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.
Thank you for pointing out this fallacious argument. An objectivist should be able to prove this, however history and the economic principles that are found thereby show that while government is often a very significant factor in the generation of a monopoly, a monopoly is a "cornering" of a market which can and does happen by market forces combined with human greed in laissez faire markets as well as government controlled markets.
There are many simulations which demonstrate this. One of them is made by Milton Bradley.
i think you meant to say it doesn't yield truth. Logic can work on false premises and still remain logical.
Its that tid bit that can be misleading to the person believing they have constructed a logical code to live by. Even though the conclusions properly follow the premises, they are still dependent on the premises being true.
This is a trap I often catch myself in all sorts of mental pursuits in my profession (accounting,tax financial planning). I may have created a wonderfull, logical and beautiful plan or tax argument only to discover upon review one of my premises is wrong.
Its often called ASS U ME, -makes an ass out of u and me.
The interesting thing is the more I practive the more I find that its impossible to be completely sure of your premises in anything.
If you believe a monopoly is evil only because there is one company alone providing a service or product, please explain why that is evil. On the other hand, please name one monopoly that was able to control or "corner" the market by market forces alone that did not do so by offering the best product at the best price (in which casw it was benevolent) or, if coercive, without the influence of government force. Just name one.
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
.......
It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the interest of other people. If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a primâ facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former. To make any one answerable for doing evil to others, is the rule; to make him answerable for not preventing evil, is, comparatively speaking, the exception. Yet there are many cases clear enough and grave enough to justify that exception. In all things which regard the external relations of the individual, he is de jure amenable to those whose interests are concerned, and if need be, to society as their protector. There are often good reasons for not holding him to the responsibility; but these reasons must arise from the special expediencies of the case: either because it is a kind of case in which he is on the whole likely to act better, when left to his own discretion, than when controlled in any way in which society have it in their power to control him; or because the attempt to exercise control would produce other evils, greater than those which it would prevent. When such reasons as these preclude the enforcement of responsibility, the conscience of the agent himself should step into the vacant judgment seat, and protect those interests of others which have no external protection; judging himself all the more rigidly, because the case does not admit of his being made accountable to the judgment of his fellow-creatures.- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"
The Oracle at Delphi
Yes, quite so. By way of clarification, logic is a process, not a result, and so one may be perfectly logical, even in proceeding from false premises. One can even validly arrive at a true conclusion with false premises, but it's not guaranteed, and it's unsound logic even if you do.
And there's the rub - how do you know your premises are true, that your underlying axioms are true? Well, you rolls the dice, and you takes your chances, pretty much ;)
I do not know what you mean.
Hank
RJCogburn, I have thought of you as a reasonable guy for a long time. Why do you post such an ad hominem attack on Leonard Peikoff? He is a brillant writer, the only Objectivist who has written two full length, original philosophical texts and countless, readable essays. The David Kelley faction of Objectivists may not agree with Leonard Peikoff's absolutist views, but their attack on his mind and character is specious. To assume that Ayn Rand was misled for 30+ years by this man is a huge insult to the quality of her intelligence which you seem to admire. Also, she knew Mr. Kelley well enough. She did not think his intellect in the same category as Peikoff's. If you do not agree with this author's attack, why not dissociate yourself from it, here on FreeRepublic, since you seem to be posting quite a few articles from the Objectivist Center? Thank you. The Westerner
Two ways:
1. If the premises you use lead you to conclusions that are contradictory, if your reason (logic) is otherwise correct, one or more of your premises is incorrect.
2. Your ultimate premises must ultimately be axioms, those irreduceable primaries of existence and consciousness. Axioms are not assumptions, they are, like all knolwedge, discoveries about the nature of existence or our knowledge of it, that once discovered, cannot be denied without being self-contradictory. For example the absurd post-modernist assertion that true knowledge is not possible. The axiom this contradicts is, "knowledge is possible." If knowledge were not possible, nothing could be known, including the assertion that knowledge is not possible. The expression, "true knowledge," is redundant.
Hank
And that's true of almost all moral structures - almost everyone claims that their system of morality is grounded in objective truth, with the possible exception of consequentialist systems. If you accept the axiom that God exists and He has made certain pronouncements about morality, then a theistic system of morality and ethics follows perfectly logically from that. If you don't accept those axioms, that system of morality will not be logical to you. In that regard, objectivism is neither more nor less rational than any other system of morality.
-----------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your taking the time to explain the subjectivity of objectivism. I'd say that on the underside of what we take as "axiomatic" in any philosophy or religion are subjective decisions.
Also, that underneath this, as with all of life, it's a matter not just of what one believes and knows, but of "who you know" --and how you respond with all else. I mean, it looks to me that human beings are beings who relate (to other beings and all the other 'stuff') and who do so much more consciously and creatively by far than any other being of the known world. Who are humans? We are conscious beings, yes, but more than this, we are conscious (and even unconscious) relaters.
"Relationality" may not be in the dictionary, but from what I see, it is the most essential aspect of being, more essential than knowing, I think. "I think and therefore" I think about something that relates to me --which may (or may not be) there for me, whether or not I think about it. Even when I am at my least conscious points in my life, I never cease to be related to and to relate. And thinking this, I think that our identity as a relational being is determined by how we relate with what and whom we relate with. That being the case, the most basic decision we must make about what is axiomatic is about what else it is most important to relate with. Since this is about essential subjectivity, the question is: what are we most subject to?
I think there are many clues to the answer to this in our lives, when we look at ourselves for who we are... how we function... how it is we are prone to do what we do... etc., especially as it pertains to whatever is "other" that may be related with. I think the essential decision, that these clues may afford us (and inadvertently agreeing with the expressions of some theologians, from what heresay I've heard said;-) is to be found by the answer to the question of what is the most essential other?
To go to the essense of this, I think it becomes a matter of dust and of breath. Of those two, there is breath which purports to have made the dust and at my core, I cannot argue with it. I cannot. There is someting that is me at the core of me, that just cannot.
But thank God, I can agree with it.
True conclusions don't mean your premises were necessarily true. False premises, true conclusion:
All cats are birds.
All birds are mammals.
Therefore, all cats are mammals.
Axioms are not assumptions
At their core, they are - or more accurately, they are assertions without proof. Even if you think you can inductively reason your way into axioms, you're just pushing the assumption back a step by assuming that the inductive principle is itself true, when it is definitely unproven, and probably unprovable.
No problem. Just call the assumptions self-evident.
She's a horrible writer, albeit one with valuable insights into philosophy? That's a start ;)
Why do you, roscoe & the boyos here sneer & ridicule the axioms she supports, -- The same ones you embrace & admit are 'useful'?
The problem isn't the philosophy per se, it's the sales pitch. Objectivism has no special claim to rationality over and above any other system of morality, and yet it purports exactly that - "the only objectively true and rational system of morality", is how it was phrased earlier in the thread, IIRC. But it can't be proven objectively true unless the premises can be proven objectively true, and so that claim is of the same order as it would be about any other system of morality - an unproven assertion, that may or may not be actually true.
I cant speak for others, of course, but my own objective is not to knock objectivism down, and show that it's somehow inferior to other moral systems - I don't believe that to be the case, really. Rather, this is more dealing with claims of exceptionalism than anything else. It's not worse than any other given system as far as I can tell, but neither is it inherently superior.
Objectivism does not accept any assumption as an axiom. It is the only system that does not. All other systems do. That is one of the primary differences between objectivism and all other philosophies and ideologies.
First, there must be an observation and identification of some fact of reality or our knowledge that is discovered to be both primary and irreducible. What determines which such observations are axioms or only derivative concepts is the law of non-contradiction. If the assertion of some discovered aspect of existence or knowledge cannot be denied without being self-contradictory it is an axiom.
For example. The mystic "axiom," "there is a god." To say, "there is no god" is not self-contradictory, and therefore not an axiom. The logical "axiom" "existence exists" (or there is existence). To say "existence does not exist" (or there is no existence) is self-contradictory, thus, "existence exists" is an axiom.
Hank
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.