“The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action. It means one’s total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours. It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one’s power and to the constant, active expansion of one’s perception, i.e., of one’s knowledge. It means a commitment to the reality of one’s own existence, i.e., to the principle that all of one’s goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one’s perception of reality. It means a commitment to the principle that all of one’s convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought—as precise and scrupulous a process of thought, directed by as ruthlessly strict an application of logic, as one’s fullest capacity permits. It means one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one’s convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)—that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)—that one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit (which is the virtue of Justice). It means that one must never desire effects without causes, and that one must never enact a cause without assuming full responsibility for its effects—that one must never act like a zombie, i.e., without knowing one’s own purposes and motives—that one must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of one’s knowledge—and, above all, that one must never seek to get away with contradictions. It means the rejection of any form of mysticism, i.e., any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge. It means a commitment to reason, not in sporadic fits or on selected issues or in special emergencies, but as a permanent way of life.” “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 440. Ayn Rand
On Rand’s record, short version here,
referencing this, and the canonical demolition job is
this. Rand has been mentioned a few other times on LessWrong, generally as an example of a cult figure.
On the applause-light nature of the passage, the more I look at it, setting aside my urge to applaud and asking “what does this mean? is it true?”, the more the substance dissolves. “Reason as one’s only source of knowledge”—what about observation? She goes on to talk about observation (perception, evidence), but how well was she observing her own words when she wrote “reason as one’s only source of knowledge”?
“One must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one’s perception of reality”—even when the perception is mistaken? Our senses are fallible, an issue which I think Rand never grappled with, or if she did, only to come to the opposite conclusion. (I say “I think”, only because I have not actually read Rand, only read about her, but what I’ve read about her sufficiently persuades me that reading the source would be about as useful as reading the Book of Mormon, i.e. low enough on my list of priorities that it is unlikely ever to rise higher.) She fell into the rational anti-pattern that goes “A is A, therefore B”.
“One must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved”—doing good to others as a sin, deduced from doing good to oneself as the sole good action, deduced from reason as one’s only source of knowledge.
Objectivism is a classic example of C.S. Lewis’ observation that every purportedly new moral system consists of nothing but the puffing up of one part of what he called the universal moral law at the expense of the rest.
“The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action. It means one’s total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours. It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one’s power and to the constant, active expansion of one’s perception, i.e., of one’s knowledge. It means a commitment to the reality of one’s own existence, i.e., to the principle that all of one’s goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one’s perception of reality. It means a commitment to the principle that all of one’s convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought—as precise and scrupulous a process of thought, directed by as ruthlessly strict an application of logic, as one’s fullest capacity permits. It means one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one’s convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)—that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)—that one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit (which is the virtue of Justice). It means that one must never desire effects without causes, and that one must never enact a cause without assuming full responsibility for its effects—that one must never act like a zombie, i.e., without knowing one’s own purposes and motives—that one must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of one’s knowledge—and, above all, that one must never seek to get away with contradictions. It means the rejection of any form of mysticism, i.e., any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge. It means a commitment to reason, not in sporadic fits or on selected issues or in special emergencies, but as a permanent way of life.” “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 440. Ayn Rand
That is a fine-sounding set of applause lights, but Rand’s own record does not bear measurement by the standard she so vigorously preached.
How so?
On Rand’s record, short version here, referencing this, and the canonical demolition job is this. Rand has been mentioned a few other times on LessWrong, generally as an example of a cult figure.
On the applause-light nature of the passage, the more I look at it, setting aside my urge to applaud and asking “what does this mean? is it true?”, the more the substance dissolves. “Reason as one’s only source of knowledge”—what about observation? She goes on to talk about observation (perception, evidence), but how well was she observing her own words when she wrote “reason as one’s only source of knowledge”?
“One must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one’s perception of reality”—even when the perception is mistaken? Our senses are fallible, an issue which I think Rand never grappled with, or if she did, only to come to the opposite conclusion. (I say “I think”, only because I have not actually read Rand, only read about her, but what I’ve read about her sufficiently persuades me that reading the source would be about as useful as reading the Book of Mormon, i.e. low enough on my list of priorities that it is unlikely ever to rise higher.) She fell into the rational anti-pattern that goes “A is A, therefore B”.
“One must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved”—doing good to others as a sin, deduced from doing good to oneself as the sole good action, deduced from reason as one’s only source of knowledge.
Objectivism is a classic example of C.S. Lewis’ observation that every purportedly new moral system consists of nothing but the puffing up of one part of what he called the universal moral law at the expense of the rest.