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.
This life is temporary and very very short. The psalmist tells us that man flourishes like flowers in the field - here today gone tomorrow. Have you given thought to what happens when you die? Do you know where you are going?
Actually, I have named a possible source of morals. Incredibly, it is the same source as you assert -- the source of man.
You don't have to conceive of it - Jesus has told you what will happen - in the bible. The goats will be separated from the sheep - the goats will be sent into everlasting separation from God and the sheep will be ushered into unimaginably wonderful eternal life with Jesus Christ. I didn't use to believe in hell either (life is hell, right?), but Jesus believes in it - He created it for Satan and his angels, but those who reject Christ will go there as well. Will there be actual fire? I believe the "fire" may be a metaphor for anguish. Eternity is a long time. I want to remind you about God's laws - God does not grade on a curve - if you have broken His laws, you will be judged for it by the Perfect Judge unless you are covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ. Here is an analogy for you: If you were a judge in a courtroom and your soon was arrested for a felony and brought before you for sentencing - suppose he is really sorry and sobbing and you knew in your heart he would never do it again - would you have to punish him under the laws of the state you are sworn to uphold - YES if you are worth your salt. Now, imagine a perfect judge - would He have to punish you? YES. How could a loving God send someone to hell you might ask? Your own sins condemn you if you you do not have Christ as your covering.
Which man? Ayn Rand? The U.N.? The U.S.? Who sets the universal standard for morals? One man's lie is another man's truth. This is mere moral relativism! And it doesn't work! So much for objectivism!
To me, it seems to boil down to something as simple as:
1. God not being the one responstible for evil, though he was prescient of it, for only the practitioners are responsible for evil, as morality tells us.
2. God granting only good and perfect gifts, which do not loose value, though they may change in function.
3. ....and yes: God developed a greater good. I don't see that I need to 'show' that the greater good is compensatory for the evil. There is no comparison between good (what is of God) and evil (what is disagreement and disobedience with God) and again, God is not responsible for the disagreement or disobedience with him. The "greater" is simply greater than had God never created beings who could share in his loving relationship.
And that seems infinitely greater, for any who accept it (if infinity can be compared to {0})!
One more thing, though: I like that quotation of his a about commitment to just warfare. (Nothing else, just warfare. No, no, no....)
When you have the facts, argue the facts.
When you have the law, argue the law.
When you have neither the facts nor the law, pound on the table and shout.
You're doing an awful lot of pounding and shouting, ex.
Which man? Ayn Rand? The U.N.? The U.S.? Who sets the universal standard for morals? One man's lie is another man's truth. This is mere moral relativism! And it doesn't work! So much for objectivism!
It appears that you are not able to adequately defend your position. Maybe you could send me an objectivist who can...so far I haven't found any.
You mean that morality is just a matter of opinion and then, for you, it remains only to determine which argument is the most rational. My argument from natural rights seems the most rational. Rights from God seems less rational because I don't think there is such a thing.
I don't have the exact quote, but Francis Schaeffer was known to say something like, "one of our biggest problems is that we underestimate the consequences of the fall."
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.