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.
Good grief, I saw through hume decades ago, and your still caught in that trap? Whewell, and every other philosopher who accepted the a priori superstition were complete failures in the field of epistemology (the very worst, of course is Kant). Mill is so full of errors one hardly knows where to begin.
If you wanted to impress me with your knowledge of philosophers you should have picked Aristotle, Bacon (very sadly, he made major contributions to philosophy most do not even know exist), John Locke, and Ayn Rand.
I did not learn philosophy from philosophers. By the time I was nineteen, I had already developed a system of logic that I only later discovered Boole had already developed. (When I was nineteen no one was yet aware of how significant boolean algebra would be in the field of computers, which was not yet a field.) By the time I was thirty, my philosophy was fully developed. My study of philosophers has only been to discover how the principles I know are true were articulated by others. What I discovered is that most philosophers were mostly wrong, and that the field of philosophy has all but been destroyed by philosophers.
I am guessing you are an amateur philosopher, because you do exhibit flashes of clear thought. Most professional philosopher, that is, those who "teach" philosophy in some capacity, have completely surrendered their minds to one form of irrationality or another.
Like most amateurs, you have been entertaining, but not very enlightening, of course.
Hank
What! No Aristotle? It's not even a game without an opponent!
WHO SAYS THERE IS A GOD? You?
I smell a fallacious fume in the "if."
A can of possibility will never yield a does existentially (unless it is cooked up in a sentence and salted to taste with logic).
Suppose Mill grants that his divine being is perfect. Are we to be led blindfolded through this dance of a silly trio?
The divine being is perfect.The only way that last conclusion works is through sham. It works by tanking on the presupposed but unstated logical meaning of "omnipotence" in order to yield a conclusion about an existential reality.
Perfection excludes imperfection.
ergo God cannot be imperfect.
Omnipotence exludes all impotence.
The divine being is impotent (God cannot be imperfect),
ergo God is not omnipotent.
God could really use the assistance of a good libertarian here: at least the libertarian holds "he don't force the can." It's an old canard, I know, but it is presumptious to disregard the agency of a divinity or human being, whether the god is a State or a Nature. If agency is real in a world of plural beings, there are limitations to the ubiquitous blanket of a logical omnipotence.
Aristotle's distinction between what can be deliberated about or not might lend all a hand. And if his distinction can't be accepted, all we have left is the sardonic grin inside the terror of an "it is written."
(IOW the comic general_re inside the tyranny of a serious tpaine.)
Ah, Hank. This is FR. You don't need to guess 'round here.
Just for grins, you might consider the implications of God saying there is a God.
Is that good?
Shucks, if we all could only say that... a philosophy in every pot. ;-`
Who's evidence and who's reason?
There, now I feel like I've bothered you enough in the last few days. '-o
Is that good?
You, bet it is! The earlier one understands the essential nature of their own being and the world they live in the earlier they can begin pursuing knowledge which will be truly useful to them, and begin living for that which they are born to live.
If you have to ask that question, you have not yet discovered what the purpose of your life is or how to achieve it. How long do you think one should wait to do that?
Hank
Was that from the mid 70's? I think I saw it Dance Fever. Or, no... it couldn't have been Soul Train.
No thanks, I'd prefer not to have my own philosophy. Even if I hadn't known something better and just looked around at people who have devised their own philosophies, I'd see that it would be very, very improbable from all the variations that people come up with, that having one's own philosophy would do right by me.
If you have to ask that question, you have not yet discovered what the purpose of your life is or how to achieve it. How long do you think one should wait to do that?
How long should one wait, to discover one's life purpose? I don't think one should wait at all, once it is revealed, after pursuit or simply being pursued, and once one's eyes are uncovered.
Why do you suppose your life has a specific purpose? Also, it would be interesting for me, on the outside looking in, to see what you see yours as. Also, whose purpose? (Not trying to be smartalecky.)
Reality's evidence, my reason.
Hank
Reality is not interested in your whims or preferences. Every individual has a philosophy, like it or not, either an explicit one they understand and choose, or the one implicit in every choice and action of their lives, whether they are aware of it or not.
You have a philosophy, whether you prefer to have one or not. If you do not have one by choice, then you have one by default, which is the way most people acquire their philosophies.
Hank
I do not suppose it, I know it.
Also, it would be interesting for me, on the outside looking in, to see what you see yours as.
It is the same as the purpose of every human being, or for that matter, every living organism, except that human beings are the only creature who can choose to defy the purpose of thier existense.
The purpose of life, for every living creature, is that creature's enjoyment of their life. The purpose of my life, therefore, is my enjoyment of it.
Hank
More or less - either he prevents it because he is perfectly good and omnipotent, or he fails to prevent it because he is less than perfectly good or less than omnipotent. Evil exists, ergo we must choose between perfect goodness and omnipotence. And that's what Mill objects to - the notion of compatibility between perfect goodness and omnipotence, for the reasons he lays out above. I'm not at all sure that he would object to omnipotence combined with some variety of goodness that was less than perfect, but I doubt that's acceptable to you either ;)
God can be good and omnipotent -- yet freely choose to "limit" Himself -- by virtue of the logic of His having vested man with free will. If He were to intervene directly to elmininate the evil of this world, then that would be to violate His own grant of free will to men. To put it crudely, one might say that God made a "deal with man," and He keeps His promises.
Of course. But again, some action being off-limits to God can only be a result of God making such an action off-limits to Himself. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, surely knew in advance what the result of free will would be, and thus in a very real sense has chosen to permit evil and misery to both exist and flourish by his grant of free will. IOW, if God is omnipotent, God chose a course of action that He must have known would have resulted in the existence of evil and misery. If so, how can we conclude anything but that evil and misery exist because God wanted it that way?
Arguably, God did not put the evil in the world. Evil is always a possibility where man is free to choose. To "correct" man in this life for his choices -- which would be the effect of God intervening to overrule and eliminate evil -- would effectively make God an "indian-giver."
Perhaps, but why is God limited to post hoc actions? Nevermind intervening after the fact to "correct" the existence of evil, an omnipotent God must have had the power to prevent it in the first place - and yet He chose not to. And not only did He decline to prevent it, He chose a course of action that He must have known would lead to the existence of evil.
And how does that fit with the notion of "perfect" goodness? It seems to me that if this is "perfect" goodness - choosing a course of action that one knows in advance will lead to evil consequences - then perfection is going to be much easier to attain than I thought...
He is not so agnostic, however, as to fail to note that the universe is "designed"...Unlike his father, J.S. Mill was not an outright atheist.
Or at least appears to be designed. No, Mill was not an atheist or an agnostic, much to the disappointment of some of his friends when his essays on religion were published posthumously ;)
If the outcome is negative, all a utilitarian can do is change is game plan for next time, sort of a sophisticated "trial and error" philosophy.
Isn't that the essence of conservatism, if I may be so bold? That the institutions and social structures that now exist are the result of millennia of trial-and-error, and that they represent the "tried and true" methods of organizing society? And that, as a result, we ought to be loathe to simply discard them on a whim?
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.