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.
Oops. Sorry, I overlooked the "radical" element. I'll try to do better next time. ;).
This position is what I've been arguing against in my several "might makes right" refutation posts. Moral codes will only lead to totalitarianism if the assumption of might makes right is true. If, on the other hand, it is right that makes might, as I assert, we will not drift inexorably into totalitarianism.
Right makes might is the concept that right attracts adherents and wrong drives them away. Might becomes based on strength in numbers, and numbers are based on being right.
Liberty being right will "outdraw" totalitarianism which is wrong, and the might of the free will overpower the weakness of the tyrannt.
I certainly see history as proving this out.
Moral absolutism, which sees morals as fixed by an absolute. This absolute is usually religion.
If your absolute is not religion but the universe itself, then that is called Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy).
Moral Objectivism defines moral behavior as that which tends to promote our survival as rational beings. Immoral behavior is that which tends to promote our destruction. Where survival is not at issue, moral behavior will tend to promote security and happiness, immoral behavior insecurity and unhappiness. Religion is not an issue.
There's a very good summary here.
If your absolute is not religion but the universe itself, then that is called Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy).
This is incorrect. Moral absolutes do not come from religion, they flow directly from God Himself -they are PERSONAL in nature and come from a PERSON. The universe is a non-entity (not alive) and it is non-rational in the extreme to believe that morals can come from a non-entity. You might as well say that morals come from a tree! Ayn Rand's philosophy comes from HERSELF and it is relativistic (relative to HER).
Really? Isn't sex outside of marriage detrimental to one's security and happiness? No doubt about it - yes. Ayn Rand had no qualms about that did she?
Sorry, but this is a shallow argument. "right" must have a source and in the case of Randism, the source is Rand only. "Right" only has force if the "right" you are speaking of are the moral absolutes that flow from God Himself. IF "right" is from any other source, it has no power to make anyone "mighty." Men can be mighty but that might is directly related to wealth and military power. The REAL problem with "might makes right" is that it makes no distinction between power and goodness. God is good, and power wielded in fear of God will be a just might.
The objection is found in the complete quote:
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Ayn Rand doesn't believe in God or religion. Without religious moral guidance, the "pursuit of happiness" is pretty wide open, wouldn't you say?
My only moral absolute is liberty and I believe all good follows logically from that. Given the mass and complexity of humanity, it is understandable that its direction has not followed a straight line. But history's trend line points at a target whose bullseye is liberty.
As it should be.
Yes, they flow from God. But morals are defined as "conforming to a standard of right behavior". That "standard" is set by religious teachings.
Where would objection lie if the Declaration held Jeffersons original phrase, "endowed by their nature" rather than by "their creator"?
Well, yes -- that would be covered under the category of self-interest.
The point is, though, that we in this country are engaged in battle with people like the Clintons, and are faced with a situation where our liberties are steadily being eroded by governments at all levels.
The only way to stop this -- and then to reverse it -- is for a large majority of the population to behave and believe differently than they do now. But how does this change take place? Well, basically folks have to be convinced to change their minds.
Which brings us to objectivism. Objectivists claim that theirs is the only logical system, and so on; and that only a society based on Objectivist principles can succeed. They want the nation to act like objectivists.
The problem is, Objectivists make a lot of claims that are obviously false -- not the least of which is this stupid "we're logical and nobody else is" claim." Beyond that, their public face tends to be loud-mouthed and abusive (see this thread for some fine examples -- you being a notable exception).
And, of course, objectivist society is clearly not the only solution. It's obvious to any who look that the principles on which this country was founded, and the beliefs of the Framers, were definitely not objectivist. Sure, there are some common facets. But the Founders -- not to mention the population at large -- were religious, and they valued things like selfless devotion to public service. They believed that what one does in private, is of concern to the rest of us.
So words like duty, honor, character, responsibility, trust, sacrifice, have no place in your world? They all interfere with an amoral "pursuit of happiness".
So you say, then you go straight ahead and agree with me. Your concern appears to be over what is identified as "right" and not with the notion that might will follow. At least that's how I see your reply. If "right is properly identified, you seem to agree that might will follow. Am I misunderstanding you?
And where do the "standards of right behavior come from" - God. Men are the teachers of religious teachings and, unless those teachings confirm to absolute moral principles from God, then the only remaining option is that the teachings are RELATIVE TO THE TEACHER, or to men, which would make religious teachings tantamount ot moral relativism. Morals have only two possible sources - man or God - that exhausts the choices.
Religious teachings in Christianity come from the Bible which contains the moral absolutes that come from God.
That the unalienable rights are endowed by man's nature? Well, the objection would be that if man is the source of the rights, then man can remove these rights.
God gave us these rights; no mere man can ever remove them.
Religious teachings in Christianity come from interpretations of the Bible which contains the moral absolutes that come from God.
Unless you think that Leviticus should be taken literally.
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.