

Why Ayn Rand’s Psychology Is Probably Wrong (or Trivial) - kmdupree
http://philosophicalhacker.com/2015/01/24/why-ayn-rands-psychology-is-probably-wrong/

======
dmfdmf
This man is swimming in the deep end of the pool and is in over his head.

First, Rand never offered an "Objectivist" psychology but she wrote an
integrated philosophy that she called Objectivism. This is not a trivial point
but I can let is slide because all philosophies imply, as the norm, a
particular psychological type. In fact, most people reverse cause and effect
and choose the philosophy they think is most aligned with their psychology. We
have 4 choices in regards to philosophy but they encompass all the
possibilities; Aristotelian and Randian or Platonic and Kantian or the Primacy
of Existence -vs- The Primacy of Consciousness. There are miscellaneous
variants and mixtures of these types but these are the essentials.

Second, Matt Dupree steps in his first pitfall when he writes; "I’ve met a
surprising number of people in my life who believe that no one is capable of
altruism. These people believe that everyone always acts to further their own
interests. Many of these people are influenced by Ayn Rand."

This error was so common in Objectivist circles when Rand was alive she had
her protege of the time, Nathaniel Branden, write an article specifically
addressing and rejecting the affirmative to the question "Isn't Everyone
Selfish?" published in the anthology "The Virtue of Selfishness". On Rand's
behalf, Branden rejects this view attributed to Rand. So Mathew's second
mistake was accepting what others say about Rand or Objectivism as
representative of the truth about her ideas. Many people who claim to be
Objectivists don't really have any deep understanding of Objectivism or Rand's
ideas and it is best to get it straight from the horses mouth.

Third, and more importantly, Rand blasted the whole philosophy and
epistemology of "two kinds of truth" deriving from Kant. She identified this
as the analytic-synthetic dichotomy that follows from Kant's false theory of
concepts. This topic was covered by Leonard Peikoff in her book: "Introduction
to Objectivist Epistemology" titled "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy".

It will be interesting to see if Matt Dupree doubles down on his errors and
continues with with additional parts or stops to check his premises and the
straw man that he is attacking.

~~~
kmdupree
I stand corrected. It looks like it was a mistake to attribute psychological
egoism to Ayn Rand.

I do think, however, that the argument I setup in my post will turn out to be
sound in spite of Rand's criticisms of the analytic-synthetic distinction.

~~~
dmfdmf
Ah, its not just a minor criticism of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy but a
devastating identification of Kant's fatal error regarding consciousness and
his theory of concepts that eviscerates Kant's entire intellectual framework.
Your whole "wrong or trivial" approach is an excellent example of the
analytic-synthetic dichotomy "in the wild" and accepts the Kantian worldview.
Your professors in grad school are wrong and either unable or unwilling to
identify this fact.

Did you read the article by Leonard Peikoff?

