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.
It's all very well to say this -- in the abstract it sounds logical. But try actually applying it to something. Then you're forced right away to begin making assumptions about what A is; and whether A right now, is the same as A, ten minutes ago; or whether A is the only possible "thing" in the context of what you're talking about (which is where objectivism leaves the tracks).
In other words, all you can really say for sure is that "A is A ... at this instant."
Now, in some cases it's rather easy to accept the claim -- that 1=1, for example.
However, see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
You should go back and re-read, or perhaps read it, that is. Mill doesn't deny the existence of objective truth, and for that matter, neither do I. What he does explicitly reject are appeals to objective truth, and those are piling up pretty deep from the "objectivists" and non-objectivists alike here...
"It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility." - J.S. Mill
Now all you have to do is prove that "seems" is the same as "is". What was that about the definition of "is", Mr. President?
I had really hoped you were capable of going beyond "this could all just be a dream".
There's much more to it than that, my friend. But this thread will still be here if you wish to try your hand at understanding what I'm saying some other time...
Oh, my gosh -- that is exactly what "A == A" means!!!
You didn't know that, and write offhandedly that this is *all* we can say? That's what everyone has spent hundreds of posts trying to explain to you!!!
I believe the general is not this dense, he's just arguing for the joy of making words.
You, on the other hand . . .
I am done with this conversation, I'm afraid. Off to a movie, then dinner with the wife.
Have a nice day.
Hmmmm.
A is A.
Godel suggests that we cannot prove this.
Cause and effect.
Quantum Mechanics has brought this into question in at least some instances. And of course, an effect need not have the same cause, and a cause need not have the same effect.
Water is wet.
Not when it's ice or steam.
Fire is hot.
Hot in relation to what?
The problem here is your insistence that you've found objective truth in these things, when in fact they are subjective to some degree.
This is, in a larger sense, the problem with objectivism in general. It makes large claims to objective truth, but relies on a variety of subjective definitions to support them.
That's not what I said. I said that the nature of being (existence itself) has nothing to do with right and wrong. One is ontological, one is moral. Human Beings have morals, but "being" doesn't. Being is the state of existing, nothing more. Moral values have to do with each person's sense of "ought" and different people have different morals. Tell me if you can - where do I go to find the one set of true moral absolutes which dictate how I should behave morally? You said there are only 3 axioms and none of them had anything to do with how a person should behave. Maybe that's why Ayn Rand had a very liberal attitude when it came to sexuality, hmm?
This is partly correct. Moral values are both relative and absolute. The are relative in the sense that they are related to real beings living in a real world and define what is good for them and what is bad. Moral values are absolute in the sense the what will be good for those real beings is determined by the requirements of their nature and the nature of the world in which they live.
Sorry, logic (law of contradiction) does not allow A to be both A and non-A at the same time, and that is what you are suggesting by saying something can be both absolute and relative. They are opposites. What you describe is relativism. What is "requirement of their nature?" Man's nature allows many different moral models and each man decides how he should behave - each is a moral agent. "the nature of the world in which they live" - this sounds like situational ethics which is relativism. Each culture is different and each culture has different moral values. There is no ONE nature of the world in which we live.
Objectivist reject arbitrary moral rules based on someone's whim and the principle that might makes right.
No, they don't, they simply have adopted their own arbitrary value system. What did Ayn think of the 10 commandments - these are REAL moral absolutes. From what I have learned, she didn't think much of them, therefore, she was her own moral god - a relativist.
Yes, "all." You've got an instantaneous state that may, or may not be changing, and you don't know which. For the claim to be the basis of an objective system, you must assume that A is unchanging. Otherwise, if A was "this" at this instant, and has changed to something else at the next instant, which version of A corresponds to objective truth? On what basis do you make your assumption that A is fixed? How do you prove your assumption is correct?
That's what everyone has spent hundreds of posts trying to explain to you!!!
No it's not. You're making things up now.
You act as if nobody won a 100-1 bet.
Because you "know we are created by God" you cannot see my point of discussion. What if there is no God? What if you are wrong? What if the Hindus are right? What if the atheists are right? What then?
To me, "what then" includes an as yet unaccounted for source for moral principles, namely the that which is neither God nor man and, absent God, is the source of us. You do not acknowledge that possibility, but it is logically there.
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.
Actually it is not incoherent, but it does depend on an ability to consider our existence in the absence of the existence of God. With or without God, we are here. The fact that we are here implies we have a source. The source is either God or something else. It is possible that that something else is the source of moral absolutes just, in your belief God is.
Beyond that, I'm saying that if our source is something else than God, and absolutes are associated with that something else, you may then conclude they are not moral at all, that they are more akin to saying it is an absolute that newborns are dependent on responsible adults for their survival. That dependence while absolute is neither moral nor immoral.
My argument here can be summarized as follows:
1. Mankind has a source.
2. That source can be either God or something else.
3. If the source is not God, it is something else.
4. If the source is something else, it may include absolutes just as the God source includes absolutes.
5. The absolutes possible if the source is other than God, may be of a type that include individual choice, and the individual choices may be "good" or "bad". That is, in today's context we'd think of it as a moral absolute.
Oh. You said...
To assume that Ayn Rand was misled for 30+ years by this man is a huge insult to the quality of her intelligence which you seem to admire.
Good point. I do greatly admire her intelligence and talent and accomplishment. She is a heroine of mine even if I do not consider myself to be strictly speaking an Objectivist. She did name Peikoff as her intellectual heir. OTOH, she did, by the reports, 'send him away' for a time to, I guess, work on his philosophical talents.
I admire both Peikoff and Kelly. I think they both bring good things to the table and both help advance her ideas.
Your quote of Mills, made to me last night, did not establish him as rejecting objective truth.
You should go back and re-read, or perhaps read it, that is. Mill doesn't deny the existence of objective truth, and for that matter, neither do I.
Exactly what I just posted above, in reply to your bit that Mills does not lay claim to 'objective truth'.
What he does explicitly reject are appeals to objective truth,
Your quote of his below does not 'reject' such 'appeals'.
and those are piling up pretty deep from the "objectivists" and non-objectivists alike here...
Your word-gaming ideas on 'objective truth' are indeed being rejected, deeply.... Learn to live with it.
"It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility." - J.S. Mill
So Mills is saying that he argued that an abstract right is not a thing of independent utility, and that he forgoes any advantage derived from the idea.
How does this relate in any way with Mills 'explicitly rejecting appeals to objective truth'?
Obviously, if is means 'is', it has no relationship. It is just more general_re word-play.
That's the whole point. If there is no god, there are no moral abosolutes. If there is no god, all humans acts become neutral. If there is no god, it is as Marquis de Sade claimed, "what is, is right". Atheists must be moral relativists if there is no god because the only remaining source for morals is "man" - each man plays God for himself or tries to play God for other people. Atheists like AR are all moral relativists BECAUSE they don't believe in God.
As for other religions, again, just apply the law of contradiction. Each version of God contradicts the other and all cannot be right. One can be right, or all can be wrong, but all cannot be right. Therefore, one must look at the only one that covers all the bases of reality - Christianity.
Beyond that, I'm saying that if our source is something else than God, and absolutes are associated with that something else, you may then conclude they are not moral at all, that they are more akin to saying it is an absolute that newborns are dependent on responsible adults for their survival. That dependence while absolute is neither moral nor immoral.
Let's just stick to reality shall we? If you think morals can come from something else, then name it. From what specifically? If you can't name it, it doesn't exist.
My argument here can be summarized as follows: 1. Mankind has a source.
Only possible sources are God or the primordial ooze - take your pick.
I don't despise Ayn Rand (I've purchased and read all of her books, with Atlas Shrugged being my favorite)-- I just disagree with her philosophy.
And why, when only mentioning religion in general, you lump me in with "religious nuts" is beyond me.
So, in your eyes, someone who disagrees with Ayn Rand's philosophy despises Ayn Rand. And a person who mentions religion is a religious nut.
Am I supposed to take you seriesly?
And you have the brass to accuse me of being intentionally obtuse? Alright, I'll walk you through it, since it's so very difficult to understand. Here's the line I quoted:
"It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility."
Now, the first phrase is "It is proper". What Mill means by that is that he feels that it is appropriate to perform some action. What action? Well, let's look at the next two words - "to state". Mill is saying here - and try to stay with me on this, because it's kind of complicated - Mill is saying that he feels that it is appropriate "to state" something. By "state", he means "to say" or "to communicate" or to generally convey an idea to his non-blockheaded readers.
But what idea? What could Mill be trying to tell us? Let's look at the very next set of words to find out - "that I forego". What does that mean? Hmmmmm, let's think really hard - "forego" as in "to abstain from" "to relinquish", "to reject". "It is proper to state that I forego" - meaning, and I'm sorry that I can't do this monosyllabically in deference to your limited parsing skills, "It is appropriate to say that I reject"...something. But what? What is Mill rejecting? Oh, can you feel the tension? Isn't this exciting? Mill is rejecting something, but what could it be?
Ah, for that, we have to let our eyes just slide right over to the next set of words - "any advantage". What on earth does that mean, "any advantage"? Well, an "advantage" is a "favorable position" or any generally "beneficial factor" that works in one's favor. So Mill is rejecting a favorable position - all favorable positions? No. Okay, which favorable position? Ahhh, let's not jump ahead yet. The next part is "which could be derived to". What a strange construct, with such unfamiliar new words, eh? Never fear, I'm here to explain them to you - by "which could be derived to", Mill means "that might be gained by"...by what? Why, "my argument", of course! Mill feels that it is appropriate to tell you that he rejects a favorable position that might be gained by his argument!
E-lec-trifying! Amazing! Who would have thought that we could parse out words in order to discover their meaning? But wait - we're not done yet! There's more! Now we finally get to discover which favorable position Mill is rejecting - the favorable position gained "from the idea of abstract right". Oh, now that is a tough nut. What does he mean? Well, by "abstract right", Mill is talking about some variety of non-concrete proposition, such as those generally labeled "rights", which are generally considered to be true in all places and at all times regardless of the observer - making them universally and objectively true. So where does that leave us? Mill feels that it is appropriate to say that he rejects any favorable position that might be gained by appealing to non-concrete universally, objectively true propositions such as those labeled "rights".
So, you're probably saying to yourself, what's the big picture? Well, Mill, in his argument, rejects the use of appeals to abstract objective truth in making his case. He's not going to do so, and if you care to read on a bit further on your own, you can discover for yourself why that is - I trust I've given you a taste of a method that you can use all by yourself when reading things, and if you do it when nobody's looking, nobody will see you moving your lips when you read...
I wouldn't want lifting this paragraph and repeating it to take away from its associated insights, but it 'certainly' bears repeating.
Of course bb is referring to moral relativism here, not "objectivism" but I think it's clear that she is really speaking of the egocentric point of view which haphazardly wrought the works of both Marx and Rand, each by his own means. It's as if Rand were a seamstress who decided to make a very different outfit, of the material she was used to, the very cloth she grew up in.
Without running on, I'll just emphasize, people listen to what your hearts are saying to you, whether it is a good message or an evil one. Then look for what best tells you about it all.
Not at all. A is A is shorthand for a thing is what it is. A is A applies to anything which can be identified and comprehended by means of a concept, an entity, an event, a relationship, or even another concept. A is A in no way implies there is no change.
Change does not mean change from one thing into another. Your precious quarks, do they not move. A quark is a qaurk, but it changes position.
Hank
Try the Koran. A lot of people seem to like it, and it's as good as any other source of superstitious "absoultes."
Sorry, logic (law of contradiction) does not allow A to be both A and non-A at the same time, and that is what you are suggesting by saying something can be both absolute and relative.
Sometimes ... ah well, look, do you know the formula e=ir. Well, that's absolute, isn't it. The voltage will aways equal the current time the resistance. (Don't tell me this only applies to AC and doesn't account for reactance, etc. etc. It is a DC formula). Now tell me, for any particular DC circuit, since we have this absolute law, what is the voltage? You cannot tell, because it depends on how much current there is and the resistance in the circuit. Actual voltage is relative to actual resistance and current.
Relative and absolute are not things. To say something is both relative and absolute does not violate the law of contradiction because the law only applies to things "in the same context." So, moral principles are determined by the nature of the case (just like Ohm's law) but how those principles are applied are determined relative to the facts of each case. Any other law is arbitrary, having no relationship to reality or real values.
...10 commandments - these are REAL moral absolutes...
But you do not believe they are really absolute. Why should anyone else.
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.