers to goods which are not necessary. “Luxury” does not refer to food staples, such as wheat. In economics, food is a “necessity good”, not a luxury good. If money must be a luxury, food wouldn’t used as money, especially in an underfed nation.

In Greenspan’s example, the institution of a monetary system is a given. The goal is an efficient economic system. The material circumstances are irrelevant except for how they serve the requirements of the economy.  Feeding hungry people is not a factor. If food has high unit value, Greenspan thinks hungry people should not eat the food, but use it as money. Greenspan is insensitive.

iPg 96 Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal Signet, New American Library

iiPg 97 Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal Signet, New American Library

Ayn Rand contradicts herself 1.9

Ayn Rand published two essays about monetary systems, one written by Alan Greenspan and one written by herself. They both cite events for which there is no objective evidence, which is a violation of Rand’s philosophy.

WHEREAS, Rand’s philosophy says, “… concepts represent classifications of observed existents…i; which means that mental concepts are true only if we saw examples of them in the real world…

AND Alan Greenspan asserts that “The existence of (money) is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value… as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible”ii…

BUT, there is no objective evidence for Greenspan’s assertions. The objective evidence is to the contrary. Most people have lived as part of an interdependent group, whether with a monetary system or not. Communities without money have had division of labor and operated non-monetary economic systems, such as communism or gift/obligation. They also remembered who shared what with who, and acted equitably. They made long-range plans and had systems of exchange within the community and with other communities,iii not necessarily using barter…

THEREFORE, Greenspan is in violation of Rand’s philosophy. Because she published Greenspan’s essay as appropriate for her system of thought, Rand contradicts herself.

WHEREAS, Rand’s philosophy says, “… concepts represent classifications of observed existents…iv; which means that mental concepts are true only if we saw examples of them in the real world…

AND Ayn Rand asserts that mediums of exchange and money grew out of barter systems. “… you discover you can trade with other farmers… , and you trade your products by direct barter… You can trade your grains for something that will keep longer, and which you can trade for food when you need it… but which commodity?… You devise a tool of exchange – money”v…

BUT, there is no objective evidence for Rand’s assertions regarding barter and monetary systems. There is no evidence or record of barter economies. There is no evidence of monetary systems arising from customs of barter. There is no record of barter practices which did not operate within a larger economic system along with complex financial instruments, such as creditvi. Rand may be repeating Aristotle’s speculationsvii…

THEREFORE, Rand’s statements are violations of her philosophy. Because she violated her own philosophy, Rand contradicts herself.

i The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy, Pg 131, Leonard Piekoff, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,

ii Pg 96, Gold and Economic Freedom, Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

iii This paragraph is based on material in https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf by David Graeber, Melville House Publishing, 2011

iv The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy, Pg 131, Leonard Piekoff, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,

v Rand pg 127 Egalitarianism and Inflation, Philosophy: Who Needs It. Signet, Penguin 1984

vi This paragraph is based on material in Debt the First 5000 years. Pg 21 and more, David Graeber, Melville House Publishing, 2011

vii Aristotle, Politics I.9.1257 paraphrased in Debt the First 5000 years. Pg 24, David Graeber, Melville House Publishing, 2011

Rand vs South America

Ayn Rand tells this storyi. She claims to know the protagonist. This is a paraphrased version of what she wrote.

  • A factory in South America was operating at 45% of capacity. An “American” college kid was hired to turn things around. The kid noticed the wages were very low and decided the workers didn’t have enough incentive. He suggested paying by the piece. The wise, old factory manager told him it wouldn’t work, but agreed to try.

  • At first, productivity skyrocketed. But at the end of week three, having made what used to be a months salary, the workers went home and took a week off. When they returned, nothing could keep them from taking a week off each month. So the plan was discontinued.

To Rand, this is an example of the South American’s “anti-conceptual mentality… a passive refusal to think abstractly”ii. Taking time for one’s own interests, instead of earning more money in a factory, is a sign of a mental defect.

The idea that a healthy life requires time with family and friends, time to reflect or pursue social activities; or that people find such things interesting, exciting or even demanding is rejected by her philosophy as a symptom of the “neurotic… desire to escape from reality”iii which leads people to participate in “family picnics, ladies’ tea parties or “coffee klatches”, charity bazaars, vegetative kinds of vacation- all of them times of quiet boredom for all concerned, in which the boredom is the value” allowing them to avoid the “the new, the exciting, the unfamiliar” and the demands of “discrimination, judgement, awareness”iv.

Rand’s philosophy holds that “productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life”v. People should go to work because being productive is a goal in and of itself; productive meaning in the marketplace. It is not considered that the employees might now have the time for the productive activities of their own lives.

Rand sums it all up with the decision to stop the plan, implying it is a rational decision. The facts in the story indicate otherwise. The factory was operating at about half capacity, so the goal was to double the rate of production. Since the employer wanted to keep the new plan, the goal must have been achieved; which means an additional 50% more units were produced for the same amount of wages, even with a weeks worth of capacity still to be utilized. More employees could have been hired for the off week with the same high productivity plan. But, apparently the idea of people with time for themselves was so offensive; the factory went back to the old, less profitable system. The employer would rather make less money.

That the story doesn’t make sense, makes it all the more an expression of emotional reality, like a fairy tale or stories from myth or religion. The fabled employees’ sins were to reject her morality’s rewards and demands- the reward of a bigger paycheck and the demand of servitude. When the South Americans chose personal time off, they chose to be immoral. The immoral behavior was both halted and punished by taking away the increased wage.

Rand’s morality tale is well understood by workers in the US. “In a new survey conducted over the first few days of 2015: nearly 42 percent of Americans said they didn’t take a single vacation day during 2014…”vi

One survey found 40% will not take all the vacation days due to themvii for fear of job related consequences. These concerns are not all self imposed, “nearly a fifth of all managers…, said they considered employees who took all of their leave to be less dedicated.”viii Vacationing workers try to compensate; according to one survey, “three in five (61 percent) employees who have taken vacation/paid time off admit working at least some while on vacation.”ix

Fear is not the only reason for refusing time off. Much as in Rand’s fable, economic pressure plays a part. “Many full-time employed Americans get at least ten vacation days, and our survey shows only 13 percent of adult Americans could afford to actually take that many vacation days for the year.”x

Another reason is that Rand’s morality is shared by many people in the US. One study “…found that Americans have a complicated view of taking time off, often thinking of it as a guilty pleasure rather than a worker’s right.”xi Voters in Europe secured 20 to 30 days paid vacation by law, US voters have approved zero legally required vacationsxii. US citizens criticize political leaders for days off, to the point Barack Obama ran on a promise he would not take vacations.xiii Since his election, his vacation habits have been a contentious subject in the media.

i     The Missing Link, pg 37, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Group, 1984

ii      ibid

iii    The psychology of pleasure by Nicholas Brandon Virtue of Selfishness, pg 64, Signet, New American Library, 1964

iv     The psychology of pleasure by Nicholas Brandon Virtue of Selfishness, pg 65, Signet, New American Library, 1964

v      Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand, Virtue of Selfishness, pg 25, Signet, New American Library, 1964

Alan Greenspan 1.4 – Contradictory

In “Gold and Economic Freedom”,  Alan Greenspani wishes to show that “… under the gold standard , a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth”. However, Alan Greenspan’s examples of unregulated banking based on gold are contradictory.

Greenspan starts with banks generating money to make loans: “A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy”.

When the economy is slow, “… when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off”; the banks: “curtail new lending,…usually by charging higher interest rates.”

When the economy is good, “when banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly”. The loans have lower interest, “and bank credit continues to be generally available.”

His next paragraph creates contradiction. It presents the situation where different countries have the gold standard in common, and “there are no restraints… on the movement of capital”.

If a country has a liberal credit market, “interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries” and “immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the easy credit country… tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates.”

As a result, “the economies of the different countries act as one… Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries”.

Greenspan’s contradictions are:

  1. Banks cannot act according to the production requirements of their economy, as in his first example ; but must act according to the interest rates of the banks in his second example, in other gold standard economies.
  2. The banks in his first example could never have started or participated in their expansion with low interest, because the gold deposits would have fled to the countries in the second example.
  3. If the interest in all the countries started at parity; when the banks of the first example started charging higher interest, the gold would leave other countries and cause those economies to contract. To prevent loss of their gold deposits, the banks of the other countries would also raise their interest rates – causing their economies to contract. Either way, all the countries must contract their economies whenever one country raises interest rates.
  4. Wherever business starts to get better, banks cannot return to the previous low interest rates or they will lose their deposits to other banks. Economic growth will stop as soon as it starts.

 Greenspan fails to show how expansion or growth can begin. His first example of the creation of money starts with the economy already in full swing. When Greenspan’s gold standard economy contracts, the banks have no means to counter that. Instead, the banks wait for businesses to solve the problem, “and require… existing borrowers to improve profitability” without funds. They also “.. restrict the financing of new ventures…”. Both Greenspan’s examples of the individual bank and the multinational situation end with high interest rates and economic contraction.

In Greenspan’s ideal system, there is incentive to set high interest rates. Once high interest rates are in place, there is no way to lower them. Once in a contraction, Greenspan’s gold standard banks do not have the tools to begin expansion. They only have tools to slow the economy down. The contraction must continue. The ratchet only works in one direction.

Here is Greenspan’s statements in full:

“When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus under the gold standard , a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth.

When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one-sol long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the “easy money” country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.”

iGold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Pg 98, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

Alan Greenspan 1.5A, parts I & II

Alan Greenspan 1.5A, parts I & II

In his famous essay “Gold and Economic Freedom”, Alan Greenspan presents a gold based banking system.i The way currency is created conflicts with Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

Part I: The banks’ creation of currency. Part II: The conflict with Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

Part I:

Greenspan wrote: “… a logical extension… is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into gold… A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy”ii.

Many people would not realize what Greenspan was talking about. And he doesn’t explain it. Greenspan is using a meaning of “deposit” most people don’t know, referring to a bank’s debt. Obviously, a customer’s deposit of gold wouldn’t convert to or substitute for gold.

This is one example of the procedure he described, according to his words:

Step 1: Extend Credit: The banker agrees to loan 900 gold oz to a Borrower, who will spend it on production requirements.

Step 2: Create a Deposit: The banker writes “900 gold oz” in the debt column of the bank ledger. The banker has “created” the bank’s deposit, without a customer deposit or any gold. He wrote down a debt the bank doesn’t owe.

Step 3: Create Bank Notes: The bank notes say the bank owes 900 gold oz, when the bank notes are redeemed. The bank notes document the the banks’ liability in the debt column, not gold. There isn’t any gold yet.

Step 4: Substitute Bank Notes for Gold: Instead of loaning gold to the Business, the bank substitutes the bank notes. The bank retains the loan agreement, a claim for future payments of 900 gold oz plus interest.

Step 5: Convert Deposit into Gold: The value of the loan, 900 gold oz plus interest, is recorded in the asset column next to the banks’ deposit in the debit column.

The result of the process is that the banker, “… holds claims to gold rather than gold as security…iii”.

The process is essentially the same with or without considering reserves.

Greenspan’s “banking system based on gold” prints money that is not backed by gold. They artificially “create” deposits and loan the result, paper money secured by paper claims; which he says “… enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits…iv”.

What Greenspan describes is current banking practice. Greenspan was reassuring bankers that the gold standard wouldn’t change their procedures.

Part II: Greenspan contradicts Rand’s philosophy.

  1. Bank reserves, Greenspan vs Brandon
  2. Inflation, Greenspan vs Rand

II.1:Bank reserves, Greenspan vs Brandon

Many people incorrectly think banks loan part of the customer’s deposit and keep part as a reserve. For example, Nathaniel Brandon, a psychologist writing in the same book as Greenspan’s essay, published by Ayn Rand,

“… Banks do not have unlimited funds to loan; they are limited in the credit they can extend by the amount of their gold reserves.”v

Mr. Greenspan, a trained economist, is clear that is not the case,

“This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits…vi”. “… holds claims to gold rather than gold as security…vii”. Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

Many people think a gold standard will regulate the supply of money. For Mr. Brandon, the requirements of production must be within how much gold already exists,

“On a gold standard… the supply of money and credit needed to finance business ventures is determined by objective economic factors… the principles governing money supply…viii”

In Ayn Rand’s philosophy, the “objective” economic factor in this case would be the presence or absence of the physical gold.

Mr. Greenspan says gold based banks do the opposite, as they

“create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy.”ix Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

For Mr. Brandon, the limited supply of gold money tells banks to slow down business activity:

“… in response to the shrinking availability of money… funds are more difficult to obtain… curtailment and contraction of business investment.x ”

For Mr. Greenspan, slow business activity tells banks to limit the supply of money,

“But when business ventures financed by bank loans are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon… curtail new lending… restrict financing…xi ” Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

Once Greenspan is deciphered, the meaning is highly controversial for people who think a laissez faire gold economy automatically does the right thing; that is – the amount of gold available is what determines “the production requirements of the economy”; that people shouldn’t decide production requirements and create currency to match. The idea that money has to be deliberately manipulated to make the economy work is offensive to them. Many people who want a gold standard, want it because they think it prevents human interference with the natural order of things.

Those people are strongly represented in the fan base for Ayn Rand. Greenspan didn’t want to offend them. But he also had to reassure bankers that Objectivism was on their side. So he used technical terminology that regular folks wouldn’t recognize and simply left out any explanation of actual practices.

II.2: Inflation, Greenspan vs Rand

Greenspan advocates “created bank notes” generated by extending credit, based on debt.

This contradicts Rand, who wrote,

“The most disastrous loss… is the loss of the concept that money stands for existing, but unconsumed goods.”xii

Rand disapproves of

“…paper money which is used as a claim check on actually existing goods- but that money is not backed by any goods, it is not backed by gold, it is backed by nothing. It is a promissory note issued to you in exchange for your goods to be paid by you… out of your future production.xiii” “… this dear readers is the cause, the pattern, and the outcome of inflation.xiv”

Rand denigrates what Greenspan advocates. Bank notes are also called promissory notes. The ones the Borrower spends are created out of nothing, cost the banker nothing and are backed by nothing except the future production of the market, which must generate enough income for the Borrower to pay the loan. Yet these promissory notes are in the marketplace competing with actual gold. It is the definition of inflation in a gold economy.

Rand’s philosophy requires money to represent savings from past production. Money based on future production is a major violation. Rand and Greenspan contradict each other.

Rand was wrong when she said,

“Only one institution can arrogate to itself the power legally to trade in rubber checks: the government. And it is the only institution that can mortgage your future without your knowledge or consent: government securities (and paper money) are promissory notes on future tax receipts, i.e., on your future production.”xv

Greenspan asserts the bank based on gold can do the same thing. Merchants and communities don’t have knowledge of, or consent to, the risk these bank notes represent. Greenspan contradicts Rand.

Ayn Rand authorized the publication of Greenspan’s contradictory essay in her magazine and book as appropriate for her economic philosophy; therefore, Ayn Rand contradicts herself.

iGold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

iiPg 97 and 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

iiiPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

ivPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

vPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viiPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viiiPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

ixPg 97 and 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xiPg 97 and 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xii133 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xiii133 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xiv128 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xv129 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

Rand contradicts herself 1.9

Rand contradicts and violates her own philosophy of epistemology.

Rand claims “Modern Philosophers” are attacking her ideas with their “…favorite category (and strawman)… “The Borderline Case.”.. Modern Philosophers’ favorite examples of this “problem” are expressed by such questions as:… “If you had never seen any swans but white ones, and then discovered a black one, by what criteria would you decide whether to classify it as a “swan”, or to give it a different name and coin a new concept?”…”

First, Leonard Piekoff provides the guidelines of Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology:

“Since a word is a symbol for a concept, it has no meaning apart from the content of the concept. And since a concept is an integration of units, it has no meaning apart from its units. The meaning of a concept consists of the units which it integrates, including all the characteristics of those units.” (italics in original)

“Observe that concepts mean existents, not arbitrarily selected portions of those units. There is no basis whatsoever- neither metaphysical nor epistemologically, neither in the nature of reality nor of conceptual consciousness- for a division of the characteristics of a concept’s units into two groups, one of which is excluded from the concepts meaning.”

“Metaphysically, an entity is: all of the things which it is. Each of its characteristics has the same metaphysical status: each constitutes a part of the entity’s identity.”

“Epistemologically, all the characteristics of the entities subsumed under a concept are discovered by the same basic method: by observation of these entities.i”

Mr. Piekoff emphatically tells us. A concept such as “swan” is the whole package. You can’t just pick out one thing about the swan and say it doesn’t count. The all-black bird is a different thing from the all-white bird and requires a name of it’s own, according to Objectivism.

Now for Ayn Rand’s response to the “strawman” of the Black Swan:

“In the case of black swans, it is objectively mandatory to classify them as “swans,” because virtually all their characteristics are similar to the characteristics of a white swan and the difference in color is of no cognitive significance.”

Rand says the answer is “objectively mandatory”, but she ignores her own philosophy that a word sums up the entirety of the concept’s observed characteristics. She arbitrarily decides to disregard a characteristic, an act Peikoff describes as “without basis in metaphysics, epistemology, the nature of reality nor of conceptual consciousness”. The statement that the difference in color is of no cognitive significance ignores the thousands years history of citing the swan’s white color as it’s most important featureii, the Conceptual Common Denominator, to use Rand’s termiii.

Rand also ignores historical facts, because the issue of the Black Swan is not a strawman. Black Swans presented an actual “problem” for scientists. In 1697, Europeans first encountered a Black Swan in Australia. Scientists decided to coin a new concept and give the bird it’s own monotypic genus “Chenopis” instead of classifying it in the genus “Cygnus”. In other words, not a swan. Apparently, the color had cognitive significance for those scientists. For 90 years this opinion held, until John Latham determined that it was indeed a swan and it’s genus was changed.iv The scientific deliberation shows that Rand’s facile pronouncements come from ignorance.

Rand contradicts and violates the criteria of her own philosophy for categorizing observations. Rand falsely accuses “Modern Philosophers” of creating a strawman. Rand makes ignorant pronouncements about a subject that took scientists 90 years to decide.

i Pg. 133 Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Piekoff , Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor, New American Library, 1967

iihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan

iii Pg 18 Intro to Objectivist Epistemology

iv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan

Rand contradicts herself 1.8

Ayn Rand’s philosophy proves her concept of Capitalism is false and invalid.

According to Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, a true concept must be observed before it is thought. If there is not an example in the real world, the mental concept is false and invalid.

“…concepts represent classifications of observed referents…”i

”There are… invalid concepts, i.e. … without referents…”ii

“Truth is a product of … identification… of the facts of reality”iii

“All truth is a product of logical identification of the facts of experienceiv

According to Ayn Rand, Capitalism is an “unknown ideal”v. A Capitalist economic system has “never yet existed, not even in America”vi.

If concepts must be observed and Capitalism has never been observed, then Capitalism is not a concept.

If truth is real and Capitalism has never existed, then Capitalism is not true.

If truth must be experienced and Capitalism is unknown, then Capitalism is not true.

If concepts without referents are invalid and Capitalism does not have a referent, then Capitalism is an invalid concept.

Therefore, Ayn Rand’s philosophy proves Ayn Rand’s concept of Capitalism is false and invalid.

Sources:

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, New American Library, Mentor edition (paperback) 1979 Library of Congress # 78-71454

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, New American Library, Signet edition (paperback) 1967 Library of Congress # 66-26772

i Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, pg 62

ii Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, pg 65

iii Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, pg 63

iv Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Analytic-Synthethic Dichotomy pg 158

v Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

vi Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Objectivist Ethics, pg 33

Rand vs Hume 1.3

In the commonly accepted language of logic, “certain” refers to the conclusions we reach using deductive logic. For example, once the rules of an arithmetic are decided on, 2 + 2 = 4 every time we do it; i.e., it is “certain”. In the 17th century, David Hume found that inductive logic cannot be certain; we cannot know the sun will rise tomorrow, just because it came up yesterday. Hume’s knowledge of the world through inductive logic is “probable”. This is commonly called, “the Problem of Induction”.

Rand has written a straw man on this topic, which she ascribes to David Hume, “Don’t be so sure, nobody can be certain of anything.”i

This essay covers the second sentence of Rand’s attempted refutation, “The pronouncement means no knowledge of any kind is possible to man; i.e., that man is not conscious.”

Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is based on tabula rasa , the idea that sensory data makes a one-to-one impression of reality in our minds. “Conscious” means to be aware of your senses. By using the single law of her logic, A = A, we recognize similarities in the things we observe. That is “knowledge”.

For Rand, inductive logic and deductive logic are both the same logic of A = A, just working in different directions. Once we have a concept built from observation (inductive), we may or may not assign new observations to that concept (deductive).

Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology applies these ideas to every human’s mind. Since we all observe the same reality and logic is consistent, all our mental concepts are the same. People who claim to disagree with Rand’s concepts must be ignorant or telling deliberate lies.

Hume’s finding that deductive knowledge and inductive knowledge are separate and distinct; and that knowledge gained through observations and inductive logic is “probably” right and possibly wrong, contradicts every aspect of Rand’s philosophy. If Hume is right, Rand’s “objective” philosophy is just her personal interpretation of her sensory impressions. Her concepts are just “probable”. People can honestly disagree with her without being evil.

So, Rand uses her logic of “non-contradictory identification”. If her philosophy, considering inductive reasoning as certain, leads to her definition of knowledge; then Hume’s philosophy must lead to no knowledge at all. If Rand is “conscious” using her philosophy, Hume’s philosophy must lead to unconsciousness. Since those things are not possible, Hume must be an evil person spreading deliberate lies.

More footnotes are needed!

i paragraph 10, Chapter 2, Philosophical Detection; Philosophy Who Needs It? by Ayn Rand

Alan Greenspan 1.3 (Rand vs Greenspan)

Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand contradict each other when explaining commodity based currencies.

Greenspan starts by describing money. “… Durable…In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium…”i “More importantly, the commodity… must be a luxury… Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations… The term “luxury” implies scarcity and high unit value.”ii

Rand starts by describing the need of the individual for food to survive and the importance of savings. “You need the saved harvest of your good years to carry you through the bad ones; you need your saved seed to expand your production”iii. Rand’s story is about coping with productive abundance. “Grain and foodstuffs are perishable and cannot be kept long”iv, however “you don’t have to expand your storage, you can trade your grain for a commodity which will keep longer and which you can trade for food when you want it.”v.

In Rand’s example, the disposition of abundant food was the necessary cause of the monetary system. Increased production is funded by surplus. The goal is for people to have food to eat, in accordance with a person’s “ultimate value… the (person’s) life”vi.

In Greenspan’s example, the institution of a monetary system is a given. The material circumstances are irrelevant except for how they serve the requirements of the economy. If food has high unit value, hungry people are not to eat the food, but use it as money. Scarcity creates wealth. The goal is an efficient economic system. Feeding hungry people is not a factor.

Greenspan and Rand disagree on the fundamental purpose of an economy. Greenspan and Rand disagree on the function of food in an economy. Greenspan and Rand disagree on the value of human life.

iPg 96 Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal Signet, New American Library

iiPg 97 Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal Signet, New American Library

iii pg 126 and 127, Egalitarianism and Inflation, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, The Penguin Group

iv pg 126 and 127, Egalitarianism and Inflation, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, The Penguin Group

v pg 126 and 127, Egalitarianism and Inflation, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, The Penguin Group

vi Pg 17, Objectivist Ethics, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library

Alan Greenspan 1.2

Alan Greenspan presents an incorrect example of a luxury good and defines the common economic term “luxury good” incorrectly. He argues that “wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations… the term “luxury good” implies scarcity and high unit value.”i”

  • There are two necessary conditions for categorizing something as a luxury good which Greenspan omits: 1) A luxury good is not a necessityii. 2) The economic demand for a luxury good is elasticiii. Greenspan’s definition of the term “luxury good” is false through omission.
  • The vocabulary of economicsiv classifies food, especially staples such as wheat, as a necessity good, not a luxury good. The economic consequences are well knownv. Greenspan is incorrect.
  • Elastic demand for luxury goods means people buy disproportionately less as their income falls. Demand for food is “inelastic”, which means people have to buy a certain amount even if they are poorvi or if the price is high. The high unit value of wheat for the underfed people in Greenspan’s example is due to the necessity of food (demand) and the apparent lack of it (supply). Greenspan’s characterization of wheat as a luxury for underfed people is false and incorrect.

Therefore, Alan Greenspan presents an incorrect example of a luxury good and defines the common economic term “luxury good” incorrectly.

iPg 97, Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library

iihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods

iiiIbid.

ivhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_good

vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel’s_law

viIbid.

Rand vs Einstein 1.2

Rand disagrees with Einstein.

Rand’s philosophy says on Pg 152, “Man’s knowledge is acquired by… the application of logic to experience… Hence the method man must follow… The method is logic-‘the art of non-contradictory identification’.”

This disagrees with Albert Einstein who said, “There is no logical path leading to [the highly universal laws of science]. They can only be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love of the objects of experience.”

Rand disagrees with Einstein.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for Einsteins statement.

Rand vs S. I. Hayakawa

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents the position of the other side.

Defining the words “intensional” and “extensional” Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action says: “The intensional is the map, the extensional is the territory…. The map is not the territory. The word is not the thing… “ (pg. 19 and 20). Some things only have a definition and no concrete extensional existence, such as… “the mathematical point which has a position but occupies no space and the mathematical circle which is a closed figure in which all points are equidistant from the center… Actual points occupy some space and actual circles are never exactly circular…” (pg 122)

Compared to Rand/Piekoff, Objectivist Epistemology: “By extension of a concept, the theory’s advocates mean the concretes subsumed under that concept.”

When Rand says “concretes subsumed” she means the concrete things observed in the real world which inspired the concept in the first place (pg 21). However, since mathematical points and circles have no concrete extension, concretes cannot be “subsumed” and cannot be the extensional meaning intended by the theories advocates. Therefore, she misrepresents the other side.

And then she says, “by the intension of a concept, they mean those characteristics of the concretes which are stated in the concepts definition…” (pg. 141) However, since geometric points and circles have no concrete characteristics in their definitions, that cannot be the intensional meaning intended by the theories advocates. Again, she misrepresents the other side.

The nature of the misrepresentation is that her premise of concretes is assumed to be a premise the other side shares when it does not.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979 Ch. 2, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

S I Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, Harvest edition, Harcourt Brace & Co, 1992

 

Rand vs David Hume 1.1

Ayn Rand misrepresents Hume, from “Philosophy Who Needs It?[1] Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection, paragraph 10”:

The story so far: According to Hume and deductive logic, inductive logic is uncertain, or “probable” [2]. Because Rand’s epistemology of knowledge and certain truth is, essentially, inductive logic[3]; Hume and deductive logic directly contradict Rand. Drama ensues.

First sentence: “‘Don’t be so sure- nobody can be certain of anything.[4]’”

In the previous chapter, Rand says we “got this from Hume and many, many others”[5]. Despite the quotation marks, she is the actual author. It is a false, incorrect paraphrase of Hume’s Problem of Induction plus an anachronistic paraphrase of Bertrand Russell.

A) “Nobody can be certain of anything.”

  1. “… certain…” Certain refers to a conclusion proven with deductive logic, e.g. 2+2=4 is certain. Certain also means a psychological commitment to a belief, e.g. “I am certain I parked right here!” That is a different topic.
  2. “…Nobody can be certain…” If deductive logic is certain, then people using deductive logic can be certain. Therefore, Rand’s phrase is a) not logical and b) not a paraphrase of Hume.
  3. “Nobody can be certain of anything.” Rand’s phrase is reminiscent of the adolescent emotional hyperbole “you never let me do anything!” and is of similar nature; as though Hume said, “Inductive logic is probable”; to which Rand replied, “You’re saying nobody can be certain of anything!” and then wrote down her own words and said they came from him. Rand’s paraphrase is false.
  4. If Rand is referring to Russell’s Paradox, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory and/or Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory, then her paraphrase is anachronistic and not from Hume.

B) “Don’t be so sure…”

  1. This is an semi-accurate paraphrase of Bertrand Russell: “Do not feel absolutely certain about anything[6]”. The topic is our psychological certainty, which we can choose  to be absolute about. Rand leaves out the “feel” part.
  2. This phrase is not about inductive logic. The uncertainty of inductive logic is not a choice; if that were the topic, the correct word would be “can’t”- “Can’t be so sure”.
  3. Russell said this after Russell’s Paradox, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory and centuries after Hume, therefore Rand’s paraphrase is anachronistic and not from Hume.

Rand presents her straw man as though originating with Hume when it does not. Rand’s straw man misrepresents the issues Hume was concerned with. Rand’s straw man  is false, incorrect emotional hyperbole.

 

 

[1] Rand, Signet, Penguin Group, Penguin books USA 1984

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

[3] Rand For the New Intellectual page 29 Signet, New American Library, 1957

[4] Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg 36 Mentor, New American Library, 1979

[5] Rand, Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 1 Philosophy Who Needs It? p. 4 Signet, Penguin Group, Penguin books USA 1984

[6]https://books.google.com/books?id=dVBpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA553&lpg=PA553&dq=do+not+feel+absolutely+certain+of+anything+Russell&source

Rand vs Richard Dawkins

One difference between Ayn Rand’s selfishness economics and Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene economics is Dawkins’ open acknowledgment of cannibalism.

Dawkins says, “We might suppose intuitively that the runt himself should go on struggling to the last, but the theory does not necessarily predict this… he should give up and preferably let himself be eaten by his litter-mates or his parents.[1]” “Indeed it may pay (the mother) to feed (the runt) to his brothers and sisters, or to eat him herself, and use him to make milk.[2]”

As Dawkins points out, the logical extension of the selfish gene theory is cannibalism; therefore, application of the selfish gene theory to economics would result in an economic system we could call cannibalistic.

For example, the fad economic concept of “lions and gazelles” has a cannibalistic subtext. Supposedly, some among us in the market place are “gazelles” being chased by others of us who are “lions”. In the fable as promulgated by Thomas Friedman, the daily result is infinitely faster lions chasing infinitely faster gazelles[3]. In the version as expressed by Dennis Miller[4], gazelles are eaten by lions.

Abstracting people into make-believe animals is not as horrifying as saying that some people, calling themselves lions, prey on their own kind causing death, starvation and deprivation through economic ruin.

Rand says: “No man or group may initiate the use of force against others.[5]” Rand gives a clear injunction against coercive violence in business dealings. Her injunction by extension prohibits predatory cannibalism. Her invective against leeches, moochers and parasites in altruistic economic systems are anti-cannibal. She calls altruism moral cannibalism, and it seems to be an insult[6].

However, Rand’s restriction of the government to retaliatory action in her laissez-faire system[7] would mean there would be no regulatory monitoring to ensure consent or prevent deception.  She is against any “laws to protect the weak, the uninformed, the unsuspecting and the gullible” (pg. 183,  Philosophy: Who needs it) from the predatory among us.

 

[1] The selfish gene pg 140

[2]The Selfish Gene, pg. 134

[3] Lexus and Olive Tree, what page?

[4] on You Tube

[5] What is capitalism pg 19

[6] The objectivist ethics, pg 30, The Virtue of Selfishness

[7] What is capitalism pg 19

Rand vs Bertrand Russell 1.1a

Rand’s argument against Russell is not rational.

“… the disastrous, paralyzing, stultifying consequences are the greatest single cause of mankind’s intellectual erosion… As an illustration, observe what Bertrand Russell was able to perpetrate because people thought they ‘kinda knew’ the meaning of the concept ‘number’.” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Pg 66 and 67).

Rand accuses Russell of perpetrating something. “Perpetrate” means to commit a crime or violent act. That is not what Bertrand Russell did. Rand presents the false premise that Russell’s work in mathematics and logic was foisted on an uneducated public instead of being evaluated by mathematicians. That is not true. What Rand calls an example of the greatest single cause of mankind’s intellectual erosion is cited by many as one of the foundations of modern mathematics – Russell’s Paradox.

Rand cannot disprove Russell’s logic, so she resorts to ad hominem attack. Rand’s argument against Russell is not rational.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/plato.stanford.edu is my immediate source on Russell, but any error in paraphrasing is my own.

Rand’s philosophy supports unemployment compensation

Rand states profitable businesses require people to be unemployed, yet applying for jobs: “that business concern requires the availability of more than one applicant for any job – that if only one applicant existed … the business concern would have to close its doors”[1].

Rand says this is justice: “… giving value for value… the principle of trade… is justice” [2]

If a person’s unemployment is a service of value which keeps a business open, separate from the value of being employed, then that service should be paid for separately as well, according to Rand’s philosophy. By the same reasoning, maintenance of a national pool of unemployed should be paid for.

Therefore, Rand’s philosophy supports unemployment compensation.

 

 

 

[1] The Virtue of Selfishness, The “Conflicts” of Men’s Interests Pg. 56

[2] The Virtue of Selfishness, The Objectivist Ethics, pg 31 .

Rand proves I don’t exist.

Rand’s philosophy proves there is no word for “me”.

According to Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism:

Pg 12: Every word we use… …is a symbol that denotes a concept…

Pg 11: A concept is a mental integration of two or more units…

Pg 7: A unit is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members.

Pg 6: …an “existent” – something which exists.

According to Rand’s philosophy, there must be two of anything before we can have a concept of it or a word for it. Therefore, according to her philosophy, there can be no words for single things.

For example, there is only one of me. There is only one sky. There is only one sun and one moon. None of these things could have a word or a concept according to Rand’s philosophy until another sun, moon, sky or me was discovered. Then only the similarities would be the basis of a concept or word (Pg. 17). My individuality would not be part of that concept.

Therefore, Rand proves “I” do not exist.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, New American Library, Mentor edition, 1979.

 

Rand contradicts herself 1.7 (Rand vs Science 1.8)

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents falsification with an inconsistent argument.

Falsification tries to identify and observe any possible evidence which contradicts the predictions of a theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Rand’s philosophy rejects the Positivist process of falsification, pg. 159, claiming it requires us to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

Yet, on Pg. 77, Rand identifies the contrary of any concept as being all other concepts – “the contrary of the concept “table” – a non-table- is every other kind of existent”.

The argument against falsification is inconsistent with her general point. If she knows any concept then she knows what is the contrary; just as the Positivist knows what evidence will contradict a theory’s prediction. The argument is inconsistent with her example of the table, where non-tables don’t have to be specifically identified in impossible circumstances.

Rand’s argument is inconsistent. Rand contradicts herself.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs Science 1.7

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents the Positivist practice of falsification. Rand’s argument against falsification is illogical and false.

The Positivist process of falsification evaluates propositions by trying to identify and observe evidence of corroboration and contradiction. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ )

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, pg. 159, saying it requires us to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

A) To say a contradictory circumstance is impossible is to say the proposition is true before it is tested. That argument is not logical.

B) The Positivist process of falsification is to identify contradictory evidence which is possible to be observed. If impossible circumstances were knowingly invented, there would be no need (or funding) to try to observe it. Rand’s argument is false.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs Science 1.6

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents Positivism.

The Positivist process of falsification evaluates statements by trying to identify and observe contrary evidence. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ )

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, Pg 159 and 160, calling it a “way of invalidating all of human knowledge”, describing falsification as “For instance, the proposition ‘Cats give birth only to kittens’ is empirically falsifiable because one can invent experiences that would refute it, such as the spectacle of tiny elephants emerging from a cat’s womb.” and “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

Rand’s argument relies on misrepresentation and emotionalism. It is not necessary to invent specific comical tiny elephants. A Positivist would say the proposition “Cats give birth only to kittens” is false if we see something else happen. Nothing gets invented.

Rand, herself, uses this same process on Pg. 77, where Rand identifies the contrary of any concept as being all other concepts, using as an example: “the contrary of the concept “table” – a non-table – is every other kind of existent”. If someone tells us there is a table, we know the statement is false if we see something else. Nothing gets invented.

Since Positivism does not require the invention of a set of impossibilities, Rand misrepresents Positivism.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand contradicts herself 1.6 (Rand vs Science 1.5)

By disagreeing with Positivist philosophy, Rand’s philosophy disagrees with itself.

Rand’s logical process identifies statements as being true or false by first observing the world around us, then identifying what we observe as being either contradictory or non-contradictory to the statement.

On Pg. 77, Rand identifies the contrary of any concept as being all other concepts we observe – “the contrary of the concept “table” – a non-table- is every other kind of existent”. And on Pg 152, “In reality, contradictions cannot exist; in a cognitive process, a contradiction is the proof of an error. Hence the method man must follow: to identify the facts he observes, in a non-contradictory manner. The method is logic-‘the art of non-contradictory identification’.”

The Positivist process of falsification evaluates statements by trying to identify and observe contrary evidence. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/) Falsified is the same as contradicted. The process of observation, evaluation and classification are the same for both Positivist and Objectivist.

But Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, Pg 159 and 160, calling it an “inversion” and a “way of invalidating all of human knowledge.”

If Positivist falsification by observation is incorrect, then Rand’s observation of contradiction must be incorrect.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs Science 1.4

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents Positivism.

The Positivist process of falsification tries to identify and observe any possible evidence which contradicts the predictions of a theory, especially “predictions which are ‘risky’ (in the sense of being intuitively implausible or of being startlingly novel) and experimentally testable”. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, pg. 159, claiming it requires us to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

“Risky, implausible and novel” are not the same as impossible. Their predictions must be testable, therefore not impossible. Her argument is false and misrepresents Positivism.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for the quotes and my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs. Science 1.3

 

Rand’s argument against Positivism is false.

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, saying on pg. 159 that falsification is to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

According to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ , The Positivist process of falsification evaluates theories by how well they predict what we then observe. If what we observe contradicts the prediction then the theory is falsified.

A) Since what we observe is a fact of experience, facts of experience are not being evaded. Rand’s argument is false.

B) Since the observed facts will be used to confirm or contradict the proposition, facts are not being contradicted by the proposition. Cart before the horse. Rand’s argument is false.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs Science 1.1

Rand uses a false argument to disagree with modern scientific methods.

Rand, For the New Intellectual, Pg 34-35: The scientist was offered the combined neo-mystic Witch-doctory and Attila-ism of the Logical Positivists. They assured him that… …the task of thoretical science is the manipulation of symbols, and scientists are the special elite whose symbols have the magic power of making reality conform to their will (“matter is that which fits mathematical equations”)…

Stephen Hawking The Universe in a Nutshell Pg. 31: .. According to (the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others), scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make… and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test. On the other hand, if observations disagree with the predictions, one has to… discard… the theory.

Rand misrepresents Positivism as bending reality to fit the math, while Hawking states observations are the criteria by which the math is judged. Rand’s argument is false.

Rand suggests scientists believe their symbols have magical powers. Contemporary scientists do not believe that. Rand’s argument is emotional and not rational.

Hawking cites Karl Popper, a member of the Vienna School which developed Positivism. Rand quotes herself to define Positivism; but does not say so, which makes a false impression she is quoting an actual Positivist. Rand’s argument is sophistry.

While Popper’s version of Positivism is not in all ways like Logical Positivism, the issues addressed here and cited by Rand are the same.

Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, Signet Book, New American Library, 1961

Stephen Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, Bantam Books, Random House, 2001

 

Close analysis 1.4

The close reading of the beginning of the Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness continues:

Sentence 8: “Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of ‘selfishness’ is: concern with ones own interest.”

  • Her statement is false. That is not the exact meaning.
  • Her statement is false. That is not the definition in the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, which is “regard for one’s own interest or happiness to the disregard of the well-being of others.”
  • Leaving out half the definition is a lie by omission.
  • She is setting up a straw man, to create a false choice.

Sentence 9: “This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests.”

Sentence 10: “It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.”

  • Abstract concepts do not perform tasks. It is the task of people to answer such questions, and those answers are called ethics. Cart before horse.

Sentence 11: “The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one’s own interests is evil, regardless of what these interest might be, and (b) that the brute’s activities are in fact to one’s own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).”

There are several statements in this sentence, all of which are false.

  • She states the image of a selfish person killing others for personal gain is “created”, thus fictional; when daily news, the history of mankind and personal experience lead rational people to accept that there are such people in the world.
  • She states the image of the brute is a deliberate rhetorical trick to mislead; when there is no evidence of that and none is presented.
  • She states the “Ethics of altruism” create, answers and makes men accept; when abstract concepts don’t “do” anything. People do things.
  • She states Altruist tenets are that concern for one’s own interest is evil, no matter what that interest is. But, since Altruism is a Christian philosophy concerned with benefits to the personal soul after death through salvation for good works, concern for one’s own interest is what prompts Altruism and therefore cannot be evil in that system.
  • When Rand leaves out the fact that Altruism is a Christian belief, she is lying through omission.
  • She states Altruism accepts her position that selfishness is in fact to one’s own interest; when Altruism considers the long term effect of selfish behavior as counter-productive for the selfish person.
  • She states renunciation is for the sake of neighbors; when it is for the sake of one’s own soul.

Now that Rand has set up two straw men with her false definition of selfishness and her misrepresentation of the Christian philosophy of Altruism, she uses them as though they are the only ethical options for us. That false choice drives the rest of her philosophic argument.

(Analysis of sentence 11 has been previously published)

Close Analysis 1.3 One sentence, seven false statements

From the Introduction to “The Virtue of Selfishness” by Ayn Rand.

Sentence 11: “The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one’s own interests is evil, regardless of what these interest might be, and (b) that the brute’s activities are in fact to one’s own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).”

There are several statements in this sentence, all of which are false.

  • She states the image of a selfish person killing others for personal gain is fictional; when daily news, the history of mankind and personal experience lead rational people to accept that there are such people in the world.
  • She states the image of the brute is a deliberate rhetorical trick to mislead; when there is no evidence of that and none is presented.
  • She states the “Ethics of altruism” create, answers and makes men accept; when abstract concepts don’t “do” anything. People do things.
  • She states Altruist tenets are that concern for one’s own interest is evil, no matter what that interest is. But, since Altruism is a Christian philosophy concerned with benefits to the personal soul after death through salvation for good works, concern for one’s own interest is what prompts Altruism and therefore cannot be evil in that system.
  • When Rand leaves out the fact that Altruism is a Christian belief, she is lying through omission.
  • She states Altruism accepts her position that selfishness is in fact to one’s own interest; when Altruism considers the long term effect of selfish behavior as counter-productive for the selfish person.
  • She states renunciation is for the sake of neighbors; when it is for the sake of one’s own soul.

Close analysis 1.2 Intro to The Virtue of Selfishness

Sentences 5 through 8[1]:

Sentence 5:

“This is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice.”

  • She introduces the words “mere” and “arbitrary”. These words are used frequently by Rand to impart disparagement.
  • She disparages “semantics” because it implies choice in language use, contrary to her philosophy that language is a mechanical translation of sensory data[2].
  • She disparages “choice” because it implies there is more to words and concepts than the mechanical mental processing of sensory data. As she says, “This does not meant the content of concepts depends on an individual’s subjective (arbitrary) choice. The only issue open to an individual’s choice in this matter is how much knowledge he will seek to acquire… …of the facts of reality.”[3]

Sentence 6:

“The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word ‘selfishness’ is not merely wrong; it represents an intellectual ‘package-deal’ which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.”

  • She believes all of mankind are morally arrested.
  • She believes the way most people speak English is wrong.
  • Her topic is the most important factor affecting all mankind’s moral problem.

Sentence 7:

“In popular usage, the word “selfishness “ is a synonym of evil: the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.”

  • She creates a straw man by using an extreme example. Suppose the example of “selfishness” for most people was: a foolish child who ruins the birthday party by eating all the cake. The rhetorical argument would be necessarily different.
  • She uses repellant imagery which arouses strong emotional response- “murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses’’
  • She ascribes the repellant imagery to other people, the “popular usage”. She is as shocked as you are…
  • She packs the sentence with negatively charged words- “evil, murderous, brute, tramples, corpses, no, nothing, mindless..”
  • She continues to denigrate choice as “the mindless whims of any immediate moment”.

Sentence 8:

“Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word ‘selfishness’ is: concern with one’s own interests.” (italics in original)

  • The Oxford Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language has a different definition of that word[4]. Her statement is false.
  • The “dictionary” definition of any word is a documentation of the historical popular usage of that word[5]. When Rand draws a distinction between popular usage and a dictionary definition she is making an error.
  • No English word has an “exact meaning”[6], contrary to Rand’s philosophy wherein all words have a one-to-one meaning with an objective sensory data point[7].
  • When Rand claims a word’s exact meaning in her philosophy and the word’s dictionary definition in the real world are the same thing, she is making an false claim.

To sum up the first eight sentences:

Rand refers to herself twice. She refers to other people 15 times:

People who question her- three times. Then people who are antagonized, people who fear her words, people who are moral cowards, people who cannot formulate ideas, people who cannot identify profound moral issues, people with arrested moral development, people who define “selfishness” incorrectly, a murderous brute, corpses, no living being, a person with ends, a person with interests.

10 of the 15 references to other people are negative. Five are neutral. None are positive. Four of the five neutral references are associated with a negative reference, e.g. a questioner (neutral) is also a moral coward (negative).

Rand makes one objective statement which is false.

[1] Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction, pg. vii

[2] Intro to Objective Epistemology pg 11

[3] Intro to Objective Epistemology pg 56

[4] Oxford Unabridged

[5] Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, pg. 34, 35.

[6] ibid

[7] Intro to Objective Epistemology pg 56

Talking to Rand Fans 1.3A

Introduction, The Virtue of Selfishness, Sentences 1 through 4i:

In Rand’s first four sentences are elements of Rand’s rhetoric which can be found throughout the Objectivist canon. Rand’s rhetoric may affect a Rand Fan’s ability to converse with other people.

Sentence One: “The title of this book might evoke the type of question that I hear once in a while, ‘why do you use the word “selfishness” to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people for whom it does not mean the things you mean?’”

  • Rand introduces the first strong, negative emotion, “antagonizes”.
  • Rand tells us that she is important. People ask her questions. Her words cause strong reactions in the general public. “So many people” are “antagonized”; instead of puzzled. Or dismissive.
  • Rand has been told that her definition of “selfishness” is different than most English speakers.
  • Rand is aware that her use of words is not emotionally neutral.
  • Rand’s world is a world of conflict. There are so many antagonists out there.
  • The population of this sentence is Rand, several questioners, the many people who have been antagonized and the reader. There is no single individual in Rand’s rhetoric. It’s crowds of people.

Sentence Two: “To those who ask it, my answer is, ‘For the same reason you fear it.’”

  • She introduces another strong, negative emotion in the second sentence, “fear”.
  • She makes an accusation based on a ridiculous assumption. Who reading the phrase “Virtue of Selfishness” felt fear? Nobody. It is purely a product of Rand’s rhetoric.
  • Since nobody felt fear, there is no way to know what reason she is talking about. We are more in the dark than when we started.
  • She says she is deliberately antagonizing people.
  • Rand claims to be responding to people’s questions. She  didn’t start this.

Sentence Three: “But there are others who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, but who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved.”

  • She introduces more people.
  • She introduces a third strong, negative emotion in the third sentence, “cowardice”.
  • She makes an accusation of moral cowardice for simply asking what she means.
  • Her new characters are not capable of “formulating” or “identifying” what Rand is talking about. Rand is saying that these folks are without the necessary intellectual ability to understand her profound issues and clever reasoning. Or she is saying that she is incomprehensible, but that is unlikely.
  • These new people aren’t using rational thought, but “sensing” things accurately- seemingly in contradiction to Rand’s philosophy of rationality.
  • Rand’s new friends agree that questions are for cowards.
  • If these people do not ask questions and cannot verbalize her reasoning or discuss the issue, Rand cannot know they sense cowardice; and she cannot deduce an inability to formulate or identify from their silence. Perhaps they are fictional.
  • She claims her choice of words is due to a “profound” moral issue; reminding us that she is an intellectual, plumbing depths others cannot formulate or identify.

Sentence Four: “It is to them I will give a more explicit answer.”

•     She deigns to inform the stupid, but not the cowards. The ignorant people and the cowardly evaders show up repeatedly in Objectivist material. The premise of her philosophy is that it is objectively true, meaning you can see it. Therefore, everybody already agrees with Ayn Rand; except through lack of knowledge or suicidal pretense. There is no other reason for questioning Rand, for it is simply not possible to have any other concept of reality. “Only through ignorance or evasion can a man project such an alternative.”ii

Summing up the first four sentences: In a barrage of emotions and accusations, Rand has just told us what she thinks of people who question her. If you ask a Rand Fan questions, they have already been told you are a moral coward and an antagonist. Or you are ignorant and inarticulate. If the conversation doesn’t go well, maybe one of the reasons is Ayn Rand’s rhetoric.

For sentences five through eight, please see “Talking to Rand Fans 1.3A, B, and C.”

ipg. vii, The Virtue of Selfishness Introduction, Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1964

iipg. 157, Piekoff, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library 1967

Rand untruth 1.2

Ayn Rand’s incorrect definition leads to an error in logic, which makes her ethics a false choice.

Rand defines selfishness as “concern with one’s own interest”[1]. The form of this statement is “selfishness = (A)”. She gives us the mutually exclusive opposite choice of altruism. Altruism is (non-A). She puts it as a choice between black and white[2], as well as between good and evil. It is two-valued, Aristotle logic.

This conflicts with the form of her definition of altruism when she says “altruism claims ‘action taken for the benefit of others is good, while action taken for the benefit of one’s self is evil’”[3]. The form of this definition is “altruism = (B + not-A)”. In other words, if self benefit is (A) then benefit for others (B) is distinct from the prohibition of self benefit (not-A).

Altruism is (B) or (not-A) in some of her definitions and (B + not-A) in another definition. It cannot be all three. She is in contradiction of herself.

Rand falls into contradiction because she has given only half the definition of the word “selfishness”. The full definition of selfishness in the Oxford Unabridged is: concern for one’s own interest to the exclusion of concern for the interests of others[4].

The form of the full definition is “selfishness = (A + not-B)”. This form is consistent with her definition of “altruism = (B + not-A)”.

Both full definitions have two variables: one’s own interest (A) and the interests of others (B). Those variables each have two possible states: care or not-care. Therefore the situation has four possible permutations to choose from:

(A + B): Care for self and also care for others at the same time;

(not-A + not-B): Not care about self, nor care for others (nihilist);

(not-A + B): Not care for self and only care for others (altruist);

(A + not-B): Only care for self, while not caring for others (selfish).

Ayn Rand presents the choice as between selfishness and altruism only. Some would see that as two-valued, some as Aristotle’s. Because she brings up good and evil, some would call it Manichaeism.  Regardless, it is a false choice.

Her erroneous logic arises from her incorrect definition. Her incorrect definition is an untruth due to omission.

(Altruism is a non-A morality promulgated by “the Witch Doctor” in For the New Intellectual, pg 17 & 18, Signet edition, New American Library)

 

[1] The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction

[2] The Cult of Moral Grayness

[3]  The Cult of Moral Grayness

[4] oxford unabridged

Rand contradicts herself 1.5

Ayn Rand’s philosophy contradicts her economic theory.

Ayn Rand asserts that capitalism has never existed.i Economic systems in her history have all been “statist” (for the state).ii She calls some of these statist economies “mixed” because capital investment played a part:

  • “Thus what existed in practice in the nineteenth century was not pure capitalism but variously mixed economies… … it was the statist element of the mixtures that wrecked them; it was the free capitalist element that took the blameiii
  • “It must be remembered that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies. The element of freedom however was dominantiv…
  • when the repressive element of England’s mixed economy grew…”v

Rand is dividing the observed characteristics of an economic system into two groups. She claims one group of characteristics to be the separate concept of “capitalism”; excluding the other characteristics.

However, her philosophy says not to do that : “Observe that concepts mean existents, not arbitrarily selected portions of existents. There is no basis whatever… … for a division of the characteristics of a concept’s units into two groups one of which is excluded from the concepts meaning”vi.

She violates her own philosophy.

iCapitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library 1967

iiThe Roots of War, Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

iiiWhat is Capitalism? Pg 31, Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

ivThe Roots of War pg 38. Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

vThe Roots of War pg 39 Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

viThe Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy pg 133, Leonard Piekoff, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library 1967

Rand contradicts herself 1.4

Ayn Rand’s philosophy invalidates her concept of capitalism.

On the one hand, according to Rand’s philosophy, “There are invalid concepts, i.e. words… without referents…”[1] In Rand’s philosophy, a word without a referent is a word without a real world example.

On the other hand, according to Rand’s economic history, capitalism has “never yet existed”[2]. There is no real world example of capitalism according to Rand.

Capitalism has no referent, therefore it is an invalid concept according to Rand’s philosophy.

According to Rand’s philosophy, “An invalid concept invalidates every proposition or process of thought in which it is used as a cognitive assertion.[3]”

Therefore, all of Rand’s propositions and processes of thought regarding capitalism are invalidated by her own philosophy.

 

[1] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, Pg 65

[2] The Objectivist Ethics pg 33. Also Atlas Shrugged.

[3] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, Pg 65

Rand contradicts herself 1.3

Rand’s concept of capitalism is overly broad according to her philosophy.

According to Rand’s philosophy, “The requirements of cognition forbid the arbitrary integration of concepts into a wider concept by means of obliterating their essential differences[1]”

She gives the example of running. Running is a characteristic. Running is not an entity in and of itself. People run. In her philosophy, classifying running people, running clocks and running stockings together as “running things” is an error because it makes the action of running the “higher order concept” over the entities with that characteristic .[2]

According to her, the consequence of this error is “the panic of facing an immense, undifferentiated chaos of unintelligible data – which means: the regression of an adult mind to the perceptual level of awareness, to the helpless terror of primitive man.”[3]

A business structure of capital investment is an activity characteristic of people in just the way running is. It is one of many very different activities in an economic system, which is one system among many in a society of very different people.

Rand proposes the capitalist attribute to be the entire economic system. By obliterating essential differences, she imagines a capitalist legal system, a capitalist medical system and a new entity, the capitalist state[4]; not merely operating on capitalist principles, but existing only as a function of capitalism. The state would be an attribute of the capitalist ideal.

Rand’s proposal is that the concept of capitalism is the higher order concept above the entities which have that characteristic. That is a violation of her philosophy.

 

[1] Page 95 the cognitive role of concepts

[2] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology pg 95

[3] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology pg 95

[4] The Virtue of Selfishness, The Nature of Government

An irrational statement by Ayn Rand

An irrational and ungrammatical statement by Ayn Rand from “Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection” (excerpt):

“…if nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of everything he pleases…[1]”

Seeing Rand’s logical error is easy by replacing the adverbial clause: “If nobody is anywhere, then everybody is nowhere” would be correct. “If nobody is anywhere, then everybody is everywhere” would be incorrect. Try to imagine everybody everywhere at the same time nobody is anywhere. Not possible.

In the same way, when Rand makes “everybody can be certain of everything” out of “nobody can be certain of anything”, she is committing a logical and grammatical mistake. “If nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of nothing” would be correct.

Her irrational statement is part of an irrational paragraph, which will be presented in the next post.

[1] “Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection” pg 14. Signet, Penguin Books, 1984.

Rand is untruthful 1.1

Ayn Rand says, “… the exact meaning and dictionary definition of ‘selfishness’ is: concern with one’s own interests”[1].

The Oxford Unabridged says selfishness is: “concern for one’s own interest to the exclusion of concern for the interests of others[2].

The definition provided by Rand is not the exact meaning. That was an untrue statement.

Her claim to present the “dictionary definition” is false. There is no one official dictionary definition of any word.

Her claim to present the “dictionary definition” is unsupported. She does not footnote her claim.

Her claim to present the “dictionary definition” is demonstrably false. Her definition is not the definition in the Oxford Unabridged.

Because her definition provides only half the full meaning, her definition of selfishness is an untruth by omission.

 

[1] The Virtue of Selfishness, Intro

[2] oxford unabridged

Rand vs unemployment 1.1

Rand states profitable businesses require people to be unemployed, yet applying for jobs: “that business concern requires the availability of more than one applicant for any job – that if only one applicant existed … the business concern would have to close its doors”[1].

On a national level, what Rand is talking about is the supposed need for an economy to maintain unemployment rates around 6 percent. One reason businesses close their doors is that banks stop investing when national unemployment gets too low.

On the other hand, Rand also says “is a man a sovereign individual who owns his… work…? Or is he the property of the… tribe… that may… control his work…?[2]” and “a man has the right to support his life by his own work… the right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him”[3]  and “no man’s rights may be left at the mercy of the unilateral decision, the arbitrary choice… of another man.[4]”

If unemployment is necessary for businesses to be profitable, the businesses should pay for unemployment.

Rand’s tribe of investors prevents employment. Businesses want to hire, people want to work, but the investment community decided otherwise. Therefore, unemployment should be compensated for by those who cause it and profit by it.

 

[1] Virtue of Selfishness, The conflicts of men’s interests Pg. 56

[2] Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, What is capitalism? Pg 18

[3] Virtue of Selfishness, Man’s rights. Pg 97

[4] The virtue of selfishness, The nature of government Pg 111

Talking to Rand fans 1.2

If you are talking to a serious Ayn Rand fan (called an Objectivist) and they get angry for no apparent reason, maybe it’s because Ayn Rand called you an evil liar.

She explains to her fans that people can have (A) correct mental concepts which “… may be a product of genius, perceptiveness, ingenuityi” or (B) wrong mental concepts, which “may be a product of stupidity, deception, malice, evil…”.ii

(A) Correct mental concepts, such as Rand’s ethicsiii

  1. are logically derived from the objective reality we see around usiv, by “observing the differences and similarities of the existents… From a child’s grasp of the simplest concept… to a scientist’s grasp of the most complex abstractionsv.” .
  2. Everybody applies the same logic to the same reality, so all our concepts must be the same; “even if the scope of his knowledge is modest and the content of his concepts is primitive, it will not contradict the content of the same concepts in the mind of the most advanced scientists.”vi
  3. It is not possible to disagree, for “a man cannot conceive the opposite of a proposition he knows to be true… vii.

(B) People who contradict Rand have wrong mental concepts, which happen in two ways:

  • “… (a) human errors of knowledge or (b) human errors of evil.”viii
  • “…only (a) ignorance or (b) evasion can enable a man to attempt to project such an alternative”ix,
  • “… (a) he can make innocent errors through lack of knowledge, or (b) he can lie, cheat and fakex”.

(a) If you think you disagree with Rand, Objectivists generously first assume that you are ignorant or stupid. The ignorant are innocent, because “errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality”xi.
(b) If you demonstrate knowledge of the issues and show you are not ignorant, Objectivists realize you agree with Rand, as does everybody from child to scientist; yet you deliberately refuse. You are liars, cheats, fakes and evaders.

  1. “…if he evades the facts of the issue and struggles not to know, morally, he is as black as they come.xii” .
  2. “The source of all his evils… not blindness, but the refusal to see. Not ignorance, but the refusal to know.xiii”
  3. “…rationality is a matter of choice.. the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animalxiv”.

So if an Objectivist gets angry, maybe it’s because you are ignorant and stupid; or you secretly agree with Ayn Rand and deliberately choose to evade reality because you are suicidal; and/or you secretly agree and you are lying because you are evil.

Footnotes:

i Philosophy who needs it pg 27. There are three different kinds of concepts in Rand’s philosophy. This essay deals only with the first two types. 1) Concepts about the natural world; 2) subsequent logically derived “man-made” concepts such as justice, capitalism, math, science and Rand’s philosophy; and 3) arbitrary man-made concepts such as national borders or the number of states in the Union.

ii Philosophy who needs it pg 27.

iii Pg 28 Philosophy Who Needs It? The Objcectivist Ethics, The Virtue of Selfishness pg. 14 et al.

iv Pg 62 Philosophy Who Needs It? ch. 7

v Pg 55 Intro to Epist Chpt 5 Definitions.

vi Pg 56 Intro to Epist Chpt 5 Definitions.

vii Piekoff, Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy pg 157 Intro to Epistemology

viii Rational life in an irrational society? Pg 73 The Virtue of Selfishness

ix Piekoff, Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy pg 157 Intro to Epistemology

x Pg 27 Philosophy Who Needs It?

xi The cult of moral grayness pg 76 The Virtue of Selfishness

xii The cult of moral grayness pg 76 The Virtue of Selfishness

xiii That’s a really good quote. I can’t find right now. I stand by it.

xiv Objectivist ethics: Pg 23 The Virtue of Selfishness

Ayn Rand contradicts herself 1.2

Ayn Rand’s concept of capitalism violates the rules of her philosophy.

In Rand’s philosophy, mental concepts must be observed in the real world. What we observe are the characteristics of the concept, what she calls an “existent”. We can’t take part of what we see and make the part into a new concept:

“Nor can the concept of an existent mean its characteristics (some or all) apart from the existent which possesses them. A characteristic is an aspect of an existent. It is not a disembodied Platonic universal[1]…”

Rand says that her concept of capitalism has never existed in the real world[2]. Rand says her concept of capitalism is an “Unknown Ideal”[3], which is a term referring to a disembodied Platonic universal. She says her concept of capitalism is based on elements of other economic systems which have existed[4]; which means she parted characteristics from real things to create her ideal.

Therefore she is in violation of her philosophy.

 

 

 

[1] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology: The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy pg 143

[2] The Virtue of Selfishness:  The Objectivist Ethics pg 33.

[3] Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

[4] The Virtue of Selfishness: The Objectivist Ethics pg 33. Capitalism: The unknown ideal: The Roots of War pg. 39

Alan Greenspan 1.1

Greenspan makes a false equivalency and misuses common economic terms.

1: “Desires for luxuries are unlimited, therefore luxuries are always in demand”i.

Greenspan draws a false equivalency between “desire” and “demand”. “Desire” is an emotional “wish” for something. “Demand” is a technical term of economics which means someone has both desire and the ability to pay a price for something. A person, or society, may desire luxuries and yet not be able to pay, therefore no demand.

2: “Luxuries are always in demand”.

Greenspan’s conclusion contradicts the definition of luxury good. The demand for a luxury good, by definition, is elastic. Poor people don’t buy luxury goods, therefore luxuries are not always in demand. “Always in demand” is the definition of a “necessity good”. It’s as if Greenspan is saying luxuries are necessity goods, which is incorrect.

Alan Greenspan makes a false equivalency between “desire” and “demand”, and misuses the economic terms “demand” and “luxury”.

Pg 97, Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan, in Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand Signet Books, New American Library

 

i

Rand vs Hume 1.2

Ayn Rand vs. David Hume 1.2 (special guest star- Bertrand Russell)

The story so far: Rand is attempting to debunk Hume’s Problem of Induction. In the first sentence she created a straw man, a purported paraphrase of Hume (analyzed in previous post). In the second sentence of the paragraph, Rand tries to refute her straw man.[1]

Sentence #1, her straw man:     “‘Don’t be so sure- nobody can be certain of anything.’”

Sentence #2, her refutation:       “Bertrand Russell’s gibberish to the contrary notwithstanding, that pronouncement includes itself; therefore one cannot be sure one cannot be sure of anything.”

  • “Bertrand Russell’s gibberish…” Rand is referring to Nobel Prize Winner Bertrand Russell and Russell’s Paradox- considered by many to be one of the foundations of Modern Mathematics, Set Theory and Logic[2]. Rand sums up his work as “gibberish”; but provides no logical or mathematical refutation, missing out on a Nobel Prize.
  • “…to the contrary notwithstanding, that pronouncement includes itself…”. Russell’s Paradox agrees that “nobody can be certain of anything” includes itself. Self-inclusive statements are what Russell’s Paradox is about. Rand’s claim of contradiction is false.
  • “…therefore one cannot be sure one cannot be sure of anything”. Rand arrives at Russell’s Paradox but, rather than recognizing an axiom of logic, she thinks she can use it to disprove the first sentence.
  • Rand defeats her own position by ignoring Russell’s Paradox. For if by her logic the first sentence means that one cannot be sure one cannot be sure, then the sentence also means Rand cannot be sure that one cannot be sure one cannot be sure. Rand demonstrates that we can’t use the self-inclusive statement in a logical structure without contradiction. Therefore, Rand corroborates Russell’s Paradox which she just called “gibberish”. She is wrong twice with the same words.

Rand fails to refute her own straw man and fails to rebut Hume.

 

[1] Ayn Rand, Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 2: Philosphical Detection, paragraph 10 pg 16 Signet Penguin Books

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

The rape scene in The Fountainhead (Ayn Rand and Sex 1.1)

WARNING: Explicit content. Graphic description of Rape.

Ayn Rand’s The Fountainheadi has a unique take on male/female relationships. Here is Dominique Falcone’s first sexual experience. She is with the hero, Howard Roark. This is the beginning of their book-long romance:

“… she felt the blood beating in her throat, in her eyes, the hatred, the helpless terror in her blood. She felt the hatred… She fought in a last convulsion. Then the sudden pain shot up… …and she screamed. Then she lay still.

It was an act that could be performed in tenderness, as a seal of love, or in contempt, as a symbol of humiliation and conquest. It could be the act of a lover or the act of a soldier violating an enemy woman. He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement. And this made her lie still and submit. One gesture of tenderness from him- and she would have remained cold, untouched by the thing done to her body. But the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted.”

This is not a scene of consensual “play” between two loving equals.  The feelings are hatred and fear, scorn and contempt.

Later, Dominique describes the eventii, “He didn’t ask my consent. He raped me. That’s how it began.” After that, they only have sex when she is cheating on her husbands; until the end of the book, when the two unite.

It is important to note that the hero of this rape scene is, in Rand’s wordsiii, “an ideal man” and the story is a “presentation of a moral ideal”.

Pg 217 The Fountainhead, Signet, Penguin Books, 1952

Pg 671 ibid

Introduction, ibid.

i

ii

iii

Talking to Rand fans 1.1

Do you find it difficult to talk to serious Ayn Rand fans, called “Objectivists”? Maybe something Rand wrote explains why.

Here Rand describes the qualities an Objectivist should bring to bear and the type of conversation they are having: “Drop the… ‘open mind’”, she counsels. “An active mind… reaches firm convictions and holds to them…. an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants- a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear… . you will learn to recognize at a glance a given theory’s stand… and to reject the attacks without lengthy considerationi.”

The conversation is not a learning opportunity for the Objectivist, for whom she predicts “every challenge you examine will strengthen your convictions”ii and “your ideological enemies will make you invulnerable by providing countless demonstrations of their own impotence.”iii

Rand warns her fans about you. You are an assailant. You are the enemy. You are attacking them, but they are invulnerable; for you are impotent and they hold their firm convictions. Their certainty is untainted.  Their goal is to reject your challenge, to not examine your position beyond what it takes to identify it. She reassures them that they are without fear. When the confrontation is over, they expect to be more convinced they are right than when they started.

If that description differs from the conversation you thought you were having, perhaps that is one reason for the difficulty.

i Pg 21, ch 2, Philosophy, Who Needs It? By Ayn Rand. Signet edition, Penguin Books 1984

ii Pg 21 ibid

iii Pg 22 ibid

Ayn Rand contradicts herself 1.1

Ayn Rand claims her economic and political theories about capitalism are based on her philosophyi. But, according to the rules of her philosophy, her concept of capitalism is false.

According to her philosophy of Objectivist Epistemology, our mental concepts are the things which we observe in the real world. For example, our concept “table” is true only if we observe a real table. If we cannot see a table, we do not have a concept of it. If someone claims to have the concept “table” without observing a real table, their statement is false and so is their conceptii.

On the other hand, according to Ayn Rand’s economic theory, capitalism is an “unknown ideal”iii which has “never yet existed”iv. In her economic theory all the economic systems which have existed are called “statist”v.

Logically, according to her premises: if capitalism is unknown, then capitalism cannot have been observed and Rand’s concept of capitalism cannot be true.

Therefore, Rand’s concept of capitalism is false according to the criteria of her philosophy.

 

iThe Objectivist Ethics

iiIntro. to Obj. Ep. pg. 54

iiiCapitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Title

ivThe Objectivist Ethics, Pg. 33

vThe Roots of War, Pg 35 and on.

Rand vs David Hume 1.4

A phrase by phrase analysis of the final sentence of paragraph 10, Chapter 2: “Philosophical Detection” from “Philosophy Who Needs It?” by Ayn Randi.

The story so far: Rand has been trying to refute David Hume, based on the following straw man: ‘Don’t be so sure- nobody can be certain of anything.’ ‘Don’t be so sure’ refers to the choice of psychological uncertainty and ‘nobody can be certain of anything’ refers to the absolute uncertainty of inductive logic, per Hume.

Final sentence: “Furthermore, if one tried to accept that catch phrase, one would find that its second part contradicts its first: if nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of everything he pleases- since it cannot be refuted, and he can claim he is not certain he is certain (which is the purpose of that notion)ii.”

Phrase by phrase analysis:

“its second part contradicts its first:”

  • Rand asserts the general premise “nobody can be certain” regarding logical uncertainty is contradictory to the personal imperative “don’t be so sure” regarding psychological uncertainty, but no evidence will be presented. The rest of her sentence following the colon is a different topic.

“if nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of everything he pleases”

  • Rand’s assertion is irrational and grammatically flawed. “If nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of nothing” would be correct.

“certain of everything he pleases”

  • “Certain of everything he pleases” refers to the object of certainty, “Don’t be so sure” refers to the subjective attitude, while “nobody can be certain” refers to whether certainty itself is logically possible. Rand is confusing apples, oranges and grapefruit.
  • This does not explain how “nobody can be certain” could contradict “ don’t be so sure”. Rand merely replaces “don’t be so sure” with “certain of everything he pleases” even though the new phrase is about a completely different thing.

“- since it cannot be refuted,”

  • Rand asserts lack of certainty means “everything” cannot be refuted. Since Hume’s inductive uncertainty allows for refutation within deductive logic, Rand’s statement is false.
  • Since the modern scientific method of refutation through falsification is allowed by Hume’s inductive uncertainty, Rand’s statement is false.
  • Rand is not explaining how “don’t be so sure” could be contradicted by “nobody can be certain”. Instead, she is trying to justify her new phrase, off on a tangent.

“and he can claim he is not certain he is certain”.

  • Rand asserts people can claim to be uncertain of their certainty as proof they are certain. That is illogical. There is no explanation of how that would succeed or be expected to.
  • By using “claim”, an imputation of dishonesty is leveled.
  • Still nothing related to how the uncertainty of inductive logic could contradict emotional uncertainty.

“(which is the purpose of that notion).”

  • Her parenthetical aside accuses everybody “claiming” uncertainty of creating her straw man for the deliberate “purpose” of pretending to not be certain of uncertain things everybody is arbitrarily deciding to be certain of.
  • Rand gives a possible motive for this complicated conspiracy later in the chapter: “No one can be certain of anything” is a “rationalization of a feeling of envy and hatred toward those who are certain”iii; but she provides no evidence that David Hume was envious or hated people who were certain, and she makes no mention of Hume’s deductive logic.
  • Her sentence and paragraph ends without solving the mystery of how “nobody is certain” contradicts “don’t be so sure”.

Rand’s sentence isn’t rational or logical or grammatical. It’s a plate of spaghetti.

iSignet edition, Penguin Books, 1984

iiPg 14.

iiiPg 18.

Ayn Rand contradicts herself 1.1b

Rand’s philosophy contradicts her economics.

According to Ayn Rand’s economic theory, capitalism is an “unknown ideal”i which has “never yet existedii”. According to her philosophy, that means her concept of capitalism cannot be true.

Rand’s philosophy has strict rules about what is true. Here are some quotes from her philosophy. She has a unique vocabulary. The word “existent” means “a real thing”. The phrase “observed existents” means “the real things you saw”. Quote:

“Truth is the identification of a fact of reality.iii

“… truth vs. falsehood … By what method is truth discovered and validated? … The content of the concept … the characteristics of the existents … must be discovered and validated by observation.iv

“… concepts represent classifications of observed existents…v­

“Concepts represent classifications of the known facts of reality.vi”

Logically, according to her premises; if capitalism has never existed, then capitalism is not a fact of reality and Rand’s concept of capitalism cannot be true. If capitalism is unknown, then capitalism cannot be recognized, identified, classified or validated and Rand’s concept of capitalism cannot be true.

Therefore, Rand’s concept of capitalism is false according to the criteria of her philosophy.

iCapitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Title

iiThe Objectivist Ethics, Pg. 33

iiiIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy Pg.158

ivIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy, Pg 136

vIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy, Pg 131

viIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, Pg 62

Rand vs Einstein

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism disagrees with Albert Einstein.

Objectivism pg 127:

The theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy presents men with the following choice: If your statement is proved it says nothing about that which exists; if it is about existents, it cannot be proved… …If you validate it by an appeal to the meanings of your concepts then it is cut off from reality; if you validate it by an appeal to your percepts , then you cannot be certain of it… …Objectivism rejects the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as false in principle, at root, and in every one of its variants.”

Language in Thought and Action pg 122:

This principle is well understood in mathematics. Hence, in Einstein’s words, “as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality they are not certain; and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality.”

Rand rejects what Einstein proclaims.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, New American Library, Mentor edition, 1979

Part II: The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

S. I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, Harcourt Brace and Co., Harvest edition 1990

An example of what Einstein was talking about:

Language in Thought and Action pg 122:

The mathematical “point” (which has a position but occupies no space) and the mathematical “circle” (which is a closed figure with all points equidistant from the center) exist only as definitions. Actual points occupy some space and actual circles are never exactly circular.

Rand vs Science 1.2

Objectivism and Logical Positivism are different in some ways, but are the same in the ways below. Modern scientific method, also called Positivism or neoPositivism or Popper Positivism, is the mirror opposite of Rand’s epistemology.

Objectivism and Logical Positivism are equivalent in that the premises must be referable to observed reality:

  • Atlas Society http://www.atlassociety.org/logical-positivism-vs-objectivism: “the meaning of a statement is the existential facts identified by the statement.”
  • Compared to Logical Positivism (Wikipedia 3.2 Observation/theory gap): “Early, most logical positivists proposed that all knowledge is based on logical inference from simple ‘protocol sentences’ grounded in observable facts…”
  • On the other hand: Positivism can utilize imaginary constructs w/o basis in observable reality as premises1.

In Objectivism and Logical Positivism, concepts reached through logical processes are not necessarily found in reality:

  • Atlas Society http://www.atlassociety.org/logical-positivism-vs-objectivism: “Not all statements need to be themselves empirically verifiable: human knowledge is a hierarchy based on the immediately given, but by a process of abstraction we can generalize to discover new relationships. Statements are comprised of concepts—and some, but certainly not all, concepts have direct perceptual referents.”
  • Compared to Logical Positivism Wikipedia 3.2 Observation/theory gap:  “Further, theoretical terms no longer need to acquire meaning by explicit definition from observational terms: the connection may be indirect, through a system of implicit definitions…”
  • On the other hand, Positivism requires testing of the conclusions against observable reality2.

Therefore: While Rand disparages Logical Positivism, her own epistemology shares equivalent flaws and the modern scientific method of Positivism contradicts Rand’s epistemology.

1Hawking universe in a nutshell pg. 59

2Ibid. pg. 31

Rand vs Bertrand Russell 1b and 1c

Russell’s Paradox proves Rand wrong and falsifies her philosophy with objective evidence.

http://plato.stanford.edu is my immediate source for the explanation of Russell’s Paradox, but any error in paraphrasing is my own.

(This post, intended to show that Rand’s epistemology is not logical, seems to be perceived as an attempt to show logic to be false since it contradicts Rand’s epistemology! Judging by the comments, anyway.)

Part B: Russell’s Paradox vs Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology.

In Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, mental concepts are “classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents”i. Rand’s philosophy taught that to have mental concepts require us to observe fundamentalii essential distinguishing characteristicsiii in real life which share a “Conceptual Common Denominator”iv. In Rand’s philosophy, logic is “the art of non-contradictory identification”v of those observations; the result of that process is a mental concept.

Russell’s Paradox proved you shouldn’t just describe a “set” and apply logic to it, because you can get contradiction. Until Russell, “it was initially assumed that any well-defined condition (or precisely specified property) could be used to determine a set.”vi. Rand’s ideal of a mental concept is that old-fashioned kind of set theory.

Russell’s Paradox logically proves Rand Rand’s logical epistemology is false in three simple steps:

1: Some concepts contain themselves. For example, the concept “things which are not a table” (called a “contrary” in Rand’s philosophyvii), is itself not a table so it describes itself. You could say, “this concept is not a table” and write it down on a list of things which are not tables.

Another example of a concept that contained itself would be that on a list of everything in the universe, the first thing would be “this list”.

Both of those concepts would be contained in a big list labeled “concepts which contain themselves”. Let’s call this big list concept “A”, and we can write “concept A” in the list first thing; because it contains itself, too.

2: Other concepts do not contain themselves. A list of teacups doesn’t include the list as part of the set of teacups. The concept of a foot is not a foot. Mankind is not a man.

Those three examples are contained in a big list titled “concepts which do not contain themselves”. This list must be concept “not-A”, but…

3: Does that last concept contain itself or not? Can we write “this concept” on the list? Is it “A” or “not-A”? If the concept does not contain itself, we should write it down – which means it does contain itself (there it is on the list), but then it cannot fit it’s own definition as a concept which does not contain itself, so it shouldn’t be on the list and there is contradiction.

By proving the objective definition of sets can lead to logical contradiction, Russell’s Paradox proves Rand’s objective definitions of concepts can result in contradiction. Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology is proved false.

Rand vs Bertrand Russell Part C:

Rand vs Bertrand Russell Part C (Revised):

Russell’s Paradox demonstrates Objectivism is false with real world examples. We can look at actual lists like above and see that A is not-A if it is A, and can be A only if it is not-A. Rand’s assertion that all real things can be logically categorized as A or not-A is demonstrated to be false by objective evidence. Try it at home! Get some pieces of paper and make the actual lists and put labels on them. The last list can’t get a label.

The solution to the riddle is that there are rules we have to make up for logic to work right (axioms), and one of them is that sets can’t contain themselves. Even though we can make a list with the words “this list” on it, we can’t use it for logic. The concept we can see right in front of us can’t be used in a logical system, which falsifies Rand’s Objectivist philosophy of logic.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu is my immediate source for the explanation of Russell’s Paradox, but any error in paraphrasing is my own.

iPg 62 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

iiPg 59 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

iiiPg 55 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

ivPg 18 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

vPg 46 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

viStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

vii Pg 77 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979