Ayn Rand: The GOP’s Godless Philosopher

When George W. Bush declared in a 1999 GOP debate that his favorite political philosopher was Jesus, pundits snickered and wondered whether he actually knew any political philosophers. But the answer was politically canny, establishing Bush’s evangelical bona fides with social conservatives.

In contrast, the philosopher GOP leaders quote most reverently these days was vehemently anti-religion, and referred to Christian teachings as “evil” and “monstrous.” Awwwwkward. Fortunately for Republicans, most social conservatives haven’t yet made the connection.

Here’s just a taste of the praise GOP and other conservative leaders have for Ayn Rand:

Paul Ryan says Ayn Rand is the reason he entered politics and he requires all staff and interns to read her books. Says Ryan: “Ayn Rand more than anyone else did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism.”
Clarence Thomas requires his law clerks to watch The Fountainhead, and has said “I tend really to be partial to Ayn Rand.”
Sen. Ron Johnson, Ryan’s GOP colleague from Wisconsin, calls Atlas Shrugged his “foundational book.”
Rush Limbaugh calls Ayn Rand “the brilliant writer and novelist.”
Fox News repeatedly promoted the recently released movie version of Atlas Shrugged, airing the trailer on several shows and interviewing cast members.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/13/the-gops-godless-philosopher/#ixzz1MeVibcOY

If she was still around and alive, she would hold nothing but contempt for them... "useful idiots" indeed.

through Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.

Kind of like the Nazis with Mein Kampf, they all have it on their bookshelves but not one in a hundred actually read it.

I thought all the evil people were Christians.

:sarcasm:

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Um, no. If Ayn Rand was a philosopher then I'm a fucking theologian.

She did, however, make one thing very easy: Identification. Rand left behind the ramblings of a twisted and hateful mind, and those who extoll the value of her writings show themselves to have the same shortcomings. It's hilarious to me that so many people who have recommended Rand's work to me in the past have been evangelicals...

...interesting.

I openly, and without regret, mock the idea of Rand as a philosopher (putting her on the same intellectual level as the great ancient ones mentioned above), and I also mock those who would consider her such.

Of course, the really funny thing about your snarky comment is that you don't really know what the NTS problem leads to at the end of the logical pathway. (Hint: We can define Scotsman.)

it's that we all will, at one time or another, come together to mock the stupid.

Call it human nature...

(Even so, it's hard to believe we agree on something. ;))

...at just about every opportunity, I find your view on Rand as philosopher rather ironic.

Like it or not, she is a philosopher, granted not a very good one and professing a twisted ideology.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:



Like it or not, she's a philosopher.


Edited to remove gratuitously unnecessary snark.

which would be closer to the fallacy, btw, but I still openly mock the idea that she could be considered a philosopher. To consider her so would be to lend the label "philosopher" to everyone with a world-view and a pen. (And if you're going to tell me that she's a philosopher because Stanford says so, you'll have stumbled onto another fallacy.)

Bonus point, since you brought up the fallacy: IS there such a thing as a "true Christian"?

Does anyone who professes to be a Christian meet the criteria?

No. Not all the time.

Not me, not Jim Wallis, not Pat Robertson, not one.

What's the definition?

Romans 13:8-10
Galatians 5:4
I John 4:7-8
I John 4:12
Matthew 22:36-40

Love.

Love for your neighbor. Love does no harm to one's neighbor. Love is the core of the Great Commandment (Matt 22) and the heart of the Law.

Love is fulfillment of the law.

But then when I go back to my old stomping grounds and sit in any of the hybridized AOG/SB churches down there, I'll be told a different story: That a "true Christian" is anyone who has accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. That may mean that Ghandi is in Hell, and Dahmer is in heaven since he converted on Death Row, but acceptance IS what makes a "true Christian."

See how that works? Anybody can change the definition however they like, and because there is no border, no consensus, no convergence...no way to know...that renders the definition meaningless.

I can tell you what a Scotsman is, but a "true Scotsman" is a meaningless and arbitrary qualifier. The point of the title of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is that there is NO such thing. There are no "true" Scotsmen, just as there are no "true" Christians, or "true" anything else. The arbitrarily defined qualifier renders the phrase meaningless.

Now where does this leave us with regard to those who would identify themselves as members of a group for which there is no border or definition?

because it doesn't have a 'border' for the definition - unlike 'born in Scotland', 'had at least one parent born in Scotland' etc.

Since you reject the usual, but slightly fuzzy, definition of 'philosopher' - that if enough sources agree that 'philosopher' can be applied to a person, especially sources regarded as knowledgeable in the area (such as the Stanford Enc. of Philosophy), then that person is a 'philosopher' - then I think you've left yourself with no way of calling anyone a philosopher.

At least, not in the first degree. I think by the very nature of the word it means someone who engages in or studies philosophy. This definition is self-evident, but then we come to the fact that philosophy itself can be a bit fuzzier to define. So let's investigate the word...

Definitions of the word philosophy found here and here which deal specifically with a field or branch of study include the following phrases: rational investigation and critical study. There are other definitions on those pages, and they do define how philosophy can be used as a synonym for world-view or a system of principles/beliefs, but I don't agree that the classical usage of the term "philosopher" includes just anyone who simply espouses a worldview or a system of beliefs.

If we venture away from the definitions that include rational investigation or critical study, then you and I can be considered philosophers as well, since we are engaging in discussion of a system of principles/beliefs. In fact, everyone on this board could be considered a philosopher under that view. Yet no one would agree that we are philosophers.

We may not like her conclusions, but she did, for your first link, undertake a rational investigation of conduct; and for your second, undertake a rational investigation about questions of ethics. She didn't claim them as revelations. In addition, she was the originator of her philosophy of objectivism - a "system of beliefs accepted as authoritative by some group".

1. Rand freely admitted time and again that she had no use for philosophy as a whole outside of her objective, which was to create a world where human beings could be "perfect" according to her own definition.

2. I don't see Rand's study of history, and her views on conduct and ethics that came out of that study, as very rational at all, born as they were out of her clear and abiding hatred of Communism, as well as the Tsarism that preceded it.

I will, however, concede that she is easily credited as the originator of "objectivism". Regardless of whether her views were original, she codified them into a system that people still follow today. I suppose, then, by the definitions I myself posted, she does qualify as a philosopher. I find that problematic.

Mainly because it puts an ache in my fingers to write that Rand is a philosopher, and therefore grant her the same label used for Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

But more important is the fact that this generates an interesting view on the concept of "who is a philosopher." It would seem that anyone with a world-view that garners a sufficient following could be called a philosopher, "sufficient" being a subjective measurement. This means the word itself is somewhat arbitrary.

And now, as so often happens in R/T, we come down to semantics. Obviously words have meaning, or I could write something like "the lutefisk sleeps furiously" and it would mean as much or as little as the rest of my post. At the same time, those who wish to disagree can always find a way to parse and define words differently, changing entirely not just the point of one person's writing but also the topic of conversation. This raises a difficult question:

Is effective communication possible on complex topics which generate vehement disagreement? "Or...are we just jerking off?"

....'accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior'.

None whatsoever.

No person in the Bible ever did, no scripture ever teaches that.

Some will claim Rev 3:20 validates that view, but that's misinterpreting the message to the Church in Laodicea.

It's a creation of American Protestantism that promotes cheap grace.

The point is the arbitrary nature of the qualifier(s).

I did not claim that Stanford is infallible and exempt from criticism therefore the claim is true.

Arguments from authority are not always fallacious simply because people aren't experts in every area. If every point made by an expert in a field we (the royal we) are not is dismissed as argument from authority, that's intentional ignorance. That's climate change denier territory.

Why would we listen to scientists about Global Warming or economists about Economics? What would be the point of studying specific subjects in college, graduate programs, and being recognized as an expert in your field?

You missed the phrase "and if you're going to tell me..." I only anticipated and stepped in front a very possible fallacious argument. I didn't say that you had committed the fallacy, only that it would be easy for you to do so.

We accept claims from authorities on certain subjects all the time, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for smart people known as "advisors". When we doubt those claims, however, simply stating that the originator or supporter is an authority is insufficient for argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm getting from your post is: if citing an authority whose claims are under doubt, one must drop that source as a valid means of arguing the point.

In that case though, can't everyone just doubt any authorities cited in an argument? I mean, why give an advantage to your opponent when you dont need to.

There has to be a point when an authority has sufficient credibility that your opponent can't doubt any longer, thus allowing you to use that as means to further your argument.

Where or what is that point?

and that part is important...in an argument, or disagreement, a single authority is not credible enough. If you'll pardon the pseudo-legal expression, you must "build a case."

Furthermore, Sal and I were talking about fallacy, which appears in argumentatio nand logic. The following is fallacious progression:

Tom: I believe X.
Sally: I don't believe you.
Tom: Well John believes X, and John should know since he studies Y, so I must be right.

Tom has invoked the argument from authority fallacy by using John as his only defense. Now, if Tom uses other support for his argument in favor of X, then the process is no longer fallacious.

Understand this: Invoking a fallacy, either on purpose or by accident, doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. It only means that your argument for your position is mal-formed, and most likely unconvincing. To go with a global warming example as Sal used above, citing a single study to a global warming denier is not only unconvincing, it is fallacious. Citing 12 studies and the incontrovertible evidence provided by them builds a case, avoids fallacy, and may serve to convince your opponent.

:)

Most of them probably haven't actually read her so they don't know she's "godless."