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.

So... your preferred alternative is to not judge a moral code by its results???

The problem is that objectivism doesn't claim to be simply useful, it claims to be objectively true in its principles. Judge moral codes by their outcomes all you like, but that's a fundamentally utilitarian approach, not an objectivist approach. If the principles of objectivism are objectively true, we ought to be able to see them proven rationally, not by simply appealing to the consequences. Appealing to the consequences in trying to demonstrate the usefulness of a thing is perfectly appropriate. Appealing to the consequences in trying to prove the truth of a thing is, as you must know, a logical fallacy.

No, it boils down to: What kind of world would it be if this was the operating principle? Would "might makes right" set up a virtuous circle of increasing prosperity, or would it create a vicious circle where civilization never would have gotten off the ground in the first place?

Let's see -- China, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Rome, Persia, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas -- all of which thrived by conquest, enslavement, and various forms of brutality, and all civilizations that somehow managed quite well to get off the ground.

And which kind of resulting world would you rather live in?

If a morality boils down to what world I would rather live in, then it is not objective. After all, you probably want your world to be different from how I want mine. In an objective world we takes what we gets, and live with it.

Don't forget: what I'm attacking here is the objectivst claims to have derived an absolute and objective morality.

Because to do so would make us hypocrites. We don't really believe that might makes right is an absolute.

It's true that neither you nor I believe such a thing. However, there are plenty of people who do believe in might makes right, and plenty of people who've become quite wealthy as a result of it.

The bottom line questions are whether we can really say it's wrong, and if so, on what basis?

This is not an idle question -- if we're to effectively counter people like the Clintons, we've got to have a plausible response to their claims. Might makes right is horrible to contemplate -- and it's horrible precisely because it's so logically consistent.

Objectivism does not provide a logical alternative, both because it is so easy to show that it's self-contradictory, and also because it's contrary to many of the tenets of traditional morality that have proven themselves to be effective over centuries, and which people know to be true even if they cannot articulate them.

The task is to formulate a system whereby those traditional values are once again respectable. It's a tough problem if you want to compete with people who feel no obligation to play according to your rules, and whose alternatives seem a lot more fun than what we're offering.

" Objectivism does not provide a logical alternative, both because it is so easy to show that it's self-contradictory, and also because it's contrary to many of the tenets of traditional morality that have proven themselves to be effective over centuries, and which people know to be true even if they cannot articulate them."

You've demonstrated neither. You've not pointed out the contradictions, nor have you pointed out where it's contrary to traditional morality whatever that is.

Show me that personal preferences are objectively rational or irrational.
Prove to me that altruism is inherently irrational, and acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational.
257 -gre-

Who said preference has to be either? -- Or, that altuism has to be irrational?

However, acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational.. This is so self evident that to claim otherwise is ludicrous, to me. We learn this lesson at our mothers breast. - Don't bite the tit that feeds you.
You're simply playing word games with the self-interest issue.

The 'traditional moralists' here at FR simply ~do not~ believe in the principles of a free private life, liberty under due process of law, or the unfettered pursuit of private property & "happiness".

Nope, we must abide by "the tenets of traditional morality that have proven themselves to be effective over centuries", -- those that they proclaim to be absolute.

---- "The utterly insufferable arrogance of power, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition. -- Nothing can be done about it. - Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others."
-unknown-

However, acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational.

If that is an objectively true and rational statement, then we ought to be able to do more than just assert its truth - we ought to be able to prove the truth of it. Let's see if we can do as Rand says we should, and check our premises by proving the truth of it. I'll let you start. Heck, I'll let you finish it and do all the middle parts too ;)

u: BTW, Randites ignore that Fascism is corporate management of government...

xm: 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?

While I haven't taken the time to delve in detail into all the muck of Randism, I see a big gap in anything proposed by Randites, about how to check monopolies, oligopolies, and the Fascism that results. And yes, this sure becomes a form of socialism and moves sharply toward totalitarianism.

Frankly, I've also found a pretty blind eye given to the tyranny of monopolies by many actual conservatives too, including our champion, Rush.

Anyone out there care to explicate, how the atheist philosopher novelist who is the topic of this thread purports to prevent this degradation of free enterprise in the direction of shrugging oligopolistic Fascists, in her imported revisionistic concoctions?

If that is an objectively true and rational statement, then we ought to be able to do more than just assert its truth - we ought to be able to prove the truth of it. Let's see if we can do as Rand says we should, and check our premises by proving the truth of it. I'll let you start. Heck, I'll let you finish it and do all the middle parts too ;)

A well evolved rationale. Creative, too.

Monopolies and the like only exist, because of govm't support and protection. It's their use of govm't coercive force that enables it. That coercive force includes the ability to raid pockets and distribute wealth for the purposes of maintaining a support base in the electorate.

Rand's philosophy prohibits the theft of wealth and property, because it is a violation of the noninitiation of force principle. That alone would cut off the funding for the bribery that occurs every election cycle. That same principle would forbid the govm't from creating rules that eliminate the competition for large, well established orgs.

I am challenging you to prove your claims,p> I have.

...you are, remember, supposed to be trying to prove.

Please quote the post where I said I was trying to prove anyting to anyone. The only thing I said about proof is that both the Calculus and the fundamental tenents of objectivism (not necessarily every facet of Rand's version of it, with which I myself have some dissagreements) have been proved, both logically and practically, but most people are too stupid to understand either.

Now you have graciously proved that assertion as well.

Thank you!

Hank

That's really my only point here. No matter what system of morality and ethics you evolve, it's ultimately going to rest on premises that must be taken as axiomatic because they are fundamentally unprovable, and objectivism is no different than any other system in that regard. Objectivism is a perfectly logical system, if you accept those fundamental axioms. If you don't, and prefer some other set of axioms, then it's not logical at all.

And that's true of almost all moral structures - almost everyone claims that their system of morality is grounded in objective truth, with the possible exception of consequentialist systems. If you accept the axiom that God exists and He has made certain pronouncements about morality, then a theistic system of morality and ethics follows perfectly logically from that. If you don't accept those axioms, that system of morality will not be logical to you. In that regard, objectivism is neither more nor less rational than any other system of morality.

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.