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.
"...whereof reason knows nothing" - IOW, some things are not accessible to reason. "Perfection" is probably messy enough to be impenetrable no matter how long we ponder it. I could be wrong, though - let me know if you come up with a good working definition.
I would like to know why you think that God has to be good?
Where did I say that God has to be anything? All I said was that it is what it is....
Could I trouble you for references to deification in the work of Aristotle?
Yes, if you'll allow me a moment . . . I was thinking how Voegelin might hang his criticism of Locke on general_re (link).
In #772 I cite the Metaphysics. This same idea he picks up in the Nicomachean Ethics book 10. The divine life is the best life, it is the life humans aspire to as much as is humanly possible. Sorry, I don't have exact references with me right now.
You will recognize that my response to exmarine was rhetorical and that Aristotle is no Plotinus. I merely point out that Alexander's motives shouldn't be so terribly suspect. It is rather normal to seek deification if you know what I mean.
And to circumvent confusion (saving myself), I'll point out that I had said "no more" than St. Paul.
Such a life is superior to one that is simply human, because someone lives thus [in complete happiness], not in so far as he is a human being, but in so far as there is some divine element within him. And the activity of this divine element is as much superior to that in accordance with the other kind of virtue as the element is superior to the compound. If the intellect, then, is something divine compared with the human being, the life in accordance with it will also be divine compared with human life. But we ought not to listen to those who exhort us, because we are human, to think of human things, or because we are mortal, think of mortal things. We ought rather to take on immortality as much as possible and do all that we can to live in accordance with the highest element within us; for even if its bulk is small, in its power and value it far exceeds everything.
You know, I can't really disagree with anything you have said here about the practical or temporal consequences of immorality. A society will reap what is sows. Yet an impersonal universe provides no basis for complaint about the 'wrongness' of a Pharaoh or anyone else, for that matter, "getting away with it". If the universe just is and there is nothing objectively right or wrong about it, then complaints about it or any part of it are unintelligible and meaningless,
"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day to the last syllable of recorded time, and all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
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?
Great questions. Let me start with the apparition of Christ conversing with me in my living room. (I can just see myself trying to convince people here of such an event!:^) If such an apparition were nothing more that the result of some accidental, random quantum fluctuation would I be able to tell the difference between that and an actual personal encounter with Jesus Christ? Probably not, you're right. But what obligation would I have to obey an accidental, random quantum fluctuation? I think that Jesus Christ is presently finished with the living room circuit and so is not in the habit of appearing in bodily form and conversing with persons in their living rooms, but even so, which is the more likely explanation, if such an apparition should appear? Of course another possibility is simply that I might need to be confined for a time on the 5th floor of St. John's hospital!
You ask if the significance of such potential events is dependent upon the significance I would assign them. Well, if that’s the case, then whatever significance is assigned is entirely subjective, is it not? Is evil merely subjectively defined? You are saying that evil exists, but I get the feeling that you don’t believe it actually exists objectively. If it's entirely subjective, what's the ultimate significance of our feeling of angst when someone, perhaps a Pharaoh, 'gets away with it', or a Pharaoh’s feeling of triumph, or if we end up living short, brutish, nasty lives, or I see apparitions in my living room? If evil is subjectively defined the very word itself becomes relative and incoherent, because there is no actual, objective ‘wrongness’ in any act. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ become nothing more than a random quantum fluctuation; a matter of molecules in motion of mere personal preference.
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?
I humbly submit that the only way any of these notions can even have intelligibility, much less transcendent significance, is if there really is a Personal, Infinite Creator of the universe. The 'fairness' and ‘justice’ that we seek in the universe is absurd and meaningless without Him.
Brilliant! I thank you for writing this.
Welcome. I've had a hard time logging on here, and keeping my breakfast down at the same time, so I've been avoiding the place. Didn't mean to ignore you.
The transcription in that link has some distracting typos -- Rand was not a sloppy writer.
Funny how wrong you are on this. Atlas Shrugged is consistently rated the most influential book, life changing book, people have ever read, second only to the Bible.
Just today I was listening to Glenn Beck while driving around. An unapologetic Christian, he was talking about Atlas Shrugged, telling people to read it, and that it "Will Change your Life!" I alone can name a dozen people who credit Rand with some level of enlightenment.
The depth of Rand's ideas eludes most people, even those who consider themselves "Objectivists."
Rand's influence is much more profound than most people, apparently you as well, have any idea. I can usually tell, simply by the way someone constructs their arguments, whether they have read, and understand, her works or not.
Maybe someday the world will come to understand just how important her ideas are. If you can say what you did, you must have the typical blinders that prevent you from considering her work objectively. It also makes me wonder what you think an "intellectual" is. (I guess that depends what the meaning of "is" is.)
From my experience, the 'intellect' of most 'intellectuals' isn't insufficient to qualify them for the term. Just as most PhDs aren't worth the paper required to Pile Higher and Deeper to qualify them for the title. This is the problem with the world. Most 'experts' aren't really expert in anything, let alone their chosen field. The only thing they are truly expert in is conformity, which is what was required to get the degree in the first place. And this is the polar opposite to Rand's position.
I think I just came full circle.
I think it is sweet revenge that her books have outsold all her contemporaries in the so-called 'intellectual' circles and are regularly brought-up when refering to the subject of contemporary philosophy as opposed to some don at Hahvahd ........or some Freepers.
Please document.
I think you missed the IMHO part of my post. But, again, IMHO, Rand's philosophy is a simplistic compendium of common sense and egocentricity.
BTW, Glen Beck is also pretty far down on my list of heavy duty thinkers.
I'd love to ask you to get back to me in 30-40 years, but nature prohibits. Have a good one. :o)
Look it up yourself.
I think you missed the IMHO part of my post. But, again, IMHO, Rand's philosophy is a simplistic compendium of common sense and egocentricity.
This is ad hominem silliness. Simplistic my arse. This just means it is much too deep for you to follow it, so you dismiss it as simplistic. What's your idea of 'complex' philosophy? Hmmmm?
BTW, Glen Beck is also pretty far down on my list of heavy duty thinkers.
The issue wasn't your list of anything. You made a statement that is false, the numbers of people influenced by Rand's work being counted on one hand, or some such. I was giving you an example of why you are wrong.
I'd love to ask you to get back to me in 30-40 years, but nature prohibits.
Non sequitur, age has nothing to do with clear thinking. And I am probably older, with far more experience, than you can imagine. I didn't come to my understanding of Rand's work overnight but over decades.
I just stumbled across this thread.
Why has RJCogburn been suspended or banned?
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.