[removed]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

> As Salmieri notes in his response, throughout her piece Cleary takes it for granted that Rand’s views are wrong and expects that refuting them should be straightforward. Notably, she never offers any attempted refutations of Rand’s actual positions.

If that doesn't sum up the entire intellectual/political discourse in current year then I don't know what does. People scream Nazi and run away from real discussion as fast as they can.

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.

Your post very much sums up discourse these days. Someone says "this idea is incorrect" is reference to an idea that has been thoroughly debunked in any number of ways, and you claim they're "screaming Nazi and running away." You blatantly mischaracterize what was said.

> is reference to an idea that has been thoroughly debunked in any number of ways

What idea and debunked how?

Oh, Randians whining that they're not taken seriously? Shocking.

OK, OK, but hear me out...How about I misquote Plato and then abuse basic rules of logic in defense sociopathic levels of self-interest?

Now you have to agree with me! Checkmate!

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.

> 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?

[removed]

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.

[removed]

What is a "real" philosopher?!

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

> Oh, Randians whining that they're not taken seriously? Shocking.

The author's prescience is fairly impressive:

>> Skye Cleary is a philosophy professor who opened a recent piece at Aeon with this remark: “Philosophers love to hate Ayn Rand. It’s trendy to scoff at any mention of her.” I know what she means. As a former philosophy professor who respects and agrees with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, I’ve had the experience of witnessing this scoffing on more than a few occasions.

> 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"?

> 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?

[removed]

> Someone says "this idea is incorrect" is reference to an idea that has been thoroughly debunked in any number of ways....

Can you link to even one thorough debunking of the specific ideas promoted in this piece?

> ... and you claim they're "screaming Nazi and running away." You blatantly mischaracterize what was said.

Sir, are you "having a laugh" with us today? The text of /u/amazin_raisin99's comment (as it appears on my screen) is this:

> > > As Salmieri notes in his response, throughout her piece Cleary takes it for granted that Rand’s views are wrong and expects that refuting them should be straightforward. Notably, she never offers any attempted refutations of Rand’s actual positions. > > If that doesn't sum up the entire intellectual/political discourse in current year then I don't know what does. People scream Nazi and run away from real discussion as fast as they can.

There is no mention at all of "screaming Nazi and running away". And then on top of it, you say "You blatantly mischaracterize what was said", when as far as I can tell, you are actually the one who has done that, which would make you not only wrong, but backwards.

Could you possibly shed some light on what is going on here today? Maybe I've somehow completely missed your point (and apologies if I have.....6 upvotes vs 1 is suggestive that I may have, but then it may also be suggestive of something else), but to me it is extremely confusing.

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]

> Agree above quote provides no actual reason for low quality assertion though.

Odd that it has 8 upvotes, in a philosophy forum.

It would perhaps be odd in a philosophy forum restricted to commentary by accredited philosophers. Not odd on a forum open to all.

Your comment takes it for granted that Rand's views are wrong and expects that refuting them should be straightforward, and never offers any attempted refutations of actual positions.

Like, "I hear X but there's an obvious response to it I can think of, Y, and I'm sure people have written books and gotten degrees on Y, so it's been definitively addressed, I'm certain" is borderline fallacious in this day and age. You go check and the learned academics are also writing nothing more than tumblr posts, refering to each other, never actually bothering to refute X, assuming someone else did it.

How do you tell the difference between a real philospher and a fake philosopher?

I'm not sure what entirely constitutes a real vs a fake Philosopher but one thing I think all real Philosophers need is intellectual honesty. The ability to confront and to take ideas seriously. To quote Ayn Rand -

> If a given tenet seems to be true—why? If another tenet seems to be false—why? and how is it being put over?

I guess that means there are no real philosophers and certainly Ayn Rand wasn't a real philosopher.