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.
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
Everything is knowable, sez Ayn. Unfortunately, not everything is provable, so how do we know things to be true that we can't prove to be true? "Acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational" is likely to be fiendishly difficult to prove, or flat-out impossible, so how do we know it to be true? Can't be mysticism, we're not supposed to take it on faith, or just intuitively feel that it's true... so how are we supposed to know it to be true?
Unprovable assertions...it's not a trump card, but it sure doesn't look good when you rely on unprovable assertions - assertions that you can't know are true - to construct a philosophy that says that everything is knowable and rationally accessible.
What you or I believe is not the issue - objectivism says that things are knowable without relying on anything but reason. So go ahead and reason your way into proving that good nutrition is better than bad nutrition, without simply substituting in your own preference for good nutrition, and without simply assuming it to be true and thereby taking it as true on faith. After all, if you can't prove it, how can you say that you "know" it to be true?
I'll take my chances - go ahead and make your case.
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.
I do not think "axiom" means quite what you think it means - perhaps you will accept some source other than me as an authority on this?
As I said, it's as 'proven' as "the sun is hot".
One bit of evidence that it *is* that proven is that you, yourself, believe it to be a proven fact.
In fact, I'd bet near to 100% of people you ask will agree it's a proven fact.
You're simply arguing to practice arguing.
I don't really mind.
Brings back fond memories of late-night bull sessions in college.
"Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge."
Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
Again... So what? -- Yes, Rands objectivism rejects mysticism as a means of gaining knowledge. Big deal. Get over it. Be as 'mystic' as you like.
Everything is knowable, sez Ayn. Unfortunately, not everything is provable, so how do we know things to be true that we can't prove to be true?
Sorry, that makes little sense. You're grasping..
"Acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational" is likely to be fiendishly difficult to prove, or flat-out impossible, so how do we know it to be true?
As I said earlier, which you couldn't refute, we learn rational self interest at our mothers breast.
Can't be mysticism, we're not supposed to take it on faith, or just intuitively feel that it's true... so how are we supposed to know it to be true?
'True' or not self interest works. You are arguing to argue.
Unprovable assertions...it's not a trump card, but it sure doesn't look good when you rely on unprovable assertions - assertions that you can't know are true - to construct a philosophy that says that everything is knowable and rationally accessible.
Until a better idea comes along, a philosophy that says that everything is knowable and rationally accessible, trumps your mysticism, im my book.
So if I believe it, it must be true? Why, Dom, I really believe that you're making a check out to me right now... ;)
Assertion isn't proof. Come on - you keep insisting it's true. But how can you know it's true if you can't prove it? You must be able to prove it, otherwise you wouldn't know it to be true, but you're just dancing around the issue for some reason. Let's hear it - let's have the proof of it. Or stop claiming that you "know" it...
But to be honest, I kind of get a kick out of it when I seem to 'get' things that simply go above the head of others.
(blushes in shame)
Well, I certainly can't make you understand...
As I said earlier, which you couldn't refute, we learn rational self interest at our mothers breast.
The fact that I haven't refuted it is not proof that it's true. If it's objectively true, you should be able to prove it. Of course, your response to that was, and I quote, "whatever"...
'True' or not self interest works.
Heyyyyyyy, we're finally making progress! I agree - it works. So who cares if it's objectively true or not? Who gives a damn that Rand claims it to be objectively true, but can't possibly prove it to be objectively true? We're finally past all that Randian self-contradiction, and we're finally finding a real basis in reason here. See? You just ditch Rand as the be-all and end-all of rational systems of morality and ethics, and you can actually get somewhere useful ;)
Until a better idea comes along, a philosophy that says that everything is knowable and rationally accessible, trumps your mysticism, im my book
Even if you can't know that premise to be true itself? That kind of self-contradiction doesn't bother you, even a little bit?
Love the tag line, too.
Sweet.
I do not have a case. I was only pointing out the fact that truth is not obvious or easy. If it were, there would not be so much evil and trouble in the world. Most people are just not interested in understanding the truth. They all want a short-cut, provided by some authority that provides all the answers. Most are not willing to accept the responsibility for understanding the truth for themselves. Most do not want to be responsible for their own lives and choices.
I do not think "axiom" means quite what you think it means - perhaps you will accept some source other than me as an authority on this?
Objectivists do not accept anything as true on the basis of the opinioin of any so-called authority. With regard to axioms, objectivists do not accept any assumption as axiomatic. If others do, that serves to differentiate the objectivist view from all others.
Hank
Doesn't the question itself ("good" nutrition vs "bad nutrition) make the determination of "better" a foregone conclusion?
Please pay closer attention. We don't want him to have to go back and repeat himself now, do we?
So now, you've asserted that this kind of hedonism is objectively worse than some other lifestyle. And my question is, very simply, why? Why is it objectively bad to eat nothing but Twinkies and Yoo-hoo? And the answer I get is that it's bad because it's unhealthy. So then my next question is, why is being healthy objectively better than being unhealthy? And so far, I haven't gotten a coherent answer to that. But that's okay - there really isn't a coherent answer to it, because it's not a question of objective fact at all, it's a question of values, and what one's personal preferences are. And those are inherently subjective. You value health over the pleasure of eating Twinkies, and so you tend to think of health as the "rational" choice. But someone else might value the pleasure of eating shitty junk food over health, and thus view eating Twinkies as the rational choice, and view the pursuit of that pleasure as being in their own self-interest - which, of course, it is.
Personal preferences. Values choices. This is the language of subjective judgement, Dom, and no matter how hard you try, you can't glue that to a basis in objective fact - people's personal values and preferences just don't work that way. Whatever I happen to value, whatever my interests are, pursuing that is my self-interest, and trying to argue otherwise is just you substituting your choices for mine, and arguing that your subjective preferences are "objectively" better than mine.
Hmmm, still stalling.
You don't consider this unproven at all, yet you just posted 3 very long paragraphs without saying anything on-topic.
Well, good nite, and enjoy your chat with the others. I'll proably check back in at lunch tomorrow.
So when you said "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," you were just taking that on faith, then? Tut, tut - don't you know you're not supposed to do that?
Objectivists do not accept anything as true on the basis of the opinioin of any so-called authority.
Well, then, if you've derived all of this for yourself, and not simply taken it on authority, then it ought to be easy enough to walk me through it, right? "I do not have a case" notwithstanding...
Sure I do. The fact that you can't prove it only confirms my suspicions - you have no objective basis for saying that one set of personal preferences is "better" than another. You're just assuming that your values are the "rational" values and judging everyone else by your own personal, subjective yardstick. Not very objective of you, I must say...
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.