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.
A close approximation is where things always reveal themselves the same to us, e.g., the sun warming the earth. We can't know it's true, but we can pretty much plan our lives as if it were, no all knowing authority is needed.
Good for you. An argument about people's expressed preference for liberty, combined with a pragmatic analysis of the consequences of the failure to provide liberty. Keep going in that direction, and you'll wind up with something more rational than objectivism, mainly because you won't be making unprovable assertions about the inherent truth of your axioms, you'll just be looking at their inherent usefulness ;)
How so?
The initiation of government force in the securing of individual rights is proper and indeed an aspect that makes our country great. Where it has been used for other purposes, you'll find a lot of debate about its value.
How could it be otherwise, really? The alternative is that what's right for you is always and everywhere absolutely right for me. I drive fast because I prefer pleasure, you drive slowly because you prefer safety. Clearly, you are irrational for not adopting my preferences as your own.
Or even better, we must strive to live as The Rand has lived, and think as She has thought. Anything different is irrational. So sayeth The Rand.
But this still reduces happiness to the having of certain sensations. What about Aristotle's statement in the Nicomachean Ethics that "we cannot call a man happy until he is dead?"
We all claim our assumptions are correct, otherwise we wouldn't have them as assumptions. It doesn't mean we can prove them. We can, at best, hope they are so obvious, immediate, unamious agreement follows when they are stated.
Proof, at least as I'm familiar with the concept begins with a set of assumptions about what are facts and when conclusions predicated on those facts are to be considered true. Anybody who doesn't accept our "basic facts" and methods for predicating truth on them will, obviously not share those conclusions.
To love God and each other.
moral \mor-el, mar-\ adjective [ME, fr. MF, fr. L moralis, fr. mor-, mos custom] (14c)
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
e : capable of right and wrong action
2 : probable though not proved : virtual
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will morally \-e-le\ adverb
Synonyms
moral, ethical, virtuous, righteous, noble mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. moral implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong . ethical may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity . virtuous implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character . righteous stresses guiltlessness or blamelessness and often suggests the sanctimonious . noble implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character .
This is also an assumption and without proof.
As is this: "Christianity also claims that God reveals His will to us, and that the Bible represents a compilation of revelations."
According to whose values?
The values of those who have denounced altruism. (Assuming that they are rational and self-consistent.)
The question meant according to whose values does crime pay? I don't think your answer pertained to that. If it did, it means, those who oppose altuism believe crime pays, or that what is gained by means of crime is of real value.
That's an odd view, and one I've never heard any anti-altruist advance.
Nevertheless, this anti-altruist does not agree that gain via crime (I mean stealing, not breaking arbitraty government laws) is not good, and not a positive value.
How can that possibly be good? In what value system?
Hank
Congratulations, you pretty much called post #200.
Bully! Hear! Hear! Huzzah!
Only animals can be amoral. Everyone has moral principles, if not explicitly, than implicit in all they choose and pursue in life. One cannot be happy and successful in life if their moral principles are incorrect.
Hank
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.