Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals
Sierra Times ^ | 5/1/03 | Ray Thomas

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.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: aynrand; aynrandlist; objectivism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 801-821 next last
To: Hank Kerchief
What evidence?

Evidence in nature, supporting the theory of evolution, for example.

Let's take one of Rand's biggies -- we can't sacrifice others to our own ends. By what logic can you prove that it's immoral to sacrifice others to my own ends? Evolutionary theory suggests that it can be just fine -- and we, as putative products of evolution, are subject to the same objective, "discoverable" rules as any other animal.

For example, if I'm a Pharaoh, who's to say that it's wrong to sacrice others to my own selfish ends? After all, it happens at all levels of nature, and has demonstrably good results for certain individuals who are, after all, "ends in themselves."

For objectivism to be valid, you have to prove that the Pharaoh is wrong, based on objective evidence. Knock yourself out.

At best, objectivist practice is merely one choice among many. Indeed, the arguments for it are often based on an alleged optimization of results. (Though the claims to optimality are themselves open to question.) But in that case, objectivism reduces to a merely relativist philosophy.

51 posted on 05/01/2003 11:00:56 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
It would seem that if you look for 'hints' in what an author said, that is pretty subjective, as opposed to the actual text. Suppose the 'hints' that you see, aren't what the author meant?
52 posted on 05/01/2003 11:01:09 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: dubyagee
The same people that decide what is relative and what is absolute.
53 posted on 05/01/2003 11:03:53 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I wasn't aware Rand had ex-communicated Greenspan.

I believe he defended her during the split of the group. Also, he invited her to Ford's inauguration and he attended her funeral.

She had an influence upon rank-and-file millions through her book and the movie, "The Fountainhead".

I feel she was a little loopy, but do appreciate her efforts against socialistic trends in the 50's.

54 posted on 05/01/2003 11:11:37 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ga Rob
I guess I could be considered a religious nut because I do take the bible literally. But I also agree with Rand on many issues.But those who agree with her rabidly tend to make her out to be a god of sorts. She was simply a human being with ideas and with faults. She couldn't give you a line between right and wrong because she didn't draw one herself and yet she claimed the line was drawn between rational and irrational actions.

There are times that we can act believing at the moment that our actions are perfectly rational. It is when we look back that we see that they were quite irrational. We can also see in hindsight those who were hurt by those actions. There are flaws in objectivism just as there are flaws in all philosophies. Moral relativism being the greatest.

55 posted on 05/01/2003 11:12:24 AM PDT by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dubyagee
Who decides what is rational and what is not. Why is being a hedonist irrational if one is perfectly content in being one?

No one "decides" what is rational and what is not. Rational has a specific meaning, namely, that reason is mankinds only means to discovering and understanding truth. Rational means using reason as the means of determining what is true or false, or right and wrong.

I will assume you really do not know how "whatever a person is content with" is different from and not the same as "rational self-interest," and are sincere in your question. What someone is "content" with means what ever they "feel OK with," with is subjectivism, and not based on reason. 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).

No one decided this. It's what means.

Hank

56 posted on 05/01/2003 11:14:38 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; jennyp
Randian placemarker
57 posted on 05/01/2003 11:15:16 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I'm a serious Randian.

 

 

.............................this thread's about sex, right?

58 posted on 05/01/2003 11:15:20 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
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? What if it is in my rational self interest to become a dictatorial superman? Is my reasoning incorrect?
59 posted on 05/01/2003 11:19:53 AM PDT by eBelasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
That is, that the rights of others can't be violated in the course of pursuing those interests.

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.

What it suggests, then, is that rights are in some sense a "law of nature." But as we've already seen, observation of nature does not support Rand's claims to have discovered those rules.

The foundation isn't the nature of the interests, it's the nature of man himself. He is an individual with certain characteristics.

But in Rand's formulation, man would have to be a product of evolution -- the basis of which is the passing along of genes by whatever means, and "survival of the fittest," which in practice appears to favor the strong and/or the sneaky.

The source of the concept, or thing is irrelevant to whether it is subjective, or objective.

Objectivists claim that their ideas can be proved through application of reason alone. That is untrue. What are we to make of a philosophy whose fundamental claims are false?

The proof lies in examining the opposite principle and comparing it to the noninitiation principle. The opposite principle is any principle, simple, or complex, that allows for the initiation of force for some individual interest.

OK, I'll bite. 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.

If that principle is held as the guiding foundation in a moral code that governs the interaction of men, some men will be redefined and forced to take on an artificial essential nature. Their real nature though, will still be intact.

Well yes... but you've begged the question of what that essential nature is in the first place. In Rand's atheist conception we, as products of evolution, have no logical basis for setting ourselves above the evolutionary principles that guide the rest of nature. Yet that is precisely what objectivism does -- and it does so by violating its own basic premises.

IF we are say that man is set apart from the rest of nature, we cannot do it by applying reason to what we see around us. Our reason for doing so HAS to come from some other source.

60 posted on 05/01/2003 11:24:15 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
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.

61 posted on 05/01/2003 11:25:09 AM PDT by general_re (Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: general_re
See Hank's post 38:
It's true, many of the principles of Objectivism cannot be proved to many people, possibly most people. So what? The principles of the Calculus cannot be proved to many people, possibly to most people. So what? In both cases, they are true, and the fact that most people are to stupid to understand the proof, proves nothing.

So, you might as well say that Deconstruction is true on those terms.
62 posted on 05/01/2003 11:29:54 AM PDT by eBelasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: dubyagee
Not a religous nut...I guess I should have phrased that diffrent. I didn't want to step on the way others believe, didn't mean any offense.
63 posted on 05/01/2003 11:30:49 AM PDT by Ga Rob ("Life's tough...it's even tougher when you're stupid"....The Duke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
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).

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.

64 posted on 05/01/2003 11:32:14 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny
I'm a serious Randian..............................this thread's about sex, right?

Oh, yeah, baby. Ayn Rand wants you!

65 posted on 05/01/2003 11:33:41 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
...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.

66 posted on 05/01/2003 11:35:05 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
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).
67 posted on 05/01/2003 11:35:55 AM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jnarcus
Your assertion that objectivists think casual sex is a good thing is 100% false. In fact, there was a whole section in either Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead in which one of the main characters lectured on the subject.
68 posted on 05/01/2003 11:37:24 AM PDT by LanPB01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
That said, my favorite book remains Atlas Shrugged.

Not a bad book, huh? :-)

69 posted on 05/01/2003 11:39:32 AM PDT by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: eBelasco; r9etb
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.

70 posted on 05/01/2003 11:40:36 AM PDT by general_re (Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
I preferred listening to the unabridged book on tape (12 tapes) while lying in an inflated truck innertube on the beach at the OBX sipping Margarittas.
71 posted on 05/01/2003 11:42:49 AM PDT by mrmargaritaville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Except for that incredibly tedious speech by John Galt at the end.

Yep. I skip that every time :-)

72 posted on 05/01/2003 11:45:37 AM PDT by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
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?

73 posted on 05/01/2003 11:48:13 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Yep. I skip that every time :-)

You know, I actually forced myself to plow through it once. If you recall, Rand had the Dagney Taggart's taxi driver chuckle appreciatively after Galt left the air -- I had to conclude that any author who can make somebody chuckle after that has a rather tenuous grasp of human nature.

74 posted on 05/01/2003 11:53:51 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: general_re
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

75 posted on 05/01/2003 11:57:01 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: dubyagee
Could you please give define what the opposite of moral relativism is? Thanks.
76 posted on 05/01/2003 12:00:56 PM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ga Rob
No offense taken... : * )
77 posted on 05/01/2003 12:03:02 PM PDT by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
" 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.

78 posted on 05/01/2003 12:05:50 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: eBelasco
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

79 posted on 05/01/2003 12:06:27 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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.

80 posted on 05/01/2003 12:10:30 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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

81 posted on 05/01/2003 12:13:22 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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?



82 posted on 05/01/2003 12:15:10 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
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.

83 posted on 05/01/2003 12:15:17 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
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.

84 posted on 05/01/2003 12:15:24 PM PDT by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
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".

85 posted on 05/01/2003 12:15:51 PM PDT by general_re (Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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.

86 posted on 05/01/2003 12:16:52 PM PDT by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"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.

87 posted on 05/01/2003 12:19:44 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
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).
88 posted on 05/01/2003 12:20:27 PM PDT by Feiny (I Triple Guarantee You There Are No Americans In Baghdad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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...

89 posted on 05/01/2003 12:20:33 PM PDT by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: general_re
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.
90 posted on 05/01/2003 12:21:29 PM PDT by eBelasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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.

91 posted on 05/01/2003 12:23:28 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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

92 posted on 05/01/2003 12:23:55 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
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.

93 posted on 05/01/2003 12:24:13 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
" 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?
94 posted on 05/01/2003 12:24:18 PM PDT by Feiny (I Triple Guarantee You There Are No Americans In Baghdad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
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.
95 posted on 05/01/2003 12:25:27 PM PDT by eBelasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
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

96 posted on 05/01/2003 12:26:18 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
" 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....

97 posted on 05/01/2003 12:27:08 PM PDT by Feiny (I Triple Guarantee You There Are No Americans In Baghdad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
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...

98 posted on 05/01/2003 12:27:11 PM PDT by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: feinswinesuksass
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".

99 posted on 05/01/2003 12:28:56 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
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.

100 posted on 05/01/2003 12:30:03 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 801-821 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson