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.
As is yours.
My belief is logical, yours isn't, since you can't come up with a source for morality. Truth will always be logical.
I've given you the source for my belief several times. Your preconceived notions about how this debate should occur prevent you from seeing it. Why don't you go back over my previous post and see if you can't fathom it.
Your ability to make sense appears to be waning. "My belief is logical...[because] truth will always be logical." What? If it's the truth, then it's not a belief. If it's a belief, then it's something you acknowledge cannot be shown true. You are arguing in circles. Please, come out of your isolationist shell and at least try to understand what others are saying.
Seems like a good guess to me. <:^))
I tried mescaline once, too.
I can't fathom it becuase it is illogical. In a debate, logic rules. For example, you said: Your statement is simply untrue. If there is no God, there must be another source, or sources for man, as man did not create himself. That source may have absolutes and they may be categorized as moral.
This doesn't make sense. You can't name another source for absolutes! Why not? If you can't name it it doesn't exist! If it isn't God, then man is the ONLY choice left.
I've already given you my moral absolute: Liberty. Its source is the process that created us. In other words, we were created in such a way that liberty is a moral absolute. It is moral because we have the choice of denying liberty. But, if we deny liberty, dire consequences will ensue. Dire consequences always have and always will result from enslavements.
Non sequitir. Liberty is an absolute right but is not a source for absolutes. "Dire consequences" have nothing to do with the question at hand - which is, what is the source of moral absolutes? No one is arguing as to whether liberty is a moral absolute, what we are trying to find out is: WHO SAYS LIBERTY IS A MORAL ABSOLUTE? You? You have no moral authority and neither does Ayn Rand! Our founders declared it for you in the Decl. of Independence - "...endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights..." In other words, this moral absolute is from God. Name another source for it that makes sense. You cannot. Therefore, my statement stands. Moral absolutes must be from God, or man makes up his own - there are no other choices.
It is you who are not understanding. Just because I believe something does not make it true. People believe in many false things. You can believe something sincerely and be sincerely wrong. If logic and the evidence do not support it, then it is false. If logic and the evidence do support it, then one can conclude it is true. For example, "I exist" is a true statement. If I did not exist I could not ask the question. See how it works? Now you try it.
Absolute merely means universal, objective, essential when applied to truth in general. When applied to morals, it also means transcendant, eternal. Something does not "become" a moral absolute. Moral absolutes are not invented, they are discovered or discerned. Morality is not doing what I like, but doing what is right. Moral relativism is simply morals based on human preferences and this is the dominant system in the world. For example, the U.N. is constantly talking aobut human rights, but where do these U.N. human rights come from? The come from the men at the U.N., that's where. The men at the U.N. have appointed themselves are the ultimate moral arbiters, but it's a joke because the U.N. has no moral authority beyond themselves.
The law of contradiction is a logical law and does not apply to the many variables of electricity. Poor analogy.
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.
Baloney. n You do not understand basic logic. The law of contradiction recognizes that human reality is based on "antithesis," and deals with "either/or" questions. Not all questions are either/or questions but whether something is aboslute or relative is indeed an either/or question. A leaf is either green or it is red. Which is it? I either exist or I don't. Which? You heart is either beating or it isn't. Which? Moral absolutes are either from God (absolute) or from man (relative). Which? Can't be from both at the same time. Besides, no moral from a man can possibly be absolute becuase moral absolutes are universal in scope and nothing man can do is universal. You need more thinking in this.
...10 commandments - these are REAL moral absolutes... But you do not believe they are really absolute. Why should anyone else. Oh, I absolutely do - because they are! Is lying wrong or not? Is stealing wrong or not? Is murder wrong or not? Is adultery wrong or not (ask Ayn Rand that one!).
The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week. Do you remember Saturday to keep it holy? Or, do you worship on Sunday.
Now, the ten commandments are either absolute or they are not.
Hank
I never have, but, from the descriptions I've read, I get the same effect from listening to the testimony or Christian mystics. My little satire is based entirely on words and expressions that have been used to prove to me their mystical experiences ought to convince me to throw away all evidence and reason and accept their testimony as the final abriter of truth.
Hank
Allow me to educate you about a point in Christianity. The sabbath commandment was for the OT hebrew nation only not gentiles - it's the only commandment no repeated in the NT. That's because Christ is my sabbath rest - Christ fulfills that commandment Himself.
I'm still waiting for that absolute source of morality other than God...
Christianity is based in real space-time history. Jesus Christ was a real person who was really crucified. It's an indisputable historical fact. Ayn Randism, on the other hand, is the invention of a "anti-Communist idealistic mystic" whose philosophical ideas were adopted lock, stock and barrel by sycophants like you. Ayn Rand's is a philosophy of the self which denies the teachings of Jesus Christ - especially the teaching that commands one to put others above himself (unselfishness). Who is right? AR or Jesus Christ? That's an easy one!
I have shown thru logic on this thread that you are the one who "throws away evidence and reason" in your non-rational leap in believing that moral absolutes and unalienable rights can just exist in space with no known source. Name the source.
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.