Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals

Sierra Times ^ | 5/1/03 | Ray Thomas

[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.

[spunkets]

" 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."

Individuals that are interested in what interests others might have are not subordinating anything, it is what interests them. IOW, it happens to be one of their many interests; that makes it a self interest. There is no glaring contradiction. There is only a denial by Rand's detractors, that an individual could possibly be interested in someone else's interests. The fact is that Rand herself was interested in the welfare of others. That's why she held and defended the noninitiation of force principle as central to her moral code.

[GSWarrior]

I've never read anything by Rand,

If you're inclined, start with 'We The Living', IMO her best and least polemic work.

[Roscoe]

Individuals that are interested in what interests others might have are not subordinating anything, it is what interests them.

It's not altruism if it "interests" them. Quite a non sequitur.

[general_re]

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.

Very true, but that kills the notion that objectivism is the only "logical" system of philosophy. If you accept the premises as axioms, then you can construct the objectivist system in a perfectly logical manner, but since there's no way to prove the axioms, there's no real reason to accept the axioms of objectivism over some other set of axioms. And if I then choose to substitute some other set of unprovable axioms - such as "God exists and he says X is wrong" - then I can construct some completely different system in a perfectly logical manner, just as logically as I can construct the objectivist philosophy.

No philosophy is completely self-contained and completely provable - it can't be, as you quite rightly point out. That doesn't make objectivism inherently inferior to other philosophies, but it ends any nonsense about it being inherently superior.

[spunkets]

"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."

There is no moral right to do any such thing. That is the natural order of the immoral. There is nothing moral about it.

Moral codes and their fundamental principles are created by rational beings for a purpose. They are not found in nature. Nature is governed by nonrational automatic forces. The forces involved in moral guidance are derived from their creation by rational beings.

[laredo44]

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".

There is but one moral absolute. Liberty.

[Roscoe]

There is no moral right to do any such thing. That is the natural order of the immoral. There is nothing moral about it.

It's pure self-interest in action.

[r9etb]

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

Because we're not discussing them. We're discussing the supposedly logical, rational, proveable basis of Rand's philosophy.

You're trying to change the subject.

[spunkets]

"It's not altruism if it "interests" them."

No one can act without it interesting them. We are talking about rational beings here. There is absolutely no way any man can act, unless he is interested in doing so. That includes coercion, because the only way coercion can work is if the man wishes to avoid pain, or to live on this Earth a little longer.

If you don't think so, then explain how anyone can act if they not interested in doing so.

[r9etb]

Altruism is a suicidal form of slavery.

Prove it.

[Space Wrangler]

I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged again, and she has the current liberal philosophy pegged to a tee. It's almost spooky. And all this from a book that was written in the 40's.

[spunkets]

It's automata; it's not moral action.

[Roscoe]

No one can act without it interesting them.

Any action fits that definition and you've said exactly nothing.

[unspun]

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.

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

Nor John D. Rockefeller, nor J. Paul Getty, nor US Steel, nor Microsoft, of course. ;-`

[freeforall]

I believe that it's impossible to achieve moral perfection according to divine standards, and that it's only possible for short stretches under human standards. As with any other learned skill, keeping it honed to utter perfection flies against man's nature. Michael Jordan missed baskets. Da Vinci made bad brushstrokes. Einstein was goofy at arithmetic. No great moralist—Rand included—ever led a perfectly ethical life. Learned skills can be polished, but never perfected. Does that mean that men have "feet of clay" and that, therefore, moral ideals are pointless? Hardly. No rational man believes that failure to achieve perfection negates the necessity for standards of right and wrong. Standards are ideals toward which to strive.
I regard thinking as more flexible than dogmatism. Principles belong in the field of thinking, whereas rules tend to fall in the field of dogmatism. This is not always true, but in practice it tends to work out that way. For example, we've all heard of the boss or coworker who is so rigidly rule-oriented that he becomes unreasonable. He is unable to adapt to a shifting context. On the other hand, a principled man can adapt, because he knows that principles are always contextual. The rule-slave will not be charitable to a late coworker because the rule is that you arrive at work on time - period. Never mind unexpected traffic jams or other factors, that's the rule! On the other hand, while the principled man will view timely arrival as a good idea, he'll understand that it only makes sense in normal situations - that is, unless the underlying context changes.
One of the factors that has undermined conceptual thinking in America is the failure to appreciate the true usefulness of principles. Part of that usefulness is their flexibility, their resilience in the face of the vagaries of real life. Take another example. A rule-oriented man who accepts the dictum, "Though shalt not kill," can easily be led to pacifism. He will never kill for any reason. He takes the rule as a rigid, noncontextual absolute. The principled man, on the other hand, will look at the commandment and question it. After all, he knows that a person has the right of self-defense, which may occasionally require him to kill an aggressor. That is also why the original version of the commandment was, "Thou shalt not murder," a principle, not merely a rule. Over the eons, the original has been corrupted to the point near nonsense.

I know that not everyone looks at the difference this way, but I think it's the distinction that makes the most sense. This is not to deny that principles can, at a certain level, also be absolute. They are absolute in the sense that one can, to the best of his ability, put their application into full context for a particular situation. On the other hand, actually achieving full context is an enormously difficult thing in the fray of daily life. It's so easy to miss facts and other relevant ideas in the heat of stress and motion. Hence, most philosophers (Rand and a few others excepted) don't think that it makes sense to talk about applying principles absolutely. Theoretically, sure. But to act in an absolutely - i.e., flawlessly - principled fashion, no.
Now, if Rand meant that it's possible to do the right thing - to act perfectly at times or in certain situations - like bowlers can hit 300 games or golfers can shoot holes-in-one - sure, who could disagree with that? But to achieve perfection overall in one's moral life? I've yet to meet the man who's done so. I think it's inconsistent with human nature. Part of our nature is to learn by trial and error - i.e., from our constantly generated imperfections.

[r9etb]

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.

Right. But Rand claims claims that her assumptions are correct, and that all others are wrong -- which implies that she's got some means of proving her unprovable assumptions.

The problem is, what happens if I invoke what I see in nature and explained by the theory of evolution, as the basis of some other system? For example, I could choose, "what's best for the species," or "might makes right," either of which can be defended by observable evidence, and both of which are anathema to what Rand claims.

In that case, we see that Rand's "assumptions" have some real problems -- and at the very least her system is not objective.

[general_re]

There is but one moral absolute. Liberty.

Just don't worry about objectively proving that - instead, take it as axiomatic, and we'll be okay ;)

It all depends on your axioms, in the end. The devout Christian will tell you that hedonism is wrong because God says so. And despite a lot of noise otherwise, the objectivist answer really boils down to not much more than saying that hedonism is wrong because Rand says so. The casual reader may be excused for failing to see how the second is an objective improvement over the first...

[Roscoe]

It's automata; it's not moral action.

Acting in self-interest is "automata", rejecting self-interest is "moral action"?

Her theology's internal contradictions have got you arguing against yourself.

[unspun]

I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged again, and she has the current liberal philosophy pegged to a tee. It's almost spooky. And all this from a book that was written in the 40's.

If you'd like to read something even more interesting, try The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis and How Should We Then Live by Francis Schaeffer.

[laredo44]

That doesn't make objectivism inherently inferior to other philosophies, but it ends any nonsense about it being inherently superior.

Inferiority and superiority depend on the value of the axioms underlying them. A good axiom, one that will lead to a superior philosophy, is one that is so obvious people stare at you as if to say, "Well, of course that's true, why would you even mention it." When you get axioms not rooted in cultures, you're getting somewhere.

Can you get to one philosophy that is superior to all others? It will have to be pretty generic. The only axiom I can think of is it must be based on liberty.