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.

One of the factors that has undermined conceptual thinking in America is the failure to appreciate the true usefulness of principles.

All well and good. I think we ought to evaluate principles in terms of their usefulness myself, actually. But the claim of Rand is not that her principles are useful, the claim is that they are true. And there's a whole world of difference between the two.

"Altruism is a suicidal form of slavery.
...
Prove it.

Altruism is action driven by someone else's interests. It is an impossible system that can never exist in reality; it's an illusion, because interest in the welfare of others is an interest of the individual holding that interest. It is a self intest of the individual.

If someone decides to be irrational and dedicate their existance to the will of others and abandons his own nature to some external force, he has essentially committed suicide. His self is dead, his will is gone and has been replaced by another. Most likely, another that will use his new resource 'till it no longer lives. at all

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.

Christianity follows up with the claim that God reveals his existence to us -- which relieves us as individuals from the problem of evidentiary proof. Christianity also claims that God reveals His will to us, and that the Bible represents a compilation of revelations.

Be that as it may, the role of God in this argument is as the source of truth. To wit: given that we cannot demonstrate the proof of our assumptions, the only way we know they're true is if some unassailable authority tells us that they're true.

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.
147 -r9-

We set mankind apart long ago in our constitution.
The evidence shows that our rule of law works.
There is no evidence to your conclusion that Rand advocates anarchy or that ~it's~ OK, "if you can get away with it."

If someone decides to be irrational and dedicate their existance to the will of others and abandons his own nature to some external force, he has essentially committed suicide.

The non-initiation of force principle is suicide?

Of course it's "objectively" against what you consider to be his self-interest and happiness, and yours.

Eating cake breakfast, lunch and dinner is "objectively" against his self-interest. Because eating that way will have effects that will be "objectively" bad -- poor health, weight, under-nourishment, etc.

It is logical, objective, and (I would have thought) obvious.

If you're just arguing to argue, enjoy yourself tho.

. By definition there is no moral code governing that process of interaction; there is only nonrational physical driving forces.

So you say. But you're just tossing out assertions and demanding that I accept them as true. I'm challenging you to prove your assertions like a good objectivist should.

Can you get to one philosophy that is superior to all others?

Define "superior". Personally, I'm an outcomes-based kind of guy - a superior philosophy is one that produces an improvement in the human condition, and an inferior philosophy is one that leads to a worsening of the human condition. But that, of course, depends in turn upon how I define "improvement" and "worsening", not to mention "human condition", so we'll have to argue about that and form some consensus there, too. And naturally, I'm abandoning claims of universal truth in favor of purely pragmatic considerations, but there's an up-side to that - once we agree on the desired outcome, it's a hell of a lot easier to show that something's useful, versus showing that it's true ;)

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

Not true. That is what Rand said also and it does have meaning. The meaning is as you have recognized, all actions of the individual are driven by that individuals interest. You've just chose to call it nothing.

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

No, I won't attempt to prove liberty's absoluteness. I'll simply do what all else do, and ask that they make the case against it. Argue that all societies based on it's negation failed, or are in the process of failing. That people aren't drawn to slavery.

I'll also challenge others to add other moral absolutes that can stand as axioms with liberty. I currently know of none. Liberty is inherent in the human condition -- again something I assert, not something I propose to prove.

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.

How about one that has demonstrated its robustness over several hundred million years -- Survival of the Fittest? Or its companion, Might Makes Right? (After all, we can see that the strongest tend to be the fittest.)

True, these ideas are not particularly kind to the idea of liberty, but they do seem to meet the evidentiary standards that Rand would demand of an objective philosophy.

When are they going to open The New Getty Villa anyway? I'm tired of waiting.

Maybe after Saddam's palaces are all refurbed?

BTW, Randites ignore that Fascism is corporate management of government, for her preeminent principle of self interest. It is the natural outcome of capitalism without the restraint necessary to preserve free enterprise. Her selection of morals doesn't stand against that set of forces. It takes a sense of eternal responsiblity. Essentially, "It takes a whole, Godly world view," to raise a nation adequately.

Sheesh. Who wants to run around from Randite article to Randite article, according to RJC's agenda?

If philosophical and moral discussions are what "News/Activism" is for, let's post articles that actually reflect American political philosophy... I'll be posting one probably this evening.

I trust that if a number of them are posted and they refer to Jesus Christ at times, they won't be dispatched to the Religion forum. :-)

Because eating that way will have effects that will be "objectively" bad -- poor health, weight, under-nourishment, etc.

Prove it, objectively. Why is "poor" health objectively not in someone's self-interest, or less so than "good" health?

Now, I have a sneaky suspicion that the answer I'll get in return is something along the lines of "if you can't see the truth of that, there's no point in blah blah blah", although it would be nice to be surprised with a real, live argument, instead of simply assertions that what you say is true.

It's harder than you think, objectively proving something that seems so obvious on its face - in fact, it's damn near impossible. But you're supposed to be able to prove the truth of what you say - if you can't, how do we know it's objectively true? How do we know that you're not simply defining "good" health as better, and thereby simply defining hedonism as worse?

Argue that all societies based on it's negation failed, or are in the process of failing.

America's systems of self government and ordered liberties have always involved strong elements self sacrifice and the initiation of governmental force. You'll find no support for Randian rhetoric there.

Why is "poor" health objectively not in someone's self-interest, or less so than "good" health?

Self-interest always consists of subjective choices, yet they call a philosophy founded on the deification of such choices "Objectivism." A delicious contradiction.

Why is "poor" health objectively not in someone's self-interest, or less so than "good" health?

Rrrrright.

Okay, then.

I really suspect your goal is just to kill time here, so I'll let you enjoy yourself.

But just consider, when you find yourself arguing that poor health is no worse than good health . . . that's no different than arguing the meaning of 'is'.

Have a nice day.

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.