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.

Rational self-interest first discovers what kind of being one is, what is good for that kind of being, and then chooses that rationally understood good, even if one feels horrible about it. It puts reason above immediate pleasure (hedonism) and contentment (subjectivism).

All well and good, but the sum of your post is to simply define hedonism as irrational, without bothering to actually defend the proposition that hedonism is irrational, nevermind proving it. "Hedonism is irrational because it's irrational" is an answer of sorts, but not a particularly objective or rational answer, insofar as it's not much more than empty tautology.

No one decided this. It's what means.

What you said makes no sense at all, as you'll discover when you try to decipher it.

All you've said is that, to discover what my rational self-interest is, I must first discover what my rational self-interest is. Completely circular.

...we can't sacrifice others to our own ends.

Tell you what. Give me a quote where Ayn rand said that, I'll send you a million bucks. She never said we can't sacrifice others to our own end, or any other end. She said it was morally wrong to sacrifice others for any reason. She is certainly on record as one who pointed out how this is a most common practice, and one of the essential evils of this world.

Those second-hand souls who have never discovered the requirements of their own nature to live, survive, and enjoy their lives as the fruit of their own effort, that this is what they must do to know they are of value, and are justified in their existense, and that they really do deserver to enjoy their own life, of course will never understand how there is a difference between creating your own wealth and life, or bludgeoning some else and taking theirs.

There is no point in reasoning with those who have intentionally dulled the source of their own moral values, be refusing to identify and recognize their own nature. If you do not know the difference between moral values and "optimization of results," you do not even understand what objectivism, even in it most primitive form (as originally explicated by Ayn Rand) is about.

The usual rant against rand. Her philosophy isn't perfect so it's all crap ranters.
I've learned from many people—but not primarily from Rand.
In her time, Rand was a great defender of freedom. She was also a fine novelist and contributed some original ideas to philosophy. But to me, she wasn't the be-all, end-all of notions on liberty, philosophy, ethics, art, or anything else. Rand stood on the shoulders of the giants of history—many of whose ideas I became acquainted with before I read Rand. In certain ways, she was a giant herself. Yet despite passionate ignorance to the contrary spouted by certain followers of Rand, much of what she said was not original with her.
As we grow intellectually, we pick and choose from many sources of knowledge and integrate them as best we can, making the combination our own, a part of our worldview.
Rand herself was guilty of stealing countless ideas from others—among them, the non-initiation of force principle from Bastiat.
Yes, Rand did a great deal to popularize and repackage Enlightenment ideas, often with unusual clarity. But way too many enthusiastic followers—who need to study more history—give her credit for things that she simply did not devise. That false credit does her no favors.
This is not to say she contributed nothing original. She certainly did. For instance, her ideas on concept formation and the problem of universals are fascinating and break new ground. Also some of her material on the value of rational egoism—although, here again, she did not invent the idea. She elucidated many excellent political and moral points deriving from the "package deal" (her words) of the conflicting forms of altruism (e.g., Comtean sacrifice vs. American benevolence).

That's no answer either - it's basically an ad hominem attack against one's interlocutor. "You're too dumb to get it" is not a rational, objective proof of the truth of a thing.

Essentially, r9etb spotted the basic problem in #25 - "The problem here is that objectivists expect us to accept their underlying assertions as true and absolute." Of course, that's true of all systems of morality and ethics - all of them are based on unprovable assertions that must be taken as axiomatic for the system to work. If you happen to accept the axioms of objectivism, it'll work just fine. If not, it won't, and there's no objective (sorry) way to make it work. Rand's own prescription to "check your premises" works against her in this regard, unfortunately.

Tell you what. Give me a quote where Ayn rand said that, I'll send you a million bucks.

Pay up, Hank.

For the third time in this very thread, I give you Ayn Rand's very own words: 3. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

I've found on these threads that Rand's words are a source of extreme discomfort to those who are forced to logically defend them.

The problem here is: how do you logically prove that it's wrong to sacrifice others to ourselves, when there is ample evidence to the contrary?

the sum of your post is to simply define hedonism as irrational

Well, I think it was more than that, but its what it was to you that matters in this case.

Let me quote Ayn Rand herself:

I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectisim holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value of judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciousnly or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that your are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind... (From her Playboy inteview; I do not know what year.)

Hank

" So I'm not an end in myself after all. My self-interest is not absolute, but subject to the existence of others. So Ayn's got herself a bit of a problem."

Well yes, it is absolute, self interests are a characteristic of individual humans. Whether, or not any other human is present doesn't change the fact that a man has self interests. The self interests are observable as a universal characteristic of men. The method of preserving those self interests is the moral code and it's guiding principles.

" The scientific evidence strongly suggests that biological evolution is a real phenomenon. As we can easily observe, one of the primary drivers in biological evolution is the initiation of force. Success in initiating force leads to better predators. Success in avoiding extinction at the hands of predators -- by a variety of methods -- leads to better prey. Note that the "goal" of this process is not so much the good of the individual, but instead passing along successful genes to subsequent generations -- the good of the species, in other words. If we were to follow Rand's recommendation, we would have to conclude that man's highest moral goal would be some version of Social Darwinism."

Evolution, Darwinism and nature has no moral guide. It is morally neutral. It's rules are fundamentally those of physics. Moral codes and the principles they are founded on are created by rational beings. Social Darwinism is not Randian and definitely does not preserve the nature of man. It creates an artificial order in the world of men, where one , or a small group of men impose their will and promote their own interests and subvert the others by coercion. Rand's code disallows that fundamentally.

The use of coercion to promote one's interests at the expense of others does not promote any interest of mankind, but the interests of the particular men that weild the most effective forms of coercion. Rand pointed out that this is wrong. She wasn't the first; she just elaborated on it.

Is there any assumption that, everyone having the tools of rationality at their disposal, they will use it and arrive at the same rational self interest?

Absolutely not. Most have the equipment, but do not use it at all, or if they do, not very well. However, the principles of 'self-interest' are not a matter of subjective choice, in other words, the kind of things that are good for human beings and the kind that are not, so, just as one of our physical requirements is food, the kind of food that is correct or good or enjoyable by each individual is different.

What if it is in my rational self interest to become a dictatorial superman? Is my reasoning incorrect?

How can something impossible be in anyone's self-interest? However, you ought to be a dictatorial superman in one respect, you ought to ruthlessly rule your own life, and allow no one else to dictate any apsect of it. That would be in your self-interest.

Hank

Man ? every man ? is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. Um --

A man might prefer to eat Cake for every meal, but that would not be in his rational self-interest or happiness.

Objectivism is quite the opposite of 'hedonism'.

Your understanding of this seems quite off-base.

I propose that "conservatives" who object to Rand do so purely on the basis of her atheism . . . religious people who feel that morality is not, can not be a 'rational' thing but is a gift from god.

To boil it down, they feel that 'individualism' is bad, because individuals should surrender their will to the authority of god.

This is just the same old rift between the 'social' conservatives and the 'economic' conservatives.

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.