Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals

Sierra Times ^ | 5/1/03 | Ray Thomas

[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.

[Hank Kerchief]

Do you intend to answer the questions I asked in Post #50?

In case you forgot:

Do you have a moral code? Do you have a philosophy? Can you prove them?

Hank

[tpaine]

For example, her [Rands] highest, allegedly objective, moral purpose is "happiness."


Life, liberty, and the pursuit of "happiness" are seen by many to be self evident truths, -- among the highest, foremost goals of man..

What is your objection to Rands ideas on using its pursuit as a rational moral basis for attaining/keeping a life of liberty?

[Dominic Harr]

I would argue the big complaint there is the one of 'individualism' being paramount.

Many religious folk feel that the individual should always be subordinate to "god's will".

The same old 'social' conservative v. 'economic' conservative debate.

[dubyagee]

Knowing that most issues are black and white and the gray areas are usually of our own making.

Sorry best I can do...I am off to work.

[general_re]

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.

But again, that's simply asserted, not proven, and it hardly makes objectivism and hedonism mutually exclusive in any case. Why is it that "only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value of judgment can be regarded as moral"? Can you prove that, and can you do it objectively, and not normatively?

I value pleasure above pain - and who can argue that this is an irrational preference? - and therefore I pursue pleasure as an end unto itself, taking care to rationally maximize it whenever possible, and minimize pain wherever possible. So why am I not an objectivist?

The problem is that Rand wants to cast some personal preferences as "rational" and others as "irrational". Well, good luck, but personal preferences just don't lend themselves to that sort of categorization. Saying that altruism is an "irrational" personal preference, and self-interest is "rational" is virtually indistinguishable from saying that preferring chocolate ice cream is "rational", but preferring vanilla is "irrational". At best, it's a completely arbitrary decision, not provable or demonstrable in any sort of rational way, and at worst, what it does is simply define the speaker's (Rand's, in this case) preferences as "rational", and everyone else's as "irrational".

[realpatriot71]

I read that part the first time through, but the next four readings I skipped it. It could be quite true that she never really grasped the way most people are/act because her personality and intellect were of a type that is only found in combination in an extremely small percentage of the population, and what's more she was extreme even for that particular personality type.

I'm a bit of an "armchair philosopher" and I like most of the objectivist philosophy. However, I believe one has have to have an objective moral foundation in order for objectivism to work. We are obviously moral creatures - by that I mean we all know right from wrong. This is an objective truth, but objectivism does a horrible time of showing how to arrive at an "objective morality" from a purely logic based system. In my particualr view this is where God comes in. If there is a God, then there is an objective morality, and this explains why we all seem to know what is right and wrong. From this foundation one does rationally know what is in his/her rational best interests - one can see why it is wrong to iniate force and so forth. From this point objectivism, for the most part works, and works very well IMHO.

[MEGoody]

"You don't have to be a liberal to disagree with Rand. You need only to be honest."

Correct. Her statement about man's only moral purpose being happiness is so ridiculous it made me laugh.

[Feiny]

Not to mention the influence of Aristotle, Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. I believe she acknowledged Aristotle and Dostoevsky was on of her favority authors (mine too).

[The Green Goblin]

Thus, if non-initiation of force is to be accepted as absolute, the basis for making the claim must come from a source other than application of reason -- from God, for example.

It cannot come from God either, since God has sometimes commanded his followers to slaughter babies...

[eBelasco]

Saying that altruism is an "irrational" personal preference, and self-interest is "rational" is virtually indistinguishable from saying that preferring chocolate ice cream is "rational", but preferring vanilla is "irrational". At best, it's a completely arbitrary decision, not provable or demonstrable in any sort of rational way, and at worst, what it does is simply define the speaker's (Rand's, in this case) preferences as "rational", and everyone else's as "irrational".

Years ago I asked my political theory prof a form of this question, namely "Well, would Jesus, various saints, be said to have not acted rationally?" and the response was basically "Ask me about real people. Next question." Not very satisfactory, and at 19, I didn't put up a fight.

[Roscoe]

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?

I've seen that question posed them in various forms many times over the years. They NEVER answer it.

[Hank Kerchief]

Pay up, Hank.

I know this is going to be difficult for you, but I will try to help you understand these little words:

He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.

In my post:

I quoted you: we can't sacrifice others to our own ends.

Then added:

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.

I know this is difficult for you, but "must not" and "can't" do not mean the same thing. "Must not" is what is meant by morally wrong.

You still haven't answered the questions I asked inPost #50?

Do you have a moral code? Do you have a philosophy? Can you prove them?

Hank

[r9etb]

Evolution, Darwinism and nature has no moral guide.

Rand claimed that reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

For some reason, you have decided to part ways with Rand, and to exclude the evidence of "nature" (and human history) from your moral considerations.

Which is to say, I am apparently supposed to ignore what I see if it does not confirm your preconceived notions.

[Feiny]

" 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?"

What evidence is there that it is right to sacrafice others?

[eBelasco]

I posted it in the form "Why would it be not in my rational self interest to become a dictatorial superman?" and got "That's impossible" as the answer.

[Hank Kerchief]

Her statement about man's only moral purpose being happiness is so ridiculous it made me laugh.

You're saying that made me laugh. So, what is man's moral purpose in your view?

Hank

[Feiny]

" I had to conclude that any author who can make somebody chuckle after that has a rather tenuous grasp of human nature."

I conclude that you have a tenuous grasp human nature. People laugh for many reasons....humor, sadness, shyness, discomfort, pain....

[dubyagee]

It cannot come from God either, since God has sometimes commanded his followers to slaughter babies...

So many atheists love to use this as an example of why the God of the bible cannot be. But if the God of the bible is, and it is as it says, He is and He knows the beginning and the end. If heaven is as the bible says, and God so chooses to take those babies to heaven, they are/were much better off than they were living here among evil humans. God would know this.

You've seen the evil people like Susan Smith and others can do to children. How do you know the same or worse was not being done to the babies in a civilization that God deplored?

Will check for your answer later...I am really off to work this time...

[Roscoe]

What evidence is there that it is right to sacrafice others?

Crime often pays. If self-interest is the sole standard for judging, the only rational rule is "don't get caught".

[r9etb]

What is your objection to Rands ideas on using its pursuit as a rational moral basis for attaining/keeping a life of liberty?

For one thing, "happiness" is a subjective thing -- hardly the basis for a supposedly objective philosophy based on the claim that "Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."

Rand and her disciples make grand claims to being the "only logical philosophy." If "happiness" is the highest moral goal, then either this statement is invalid, or the "highest moral goal" is not what Rand says it is.

At any rate, the combination of the two claims forms a contradiction -- not what one expects of a truly logical philosophy.