Submitted by DirtyOldPanties t3_z71wki in philosophy
freddy_guy t1_iy56046 wrote
An article defending Rand written by a director of the Ayn Rand Institute, posted on a site that explicitly endorses and pushes Rand's philosophy to the exclusion of others.
Very low-quality post.
DirtyOldPanties OP t1_iy5wwac wrote
What's the issue exactly? It seems to me like you're dismissing expert opinion. I'm wondering how you might extend this sort of logic to any other Philosopher and their alleged defenders.
ephemerios t1_iy7h7wy wrote
> It seems to me like you're dismissing expert opinion.
How come the only experts that defend Rand are associated with the Ayn Rand Institute or are experts in an unrelated field?
DirtyOldPanties OP t1_iy8cl5i wrote
I can direct you to the Atlas Society or the Prometheus Foundation for competitors of ARI. As for unrelated fields I imagine it's the result of her philosophy's impact allowing them to become experts in otherwise unrelated fields. The practical application of Philosophy.
iiioiia t1_iy9288a wrote
> How come the only experts that defend Rand are associated with the Ayn Rand Institute or are experts in an unrelated field?
Can you explain how you went about determining that this proposition is actually true? Are you running an automated bot of some sort that crawls the internet looking for people defending Rand? If not, what methodology did you use?
And if you have no such methodology (and are therefore running on heuristics/faith perceived as facts), does it not seem a little ironic that you are criticizing the quality of other people's beliefs/cognitive abilities?
iiioiia t1_iy91zhc wrote
> An article defending Rand written by a director of the Ayn Rand Institute, posted on a site that explicitly endorses and pushes Rand's philosophy to the exclusion of others. > > Very low-quality post.
Out of curiosity: are you implying that there is a cause and effect relationship in play here? That because of "An article defending Rand written by a director of the Ayn Rand Institute...", therefore it logically and necessarily follows that "it is a very low-quality post"?
Fekov t1_iy9xqyt wrote
Not read body. Actual post title suggests no true Scotsman gate keeping whinge. At very least implies low quality.
Agree above quote provides no actual reason for low quality assertion though.
[deleted] t1_iy9ywox wrote
[deleted]
iiioiia t1_iy9z0w6 wrote
> Agree above quote provides no actual reason for low quality assertion though.
Odd that it has 8 upvotes, in a philosophy forum.
Fekov t1_iyad0gi wrote
It would perhaps be odd in a philosophy forum restricted to commentary by accredited philosophers. Not odd on a forum open to all.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments