Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals

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 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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Judging from the AR quote you posted on axioms, Ayn Rand's definition of axiom is no different than the definition of absolute - are these synonyms? The dictionary defines axiom as "a universally recognized truth" however, there is no such thing as a "universally recognized truth" in human-land because people disagree about everything. In effect, axioms are "truth by definition." From your post, Ayn says that "axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of "faith"", however, how does a human decide which principles are axioms and which aren't? The only principles that one can authoritatively say are universal are the ones that come from God. Any other is a human invention and does not have universal applicability, regardless of whether someone labels them as "axiomatic." Of course, that would mean that many of AR's philosophical beliefs are her opinion only which she calls axioms, but insofar as they disagree with God's moral absolutes, they are certainly not universal truths.

If not, the universal principle that the sun warms the earth will not change, and thus its source lies elsewhere.

The sun warming the earth is an empirical fact that can be observed. It's a physical reality. This does not pertain to morals and is a different category from moral principles. Moral principles are not material objects and cannot just hang in mid-air like magic - they must have a source - and the only two possible choices are man or God. Name another possibility.

I believe that all moral decisions are relative, in that most all things anyone can think of as being immoral, have been, at some time in history, condoned by the local majority. An absolute, to me, is something that no matter what, no one would do it. I believe the only absolutes in this world, are the physical ones.

Then you are morally confused. If all moral decisions are relative, then there can be no moral difference between cruelty and non-cruelty, between torturing babies and feeding the poor - all becomes mere personal preference. There is a huge difference between what I like or prefer and what I think is morally right. If I say abortion is wrong, I am not merely saying that I don't prefer it, I am saying it is wrong whether I prefer it or not. Your morals make no distinction between preference and right and wrong. Moral principles are not decided by men, they are discovered, and exist independent of man's beief.

I will tell you now that you will not be able to logically defend your belief. Moral relativism is a lie and it is indefensible logically.

Since you can't prove it, and obviously didn't derive the truth of it for yourself,

Heehee.

As I said, it is proven. Modern nutritional ideas are based on massive amounts of data. You're simply playing a game.
It's *so* proven you, yourself believe it to be a proven fact.
When you ask someone else to "prove" something you already know to be a fact, then you've already lost the argument and are sinking deep into rationalization.

Simply weakly repeating, over and over again, "you can't prove it to me" doesn't help your case a bit. That's a game played by kids.

Ayn says that "axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of "faith"", however, how does a human decide which principles are axioms and which aren't?

I will assume your question is sincere. I have never seen this explicit statement by Ayn Rand. (She does say the attempt to prove axiomatic concepts is self-contradictory, by which she means you have to start with a contradiction to make the attempt, that is, you have to assume what is true to be not true.)

Suppose you oberve something about reality or some aspect of it, and identify it. It might occur to you that the observed aspect of reality seems almost fundamental, essential, or primary. Is it an axiom?

Here is how to find out. Is it possible to deny it without incorporating the idea itself in the denial thus contradicting the denial in the process of denying it. If the concept itself must be incorporated or assumed in the process of the denial, then it cannot be logically denied, it is axiomatic.

One other note about axioms. Axioms are always primaries, which means, they cannot be further reduced to more fundamental concepts. They are not derivative concepts.

That is what objectivists mean by axioms.

For the record, Randian Objectivists (and I think those in the Kelly camp as well) hold that there are only three axioms: existense, consciousness, and identity. In axiomatic form they would be, Existence exists. Conscious is conscious. A is A, or a thing is what it is.

Since I am not an objectivist, I am not bound by their limitations, and take the risk of thinking for myself. One conclusion is that there are more axioms.

For example:

Plurality. (There must be more than one thing.)

Dynamism. (There must be change.)

Differentiation. (All existents are different.)

And others, on the basis that once these are observed, they cannot be denied without entailing a self contradiction. But don't hold the objectivists to account for these.

Hank

As I said, it is proven. Modern nutritional ideas are based on massive amounts of data.

But not proven by you. You just took it as true on someone else's authority, didn't you? Don't you know you're not supposed to do that? ;)

It's *so* proven you, yourself believe it to be a proven fact.

Believing in something isn't the same as knowing it, now is it, Dom? You're supposed to be able to rationally know these things, but you don't. You read it somewhere, or your parents told you, or you learned it in school, but you don't really know it, and you certainly can't prove it - you just took it on authority, or on faith.

It's okay - so it's not humanly possible to be the sort of objectivist that Rand says you should be. So what? It's not the end of the world...

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."

I don't think you've made the case with this one. What made the ages "dark" or "golden" was the overall conditions within the society. The openness to new knowledge, or the desire to suppress knowledge, is merely an indicator of some condition -- be it a desire for stability, control, or the presence of political unrest.

BTW, we can't ignore role of reformation-era propaganda in putting forth this whole "the times were dark because knowledge was suppressed" idea -- it was part of their effort to discredit the by-then heavy-handed rule of the Catholic Church.

In reality the dark ages happened for a lot of reasons that had nothing to do with the Church, the most significant of which was probably the fall of Rome and its attendant invasions by waves of barbaric hordes. There were also wars, plagues, bad weather, and all sorts of other things which made it difficult enough merely to stay alive.

Academic activities are a luxury available mainly to those societies that can afford the leisure required to support such pursuits. It's probably no coincidence that the Renaissance began when it did -- at the beginning of a nice period of global warming where food was easy to grow, and luxury became more possible. And of course, not all pursuit of knowledge was suppressed, even during the dark ages. Certain pursuits were, of course, because they threatened the powers that be -- which is in part what motivated the "dark ages" propaganda in the first place.

I view absolutes, as something which cannot be done, cannot be rationalized.

I think most people would tend to think of moral absolutes as something that shouldn't be done, regardless of whether or not they can be done. Indeed, if something cannot be done, what would be the point in prohibiting it? After all, the main reason that there are no laws addressing the issue of you flying away just by flapping your arms is that nobody can fly away just by flapping their arms ;)

I will assume your question is sincere. I have never seen this explicit statement by Ayn Rand.

Thanks for your reply. Was it not attributed by you to Ayn Rand in your post #395?

Let us first establish that we are discussing moral principles which are not visible as physical reality is physical and observable. You can only observe behavior of people, but it is incorrect to say that behavior = moral truth. Just because a person is behaving in a certain manner, that does not mean that person "ought" to behave that way.

An "moral axiom" is defined by a person, that makes it morally relative if it contradicts true moral absolutes that come only from God. For example, Ayn Rand did not believe adultery or sex outside of marriage was wrong - correct? Therefore, her axioms about sexual morality (if she had any) contradicted God's, therefore Ayn was a moral relativist when it came to sex.

By this definition, any axiom from anyone can't be denied.

One other note about axioms. Axioms are always primaries, which means, they cannot be further reduced to more fundamental concepts. They are not derivative concepts.

Axioms are to be The bottom line is that moral truths cannot just hang in mid-air - they must have a source. The are either from man or God - no other options available. If they originate from man or woman (Ayn Rand), then they are morally relative to man. Only moral principles from God are capable of being universal. Man does not have the moral authority to make his moral principles absolute because man is finite and his sphere is quite limited, and carry no real moral force. There are no real consequences for going against manmade axioms, but there are consequences, both practical and eternal, for going against God's.

As an example, abortion is morally relative in that, while we agree that it is pre-meditated murder, it is not only condoned, but legalized. How can anything be a moral absolute if it can be condoned and even legalised? I view absolutes, as something which cannot be done, cannot be rationalized. Of course, my definition is relative.

You need to think this thru. If I believe abortion is okay or I condone it, I am inventing my own morals about abortion and they are RELATIVE to me (moral relativism). Legal does not equal moral. Hitler had laws against jews that were immoral. Slavery laws were immoral in early U.S. Look, all morals can be rationalized by anyone at any time, it is done all the time. Pro-abortionists "rationalize" that killing the unborn is a choice! With all due respect, you need more thought on this.

They would then be contradicting God, in which case, they would be wrong. It is not possible for finite men to reason their way to universals (not logically possible). One must start with universals and reason down to men.

As I said, it is proven. Modern nutritional ideas are based on massive amounts of data. You're simply playing a game.

As it happens, I really do know two certain people: a sickly person who eats properly (according to modern nutritional ideas), and a healthy person who does not eat properly (ditto).

From this, I must conclude that your position vis a vis "good" vs. "bad" health is not objectively true in and of itself. We must conclude that this "objectivist" claim is at best incomplete.

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?
-rp-

I'd you've pretty well confirmed the truth of 'Ga Rob's earlier point, where he said:

"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."

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.