Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals

HATING WHAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND Liberal intellectuals (almost a redundancy, that) hate author Ayn Rand.

They don't just dislike her, they hate her with a passion. The reason? Because she has single-handedly come up with a logical and reasonable philosophy that strips them bare and reveals all their scams and schemes so that people who know her philosophy (Objectivism) automatically spot one of their scams from a long ways away.

They don't subject her to the usual mild criticism or "shunning" to which they subject liberals who say something "slightly different" from "the norm." Their treatment of Rand and her works is visceral and vicious. There are many who merely dismiss her philosophy with the wave of a hand. But they cannot explain why they feel the way they do. If asked for a reason for their opposition to Objectivism, they can't answer and launch into a personal attack on her that amounts to a "fact-free opinion."

If you point out the fact that Objectivism is a "philosophy of reason," they deny the existence of reason. If you point to the logic of Objectivism, they say there is no logic. Then they go on to tell you that "there are no absolutes." Of course, they don't even notice the fact that their very statement is a "statement of an absolute," and negates not only their entire philosophy, but the very statement they have made as well. I love being a proponent of a philosophy that allows me to "shut down" those who disagree with it so easily and completely, and with their own words.

I hasten to say that I do not accept all of Rand's opinions and that I am not an Objectivist. I am a "student of Objectivist philosophy" and am still learning all its facets. That could change later, although I don't think I'll ever agree that abortion is a good thing and that there is no "higher power" although I may not see that "higher power" the same way other people do.

One professor said Rand was a "phony libertarian" who wanted to strip communists of their citizenship. She did not. In fact, she was one of the few people not on the Left who opposed the violation of the rights of communists and said so, in print. She said that stripping them of their rights "is an invalid means of opposing communism and that the proper way to oppose bad ideas was with good ideas."

To show you just how visceral and violent their hate is, there is a story told by Ronald Merril, in his book, The Ideas of Ayn Rand, where a woman's boyfriend was horrified when he saw her reading Atlas Shrugged and grabbed it, throwing it out the window. She watched as the gardener, upon seeing the title, threw it down and ran over it repeatedly. This is an excellent example of the violent reaction that her ideas often get from people who have never really investigated them, but have listened to what their liberal friends have said about her and her works. But again, if you ask them precisely what they don't like about her and her work, they can't answer and usually sneer some personal attack upon her.

That's one of the criticisms that is most often hurled at Objectivism and its creator, that it is a "cult" that does not allow any dissention. That people have been, in effect, "excommunicated" for disagreeing with it in the slightest way. There is a certain amount of truth to that charge, but it only applies to the personal "circle of friends" she laughingly called her "collective." Rand wasn't perfect, although her mistakes are tiny when put alongside her ideas, which are destined to change the world, and already are. She did insist on complete agreement among those people and shunned those who disagreed with her. But that does not apply to those who believe in, and use her ideas to guide their lives, as I do. That's not a "cult, nor is it a "religion."

Objectivism today has two major factions, about even in strength. One faction is run by her "philosophical and financial heir, Dr.Leonard Peikoff. Peikoff was a member of her "collective" and, in my opinion, is an "opportunist," who took advantage of Rand's fall out with her original protégé, Nathaniel Branden and took over her fortune as well as the "mantle" as "The Voice of Objectivism." This faction, running the Ayn Rand Institute, and claims to be the only source for Objectivist information and ideas. But it is this group that operates somewhat as a cult in that Peikoff's contention that Objectivism, as Ayn Rand proposed it, was, and is, complete and not subject to any changes. To be an Objectivist to him, is to accept everything Rand said, as "gospel" and not deviate from it in any way. It is this which gives rise to the "cult" accusation.

But there is a second faction, run by Objectivist philosopher David Kelley, who started and runs the Objectivist Institute, a competing organization whose view of Objectivism is that it is not complete, and can be improved. It is this group who are not, and never will be, "cult-like." If you wish to associate with this group, you will never get any static whichever way you believe.

It is this division in "the ranks" that caused a severe setback in the acceptance of Objectivism for years. This division was worse than that created when Nathaniel Branden left. But the Objectivist Center has had a strong influence and the acceptance of Objectivism as an excellent guide for your life is rising again, as it must, because it is the only logical philosophy there is.

You may not agree totally with the basic tenets of Objectivism, but here you will not be met with a cold silence if you dare to suggest change. In the Objectivist Institute, you will be welcomed and your ideas debated respectfully. The concepts discovered by Objectivists are not subjective, but the final word on the details of Objectivism may not have yet been discovered. You might be the force by which we can improve the philosophy, no matter what Leonard Peikoff might say.

If you're still "drifting in a sea of opposing philosophies," and you don't know why what's happening in this world is happening, this philosophy will help you to understand. Things will become clear to you as never before, and you will be able to, as my older brother Bob said many years ago, "read between the lines" and be able to figure out why people do as they do. What brought me to Objectivism is my inability to understand why people like Nelson Rockefeller, who had more money than he could spend in three lifetimes, supported collectivism even though it was intent on taking his money away (If you want to know the answer to that, e-mail me).

But this philosophy answered most of my questions and therefore, I can follow it for the most part because it's a logical philosophy and its opponents can only stupidly deny the existence of logic to oppose it. They cannot give coherent answers as to why it is bad, so they make things up. If you want to know the truth, go to the source: The Objectivist Center.

I started reading "The Brothers Karamazov" one day....and found it impossible to put down. It took me a couple of months to read it because I had to re-read so many pages. Come to think of it, I think it is time to read that one again!

" Crime often pays. If self-interest is the sole standard for judging"

Rand gave the noninitiation of force principle to forbid that sort of action. That principle in the foundation of her moral code establishes what is forbidden as criminal and defines an evil.

What evidence is there that it is right to sacrafice others?

Look at nature: the principle of "survival of the fittest" is based on all manner of "sacrifices of others." For example, it's very common in many species for the new dominant male to kill the offspring of his predecessor -- which ensures the end of one genetic line and the propagation of another.

Similarly, many a Pharaoh died old, rich, and happy as a result of his ascendancy over his slaves and lackeys -- whose very lives were his to take at a whim. Given their undoubted successes, Ayn Rand would be hard-pressed to claim that Pharaohs' rational self-interest weren't served by their actions.

People who've read and studied the great philosophers don't count Rand among them.

Really? You must be very busy to have met, counted and catalogued all the millions who have studied philosophy! What a heroic sophist you are!

Which reminds me of something very amusing I saw written in a bathroom stall:

"God is Dead"
~Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is Dead"
~God

Ahhhhh, Bathroom philosophy....it needs its' thread!

But again, that's simply asserted, not proven,..

You're right. Just live by your whims. It'll all work out.

Just don't come to a objectivst with your hand our when it doesn't.

Hank

It is morally up to each individual to look out for number one, but not only number one.

But the question is, why? Objectivism can "reject" things all it likes -- but it can provide no objectively true explanation for its rejection.

Suppose we take Rand's advice, and check her premises. We would expect to be able to demonstrate that they are true. But that's precisely what we find we cannot do.

At best, one can argue that objectivism produces "better" results than, say, Cambodian communism. But that is merely a relative comparison -- not a basis for an objective philosophy.

If you point to the logic of Objectivism, they say there is no logic. Then they go on to tell you that "there are no absolutes."

This remark summarizes liberalism in it's entirety.

They want to act in a completely illogical, contradictory manner and generally skew themselves all over the board. THEN if you point this out to them thy have nerve enough to make ridiculous statements like "Uh, well.. like, there are no absolutes"

That's pure emotion talking. People generally default to raw emotion when that's the only standard they can meet.

I never read any "Rand" (thought I have seen it mentioned allot here on FR)

I just may have to check her out.

" Crime often pays. If self-interest is the sole standard for judging"

Rand gave the noninitiation of force principle to forbid that sort of action. That principle in the foundation of her moral code establishes what is forbidden as criminal and defines an evil.

In other words, it's an arbitrary rule, axiomatic and unarguable in Randian philosophy. Just like the Word of God in a religious based philosophy. My, that's certainly objective.

Crime often pays. If self-interest is the sole standard for judging, the only rational rule is "don't get caught".

According to whose values? The problem with is "evidence" is it presumes a value system already in place that automatically dictates what is good and bad. It never askes, good or bad for whom, and for what purpose.

First you must provide the value system. Then show how the evidence supports it.

Why do neither you or r9etb provide us with your system of moral values?

Hank

The problem is that Rand wants to cast some personal preferences as "rational" and others as "irrational".

Why?! Because I said so, that's why!!!

" Altruism that dares not speak its name."

No it's not altruism. The principle recognizes that the nature of man is an individual being and preserves the essence of that being. Altruism is a suicidal form of slavery.

Roscoe: I never mentioned altruism.

Objectivism holds that the fundamental standard for all relationships is the trader principle. This principle holds that we should interact with people on the basis of the values we can trade with them.

One clearly identifiable obligation is that of parents towards young children, who need to be looked after until they develop the ability to think rationally and independently. In having children of their own free will, parents take on this moral responsibility.

[Crime often pays. If self-interest is the sole standard for judging, the only rational rule is "don't get caught".]

According to whose values?

The values of those who have denounced altruism. (Assuming that they are rational and self-consistent.)

So many atheists love to use this as an example of why the God of the bible cannot be. But if the God of the bible is, and it is as it says, He is and He knows the beginning and the end. If heaven is as the bible says, and God so chooses to take those babies to heaven, they are/were much better off than they were living here among evil humans. God would know this.

That would still be a case or moral relativity, since it God would consider it moral for his followers to kill babies in some cases, but not in others.

eBelasco:
I posted it in the form "Why would it be not in my rational self interest to become a dictatorial superman?" and got "That's impossible" as the answer.
-eB-

I guess they think that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc., didn't exist.
101 -roscoe-

How weird a twist, roscoe.

Wanting to become a "dictatorial superman", is not a rational goal. Thus, -- "That's impossible" -- is the correct answer ~if~ you are a rational person.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, were not rational. Nor are you.

No I haven't. I just covered this "nature" and Social Dawinism. Nature is not man and it is also not moral.

Here's the deal. If we're to evaluate the evidence presented to our senses by "reality," we cannot pick and choose which parts to pay attention to, and which to ignore.

What you're doing is claiming a) that we can derive moral principles from rational assessment of the evidence; and b) that any natural evidence is not to be considered.

This is dishonest -- fraudulent, even.

1. It is morally up to each individual to look out for number one, but not only number one.

2. Roscoe: I never mentioned altruism.

You invoked it, but without daring to call it by name.

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.