All they can do with Rand is to avoid attacking her ideas. Because they cannot. They will rely on contradictions if they do. And contradictions cannot exist. A dog is not a cow.
if one holds contradictions, he places himself among the ranks of the insane.
so what they do? They build strawmen. They Rand ideas are what they are not. Their disagreement becomes a contradition from the start.
what they do is what they can possibly do: Evade.
they pretend Rand’s ideas do not exist so their fantasies can exist. But it is impossible: facts come first. Reality is there. Evading will not take reality out. They prefer being out of reality because they want it so. They hate things as they are.
In a few instances you used the term "possibility" referencing things that are most certainly impossible. You should have used "idea" or "notion" instead. Or, better yet, "whimsical , absurd, and ridiculous notion."
Mr. Biddle, good stuff. I have yet to come across or don't remember Ayn Rand's thoughts on the family. What are an individual's responsibilities to one's family. I have surely lived a portion of my life for my family. In my view, that is the choice I made and is not a sacrifice. That is the beauty in Lincoln's "last full measure of devotion." Does she specifically address this somewhere? Take care.
I've read a large portion of her work and can say that I don't recall her speaking much on the importance of family. That's likely because during her childhood and upbringing, family took a definitive backseat when it came to managing the hardships of living under the Soviets.
From what I do know about her through her writing, it's a safe bet to suggest that her position on family would be something like this: If a person is living up to their highest version of themselves, then they must, by default, be a net benefit to their family and those others around them. It happens as a consequence of living with virtue and integrity.
“A final problem worth mentioning about Rand and her philosophy is that she wrote in plain, intelligible English and defined her terms clearly as a matter of course, so that anyone who wants to understand her ideas can do so with relative ease.”
As do you! Compare the substance and style of your own essay to 99.9% of what passes for philosophy on Substack. On many occasions when engaging philosophers about their essays, I’ve had to input them into ChatGPT to decipher what is actually being said. Invariably, the ideas communicated could be expressed in terms a preteen can understand.
What’s interesting about all “the problems” you listed with Rand’s philosophy is that everyone already reveals they believe them based on how they speak and live. They may not speak and live these truths consistently, but they do reveal knowledge of them—since what they identify are truths and requirements of our nature by which everyone lives, at least some of the time.
All they can do with Rand is to avoid attacking her ideas. Because they cannot. They will rely on contradictions if they do. And contradictions cannot exist. A dog is not a cow.
if one holds contradictions, he places himself among the ranks of the insane.
so what they do? They build strawmen. They Rand ideas are what they are not. Their disagreement becomes a contradition from the start.
what they do is what they can possibly do: Evade.
they pretend Rand’s ideas do not exist so their fantasies can exist. But it is impossible: facts come first. Reality is there. Evading will not take reality out. They prefer being out of reality because they want it so. They hate things as they are.
In a few instances you used the term "possibility" referencing things that are most certainly impossible. You should have used "idea" or "notion" instead. Or, better yet, "whimsical , absurd, and ridiculous notion."
Nice article. 🙂
Mr. Biddle, good stuff. I have yet to come across or don't remember Ayn Rand's thoughts on the family. What are an individual's responsibilities to one's family. I have surely lived a portion of my life for my family. In my view, that is the choice I made and is not a sacrifice. That is the beauty in Lincoln's "last full measure of devotion." Does she specifically address this somewhere? Take care.
I've read a large portion of her work and can say that I don't recall her speaking much on the importance of family. That's likely because during her childhood and upbringing, family took a definitive backseat when it came to managing the hardships of living under the Soviets.
From what I do know about her through her writing, it's a safe bet to suggest that her position on family would be something like this: If a person is living up to their highest version of themselves, then they must, by default, be a net benefit to their family and those others around them. It happens as a consequence of living with virtue and integrity.
Hi Craig,
Great article.
“A final problem worth mentioning about Rand and her philosophy is that she wrote in plain, intelligible English and defined her terms clearly as a matter of course, so that anyone who wants to understand her ideas can do so with relative ease.”
As do you! Compare the substance and style of your own essay to 99.9% of what passes for philosophy on Substack. On many occasions when engaging philosophers about their essays, I’ve had to input them into ChatGPT to decipher what is actually being said. Invariably, the ideas communicated could be expressed in terms a preteen can understand.
What’s interesting about all “the problems” you listed with Rand’s philosophy is that everyone already reveals they believe them based on how they speak and live. They may not speak and live these truths consistently, but they do reveal knowledge of them—since what they identify are truths and requirements of our nature by which everyone lives, at least some of the time.