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.
Not only that, but what's right for you now is always and everywhere absolutely right for you.
So you say. But you're once again demanding that I accept a series of unproved assertions, based on your underlying (and also unproved) claim that self-interest is THE basis of morality.
However, consider the mother who sacrifices her life to save her child. It's a looooong stretch to call this an act of self-interest. It's much easier to call it what it is: altruism. Ayn Rand's rules simply do not apply in this case -- the mom can't be "happy" if she's dead, and I know enough women who've lost children to claim that she can't be "happy" if she decides to let the kid die.
OTOH, if I say that "the good of the species" is the highest good, the mother's actions are clearly moral -- and we have the added benefit of being able to observe that such altruistic behavior has evolved in other species. In this frame of reference, we are free to consider the facts, and conclude that altruism serves to further our supposed moral purpose.
To seek knowledge.
Back to the kiddie pool with you, tippie. If you can't even correctly summarize the discussion, you have no business discussing it.
For the record, I see life and the pursuit of happiness as part of liberty. Denial of either is denial of liberty.
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.No, appealing to the behavior of other species to ground your moral code for humans is almost completely wrong. (I may say "completely wrong" after thinking about this some more.)In that case, we see that Rand's "assumptions" have some real problems -- and at the very least her system is not objective.
The proper moral system for Man is that which is compatible with our human nature. What is it that defines us? We're the rational animal. We're the ones who are able to rise above our biological heritage as an ape. We're born with precious few innate survival skills, except for one: Our rational brains.
This ability is also our necessity, since it's about all we've got going against the lions & tigers & bears (oh my). It's also what let us produce modern civilization, thus rising above the natives, Ted Kaczynski, etc. But this ability is what makes us individuals. Each one of us ends up drawing upon a myriad of shaping, instructive experiences throughout our lives, and reflecting on those experiences, as we decide for ourselves how to live.
The question now becomes: What kind of moral system best supports our innate desire to thrive, given what we know about human nature? This is true whether "our creator" was mindless, godless evolution or if we were thunk up in an instant by a bored supernatural God-person. Either way, here we are, with our big brains & not much else, wanting to know how to live. Now what do we do?
Do you see why evolution and the behavioral quirks of other species are irrelevant to this question?
Because we're not discussing them. We're discussing the supposedly logical, rational, proveable basis of Rand's philosophy.
But you keep saying this cannot be proved and that cannot be proved but make no effort to say what you mean by prove. If you gave an example of your moral code and showed how it could be proved, we would all know what you mean. You can understand how you reluctance to do so castes great doubt on your assertions that you do have a moral code.
You also make a great many value judgements that must depend on some code, but do not say what it is. For example, biological evolution, better predators, avoiding extinction, "good" of the species, are declard by you as good. But, you do not say on the basis of what value system you are making that judgement.
If you do not have a value system, or do not care to tell us what it is, all such judgements are arbitrary and meaningless. Which seems pretty much the case.
Hank Hank
True, and it is also a form of socialism just like communism is. The Nazis were the National "Socialist" Party. Both systems are socialistic, the primary difference being that communism is much more centralized. I'm not certain that AR understood this about socialism. Did she?
Actually, I suscribe the the opposite position: Right makes Might. Right attracts; wrong repels. Strength in numbers as it were. Liberty attracts; slavery repels. That is why America, based, comparatively at least, in liberty is mighty.
So where does that leave objectivism? You're saying that it is true to those who care to agree with its assumptions. Objectivism, however, claims that it is true -- absolutely true -- regardless of what we might think of its assumptions.
In post #224, I stated I believe man's purpose is "To seek knowledge." But you just left the question hanging...
One one side of your mouth you're saying that following the principles of survival of the fittest is wrong -- a moral judgement. On the other side of your mouth you're apparently claiming that there is no moral weight in "acting Darwinian."
Your definition is very nice -- and it also doesn't prove anything related to your point.
You're missing the point, though. I'm not saying that Darwin's observations are a moral code. I'm saying that it is possible to construct a moral code, the efficacy of which is supported by Darwin's observations. If you want an objective moral code, what more could you ask?
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.