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.
You been smokin' dope again, Bob? ;^)
In Rand's own words: 3. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Now ... am I going to believe you, or my own lyin' eyes?
Back to what you said:
The motivations in her philosophy are whatever the individual holds as an interest, regardless of what that interest is.
So if I like to torture people, and take their stuff -- if that's my interest, you're saying Rand would support it? No, she wouldn't. She'd say that "my interest" is not a sufficient moral justification, because it acts against the interests of others.
Which of course contradicts Rand's claim that every man is an end in himself -- if this were really true, my interest in torturing you need not be affected by your reluctance to submit to it.
The problem is, following Rand's first two points (objective reality and "going by the evidence") leads me to conclude that there is no absolute injunction against torture, theft, murder, and so on -- the only constraint would be my self interest (Rand's point #3), and whether I thought I could get away with it.
And, of course, there's no particular reason to claim that "my interests" are the true measure of morality at all. The theory of evolution, which has a strong scientific backing, suggests that "the good of the species" might be a better choice. At the very least, this is a demonstrably valid alternative to Rand's "absolute" individualist morality. Logically speaking, the existence of a provable alternative means that Rand's findings are not absolute after all -- so much for her "objectivity."
The problem here is that objectivists expect us to accept their underlying assertions as true and absolute. For example, an objectivist favority is the non-initiation of force. I happen to agree with this -- but the sad fact is that one cannot objectively demonstrate that it is an absolute moral requirement. Indeed, the evidence suggests precisely the opposite.
Thus, if non-initiation of force is to be accepted as absolute, the basis for making the claim must come from a source other than application of reason -- from God, for example.
When you get right down to it, the problem is in the claims of absoluteness: they cannot be proved by this allegedly logical philosophy. And without such proof, the foundation of objectivism collapses.
Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem: Any adequate axiomatizable theory is incomplete. In particular the sentence "This sentence is not provable" is true but not provable in the theory.
If we accept this claim, then it means Rand's basis for objectivism is false.
Consider:
Rand claims that Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Now, suppose I consider hedonism to be in my own self interest, that my self-indulgence does make me happy, and that I suffer no ill-consequence from my hedonism. (One might consider Hugh Hefner as the poster boy for this point of view.)
If Rand were to state that this was, nevertheless, a Bad Thing, then she would have to base her claim on something other than individual self-interest and individual happiness. I would no longer be an "end in myself;" rather, I would be subject to some moral code other than my own self-interest.
Which contradicts Rand's original claim.
I occassionally go slumming in her works. A fun escape from reality.
So, a moral code has nothing to do with what is good for a human being. If a moral code is based on the nature of man, the requirements of human nature for happiness and success in this world, and the principles that must be followed to fulfill those requirements, that is without basis.
But a moral code that comes from the Koran (or anyone else's book) and teaches that women must be covered from head to toe, else beaten or killed, that is a moral code with a basis.
... moral code is always changeable depending on who is doing the deciding ...
Moral principles are not "decided" any more than the princple of chemistry are decided, they are discovered. They are determined by the nature of those beings to whom moral values pertain, rational/volitional beings, and the nature of the world in which they live.
It is religious moral values that change, because they are arbitrary, having no rational basis and dependent on the nothing but the whim of a deity, who can yesterday demand obedience to a levitical law, for example, but today condemnd that same practice as defying grace.
Hank
Splendid, Ms. Rand. Now try to prove that the claims of Objectivism are true. Start with the four claims in the link I provided. As an added challenge, please explain how the objective evidence, as explicated in the Theory of Evolution, does not contradict your claims.
By that logic, Rand is wrong, based on the evidence.
Conversely, her applications of reason resulted in a wonderful defense of capitalism.
She contributed much in her work on the subject of capitalism. I don't think her views on atheism did much harm. She came out of Russian society with the Russian anti-God ideas. However, she rebelled violently against the Russian anti-capitalist ideas.
I disagree.
Liberals, tend to loathe both her economic and political ideas, where as conservatives tend to agree with many of them.
The problem Conservatives have with Rand have more to do with her claims concerning the basis of her morality, and the implications of same as they're lived out -- ideas with which the Liberals often tend to agree.
As for me, personally, I think Rand's philosophy is fundamentally irrational. It cannot stand up to its own claims.
It's true, many of the principles of Objectivism cannot be proved to many people, possibly most people. So what?
The principles of the Calculus cannot be proved to many people, possibly to most people. So what?
In both cases, they are true, and the fact that most people are to stupid to understand the proof, proves nothing.
Hank
You would be wrong. That would be irrational. I will for the moment assume you did not intentionally obfuscate the obvious: The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand never said that is what all men do (most do not), or that they could claim to do this, (without actually doing it) and it would still count as rational self-interest. That's pretty simple. How could you miss this?
Hank
By that logic, Rand is wrong, based on the evidence.
What evidence?
Hank
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.