Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals

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 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."

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.

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.

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.

Well you're welcome.

betty boop reports.

I decide.

And speaking of philosophy for Christians, I just saw the header quote on http://www.quodlibet.net:

And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?" They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed." And Jesus replied, "What?"

It's not about us.

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.

Moral systems cheerfully offered, FOC ;)

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.

Well, we can reason from the consequences of such behavior, and judge whether the sort of society that would tolerate and accept the existence of such behavior is really one that we would want to live in. Such a system would probably not be "objective" in the strong sense, but on the other hand, it wouldn't be completely detached from reality - we would have some rational basis for moral tenets, even if they failed to exist independently of moral actors.

In any case, the common failing of all moral codes is that none of them preclude the actual existence of mobsters and murderers - it's rather difficult to see how one would. At best, what a theistic system offers is another factor for potential violators to weigh as they consider their acts, by proposing further consequences to those acts beyond the merely physical consequences imposed by society. And it's not at all clear from the last few millennia that those additional consequences serve to moderate behavior much at all - murder and mayhem are not twentieth-century inventions of objectivism, secular humanism, or atheism.

Instead, I propose something akin to an innate sense of morality that functions within people, albeit more strongly in some than in others - whether instilled by God or the byproduct of evolution or originating someplace else entirely being neither here nor there. Consider: suppose for a moment that it were rationally proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and never has existed - this is purely hypothetical, so nevermind the inherent impossibility of such a thing. Would you then feel no constraints upon your personal behavior, such that you felt no compunctions about murder or theft or adultery or whatever? Something makes me doubt it, because I suspect that this innate moral sense would continue to operate within you regardless of whether you felt that there were consequences beyond the here and now. I suspect that most people operate morally for reasons beyond mere fear of the consequences, whether societally imposed consequences or divinely imposed consequences.

Thank you for pinging me to the “law of the jungle” discussion between you (unspun and Hank!) Hank, you said:

Everyone tends to see things as they are. The thief believes everyone is a thief, the liar thinks everyone is a liar.

And then you almost immediately also said:

Those who embrace a rational moral view not only do not initiate the use of force against any other individual, but neither desire or pursue anything they have not earned by their own effort.

If I apply your first statement ”everyone tends to see things they way they are” to your second statement, I get an interesting result. The conclusion that “a person who embraces a certain rational moral view would not initiate the use of force against any other individual and would neither desire nor pursue anything they haven’t earned by their own effort” is the tendency of one ”to see things the way they are”.

And that brings me right back to agreeing with general_re --- you can no more be objective about any “rational moral view” than I can be objective about “the absolute moral law of God.”

Why do you hate reason, truth, decency, honesty, and virtue so much?

That is a strange allegation, Hank; unless you mean something other than the common dictionary definition, I do not hate any of these things. I also do not hate any person or being.

I am at odds with metaphysical naturalism – along with any philosophy which elevates self to parity, or above, God. That is an abomination to me; it is utterly pointless to try to convince me otherwise. Conversely, I have it on highest authority of my faith that anyone who willfully excludes God in their pursuit of knowledge will be given over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28) – therefore, it is futile for me to discuss knowledge much less wisdom, with a metaphysical naturalist.

And the futility is only more clear with your own statement: Everyone tends to see things as they are. A metaphysical naturalist can only see the world through a metaphysical naturalist’s eyes. A born again believer can only see the world through a born again believer’s eyes.

But -- here's the problem when you take the criteria of observation and experience as your "touchstones" of the truth of reality: You relegate yourself to the position of a hypothetical observer. But we humans are NOT "hypothetical observers." We are parts and participants of the total reality, and thus cannot see the ALL of it, given our contingent position in it in space and time.

Very true, but the fact that we are not privy to everything does not obviate that which we do observe. We don't have to find a mountain high enough to observe all of creation in order to see that evil exists here, which it undeniably does. Mill would, I suspect, point out that the suggestion of some grander plan which we cannot see being operant is likely to be small comfort to the victims of the evils created by an omnipotent God. "We cannot see how it fits into the big picture" does not affect where the problem begins - with the undeniable fact that evil exists.

If I apply your first statement ”everyone tends to see things they way they are” to your second statement, I get an interesting result. The conclusion that “a person who embraces a certain rational moral view would not initiate the use of force against any other individual and would neither desire nor pursue anything they haven’t earned by their own effort” is the tendency of one ”to see things the way they are”.

Almost right, except that, it is not "a certain rational moral view," as though there were more than one, but "a rational view," because, there is only one reality, and a rational moral view is based on reality. There is only one rational moral view.

Hank

Thank you for your reply!

I suspect that unless all are willing to undergo a thought experiment on the order of Descartes’ there will be little agreement on the matter of actual truth. We’d have to agree to take everything off the table – including space, time, geometry, particles, energy – and obviously people, possessions, persuasions, prejudices. We’d have to ponder whether we are figments of each other’s imaginations, parts of vision or visions --- indeed if and, if so, then what we are.

As an example, much of the objection to God I’ve read on this thread is that He cannot be omnipotent on the one hand and have created evil on the other. The presumptions in that statement are myriad, e.g. good v evil, their origins, that omnipotence and evil are mutually exclusive, that mortal minds can comprehend the mind of God, the significance of events within space/time to events outside space/time, etc.

So, if anyone seriously wants to explore actual truth I strongly suggest they first clear the table entirely and then build a language by defining each term as it used.

As an example, much of the objection to God I’ve read on this thread is that He cannot be omnipotent on the one hand and have created evil on the other.

Well, really that it's not possible to be omnipotent and perfectly good and create evil. The last two Mill sees as mutually exclusive - one cannot be "perfectly good" and create evil. Something has to give, according to his reasoning, and so he chooses to abandon omnipotence as a way of avoiding the necessity of assigning responsibility for evil to God.

The presumptions in that statement are myriad, e.g. good v evil, their origins, that omnipotence and evil are mutually exclusive, that mortal minds can comprehend the mind of God, the significance of events within space/time to events outside space/time, etc.

Well, one at a time. If objective morality exists, evil must also objectively exist. And, in fact, we can observe evil all around us every day just by turning on the evening news. As for the origins of good and evil, an omnipotent God, creator of everything, must have created good and evil - surely you're not going to argue that good and evil exist independently of God? ;)

As for the last two, whether mortal minds can comprehend the mind of God is not strictly relevant to Mill's argument - Mill observes God's handiwork, His creation, and reasons backwards to determine what sort of being would create evil. Answer: not a being that is "perfectly good". But this is not acceptable to Mill, or, he suggests, to most people, and so he posits instead that God is in fact perfectly good, but not omnipotent, and so could not necessarily have prevented the creation of evil - as opposed to an omnipotent God, who we have little choice but to accept created evil Himself. And by the same token, its significance in some larger-than-life sense is not strictly relevant either - the mere fact that evil exists is where the problem comes from, in Mill's thinking.

Thank you so much for your post! I’m not versed on Mill, so I’ll leave that to you and betty boop – but I do have a few comments on your remarks.

Well, really that it's not possible to be omnipotent and perfectly good and create evil. The last two Mill sees as mutually exclusive - one cannot be "perfectly good" and create evil. Something has to give, according to his reasoning, and so he chooses to abandon omnipotence as a way of avoiding the necessity of assigning responsibility for evil to God.

Naturally, I disagree. There can be no courage without fear, success without failure, wealth without poverty, health without sickness, up without down, here without there, good without evil. They exist only in contrast. Remove the contrast and you have unity – nothing and infinite, in Hebrew Ayn Sof - God at creation.

If objective morality exists, evil must also objectively exist.

I’m not agreeing that objective morality exists. I’m asserting that absolute moral law is decreed by God. It is not objective. By the process of creation, God revealed all the contrasts that we perceive as success and failure, courage and fear, good and evil, etc. – provided us the moral law and revealed Himself in the Word and then granted us the free will to choose.

Evidently Mill has a problem with this view.

So a being that is perfectly good can create evil and still be perfectly good? Like I said above, perfection is going to be easier to attain than I thought ;)

I’m not agreeing that objective morality exists. I’m asserting that absolute moral law is decreed by God. It is not objective.

No, I'm not saying that the substance of it is objective, but that the fact of its existence is objectively true. I mean, either it is or it isn't - forget about what it is, surely you believe that it exists in an objective sense. After all, if you're proposing that the existence of God's law is only subjectively true, this will be a much shorter discussion than I thought ;)

Thank you so much for your post!

So a being that is perfectly good can create evil and still be perfectly good?

Of course! By manifesting the contrasts which are the creation, God created good where there was only unity (infinite nothing) – but again, good only exists by contrast, so evil was created as well. This is how He revealed His will, His nature, His goodness.

He also created beings with free will and communicated His will through His Word which encompasses His moral law. The knowledge of good and evil was not intended for all the beings with free will. But having obtained that knowledge, man now has the duty of the moral law.

No, I'm not saying that the substance of it is objective, but that the fact of its existence is objectively true. I mean, either it is or it isn't - forget about what it is, surely you believe that it exists in an objective sense.

Moral law exists absolutely. We can objectively say that God's absolute moral law exists. But the law is subjective in enforcement. People who have not received the moral law of God will be judged by their conscience (Romans 2:14-15) – people who have received the law but not Christ will be judged by the law (Romans 2) and believers such as I, although free from the law (Romans 8) are bound to a much higher, spiritual standard (Matthew 5-7)

And all of this is on top of societal laws to which must also comply (and hope are compatible with the absolute moral laws of God.)

I like that phrase, "perfect is as perfect does," as you've said. It grants God his right to be a person (seems the least we can do, since he's pretty much done that for us).

Seems to me that the Infinite has to draw himself down a "bit," in order to relate to anything else. From the perspective of us finite beings, perhaps this is the fist thing we could call a "miracle."

And as it regards the matter of God vs. evil, this attitude about the facts admits to God being 'what' it all begins with (not evil). And that being the case, and he being Infinite God, yet a person who relates to the rest of us, I think it lets us see a more apt picture of the paradox -- bumps Mr. Mills' issue up a notch.

And God being a person relating to {not God}, rules must be established -- good rules, of course.

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.