Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
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 CAN'T TELL YOU WHY
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."
DENYING REASON AND LOGIC
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.
OPPOSING BAD IDEAS WITH GOOD IDEAS
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.
IS OBJECTIVISM A "CULT?"
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.
Well, whimsy maybe. At any rate, I've always found it amusing that Rand had the guy chuckling after 71 pages of turgid prose.
Of course it's "objectively" against what you consider to be his self-interest and happiness, and yours. Now all you have to do is show that your definitions of self-interest and happiness are themselves objective, and not simply your personal, subjective preferences for long life and thinness. After all, this is supposed to be completely objective, right?
It is logical, objective, and (I would have thought) obvious.
It's none of the above, it's simply you defining your values as rational, and other values as irrational. Why is long life better than a short life? For that matter, while you're pondering that one, why not objectively prove that it's better to be alive at all rather than dead?
Have fun ;)
Thus, if non-initiation of force is to be accepted as absolute, the basis for making the claim must come from a source other than application of reason -- from God, for example.
When you get right down to it, the problem is in the claims of absoluteness: they cannot be proved by this allegedly logical philosophy. And without such proof, the foundation of objectivism collapses.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. All knowledge includes assumptions at its base. By definition, assuptions are not proved. If you don't believe the assumptions, all that's built upon them is suspect, but nonproveable assumptions there must be.
Even in mathematics, agruably our most pure knowledge, there are plenty of assumptions. Under certain perfectly valid assumptions, 2+2 is not 4.
Christianity begins with the assumption that God exists. No proof is offered. A second assumption is that the Bible is the Word of God. Again, not proved anywhere.
Hold on a minute -- this isn't apples vs. oranges. The argument is about whether we humans have a moral right to do to each other what we do to other species, and what other members of species do to each other.
The evidence in this regard points to the conclusion that it is OK, "if you can get away with it."
In order for your position to have any merit, we are required somehow to set mankind apart from the processes that are valid and operative from all of those other products of evolution.
Subordinating self-interest to the interest of others most certainly is altrusim. Randites avoid confronting the glaring contradictions in her "philosophy" by closing their eyes to them.
Necessity is determined by ends and goals. To accomplish no ends or reach no goals, nothing in particular is needed.
If you do not care to live happily and successfully in this world, you do not need a moral code, or any other kind of knowledge, for that matter.
Hank
The natural evidence you are claiming important is survival of the fittest. By definition there is no moral code governing that process of interaction; there is only nonrational physical driving forces. Men have introduced moral codes to govern there behavior. Rand holds the noninitiation of force principle that I have proven already, in a previous post, preserves the essence of all men, not just the ones that are adept at coercion.
Social darwinism is not a moral code, it is simply a nonrational, natural order.
Reminds me of something on the bathroom wall of the engineering building when I was in college:
Somebody had written "F--- all engineers!"
Under which was:
"Oh, yeah? Well suck my hydraulic cantilever!"
(It was a treasured exchange that survived many paintings of the bathroom. I hope it's still there....)
Quite so. Look, if we subject objectivism to the rather hyperbolic claims of some of its proponents, then it's going to fail by its own standards. It's not the "only" logical philosophy, insofar as it can't give any sort of logical accounting for personal preference, which is what underlies every human action that we take. Comparatively speaking, that's not a problem, since no other philosophy can either. We can make all sorts of normative arguments about how we should behave, but that's not the same as establishing moral absolutes, no matter how you slice it - "useful" is not the same as "true".
Now, if we're willing to abandon claims of universal truth, and accept normative arguments as valid, that's fine. But if we're going to do that, we might as well skip objectivism altogether and take up utilitarianism, since we'll have essentially come to a utilitarian philosophy through the back door anyway.
This just in - she's still dead.
I'm under the impression reason liberals don't like Rand is she values the individual above the state. The reason I've seen most from conservatives is she's an atheist. Many find her more than a little rigid and idealistic, and unaccepting of man's imperfections.
Bingo. Ultimately, like everything else, objectivism has to resort to taking some things as axiomatic. That doesn't make it any worse than any other sort of morality and ethics, but it certainly puts to the lie the claims that it's somehow superior because it's self-contained. Some things have to be taken as true without being able to prove they are true - "check your premises" does Rand in quite as neatly as it does in any of the other systems she argued against.
There is no God, and Rand is His prophet ;)
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.