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.
Your presumptions baffle me. They seem to be the projections of a misanthrope which I seriously doubt you are. Why would someone think their maximum happiness would be achieved by totally disregarding others? Duty, honor, character, responsibility, trust, and sacrifice, I can assure you, are essential to my happiness. Why? Because they assist in the establishment of satisfying relationships with others. And I enjoy others. Even through disagreements like we may be having now -- sometimes especially through contentious debate.
The assertion is that man's nature is the source of the rights, not man. There is a difference. In this scenario, man's nature is the source of man, a circumstance man cannot change anymore than he could change God as the source of man, if that is the case.
It is not easy to explain. I have spent the better part of three score years studying philosophy, and you think I am going to sum it all up in a brief post to someone who does not want to know the truth. One of the reasons most people never the learn the truth is because they think there is some kind of short-cut to it. There isn't.
I do not care what you believe or think. I am not in this world to convince anyone else of the truth. I enjoy discussing it, especially with the sincere (even when we strongly disagree). I doubt your sincerity. If you were intelligent, and I gave a fig what you think, and I had much thinner skin than I have, I would consider, "if you've derived all of this for yourself, ... then it ought to be easy enough to walk me through it" an insult implying what I derived myself would be simple. In your case, it was good for a laugh. My wife thought so too.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Hank
Alas, it's the old "you're too stupid and statist to understand" argument, which is where objectivists seem always to end up. You're a better man than that, Hank.
But let's just test your statement: Objectivism does not accept any assumption as an axiom.
Rather than you telling us what objectivism's axioms are not, tell us what they are? And then we'll see if they're objectively true or not.
The Oracle at Delphi had a monopoly on telling the future.
romans 3:19 is also very unambigous: Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Hard to misinterpret that. All people are guilty before God as all people have broken the 10 commandments. Therefore, since people have no righteousness of their own (and you must have righteousness to get to heaven), only faith in Christ (who was perfect and paid the penalty for all of us lawbreakers) will justify a person in front of God.
But your "wide open" statement tells me that if any of these gets in the way of your pursuit of happiness, they're discarded like yesterday's newspaper.
Who said anything about "a brief post"? What makes you think I'm not interested in seeing if you can pull it off? Take as much time as you need. Take as many posts as you need. Don't worry about whether or not I can keep up - just shoot it out there, and let's find out, eh?
I do not care what you believe or think. I am not in this world to convince anyone else of the truth. I enjoy discussing it, especially with the sincere (even when we strongly disagree). I doubt your sincerity.
My sincerity? You make claims, I suggest that you should support them, and you doubt my sincerity? Why? Because I'm doing as Rand says I should, and not simply taking your word for what you say? Because I'm asking for the rational process that led you to your conclusions, as Rand says there must be? I'm sure this would be much easier if I just sat here, gaping in wide-eyed wonder as you pulled a rabbit out of your hat, and not asking any impertinent questions, but I can't do that - Rand says that's wrong, to just accept your assertions on faith or on your authority.
One would think that an objectivist, who is not supposed to accept arguments on authority, would refrain from making arguments from authority - e.g., "I have spent the better part of three score years studying philosophy" - but apparently not. All premises must be checked, except, apparently, the premises that Rand has given us. No arguments are to be accepted on authority, except, apparently, the arguments that Rand has given us. Every postulate is explainable in terms of reason, except, apparently, the postulates of Rand. And you wonder why that only confirms my suspicions of inherent self-contradiction in objectivism?
Man's nature as a source of rights? No way. Too much evil in the nature of man to grant any rights. And those men end up with the tanks and guns.
Golly, general_re, looks like you flustered A-G right out of her usual font, you crass old charmer, you.....
With that as qualification, then I agree.
It takes some doing, but I have come to regard that as A-G's internet equivalent of a blush ;)
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.
To these you posted:
"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.
and then a definition of axiom from Newspeak.
My post pertained only to axioms as objectivists define it. What others consider axioms is irrelevant. If you want to know what objectivsts consider axioms, you have to find out what they consider axioms, not pop in any idea you or anyone else things they might mean.
Anybody may call anything they want an axiom, I was only saying the objectivsts reject assumptions as axioms.
Do you think I made this up?
Since axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of "faith" or of man's arbitrary choice, there is a way to ascertain whether a given concept is axiomatic or not: one ascertains it by observing the fact that an axiomatic concept cannot be escaped, that it is implicit in all knowledge, that is has to be accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it.
For instance, when modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice, and proceed to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged axioms of their alledged reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply and depend on "existence," "consciousness," "identity," which they profess to negate, but which are smuggled into their arguments in the form of unacknowledged, "stolen" concepts.
--Ayn Rand, Introduction of Objectivist Epistemology, pp. 74
Hank
:-|
Now you resort to claiming you aren't even capable of understanding why 'good' health is objectively better than 'bad' health?
Dude, watching this much rationalization is *not* a pretty sight.
Simply disagreeing with what the other person says is *not* profound, and in fact not even an argument.
Didn't you see that episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus?
You'll get no disagreement from me on those two statements.
Morals are either relative to man or God - there no other possible choices available.
Here is where we begin to part company. I don't agree with your dichotomy. I see other possibilities.
In the case of Ayn Rand, morals are relative to HER and her alone - she made up her own moral principles and in the instances where her principles agree with "true" moral principles from God, it is only coincidental since she did not believe in God. Some people agree with Ayn Rand but many others do not. Who is correct?
That would be some valuable information, eh? ;)
You see, without universal moral principles (universal principles can come only from God), morals are reduced to mere opinions and preferences and none can claim any authority.
Again, we diverge here. Universal principles come from wherever they come from. If there is a God, so be it. Universal principles come from Him. If not, the universal principle that the sun warms the earth will not change, and thus its source lies elsewhere.
I believe in one universal principle for moral behavior: liberty. Others can disagree. I'd like to hear their arguments against liberty. Others can claim there are additional universal principles. I may agree with some of them, but it is when principles begin piling up, adherents begin deserting.
Violating the Ten Commandments, for example. Then there are the seven deadly sins (Pride, Envy, Wrath/Anger, Sloth, Avarice/Greed, Gluttony, and Lust).
An example of a moral absolute? Stealing would be immoral. Lying. Cheating. Not that I haven't done these things, mind you. But when I do, I feel bad about it. Some don't.
This is pretty basic stuff. Why do you ask?
Of course I'm capable of understanding, if only someone would take the time to prove it to me. So far, no luck. I'm starting to think that it's not possible to prove it, despite repeated claims about how obvious and trivial it is...
I feel for ya, Dom - I really do. On the one hand, you appear to know better than to flat-out assert that it's a self-evident proposition - self-evident propositions are taken as true without anyone being able to prove they are true, and Rand says that everything is rationally accessible and rationally knowable, which self-evident propositions clearly aren't. And on the other hand, really and truly logically proving something that seems so obvious is going to be fiendishly difficult, if not impossible - which I suspect you instinctively know, and which is, I suspect, why you're not exactly bowling everyone over in your rush to provide a proof of this knowable, rationally accessible proposition.
What a shame. Since you can't prove it, and obviously didn't derive the truth of it for yourself, all I can do is conclude that you violated one of the dictates of Rand, and just took that proposition - being healthy is objectively better than being unhealthy - on authority from someone else, or on faith. Don't worry, your secret is safe with me ;)
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.