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.
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.
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.
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.