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.
No, it's not open to interpretation. The hebrew word is clearly "murder".
Which society sets the standard? All are different. You mean the society that has the most power to enforce its brand of morality? I will tell you now that morals will not make sense if they are manmade - relativism is full of holes and there is no way to plug them.
In order for suffering to have meaning, God must exist. If God doesn't exist, then suffering is merely part of the overall machine and is neither good nor bad nor profound, it just is.
Secondly, Jesus Christ suffered more excruciating pain than we will ever suffer, and He is God. Therefore, we do not go through anything that God Himself has not been through. And it is thru Jesus' suffering that we attain eternal life! If God himself suffered, how can I say that I should not?
Again, the hebrew clearly means "murder". It is the original language that is authoritative - kill is mistranslation. The bible is inerrant in its autographs not in the translations. The bible says that the laws of God are written on the hearts of mankind, so even most atheists know in their heart is wrong to murder.
Your last question deals with the principle of "just war". I recommend you read Augustine on that and learn for yourself what wars are just and what wars are not. Let me ask you - was crushing Nazi Germany a just war? How about going after Al Qaeda? Isn't is quite obvious?
Let's be real shall we? Even when atheists attend the funerals of family members, they grieve! Is this grief a mere meaningless chemical process in their brain, or does it have meaning? You see, atheists like you live a hopeless dichotomy in that there can be no real meaning if there is no God - all is just a machine and man is part of the machine; but the atheist can't live that way! They live as if the love they have for their wives and children has meaning! They consider their wife and children to be valuable persons and not meaningless masses of molecules! They live as if the lives of their loved ones have meaning They live as if the death of a loved one has meaning! They live as if grief has meaning! It's a hopeless inescapable dichotomy. They cannot escape the mannishness of man.
Tell you what, if grief is meaningless, and you are a machine, then that feeling of grief is just a chemical process in your brain - nothing more. So, the next time you attend a funeral of a loved one, just keep telling yourself, "what I feel is meaningless," and see how far that gets you.
The fact that you are assuming in your arguments a just and unjust position, you are acknowledging the existence of moral standards. If you say those wars were just, then you believe in just wars. What's your beef? Yes, there have been unjust wars - Hitler waged some of them, Saddam waged some of them, and so on. Man is a free moral agent - he can decide to be immoral or moral. That does not mean that morality is relative. Again, you are confusing moral behavior with moral principles. Just because there is both good and bad in the world does not mean that there is no standard for good. If there is no standard for good, then the world would make no sense whatsoever and cruelty and non-cruelty become equal, in which case, there is no just and unjust. Make up your mind.
In many ways, your beliefs mirror atheists - you equate animals with people, you equivocate between murder and killing, you say just wars don't exist, you say morals are not absolute - these are atheist beliefs. Tell me why I should not believe thatyou are an atheist. Oh, and please spare me the comparison of animals with people. Do you really want to go there? You are opening up another huge can of worms that you cannot defend. Do you really think that animals grieve like people? Do you really think that animals understand loss as humans understand it? Do you really think that animals love as humans love? Are animals self aware? Do animals consider their plight?
Well, without some sort of working theory for what happens, we're left to gauge morality based on the results of this life.
Without such a theory, there's no reason to adopt the sort of transcendant moral posture that seems to drive the objectivists. Indeed, objectivists' theory ("this life and you're done" ) much demands that morality boils down the old bumpersticker: "He who dies with the most toys, wins."
Note that there are no particular rules mentioned for how one gets those toys -- if you manage to die old, rich, and happy, you've won.
What it reduces to is a pragmatic approach, such as general_re has described in this thread, to the effect that on average, people who behave well will do well. Unfortunately, pragmatism doesn't preclude the mafia don or murderous Pharaoh who, by "getting away with it," can be "winners" in the same sense as an honest man. We can say it's wrong -- but really we can only justify retaliation based on our communal dislike for what they do; we have no objective basis for saying it's wrong.
For transcendant moral values to have any meaning at all, they must have some consequence beyond our lifetime. In the "evolutionary approach," the consequences may be an inability to pass on our genes. From the Christian perspective, we know we will be judged.
Ironically, the objectivist self-interest angle seems to be one of those which logically cannot support the existence of those transcendant values it claims to have derived. It simply cannot answer the question of why the happy Pharaoh is wrong.
I have enjoyed your fasscinating and superb dialogue here. Please forgive this interjection, but I wonder what made J.S. Mill think that taking away evil in the world has anything to do with God's power? Power can only do what power can do. I might as well ask our dear general to make a square circle, as to ask how a Good God if he is omnipotent, permit evil in the world.
Cordially,
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.