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.
Get serious. The Constitution remains un-read by the vast majority of Congresscretins--or at least, totally disregarded by them. You can explain Congressional actions by the light of the Constitution???? Come, now.
You may speak for your own ancestors. I will claim Adam & Eve. Based on the 4th graph of your response, perhaps the chemicals you descended from were rather inert.
Yes, that is true. Any web site that advocates any agenda is useful only to those who agree with the agenda.
I do think the scientists working in a pure scientific domain such as biology or information science are generally biased towards the truth as revealed by the scientific method.
Careful, or some smartass like me will ask you if you think evolution means progress...because if you do, you are in DEEP trouble.
You trying to tell us that trees can't make one day without sunshine??? You must be a city slicker.
And as YOU well know, we are then back to Communism. Strange how that works, ain'a??
I find it strange that when the probability of random creation is discussed with some thoughtful math analysis, the argument from the evolutionist is then based on an "ad homnem" attack. Just an observation...
But just before that, you said: All scientists, especially biologists, occasionally have to use the UFF to get their data to agree with accepted theory!
And then I laughed out loud.
If you did, I would answer that question with a question: "do you think complexity is progress?"
The Granny Smith apple.
Information theory has a couple main branches, the Shannon branch (coding theory) and the Kolmogorov branch (algorithmic complexity) being the most important in my opinion. Coding theory is extraordinarily practical as an area of mathematics, but algorithmic complexity is the so fundamental to the very nature of things such as intelligence and the limits of knowledge that it boggles the mind. There are numerous stunning realizations to be had in the Kolmogorov realm of things, many of which have only been formalized in the last decade or so. The elegance of it all is breathtaking. In my humble opinion, there are more fantastic insights into our universe in Kolmogorov complexity (broadly speaking) than there is in any other branch of mathematics.
Nothing can blow the mind like a stiff dose of Godel and Kolmogorov to the uninitiated; it beats drugs and has far more utility, though perhaps not the way most people want to spend a Friday evening.
Yes, I was serious about the Nation of Islam thing. I most certainly was. I accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour at the age of 23. My late teens and very early 20's were my "Malcolm X" stage. It can be rightly said that I didn't care for white people very much then. I used to be ashamed to say that, but I'm not ashamed to admit this anymore. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has written similar things about his life.
What can I say? I was young and full of it.
Now, I've never been one who used drugs. Marijuana made me both sleepy and hungry, so I didn't see what all the fuss was about or how you could have fun using it. I witnessed junkies in East Cleveland who shot up at the bus stop. I saw the effects of freebase, heroin, and crack. My father always said that if you want to know what drugs will do to you, just watch someone who uses them. I drank then, but was never an alcoholic.
I tell you all this to demonstrate that I was under no narcotic or prescribed medication when this happened. I was not hallucinating. I didn't say that I "saw" Him. He spoke to me, and told me who He was which lined up squarely with what His Word says. I didn't know much about the Bible, so how was I to know? But this is what He did.
It was because of Him that I realized my dislike for white people was pure evil. He showed me that this was not His way.
And I've never looked at white people with evil in my eyes again. Why? Because He did what no one else could do: change my heart.
You say that He won't reveal Himself to you because He doesn't exist. My friend, His creation speaks to his existence. But I cannot force you to "see" Him. This is up to you.
I hope that you will one day come to a full revelation of Christ. Until then, stay safe my friend. We may disagree, but I don't hold anything against you.
For me it was the ability to actually come to moral judgements in the first place.
But she had some flaws in her character and philosophy as well. After all, she is human too. Thus I find those in her inner circle ("The Collective") such as Peikoff to be sort of creepy because they are so slavishly devoted to her and her philosophy that they seem to have no minds of their own.
LOL! You too? Thank God <ahem> for The Objectivist Center. (Hey - does that constitute the Objectivist Reformation???)
It may be thoughtful math but it isn't thoughtful analysis. Evolutionary "creation" isn't a random process, it is a self-organizing one.
Lose as if you like it; win as if you were used to it. --Tommy Hitchcock
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.