Posted on 12/27/2001 2:31:24 PM PST by Chuckmorse
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
I'm not sure that her opinions would be exactly the same as those self-proclaimed experts of her philosophy. I guess we will never know...
Thanks for writing the thought provoking article just the same and Happy New Year.
Why do some people have such a problem accepting modern science. Is the world flat? Is the earth the center of the universe? Times change, ideas change...
Sometimes we actually (gasp) find out that our old ideas were wrong...
Straw Man fallacy. Most creationists revere the scientific method.
With a well-reasoned title like that, how could it possibly be a subjective screed?
Can anyone bring in a single scientific fact that demonstrates, irrefutably, that the Earth is not at the center of the Universe?
Piekoff now makes his money by enticing the kids who read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged with Objectivist advertising affixed to the back of every copy sold, encouraging them to buy the stuff he sells at the otherwise widely ignored Ayn Rand Institute. Without the money he gets from the teenagers, he'd be on the street.
And he would probably be an Ass't Prof at a community college somewhere if his cousin hadn't been Ayn Rand's lover. He should be paid the same intellectual respect that a typical junior academic receives, and no more.
It isn't infinite.
Can anyone bring in a single scientific fact that demonstrates, irrefutably, that the Earth is not at the center of the Universe?
Of course the earth isn't at the center of the universe. I am.
No they don't. They've just picked up the mistaken idea that they can bash evolution for not following it, so they like to trot it out. If they didn't think they could use it for this purpose they would have nothing to do with this bit of godless science.
Hey ChuckMo,
I think you need to go look up "rational" again because anyone who believes in a metaphysical superbeing is quite a stones throw from rational...but, I know, belief in the aforementioned superbeing feeeeeeeellllllssss alot better.
I wish those "idiot" objectivists would desist in the use of their naturally evolved brains!
When it comes to science, we always find out that our old ideas are wrong.
One objectivist Ubermensch fantasy that got out of hand.
Beware the secular humanist with low self-esteem and sexual hang-ups.
I'm a Fantastic Four(tm) fan myself, and Reed Richards is exactly the kind of hero Ayn would have loved - rational and deliberate.
As far as Rand not being perfect in all her philosophies, well she was human, after all. There was only one perfect person in the world and they crucified him along time ago. If someone is 90% right and 10% wrong, I would not call them 'idiotic.'
I can't find the quote, but there's an interview where someone in her circle said she once told him (paraphrasing) "Evolution might be true, but I don't know; it's only a theory..." Apparently Rand had never studied the subject very much, so she didn't want to come out & make a definitive statement on it.
At any rate, anyone who looks at biology & chemistry objectively really has no choice but to accept the basic tenets of the theory of evolution, IMHO.
Not all old ideas, but rather all ideas based on the scientific method, old or new.
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.