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.
But now my question is, why is it objectively better to be healthy rather than unhealthy?
'Healthy' means you live a normal life.
'Unhealthy' means you live a diseased painful life.
Objectively, it is better to be healthy.
[if 'is' means 'is' in your world]
Evidence points to it being true, all other things being equal.
As you clearly state.
This gives us a high probability of being objectively true.
Just because you can't admit the truth doesn't make it untrue.
The limitation appears to be yours. You can't even admit that a thing is what it is -- the most obvious truth imaginable.
Actually, "A is A" is almost a circular argument because it does not require you define either. Because the very point is that "this thing" is "this thing".
You define it by itself. That is the whole point.
And if you have trouble with such a simple concept, I'm not sure what the point of this conversation *is*.
If there is dynamism, then it means at least some things can change. "A is A," implies that nothing can change. So either dynamism is not universally true, or "A is not always A."
Thats a quote from you, general_re. Of course, you are citing the same logic that kept (keeps) Karl Marx in business. He gave us a model of a relentlessly internally-consistent system based on certain fundamental axioms; and the whole thing worked out just fine, on paper so to speak -- just so long as you didnt ask any embarrassing questions (like: what possible bearing can Marxian social-reconstructivist theory have on the way human beings actually live?).
What the system does not anticipate does not exist. All questioning of that sacrosanct premise is absolutely forbidden.
You go on to say:
If you accept the axiom that God exists and He has made certain pronouncements about morality, then a theistic system of morality and ethics follows perfectly logically from that. If you dont accept those axioms, that system of morality will not be logical to you. In that regard, objectivism is neither more nor less rational than any other system of morality.
All of which begs the question: How many systems of morality can possibly exist without nullifying the entire idea of morality in the first place?
Which gets us straight to the issue: You clearly make the basis of morality a matter subject to human preference. You clearly say as much when you say we humans are completely free to choose the axioms that seem best to us. But doesnt that gut the entire idea of moral order by making it something that is established by means of personal, private judgment?
Which again begs a question: By what criteria can such judgments legitimately be made?
This is the problem that an alienated man, Karl Marx, once faced. And he faced it, by taking up more or less permanent residence in the stacks of the great library of the British Museum. He thought that the human mind, aided by all the relevant books in that establishment, could finally figure out the destiny of man, and so put man on a sound course to a utopian future.
The point is, Marxs entire project is in abject denial of actual Reality the way human beings actually live, and must live if they are truly human.
unspun very gingerly touched on this point with his term relationality. I gather that, like me, he finds objectivisms overemphasis on radical individualism to just be a tad over the top. This theory turns a blind eye to the connectedness of the human person with other persons -- his relations in society and the world, and his relations (if any) with God.
There is a narrowing and flattening of the problem simply by virtue of making the human individual perfectly ultimate such that questions of moral truth can only be decided according to individual taste and discretion. And just to say that only those things that can be proved can be true is to deform Reality itself.
But it seems clear to me that certainty and Truth are, if anything, mutually exclusive propositions.
Getting back to Karl Marx: Heres a guy that thought he could reconstitute the world in his own image. At bottom, thats what his entire project is all about a will to power to explain Reality according to his own judgments and preferences.
But the world of Reality remains precisely what it is, regardless of Karl Marx. Though its true the world of human social relations has been profoundly roiled by Marxian doctrine, the world of natural reality just keeps on ticking .
Hopefully people can recover their senses and stop repeating Marxs enormity of a theoretical mistake, which I would simply designate as: the flight from Reality.
It happens. Guess you can't be an objectivist, then. You'll get over it ;)
In any universe in which the law of cause and effect exists, as it does in this one...
I suppose it would be crass of me to point out that this assertion is also far from proven true, but you can see David Hume's ideas on causation if you like....
"Beneficial" effects are a "good" choice, "detrimental" effects are a "bad" choice.
This is knowable, and provable -- assuming cause and effect.
Well, you're really assuming quite bit more than causality, but you're right - that's a necessary assumption. Which, again, just goes to show that you're not really an objectivist if you're going to assume things like causality, but you knew that. If it's objectively knowable that causality exists, which objectivism says it is, then you shouldn't simply accept it on faith until it's been rationally proven, again according to objectivism. Dunno how you're supposed to actually get anything done that way, but it is what it is - you're definitely right about that...
High probabilities are not objective proof. Indeed, there are plenty of examples -- both ways -- to demonstrate that "good nutrition" is neither necessary, nor sufficient to ensure good health. And of course, the definition of "good nutrition" is itself a rather subjective thing.
Just because you can't admit the truth, doesn't make you any less wrong.
1) Definition one.
2) Definition two.
3) Non sequitur.
Did I leave anything out?
We take cause and effect as an objective reality as true based on observed evidence, as I know you know.
But yes, this all could be a dream . . . like Bobby dying on Dallas.
Do you find that "deep"? I don't.
Other than this, "we can't know anything for certain because it could all be a dream", do you have any actual substance to discuss?
Do you even admit a high correlation between "high probability" and "true"?
You act as if "probability" has no meaning . . .
How many systems of morality can possibly exist without nullifying the entire idea of morality in the first place?
As many as you like. Now, if the question you really wanted to ask was "how many objectively true systems of morality can exist?", then the answer is, at most, one - although "zero" is still a distinct possibility, of course, if there is no objective morality beyond what we construct.
Which gets us straight to the issue: You clearly make the basis of morality a matter subject to human preference. You clearly say as much when you say we humans are completely free to choose the axioms that seem best to us. But doesnt that gut the entire idea of moral order by making it something that is established by means of personal, private judgment?
Everybody lays claim to objective truth except poor old me and J.S. Mill. Let's just say that I can't help but notice what little consensus there is about what exactly the "objective truth" is, and therefore I look for pragmatic ways to...well, to duck the question, really ;)
Which again begs a question: By what criteria can such judgments legitimately be made?
If we accept the premise that we can and should begin building a moral edifice from the ground up, then the criteria are probably going to have to be ends-based. IOW, we decide what the preferred outcomes are, and judge the system according to how well it advances those ends. The advantage of this, of course, is that it will be immediately obvious if our system is "objectively" correct in advancing our goals. As to whether it's "objectively" correct in some larger sense...who cares?
Good for you. Now all you have to do is prove the inductive principle, so that we can know that you're resting on an objectively true foundation...
What is that? Do all people have the same nature of existence? Can't be...because different people have different morals. Which person's morals correctly conform to this "nature of existence"? Ayn Rand maybe? How do you show which person's idea of morals is correct? Please tell me, where can I find this "nature of existence" so that I can find out how I should behave morally? Obviously, this is not the answer - this is just a nebulous catch-all phrase that really has no substance and cannot even be defined with any certainty.
We are here, therefore we had a source. One offered source of our existence is God. It is either true or false that God is the source of our existence.
You are confusing being (existence) with morals. I know we exist and I know we are created by God, but morals has to do with right and wrong, not being. so, I ask you again, Where do moral principles come from? Man or God?
The absolutes possible due to the source of man's existence may be of the sort that we have come to know as "moral" things. According to our understanding of things, they would be "moral absolutes".
This is incoherent - you are mixing categories - ontological and moral. This statement you made makes no sense.
In fact, I contend liberty is just such an absolute. That it is a condition of our existence, it is moral, i.e., good, and it is absolute. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll get very far in making a case for the absence of liberty. I'd be very interested in hearing such a case, though. Why would I disagree with liberty? Liberty is an unalienable right (see Decl. of Independence) that comes from God, but it is not a condition of our existence - many do not have liberty. Whether or not someone has liberty depends upon whether or not their ruling authority is a God-fearing man. Not one single marxist country has any liberty becuase they do not believe liberty is God-given, they believe it is man-given. Liberty exists where men follow the moral principles from God.
LOL. The pagan in the cathedral is usually an inconvenience, especially when there's a religious war among the various factions about their claims to "objective truth". Well, whatever - I'll let you two hash out what exactly the "objective truth" is, with the simple observation that neither of you can ever objectively prove your positions to the satisfaction of the other. Which is why my response to the question of "objective truth" is more or less "who cares?" I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologue - sue me ;)
Based on many, many lifetimes of observation and testing, we have found certain things that seem to be objectively "true".
A is A. Cause and effect. Water is wet. Fire is hot.
But yes, this all could be a dream . . . Hitler could have been Jesus come back to take his revenge on the Jews . . . Bill Clinton could actually be a Time Lord . . . Hillary Clinton might be Mother Theresa's clone.
This is silly, dude.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I had a brief lull between projects, and thought I'd try and find an enjoyable, though-provoking conversation on a subject of substance. You have, unfortunately, wasted my time. My mistake, I suppose.
I had really hoped you were capable of going beyond "this could all just be a dream".
My bad. I'm out.
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.