The Idiotic Objectivists

While Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, and essays on politics, culture and philosophy, was a great advocate of free market capitalism and a significant anti-communist, she also made mistakes in her thinking which are presently being slavishly parroted by her devout coterie of followers at the Ayn Rand Institute.
While Rand publicly championed the individual, she privately insisted, according to former close associates, on a high degree of conformity within her inner circle.
This is reflected today in her followers, who call themselves Objectivists, and who tend to spout her dogma and mimic her mannerisms in a fashion that is at times positive and at times unbecoming.

A case in point is the recent article “Why Christmas Should be More Commercial” by Dr. Leonard Peikoff who referrers to himself as the foremost authority on Objectivism and is the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute.
While Peikoff revels in the commercial aspects of Christmas, he sneers at “assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (e.g., love thy neighbor) that no one takes seriously.”
I would beg to differ.
Most of us, to varying degrees, enjoy the commercial aspect of Christmas and gift giving and see no contradiction between this and the religious aspect.
In this season this year, which comes on the tail of hijackers crashing planes into buildings, thousands of grieving families, friends, and a grieving nation, and anthrax in the mail, thinking about G-d, and loving thy neighbor contributes greatly to a more significant sense of meaning and purpose in life, certainly more so than a mere commercial transaction.
I don’t agree with Peikoff and his extreme atheism, I think people do take these things very seriously.

The Objectivists hold to the irrational theory of evolution which is that man somehow evolved from the primordial ooze.
They dismiss as a superstition the more rational idea, in my opinion, that the creation of life, with all of its incredible facets, had to involve a supernatural and divine aspect.
They reject the theory of creation not because it is irrational but because the Atheist Ayn Rand rejected it.
As an admirer of reason, I find the creation theory to be much more rational while at the same time providing a varied and nuanced sense of life, certainly more so than the morally neutral idea that man somehow miraculously evolved out of the mud.

In his Christmas article, Peikoff asserts “America’s tragedy is that its intellectual leaders have typically tried to replace happiness with guilt by insisting that the spiritual meaning of Christmas is religion and self sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his equivalent.”
Unless I’m missing something, America’s “intellectual leaders” haven’t insisted on religion any time recently but rather an atheistic, morally neutral, scientific socialist culture that claims to be based on “reason.”
As far as American religion being an advocate of “self sacrifice,” this is just nonsense.
Self-sacrifice is a policy of the abovementioned intellectual leaders who have no intention of sacrificing anything themselves, only the fruit of the labor of others.
Religion tends to advocate voluntary tithing for the needy and private charities.

Peikoff wants to “take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration.”
His utopian idea of happiness seems to be a world where man is not fettered by such obstacles as guilt or worry about anything but the here and now.
Much of the article venerates earth-worshipping paganism, which is where many Atheists, hungering for meaning and purpose, seem to end up.
Ayn Rand and the Objectivists made great contributions to capitalism, freedom and individual rights but, unfortunately, that contribution is somewhat eclipsed by a darker side.
Perhaps Rand was more influenced by her own Stalinist high school and College education than she realized.
Either way, it’s a shame that such glaring mistakes threaten to discredit such important work. Chuck Morse Is the author of “Why I’m a Right-Wing Extremist” www.chuckmorse.com

They reject the theory of creation not because it is irrational but because the Atheist Ayn Rand rejected it. As an admirer of reason, I find the creation theory to be much more rational while at the same time providing a varied and nuanced sense of life, certainly more so than the morally neutral idea that man somehow miraculously evolved out of the mud.

There is so much nonsense, irrationality, and flat-out lunacy in the lead article that no one has the time to deal with it all. But for openers, why not label the article as a "Vanity" post, which it surely is. Quoting yourself, from some drivel you've put up on your own website, is just plain silly. If anyone else ever visits your site, and thinks your scribblings are worth while, they will be posted here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the self-assertive one in Atlas Shrugged was Dagny (Monica) Taggart. Chain-smokin', get outta-my-way, don't-open-the-doo-for-me, semi slut who would sleep with (and railroad) any man as long as he was a successful capitalist. An epitome of self-assertiveness and role model for today's feminazis.

The trillions of individual split/no-split random events add up (that big-E summation symbol) to a non-random amount of overall splitting.

Good point. Most people don't seem to realize that "random" in the statistical sense does not mean "without pattern". Statistical randomness must have a kind of predictability, a probability distribution, that is not found in haphazard events.

I don't believe I'm wrong about any of my post #62. Corporate women I've observed through the years behave much like that, plus or minus the smoking part. They try to couple the natural 'nag' in them with masculine mannerisms. The result is an obnoxious, self-centered, self-assertive bat.

While Rand publicly championed the individual, she privately insisted, according to former close associates, on a high degree of conformity within her inner circle.
This is reflected today in her followers, who call themselves Objectivists, and who tend to spout her dogma and mimic her mannerisms in a fashion that is at times positive and at times unbecoming.

When you start off by just being bitchy, what sort of credence do you imagine that lends to the rest of your effort?

slut who would sleep with (and railroad) any man as long as he was a successful capitalist

You are right about the self-assertive part, but you completely missed Rand's view on sex and values. For one thing, capitalists were her heros, people who shared her values, so Taggert was very friendly, even submissive to them (consistent with Rand's view of feminine sexuality--take for example the "rape" in _The Fountainhead_). Taggert would NEVER have "railroaded" them. That would be like attacking her own values which violates the whole point of both the book and its genre. Also, Rand's female characters idolized their sexual partners and were monogamous. Taggert first found one man who represented her values, but left him for another who more perfectly represented her values. Rand wouldn't have her heroins sleeping with random men or with men she didn't "love", or with more than 1 man at a time, or for reasons other than as an expression of mutual love of values.

Not that I care, or share her views on sex, but she was so explicit about it in many writings that I don't see how you could get it so wrong.

In a universe of infinite size

I think there are religious and folklore beliefs that the universe is infinite, but I don't think there is any evidence for it. Evidence suggests a finite mass and, I believe, volume.

Here are a couple of simple ones: For the species to evolve, once the animals exist, each new specie requires that both a male and female of the specie come into existense at the same time.

The donkey and the horse can produce the mule which itself is incapable of reproduction. What is your take on this? Are the donkey, horse, and mule the same species? If so, why can't the mule reproduce, which I thought was a requirement for classification as such? Donkeys can reproduce. Horses can reproduce. But not mules. My take? Donkeys and horses were more closely related in the past, but have slowly grwon apart genetically, probably with man's help. At some future time, they won't be able to inter-breed at all. Voila, different species.

Theists believe that God somehow came into existence, which would be even less likely than that a less complex Universe happened on its own. You can’t arrive at a belief in God through a rational process; it requires faith.

While I agree with the second sentence (although a wealth of evidence does exist to point you in the right direction) the first sentence is wrong.

Theists, at least biblically based theists, believe that God ALWAYS existed. He spoke this universe into existence from nothing. (We do not know whether this is the first univers He created or even the last one He plans to create)

God Save America (Please)

I guess all I am suggesting is we are confined to the space-time domain. It may be possible for a creator to exist within an infinite amount of dimensions; existing outside of what we call time which began some 10 billion years ago.

Possible? Certainly. But would you organize your life around that?

Actually I would. The first chapter of John reads, "In the begining was the Word.." In Greek the actual word for Word in "logos"; from where we get the word logic. Humans, being created in the image of God can use reason and logic to make decisions. There is a purpose to the universe. Our minds are not just accidents, thinking certain thoughts because of untold events from subatomic interactions to how we live out lives.

The atheistic world view is on philosophical quicksand, because there is no basis for truth. They may have a lot of scientific "muscle", but there is no skeleton holding it up. One is thinking what they are thinking simply because of chance.

In your attempt to recast evolution as purely random behavior, you have neglected to observe that the laws of science, which still rule that random behavior, are not random.

Certainly many aspects of science are measureable and predictable (within given boundaries, look at quantum mechanics, it is all probabilites) Nevertheless through these laws, which I guess just are, it is still simply an accident one is thinking any particular way. With no creator there is no purpose for your mind, it is only accidently giving you your thoughts. Pontus Pilot's famous question to Jesus "What is truth?" must be answered there is no truth.

My "philosophical outlook" is based on what I observe with my physical senses processed by my rational brain not by what I wish for comforts sake.

Be careful, sometime through some other quantum events your view may change.

My mind is open to other provable possibilities while yours, I'm afraid, is not.

Theists, at least biblically based theists, believe that God ALWAYS existed

I agree with you but I was trying to frame an argument and the way I wrote it seemed a better way to make the point.

While Rand publicly championed the individual, she privately insisted, according to former close associates, on a high degree of conformity within her inner circle.

There is a lot to criticize, but this is ridiculous. One could say the same thing about President Bush, or any other executive when it comes to his close associates.

Hey Hank, thanks for the reply. Sorry I couldn't get back sooner.

If I'm reading you right, it seems like you're saying that God is the cause of the material universe, but that God himself is uncaused. This is the conclusion I have come to.

I guess the atheist version would be either: (1) that the material universe has always existed, which is irrational, or (2) that the material universe was somehow brought into existance, which is irrational.

If you're an atheist, it seems to me that you must accept one of these irrational premises about the existance of the material universe, and that once you have done so, your argument that a belief in God is flawed because it is irrational becomes useless hypocrisy.

I just don't see any way around this. Can any of you atheists fill me in on this?

My mind is open to other provable possibilities while yours, I'm afraid, is not

Indeed I am open to new ideas, and I find the study of orgins fascinating. Authors such as Paul Davies and Stephen Hawkings challenge my worldview and I do read their books. Oh by the way what deist authors have you read?. I can't perceive tv waves going through me yet when I turn on the tv they must exist. My mind is not so narrow as to say with any degree of confidence there may be spiritual things I can't perceive. And it philosphically liberates me to beleive in such a thing as rationality.

As for beleiving something for some kind of comfort or crutch, I can only confess it is more like a bed. Good day

RE: Post #68.

I don't think I have it wrong at all. Ayn Rand should have had Dagny (or whatever her name was) charging for her services rather than giving herself away free without a commitment from the man. The book gets weak here, because it doesn't show the negative consequences of their actions. With her self-esteem and self assertiveness, she should have gotten $1,000 a fling.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.