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.
One would think that a completely objective philosophy shouldn't need that sort of crutch, but there you go. Even Thomas Jefferson didn't claim that "these truths are self-evident", merely that "we hold these truths to be self-evident". And TJ was no dummy - presumably, if he could have proven them, he would have...
Our "constitutional experience" has little in common with Objectivism.
Really? When did it abandon the non-initiation of force principle?
Nicely said.
Either there is a goal or purpose to human life that lies behind "self-interest" or there isn't. If there is such a goal, then wouldn't the pursuit of that goal be the purpose of life, rather than just self-interest. If there isn't such a goal or purpose, then the pursuit of self-interest may well be our highest goal, but that doesn't tell us much about what we should do. So what is one's "self-interest," and how much freedom is there to disagree about just what one's true self-interest may be?
Alternatively, there may be no one purpose or goal or standard of value. I may resist attempts to force me to make sacrifices for some presumed common good, yet still praise those who, at critical moments in history, have made just such sacrifices. Self-sacrifice shouldn't be made the end of our existence, but civilization owes much to those who sacrificed their lives for it. I don't think Rand would disagree with this, though she might try to fudge things to preserve her slogans.
If "good" health is objectively better than "bad" health, then ya'lls arguments are exposed.
Arguing no one can objectively prove anything is pure sophistry, and does not fly with real thinkers, in my experience.
No? How about "acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational"? Can you prove that, or do we just accept it to be true? After all, the denial, "acting in one's self-interest is not inherently rational" isn't self-contradictory, is it?
For example. The mystic "axiom," "there is a god." To say, "there is no god" is not self-contradictory, and therefore not an axiom. The logical "axiom" "existence exists" (or there is existence). To say "existence does not exist" (or there is no existence) is self-contradictory, thus, "existence exists" is an axiom.
No, actually it's not axiomatic - you just used the law of non-contradiction to logically prove that existence exists. Given that ~(P & ~P) is true, ~P being false logically implies that P is true. And if you can prove that something is true, there's no need to regard it as an axiom.
She's a horrible writer, albeit one with valuable insights into philosophy? That's a start ;)
Makes more sense than most of the objections on this thread. Sadly.
--------------------------
Why do you, roscoe & the boyos here sneer & ridicule the axioms she supports, -- The same ones you embrace & admit are 'useful'?
The problem isn't the philosophy per se, it's the sales pitch. Objectivism has no special claim to rationality over and above any other system of morality, and yet it purports exactly that - "the only objectively true and rational system of morality", is how it was phrased earlier in the thread, IIRC.
Big deal. One persons opinion, 'IIRC', is not proof that Rand made "special claims".
But it can't be proven objectively true unless the premises can be proven objectively true, and so that claim is of the same order as it would be about any other system of morality - an unproven assertion, that may or may not be actually true.
You seem to think this what, -nihlist?- view of 'unproven assertions' you have is some sort of trump philosophical card. It makes no sense. Get over yourself.
I cant speak for others, of course, but my own objective is not to knock objectivism down, and show that it's somehow inferior to other moral systems - I don't believe that to be the case, really. Rather, this is more dealing with claims of exceptionalism than anything else. It's not worse than any other given system as far as I can tell, but neither is it inherently superior.
You keep repeating the claim that Rands objectivism sees itself as exceptional.. So what?
Yup. Good luck proving it.
Arguing no one can objectively prove anything is pure sophistry
And when you run into such a person, you will rightly point that out to them. On the other hand, that doesn't help you much with someone who only argues that some things cannot be objectively proven.
Really? When did it abandon the non-initiation of force principle?
You will not find in any objectivist literature the principle that describes any "non-initaion of force," axiom. The principle that says, in relationships between human beings, it is the initiation of the use of force that is morally repugnant, is to differentiate it from the use of force in defence against its initiation. It is never described as an axiom.
The principle is based entirely on the nature or human beings and the requirements of their nature for their survival. Humans, to live and survive must be free to think and choose their behavior. The initiation of the use of force prohibits them from carrying out that process.
But, never mind. All of this is for those who are not terrified of being entirely responsible for themselves and their own lives. It is not for you.
Hank
Actually, I think you're complicating a very simple idea.
What if I rephrased it, "in life you're going to have to make choices between short-term, feel-good pleasure and long-term, life-improving gain"?
I believe life has what meaning you give it. To Michael Jordan, the 'meaning of life' was to be the best BBall player. To Mozart, it was to the greatest composer. To some, it's just to make it to their next beer.
'Objectivism' is the idea that is is 'moral' for an individual to make the best choice for their 'long-term' interest. Certainly it's *never* possible to fully know which the right choice is. But the main goal of a man (or woman, of course) is to figure out what that is.
It's what we all do, in fact.
It's as proven as, "the sun is hot".
I suggest you even believe it yourself, and are just arguing to argue.
Or do you really expect me to believe that you, personally believe that good nutrition is no better a life choice than good nutrition?
Oops!
:-D
Or do you really expect me to believe that you, personally believe that good nutrition is no better a life choice than good bad nutrition?
No? How about "acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational"?
Objectivism does not regard, "acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational," as an axiom, and you will never find it described as such. It is a derivative concept. But don't worry about it. It requires some very regorous logic which may be too difficult for you.
No, actually it's not axiomatic - you just used the law of non-contradiction to logically prove that existence exists. Given that ~(P & ~P) is true, ~P being false logically implies that P is true. And if you can prove that something is true, there's no need to regard it as an axiom.
I do not believe most objectivists would regard you as the God of what can and cannot be regarded as something. You may ragard it any way you please, that's what objectivists believe. Objectivists regard "existence exists" as axiomatic because it is an irreduceable primary that cannot be denied without being self-contradictory.
Hank
Or do you really expect me to believe that you, personally believe that good bad nutrition is no better a life choice than good nutrition?
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.