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.
That certainly could be implied. ;-)
You just defined yourself and AR as moral relativists. Can't you see the logical and practical problem with this? If it is true that each man makes up his own moral values (and that is the essence of saying a man's life is the moral standard), and we know that different men form different values, which man is correct? The only logical answer to you can only be "all of them" are correct. You cannot logically say AR's system is better than mine or Stalin's since each man is his own moral authority and no one man's morals can possibly carry any more force or authority than another's (unless you use brute force). You are your own authority, your own god. That means that cruelty and non-cruelty become equal because Stalin was cruel but his moral system is equal in every way to yours. You cannot say anyone is wrong (that word becomes meaningless), you can only say that you do not "prefer" another's morals system. Excuse me, but your moral system is pitifully weak and inadequate.
No, that is not my position.
I simply asked how you know that the existence of God is impossible or that omniscience is impossible. Your reply questions my position on certainty, which is fine, but you did not answer the question as to how you could know such a thing. It seems to me that you would have to be either omniscient or have searched throughout the universe to demonstrate that your proposition is true, which, if you had, would render the proposition self-refuting.
Cordially,
Interesting how we addressed Mr. Mills 'complaint.' No matter how you slice it, the answer is "Trust God, he's all right." ;-` Funny to see your 2:09 post after my 2:11. But I've probably yammered enough about it.
Hugs!
I always appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses, general_re.
Yes and no. God is self-defining. And it is true that there are drawbacks to attaching labels to God. Yet if God is truly there and is not silent; that is, if He has spoken and revealed Himself in verbal proposition form, then we can at least confidently say;
1 Corinthians 13
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
What is the alternative? That our moral impulses are nothing more than electro/chemical reactions in our brains that are nothing but the result of an impersonal, random concatenations of molecules in motion over time? Of what significance are such concatenations? If such were actually the case, why should I feel any obligation to obey such inclinations? Conversely, why does my heart alternately praise of condemn me for either obedience or disobedience to the moral law? (Interestingly, what should I make of my inveterate inclination to DISOBEY the moral law?) In either case, though, what significance would either obedience or disobedience to the moral law ultimately have in a random, impersonal universe?
Cordially,
I beg your indulgence for the additional observation here that "the problem of evil" can only coherently be a problem for theists:^).
Cordially,
Yes, God bless him and his knickerbockers.
(But you may know me by now... although I started at least one of his books, Christian Manifesto, I haven't finished any. Saw most of the How Should We Then Live films more than 20 years ago, so I'm glad for articles that summarize --and discussion.)
Cicero tells me there was an RC theologian/philosopher/historian in Switzerland at the same time, who from what I see, dealt with many of the same issues in many of the same ways: Hans Urs von Balthasar. I wonder if they met.
I've read a-lot more of the other patron saint of "evangelorthodox" Christian thought of the 20th C., Lewis, but I need to get caught up with Abolition of Man which betty boop mentioned a few days ago.
Indeedey and there is the big relief.
Cicero tells me there was an RC theologian/philosopher/historian in Switzerland at the same time, who from what I see, dealt with many of the same issues in many of the same ways: Hans Urs von Balthasar. I wonder if they met.
I haven't heard this, but the name "Copleston" comes to mind. However, Dr. Schaeffer had some things to say about the RC church that cast a decidedly unfavorable light on that church. For example, Aquinas is perhaps the most prominent catholic philosopher and Dr. Schaeffer points out that Aquinas made a big mistake when he tried to reconcile Aristotlean thinking (dealing with the particulars and man's autonomy) with Christianity (dealing with the universals and God's autonomy), and how Aquinas' writings served to corrupt Christianity more than help it.
Serves to let me be all the more motivated to say that since it starts with God, we need to understand man not first from even our 'personality' but from our 'relationalilty.'
I think in that case "morality" boils down to how each individual answers the question, "what can I get away with?"
Otherwise we have to assume -- either explicitly or tacitly -- the existence of some transcendent moral order that makes it "wrong" do do certain things even if we can get away with them.
If you look back through this thread, you'll notice that by and large people are assuming that such a transcendent moral order does, indeed, exist.
Some folks, such as the good general offer a middle ground, corresponding to a general assent among people as to what they will or will not tolerate. This falls short in a couple of ways, though.
First off, there's not a whole lot to separate "general assent" from mob rule, and in a moral system based on "general assent," it's difficult to say that mob rule is actually wrong, as opposed to merely distasteful. For example, if we abide by general assent, it's difficult to find legitimate grounds for complaint when the Third Reich undertakes to gas the Jews.
But of course, we just know that it's wrong to gas the Jews, regardless of the fact that it enjoyed general assent. In that vein, general_re has also referred to "an innate sense of morality" which could potentially moderate the urge to mob rule.
But again, this is an appeal to some transcendant moral order. It could be an evolved trait -- "Moral DNA", if you will. But as Diamond points out, it appears that "morality" will have lost its meaning in the context of this conversation. If it's an evolutionary thing, morality becomes a matter of random mutation! At any rate, this idea of "moral DNA" is really just the biochemical equivalent of "what can I get away with?"
Which apparently leaves us to pin this "innate sense of morality" on some non-physical phenomenon. This leads us directly to a consideration of moral authority. Must I bow to a purported moral authority if I "don't believe in" the non-physical phenomenon from which it allegedly springs?
Obviously not: if this non-physical phenomenon is merely a made-up concept, then the "innate sense of morality" reduces to a matter of personal belief and moral relativism.
If the "innate sense of morality" is to have authority, it has to be valid even if we do not believe in it. Appeals to general assent don't really work here (they lead to a circular argument); nor does the idea of "moral DNA (who's to say this isn't just a potentially successful "moral mutation?").
Instead, it seems that moral authority comes only if the source of this innate sense is truly transcendent -- some entity or property of nature that can somehow differentiate between right and wrong and, more importantly, enforce the difference in some manner. The "property of nature" approach seems weak, in that it does not easily explain how a Pharaoh can "get away with it" until he dies at a ripe old age.
Which leaves an entity, coupled with some different concept of what "life" is.
This is incorrect. Schaeffer did NOT embrace rationalism, but "rationalistic approach". There is a HUGE difference (which Schaeffer himself points out) between rationalism (man is the measure of all things) and rationalistic thought (right reason). Just wanted to clear that up...
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.