Posted on 12/29/2001 12:09:43 AM PST by Starmaker
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 nuance 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 egotistic, 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.
But the for a quick (non)answer--signs and seasons. #66
Given the scientfic qualities of times and seasons to creation, don't you think that it is a bit odd that we have two days of the creation dedicated to light, and the second one is the one that sustains life? Why didn't God get it right the first time? And why is the life giving light after trees and grasses are created?
Again, just want to know how you think it out.
As for reading all of her works and paint them with a broad brush Don't try to be so damned condescending, by calling her an anarchist you are proving that you have no ability to paint those broad strokes yourself.
The issue is not whether plants can cope for a day without sunlight, but that the scientific evidence is that the sun and stars are enormously ancient compared to grasses and trees.
I did enjoy how you wrapped capitalism into the creation model, really quite funny. I guess I am on a wire here and taking shots at both sides of the wall. The other very difficult thing is that I am trying not to offend anyone because I really enjoy the exchange in here.
How can you logically conclude anything that is not fully understood by man, you can only theorize, and at that not very logically. The same way it would not look "logical" if you tried to run a 100 yard dash through a dark room full of tables. You would need a headlight, the same way that you need a basis of human intellect in describing miracles and their energy.
Both the agnostic and the believer discover miracles by the same method, faith.
There is that "faith" again. I am not against faith per se, I have faith in entities and objects that deserve faith, like a bridge or George W., because my logical deduction of their uses leads me to beleive that they can be trusted. I do not understand though how you can have faith in the teachings of a nonsensical book ( I realize this is offensive, but I do not mean it to be, I was forced to read it in High School and I do not find it to make sense at all, only loosley connected stories with weak moral conclusions.) and those who claim to understand it. Why do you blindly trust that they are not BSing you. I have found nothing to point to the contrary.
Now that's what I call "enlightenment!"
I have witnessed miracles of such an unexplainable scale, that running an hundred yard dash through a dark room full of tables would be child's play. You have the choice to observe the miracle as illogical if you wish, but that would require some measure of denial. I cannot deny what I have experienced. I am not offended that you call the Bible a nonsensical book, to some degree I see your reason for thinking so. But it still takes faith to support your conclusion.
How can you possibly have faith in GWB, when he's just one of us Christian dupes/dolts? Wouldn't that qualify him for moron status in your book?
I do not understand though how you can have faith in the teachings of a nonsensical book ( I realize this is offensive, but I do not mean it to be, I was forced to read it in High School and I do not find it to make sense at all, only loosley connected stories with weak moral conclusions.)
I have faith in that "nonsensical book" for a couple of reasons. I have found -- through study and prayer -- that it contains fundamental truths, and helpful life applications. Mind you, I haven't always felt this way. I was raised in the church (thank God) but didn't appreciate and comprehend these things until my late 20s. (That's where C.S. Lewis came in and truly made a difference in the way I viewed life and the universe.)
And those who claim to understand it. Why do you blindly trust that they are not BSing you.
Who would the "they" be in that interrogative, sir? Whom do you suppose is BS-ing me? To what end? For what gain? You really are beginning to sound like an anti-religious bigot. Are we all dupes, led by the nose?
A couple final question for you: Why is it wrong to steal? (Don't even start with any explanation about laws, either.) Perhaps more appropriately, is it wrong to steal, and if so, why? Are there any moral truths? If so, where did they come from?
I should add Nietzsche to that mix as well.
You keep great company!
Is that your own quote? I love it. I hope you don't mind if I rip it off for future use.
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.