Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals
Sierra Times ^ | 5/1/03 | Ray Thomas

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.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: aynrand; aynrandlist; objectivism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 821 next last
To: general_re
The way you entice an adverse party to argue against himself, I'd wager you'd not lose very many arguments at trial, general_re! Kudos and hugs!
341 posted on 05/01/2003 9:07:45 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: general_re
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 ~still~ makes little sense.

Well, I certainly can't make you understand...

And, of course, you can't try, either. Its just pretencious 'intellectual' bafflegab.

----------------------------

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.

Of course it isn't. Restating the obvious has become your favorite 'argument' ploy, of late.. Sad.

If it's objectively true, you should be able to prove it. Of course, your response to that was, and I quote, "whatever"...

I did 'prove it'. -- "Don't bit the tit that feeds you" is ample proof.

'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 ;)

Your feeble straw man ridicule makes a fool of you, not Rand, or my take on rand. I have nothing too 'ditch', as she is hardly my "be-all and end-all"..

----------------------------

Until a better idea comes along, a philosophy that says that everything is knowable and rationally accessible, trumps your mysticism, in 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?

You seem to think everyone here has your own weird concept of "self-contradiction". Get a grip on your ego.

342 posted on 05/01/2003 9:19:18 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; general_re
The 'general' styles himself as a trial lawyer? -- Family Court?
343 posted on 05/01/2003 9:23:54 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
And, of course, you can't try, either.

Whether I'm successful or not, I don't think anyone can fault me for not trying, after hanging on for 300+ posts ;)

I did 'prove it'. -- "Don't bit the tit that feeds you" is ample proof.

No, it's an anecdote, not a proof that the proposition that self-interest is inherently rational is universally true. Collect lots more anecdotes like that, and you'll have an inductive argument to present, at least.

You seem to think everyone here has your own weird concept of "self-contradiction".

Well, okay. Personally, I don't think it's all that weird to regard the fact that the proposition that "everything is knowable and rationally accessible" is itself not knowable or rationally accessible as being self-contradictory, but there you go.

And I don't "style" myself as anything, BTW ;)

344 posted on 05/01/2003 9:34:14 PM PDT by general_re (Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; general_re
Thanks for your post, tpaine!

The "general" (general_re) has the style of a debate winner, i.e. he leads the adverse party into his own box then springs the trap.

My two cents...

345 posted on 05/01/2003 9:38:37 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Sure, whatever, but there you go...
346 posted on 05/01/2003 9:41:11 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Thank you for your kind thoughts, BTW.

See, your inherent graciousness is even rubbing off on crass old jerks like me ;)

347 posted on 05/01/2003 9:41:23 PM PDT by general_re (Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; general_re; The Westerner; RJCogburn; tpaine; exmarine; r9etb
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.

Hank

God told you His name, Hank: I AM THAT I AM

348 posted on 05/01/2003 9:43:08 PM PDT by unspun (It's not about you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: general_re
LOLOL! In no way do I consider you a "crass old jerks" but thank you so much for the chuckle and the kudos!

349 posted on 05/01/2003 9:43:28 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
...a monopoly is a "cornering" of a market which can and does happen by market forces combined with human greed in laissez faire markets as well as government controlled markets.

If you believe a monopoly is evil only because there is one company alone providing a service or product, please explain why that is evil. On the other hand, please name one monopoly that was able to control or "corner" the market by market forces alone that did not do so by offering the best product at the best price (in which casw it was benevolent) or, if coercive, without the influence of government force. Just name one.

Except that government was one of the major customers, and government naturally enforces it's contracts, Microsoft is a good enough example (although not a pure example). It used its position in the market to influence its business partners to disallow the competition, in one related 'commodity' after another, growing and usurping the market like "The Blob."

The governing force here was not government, but the perceived need for standardization, which government allowed to be addressed by the capitalists of Microsoft, instead of by the paragovernmental standards councils that have otherwise done such a wonderful job of securing order and free enterprise in information technology.

Rockefeller's oil complex was another example of a monopoly that didn't need direct government conspiracy to develop (though it may have gotten such "help," to worsen the situation -- I don't know all the particulars, just the main problem, of buying up and forcing out the competition).

Other monopolies exist due to government patents. I suppose you can argue against patents, but capitalists wouldn't like it. In the interest of preventing greedy (excessive, unbridled) self-interest from abusing monopolies as human nature will do, government limits the durations of patents.

350 posted on 05/01/2003 11:00:35 PM PDT by unspun (It's not about you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
You will not find in any objectivist literature the principle that describes any "non-initaion of force," axiom.

Took about ten seconds.

"The principle of non-initiation of force was popularized by Ayn Rand, and it certainly is a key aspect of the Objectivism." -- William Thomas, The Objectivist Center.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/wthomas_faq-libertarianism-objectivism.asp


351 posted on 05/02/2003 12:16:46 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
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.

Newspeak.

Main Entry: ax·i·om
Pronunciation: 'ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
Date: 15th century
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

352 posted on 05/02/2003 12:19:50 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
"So, what is man's moral purpose in your view?"

To seek knowledge.

Why?

Because it is what we do. The history of man is the quest for knowledge. Periods when knowledge was suppressed are called "Dark"; where it is advanced, "Golden."

If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god, seeking knowledge is an attempt to emulate, and in that way worship that god. Omnipotence and omnipresence are really just special cases of omniscience. So it all boils down to knowledge.

If you are unable to do something, either it can't be done or you don't know how. Omniscience means you know what is impossible and how to do all the possible things. You think you are not omnipotent because you cannot lift a 1000 pound rock? That is because, you can only exert a couple of hundred pounds of upward thrust, at best. Even god cannot lift a 1000 pound rock with 200 pounds of thrust. When you figure out how to exert the needed 1000 pounds of upward thrust, you can move the rock. In other words if you know how you can do it. If you can't do it it is because you don't know how, or it is impossible. Omniscient beings are omnipotent,

Omnipresnece? What does that mean? Everywhere present? Again, what does that mean? One way to think of being somewhere, is that you can see what's going on there and can act to influence things there. Again, if you are omniscient, you know everything, and certainly know what's going on everywhere. You can also influence events everywhere as a condition of your omniscience/omnipotence. There are other aspects to think about regarding omniprescence, but they all boil down to knowledge.

We exist to seek knowledge.

353 posted on 05/02/2003 3:03:59 AM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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.

I argue that those you claim believe in "might makes right" in fact do not. If they did, they would have no problem with the statement, "Person A should be able to push Person B around." All of their answers would contain some form of the condition, "True as long as I'm Person A."

Saddam Hussein was a "might makes right" kind of guy. But only so long as it was his might making the right. As soon as America's superior might threatened, he became a, "It's not right for America to use its might" kind of guy.

Because I truly believe that "right makes might" and that nobody really believes "might makes right" I can refute none of you refure none of your arguments. They are based on assumptions to which I do not subscribe.

354 posted on 05/02/2003 3:19:47 AM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
In the long run there is no such thing as monoplies.

True. And in the short run, (near) monpolies achieved in the free market advance rather than restrict us.

355 posted on 05/02/2003 3:25:42 AM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

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

All monopolies are temporary, and if you take a short enough time slice, you may find that everything is a monopoly. Monopolies achieved in the free market are beneficial. When they no longer are, they soon lose their monopoly status.

356 posted on 05/02/2003 3:31:30 AM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: unspun
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?

The competition of the market always blocks the oligopolistic direction you fear. Rand reveres the market.

357 posted on 05/02/2003 3:35:20 AM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Ga Rob
"I may be jumping in the deep end here but here goes anyway...
....It seems to me that the conservatives who despise Rand are the Morality police, religous nuts..."live your life my way or your going to hell"(whatever that might be)folks that will continue to turn more tolerant people off from our cause."

Your post made more sense than any so far. Straight, to the point and in English.

The problem with intellectuals is that they feel the need to obfuscate their rhetoric with excessive and grandiose verbiage. (and they like to hear themselves talk). If people are trying to make a point, then make it, and move on.

In comparison, you have struck to the heart of the matter with a few simple words. As they say in the tobacco chewin' belt, " You ain't got yer good stuff, but yer still pitchin' strikes."
If people find their happiness with like minded people, then all the power to them, just don't come down the street to try and cram it down my throat.

Freedom is not a right, it is a responsibility, and cannot harm others, or infringe on another's freedom. It is the pursuit of freedom that is a right.

As far as God goes, each person has to face Him alone, and your church parking permit ain't gonna help you. It's not where you park your car, its how you drive it.
358 posted on 05/02/2003 4:29:55 AM PDT by wolf6656 (The truth about people is who my dog likes, or dislikes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
OK, thanks.
359 posted on 05/02/2003 5:26:05 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: The Westerner
RJCogburn, I have thought of you as a reasonable guy for a long time. Why do you post such an ad hominem attack on Leonard Peikoff?

Thanks. I think of myself the same way.

I do not agree with everything I post, but think it's a good idea to put things out for discussion, such as your reasonable defense of Peikoff.

360 posted on 05/02/2003 5:49:11 AM PDT by RJCogburn (Yes, I will call it bold talk for a......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 821 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson