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.
LOL. Yeah, and I suppose it could be said that human traditions inevitably become deterministic, in a way. ;-)
What would that term be... utterly prime, perhaps. Whaddya know? That's a relational term. Funny how it becomes especially difficult for non-God to understand God outside of our relationally based knowledge of him.
The Constitution ends with "In the Year of our Lord" - who is Lord? The Constitution embodies the principles from the Declaration of Independence - these two docs go hand in hand. Check the bill of rights - we know that the founders believed freedom to be an unalienable right from God.
You can't impose "your own set of moral absolutes" because there is only one set and it is from God, not man. Your point about human evil merely strengthens my argument about the purpose of the moral law - to drive people to Christ. All men have blown it - this is absolutely consistent with Christian teachings. The institutions of mankind are flawed at best and brutally evil at worst. This does not disprove the existence of moral absolutes or a universal moral standard, it merely serves to show that no man can perfectly live up to them. You are looking at governments, try looking at some individuals and see their integrity and honesty and compassion - Washington for one. There is a clear difference in the behavior of an avowed relativist (Marquis de Sade) as compared to a moral absolutist (Washington). How do you explain that? There are men who are moral and do the right thing most of the time - Washington was one of those, and so were many of our founders.
There are no good people in God's eyes. You are using observation of populations in order to conclude there are no moral absolutes. Just because a population is behaving in a certain way (murdering, stealing), that does not mean that is what they "ought" to do. Does it? Of course not, otherwise, you could not feel it is wrong. Why do you feel it is wrong to murder and steal? Is that your opinion or is there a universal moral law that says it is wrong? If relativism is true, then all you could say is that the behavior is taking place, but it would be improper for you to say the behavior is wrong - all you can say is that you don't prefer it. Bottom line: If there are no absolutes, then society or the individual is absolute. If society is absolute, then all societies are correct - no matter their beliefs or behavior. You may not like moral absolutism but it is the ONLY system that makes sense.
I did not intend to call you a marxist. I was merely making a point about our history. I understand you were speaking about mankind, however, different societies have different moral practices and beliefs. Which one is right? How do you adjudicate between societies with conflicting moral practices? What is the standard? Who says murder is wrong?
I am not speaking of behavior, I am speaking of moral principles themselves. Behavior means nothing because it says nothing about what "ought" to be done. You can't make conclusions about moral principles from observing human behavior. They are two different things.
Yes, many people do behave as if morals are relative - people act out their beliefs. The world is mostly moral realtivists. So? That doesn't prove morality is relative, that only proves most people are behaving as if morals were relative.
The commandment accurately says, "thou shalt not murder" Capital punishment is not murder - it's justice. Abortion is murder because the unborn have committed no crime. Some wars are just wars if they are against an aggressive evil enetity (Nazis, Saddam, etc.), some aren't just. Self defense is certainly just - I have the right to kill someone who is trying to kill my wife or me. It's rather simple isn't it? Murder is always wrong, but not all killing is murder. All human acts must be measured against a universal moral standard, otherwise, there is no way to judge them. My question for you remains: Are all acts morally neutral or is there a right and wrong standard to judge actions by?
I agree with your definition of behavior, but that says nothing about the nature moral principles. Are morals mere personal preference or are there universal moral standards that exist independent of man? In other words, are moral principles invented or discovered?
I do say that moral principles must originate from God, otherwise, there can't be any morals, only personal tastes. If the only logical source for morals is God, then that is evidence for God. Let me ask you - do you maek up your own moral rules or are there universal moral rules that exist independent of your beliefs?
I confess you skeptics about the goodness of God have given me food for thought, as it pertains to such a calamity. Could it be I've had my fill of the spoon fed doctrine I've leaned?
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.