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.
True enough, but also in a way that you may not have intended:^);
"Blessed are those who hunger after righteousness, for they shall be filled."
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life."
Yet you have said to r9etb;
...Neither does transcendent morality explain how he can get away with it until the day he dies - it merely suggests that he has interests beyond that day which are not served by doing as he does. And even if we grant that such transcendent morality actually exists, what then are we to make of the countless Pharaohs throughout history who "got away with it" until they finally expired after a long and successful life of tyranny and debauchery? The existence of such transcendent moral proscriptions does not appear to have precluded the existence of Pharaohs....
But unlike physical hunger, there doesn't seem to be any ground, as you note concerning the Pharaohs, for asserting any necessary consequence of ignoring moral impulses, at least in a random, purposeless, impersonal cosmos. What is the explanation for THIS hunger; namely, that hunger and thirst in our hearts for justice against the wicked? The complaint of our hearts that the wicked "get away with it" makes no sense, and is ultimately meaningless anyway, from an atheistic perspective!
But the ancient Psalmist does complain:
"Psalm 73
BOOK III -- Psalms 73-89
1
A psalm of Asaph.
Surely God is good to Israel,
to those who are pure in heart.
2 But as for me, my feet had almost slipped;
I had nearly lost my foothold.
3 For I envied the arrogant
when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
4 They have no struggles;
their bodies are healthy and strong. [1]
5 They are free from the burdens common to man;
they are not plagued by human ills.
6 Therefore pride is their necklace;
they clothe themselves with violence.
7 From their callous hearts comes iniquity [2] ;
the evil conceits of their minds know no limits.
8 They scoff, and speak with malice;
in their arrogance they threaten oppression.
9 Their mouths lay claim to heaven,
and their tongues take possession of the earth.
10 Therefore their people turn to them
and drink up waters in abundance. [3]
11 They say, "How can God know?
Does the Most High have knowledge?"
12 This is what the wicked are like-
always carefree, they increase in wealth.
13 Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure;
in vain have I washed my hands in innocence.
14 All day long I have been plagued;
I have been punished every morning.
15 If I had said, "I will speak thus,"
I would have betrayed your children.
16 When I tried to understand all this,
it was oppressive to me
17 till I entered the sanctuary of God;
then I understood their final destiny.
18 Surely you place them on slippery ground;
you cast them down to ruin.
19 How suddenly are they destroyed,
completely swept away by terrors!
20 As a dream when one awakes,
so when you arise, O Lord,
you will despise them as fantasies.
21 When my heart was grieved
and my spirit embittered,
22 I was senseless and ignorant;
I was a brute beast before you.
23 Yet I am always with you;
you hold me by my right hand.
24 You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will take me into glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but you?
And earth has nothing I desire besides you.
26 My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart
and my portion forever.
27 Those who are far from you will perish;
you destroy all who are unfaithful to you.
28 But as for me, it is good to be near God.
I have made the Sovereign LORD my refuge;
I will tell of all your deeds."
r9etb has referred eloquently to the problem of moral authority. Suppose for example, that a thunderstorm comes though St. Louis tonight and deposits hail on my front lawn which accidentally happens to spell out the words, "Love your wife". Should I feel any obligation to obey the random pattern of hail that gives the appearance of a moral proposition and command? Of course not. If I may extend r9etb's remarks to include the idea that by their nature, moral propositions are not just abstract principles, they must be of personal nature and origin. Moreover, not only must they emanate from only a personal source, but they are COMMANDS. And further, not only are they personal commands, they constitute personal commands from an AUTHORITATIVE source. (I would feel no more compulsion to obey an impersonal, random concatenation of hailstones that accidentally give the appearance of a moral command than I would be to obey a hobo standing in the street issuing traffic directives.)
These roundabout meanderings are meant to illustrate the point that from an atheistic, evolutionary perspective, the question of moral "truth or consequences" is ultimately meaningless. I guess what I am focusing on, general, is your statement that the existence of God and transcendent morality only serves to throw a bit more weight against whatever immoral act one is considering, and then only if one accepts some specific premises to begin with, more specific than simply "God and objective morality exist."
Here's my question; in light of the foregoing, what is the atheistic ground for asserting the existence of an "immoral act" in the first place? You yourself have acknowledged that "evil exists", but how does one account for it in a random, purposeless, impersonal cosmos?
Cordially,
Power. What people love most is a consciousness of their own power. And immoral is every power that defies the expansion of it. The self is the atheistic ground for the assertion of anything. In the end, the self is divinized, and all atheists become shifty worshipers of the ego's occasion. If not Darwin, Hobbes is hereby vindicated.
There's no doubt God loves even the most evil person because they are created in His image, but He does not love them in the same way as He loves those who are in Christ. Those who are outside of God's saving grace really only experience his general grace (the rain falls on the just and unjust alike, and he lets them live and breath and is longsuffering toward them). Clearly the bible teaches they are "children of wrath," and is very unambiguous about it. The natural man cannot understand the things of the spirt as they are foolishness to him (Aristotle's plight).
This is what makes Socrates something profound. He knew that he didn't know. Plus, he looked for a way to know. This is not intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps he was a bit hubristic about it, and poked fun at those who pretended to know when they didn't.
Interesting point. But didn't Socrates make conclusions about the nature of ethics, which we know can only come from God? His ethics seemed to just hang in mid-air as he never did realize that moral absolutes from directly from the character and person of the living God.
Why blame him for what he critized others for? Here's a guy that tried to show how people's ethics are hung in mid-air and then for that we join the Athenians and make him drink hemlock for another 2500 years?
He did realize that ethics are objective (unlike epicureans), but he did not connect them to a source. I'm not criticizing him, just pointing out a simple fact. Ayn Rand objectivists do the same thing! They say certain objective ethical rules exist - but can't name the source! In that sense, Socrates was like Ayn Rand, but the similarity ends there. Ayn Rand has no personal or sexual morals from what I understand, and her ethics were quite compartmentalized. At least Socrates ethics covered a wider spectrum of the human existence.
It scarcely begins. Socrates claims ignorance, which is something Randians will never do and objectivists forget to do. Skeptics and rationalists have a few things in common--like sneezing and such.
Read him. The source is divine.
I have read enough. I did not see in any of his writings where he attributed moral absolutes to God. Where is that? He spoke of a mystical inner voice which is the seat of morality, and he spoke of Justice with a capital J, and of the "right will," but I have never seen anything attributed to Socrates (he didn't have any writings of his own - they are from Plato and Xenophon). I do not hold the greek philosophers in the high esteem that you do, but I believe Plato was the best since he understood that there are ideals and truths independent of man. The problem is for all the greeks is as F. Schaeffer explained: You cannot logical start with finite man and reason your way to the infinite or univeral; you must start with the infinite-personal and reason your way down.
They are all in the same boat, paddling the same wrong direction. Without revelation there is no knowledge. Period. End of story.
Why? Because I love the truth and stick to God's Word? I am not trying to be God, I am merely trying to adopt as much of God's truth into my life and attitudes and philosophy as I can. Colossians 2:8 is my theme verse for philosophy and I recommend it for you:
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Unfortunately, that excludes any admiration for greek philosophy.
.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point.- Blaise Pascal
That's not my understanding. My understanding is that she believed that sex was too good or too valuable to be given away casually!
Close of the Apology. BTW the independence you speak of in Plato is more true for Socrates.
No? As a way of restating my earlier point about the potential lack of transcendent consequences not precluding the existence of more contemporaneous consequences, imagine a society where everyone was free to murder with impunity, where murder was, if not condoned, at least tolerated, and therefore freely practiced on a whim. What would such a society be like? Would the freedom to murder affect the way such a society was organized, the way its members behaved, the social conventions and traditions in force? Wouldn't those effects be fairly labeled as the "consequences" of the freedom to murder at will? Would you want to live in a society that had to deal - indeed, positively embraced them - with those consequences?
What is the explanation for THIS hunger; namely, that hunger and thirst in our hearts for justice against the wicked? The complaint of our hearts that the wicked "get away with it" makes no sense, and is ultimately meaningless anyway, from an atheistic perspective!
We have an instinctive dislike for the consequences of letting the wicked get away with it - consequences which I asked you to envision above. Your heart complains because your heart knows that in a society without rules, your life is very likely to be short, brutal, and nasty. It is precisely because we are selfish that we have rules. A few people will try to selfishly lie, steal, and murder their way to the top, but most of us instinctively know that there can only be one top dog - making the odds rather long of that top dog being you or me, and so we decline to play that game by selfishly opting for self-preservation instead.
Suppose for example, that a thunderstorm comes though St. Louis tonight and deposits hail on my front lawn which accidentally happens to spell out the words, "Love your wife". Should I feel any obligation to obey the random pattern of hail that gives the appearance of a moral proposition and command? Of course not.
Imagine that your glass of water were to suddenly change to wine as you were holding it. Suppose the hailstorm deposited a perfect representation of the Virgin Mary. Suppose you were standing on the beach one day, and the sea parted before you. All of these events are entirely possible without supernatural intervention, albeit highly unlikely to occur. Are these potential events actually more significant than a random hailstone commandment to love your wife, or are they only more significant because of the significance you assign them? Suppose you had a random and accidental set of quantum fluctuations that only appeared to be Christ conversing with you in your living room - again, highly unlikely, but not impossible. Would you feel obligated to obey it? Would you even be able to tell the difference between mere appearance and true reality?
Here's my question; in light of the foregoing, what is the atheistic ground for asserting the existence of an "immoral act" in the first place? You yourself have acknowledged that "evil exists", but how does one account for it in a random, purposeless, impersonal cosmos?
Impersonal, yes. Random, sort of. Purposeless? Not at all - in that case, the field is open for any purpose we desire to create. Will we create a world that tolerates what we might call "evil", or not? What's your preference, if God should turn out to be absent?
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.