[Davidb72]

Interesting... I have read Ayn Rand's two most famous books (Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead). I agree with a lot of what she had to say. It's unfortunate that she isn't here today to respond to this and to numerous other issues.

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.

[The Green Goblin]

"The Objectivists hold to the irrational theory of evolution ..."

You mean the Objectivists are idiotic because they are advocates of modern science? You people are hilarious!

[beckett]

As Ayn Rand acidly observed on numerous occasions, Leonard Piekoff is an easily swayed trend-follower incapable of original thought. He controls the Rand papers precisely because his skills as a sycophant kept him in Rand's good graces long after those around her with some semblance of self-respect had vanished from her orbit, leaving Rand and her rages behind.

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.

[bosk]

"I find the creation theory to be much more rational..."

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!

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

One objectivist Ubermensch fantasy that got out of hand.
Beware the secular humanist with low self-esteem and sexual hang-ups.

[nightowl_jg]

Yes, that idiotic belief in rational behavior and capitalism. Very poor choice of a title for this article, imho.

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.'

[jennyp]

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.

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.

[Mortimer Snavely]

The problem with Objectivism is that its followers do not understand that a collection of extremely quotable pithy quotes does not a world view make. And yes, my second copy of Atlas Shrugged is dog eared and has done been read ragged, and I will buy a third copy when this one falls apart like the first. Same for Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels.

[CWRWinger]

IMO, the self-assertiveness of today's feminazis had some of its origin in Atlas Shrugged.

[Objectivism USA]

I don’t agree with Peikoff and his extreme atheism

What is extreme atheism, you are either an atheist or not. Then again in order to manufacture an attack piece against reason you have to fill it with half-truths an exaggerations. Since FreeRepublic is about to go down I will see if I can get back to this later.

[jennyp]

Much of the article venerates earth-worshipping paganism, which is where many Atheists, hungering for meaning and purpose, seem to end up.

What, you mean like this passage?

Historically, people have always celebrated the winter solstice as the time when the days begin to lengthen, indicating the earth's return to life. Ancient Romans feasted and reveled during the festival of Saturnalia. Early Christians condemned these Roman celebrations — they were waiting for the end of the world and had only scorn for earthly pleasures. By the fourth century, the pagans were worshipping the god of the sun on December 25, and the Christians came to a decision: if you can't stop 'em, join 'em. They claimed (contrary to known fact) that the date was Jesus' birthday, and usurped the solstice holiday for their Church.

You can't very well explain the historical evolution of Christmas as Jesus' birthday celebrated on the illogical date of Dec. 25 without mentioning its pagan roots as an end-of-the-Winter-Solstice celebration!

Even after the Christians stole Christmas, they were ambivalent about it. The holiday was inherently a pro-life festival of earthly renewal, but the Christians preached renunciation, sacrifice, and concern for the next world, not this one. As Cotton Mather, an 18th-century clergyman, put it: "Can you in your consciences think that our Holy Savior is honored by mirth? . . . Shall it be said that at the birth of our Savior . . . we take time . . . to do actions that have much more of hell than of heaven in them?"

Then came the major developments of 19th-century capitalism: industrialization, urbanization, the triumph of science — all of it leading to easy transportation, efficient mail delivery, the widespread publishing of books and magazines, new inventions making life comfortable and exciting, and the rise of entrepreneurs who understood that the way to make a profit was to produce something good and sell it to a mass market.

For the first time, the giving of gifts became a major feature of Christmas. Early Christians denounced gift-giving as a Roman practice, and Puritans called it diabolical. But Americans were not to be deterred. Thanks to capitalism, there was enough wealth to make gifts possible, a great productive apparatus to advertise them and make them available cheaply, and a country so content that men wanted to reach out to their friends and express their enjoyment of life. The whole country took with glee to giving gifts on an unprecedented scale.

Just had to include the heart of Peikoff's moral argument, 'cuz it's an inspiring passage.

[monday]

You would have been better off just saying

"I don’t agree with Peikoff and his extreme atheism."

and left it at that. The rest of your post made me yawn. I think you and Peikoff deserve each other. Both equally boring.

[LiberationIT]

Shallow.

[Objectivism USA]

Reading Peikoff I don’t find him sneering at Christian’s but merely acknowledging reality. The commercial part of Christmas has eclipsed the religious celebration as demonstrated by where most Americans spend their time, money and energy. Compare the amount of ink used or thought put into Christmas trees, light displays, shopping for presents and all of the other secular parts of Christmas; as opposed to nativity scenes, religious services and thoughts about the birth of Christ.

Extreme atheism: extreme is an adjective that adds nothing to atheism. You are either an atheist or not just as you are either a theist or not; you can’t be any more or any less of a theist or an atheist.

Claiming Creation theory is more rational than evolution theory is wrong. While it is true that evolution as a complete theory is lacking in certain areas, it still is a simpler and therefore more likely explanation of the origin of the universe. If God exits he would have to be greater and more complex than that which he created. 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.

I would have to agree with you about many of our current Socialist intellectual leaders desiring the sacrifice of others. But there are also Pastors that profess Christ while demanding sacrifice on the part of their congregation; sacrifice that in reality ends up benefiting primarily the church leaders.

To call the vision utopian is mistaken. Utopian requires a belief in the perfectibility of mankind. Ayn Rand laid out an idealized vision of man’s potential but I find no evidence that she expected many would live up to it. Until all men are perfect you can never create utopia and to try will always result in catastrophe. The best we can do is try to move things in a better direction.

To claim that an accurate historical description of the true origin of the Christmas holiday some how venerates paganism is wrong. If any one venerates paganism it is those that worship the holiday as a historical reality.

To end with a parting cheap shot about Ayn Rand being influenced by a socialist upbringing is beneath you. I enjoyed your little essay but I am sure with a little time you could have improved the title.

[x]

Good article, but you forgot to mention where to find the Ayatollah Peikoff's fatwah. I found it at Enter Stage Right. The editor "Gordon Gekko" sometimes posts articles here, but unaccountably leaves the more controversial ones at home when he comes.

The mad Mullah of Objectivism writes: "Life requires reason, selfishness, capitalism; that is what Christmas should celebrate--and really, underneath all the pretense, that is what it does celebrate." There's some pedantry involved in telling people what life is or requires, but I'll run the risk and say life is more complex than that.

There have been some pretty rough patches and terrible times in history. Peikoffism would have been scant consolation in the dark ages of history. Even today, it looks more like a fair weather philosophy rather than anything that can sustain people in tough situations. And discarding Christ from Christmas leaves something trivial and forgettable.

So is it to be ever more material goods, ever more materialism and prosperity? Maybe that's not the worst fate, but it does obscure things that can be more important in life. It may be that capitalism, individualism and practical materialism are our fate, but in themselves, they don't always provide the resources to get through the rough patches in the lives of nations or individuals.

[steve-b]

As an admirer of reason, I find the creation theory to be much more rational

An "admirer of reason" finds an obviously circular theory (what created the creator?) to be "much more rational"?

[PatrickHenry]

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.

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.

[laredo44]

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?

[abandon]

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.

[Thorondir]

Are you making fun of the better-than-we-are eternally-less-than-one-percenters? They'll come out of the woodwork to attack you and bolster their hilarious image.