Will wonders ever cease

Comments

1. Roadkill says:

   4/19/2008 at 7:31 pm

   There are very few works of literature (other than Rand) that present the values of individualism, capitalism, and/or entrepreneurship in a positive light. That is unfortunate, because it is capitalism that has created the most wealthy and prosperous society in history. But since most academics – certainly those in the social sciences – are of a leftist bent, they probably will not want to teach anything that so profoundly conflicts with their own world view.

   Now I don’t mean to defend Rand or her ideas. Not only is her writing excruciatingly bad, but I find her misogyny and atheism repugnant. Yet I do think she offers something of value to young people who have in all likelihood never been exposed to a robust defense of capitalism and individualism.

   All the same, I find the idea of paying schools to teach Rand totally ridiculous. If the profs don’t want to teach it – for whatever reason – that’s their business. Heck, the next thing you know George Soros or some other guilt-racked lefty with too much money will be trying to pay some poor school to teach The Communist Manifesto.
2. flashy says:

   4/19/2008 at 10:17 pm

   Roady,

   Your cognitive dissonance is curable, but your irrational mysticism may require medical treatment.
3. spiritofpublicus says:

   4/20/2008 at 9:09 pm

   Receiving the donation is voluntary, so if the school or department wishes not to teach Rand, then the school is free to turn down the money.

   Personally, I feel the introduction to indivdualism and capitalism needs to be done prior to entering college. Many schools now require incoming freshman to read specific works prior to the start of classes.

   Since many students had just spent twelve years in the collective environment of government-run education, the beginning of their first year in college would be a good time to cleanse their minds. It also will prepare them, as Roadkill mentions, to see the leftist bent of the faculty that they will encounter.

   Roadkill also mentions that Professors should not be told what to teach, but that is exactly what the state does.
4. Roadkill says:

   4/20/2008 at 9:50 pm

   Flashy,

   If the cure results in me being unable to discern truth from error and virtue from prejudice, I don’t want it. Such a cure is worse than the disease.

   Rand got a lot of things right, but, human as she was, she got some things wrong. The key is for intelligent and critical readers to embrace the former and reject the latter.

   For instance, Galileo was sanctioned by the church for ridiculing the Pope regarding his skepticism of the theory of a heliocentric solar system. Galileo was ultimately proven correct on that issue. But Galileo also theorized that ocean tides were caused by the rotation of the earth. Here, of course, he was 100% wrong.

   Hard-core libertarians (like you, apparently) are similar to hard-core communists in this respect: both reject dissent and organized religion, but ironically, both are a religion of sorts. That is, both strongly adhere to a set of core beliefs and consider any form of dissent a heresy.

   By the way, your comment about “irrational mysticism” is interesting; here’s what the most prominent scientist of the twentieth century had to say on the subject:

   “I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.”

   Albert Einstein
5. flashy says:

   4/23/2008 at 6:59 am

   Well roady, you started out nicely but then lost your way. You are absolutely correct that the issue is to discern the truth. But religion is the antithesis of the “truth.” Religion is supernatural by its very nature. The key differentiation between science and religion is the fact that those who honestly practice religion cannot allow for any critical, factual, anaylsis of their religion. Theirs is the realm of faith when facts fly in their face, so discerning the truth is not their stock in trade. Quite the contrary with not just Rand, but also Galileo and Einstein. You cannot mix science and supernatural based faith.

   I have no idea which Jesus cult you belong to, but your dualist nature simply makes you fundmentally incapable of doing the very thing you argue for at the outset – to discern the truth. Religion is not the answer, religion is the problem. The concepts of blind faith and sacrifice are, as Rand so adeptly put it, “germs that attack you through a single sore: your fear of relying on your mind. They tell you that they possess a means of knowledge higher than the mind, a mode of consciousness superior to reason–like a special pull with some bureaucrat of the universe who gives them secret tips withheld from others. The mystics of spirit declare that they possess an extra sense you lack; this special sixth sense consists of contradicting the whole of the knowledge of your five.”

   You are like many others who toss out this rediculous disclaimer as regards Ayn Rand, stating that she was good on capitalism but a bad vessel for communicating it because she was, essentially, a rational person. Yet, dare not attack her completely and fully for fear of being an anti-capitalist while refusing to acknowledge her core principles upon which laissez faire capitalism is based; for fear that it direclty assaults and questions your faith.

   Frankly, this is an untenable position. George Reisman said, and I paraphrase here, that reading Atlas Shrugged was an epiphany of sorts – one either sees the degree of morality and freedom implicit in its philosophy immediately or it causes you a mental breakdown. He is precisely correct, but the only people for whom this is the case are those who actually read it from an intellectually honest perspective.

   Ziller’s post asks a fundamental question as to whether or not Ayn Rand should be required reading for young college students. The answer is clearly YES. And the issue of whether or not a University wants to accept the donations ought to be entirely up to that University. I would argue that the best reason for having college students read Rand is that it provides an antidote of sorts to the massive indoctrination that most American kids get from the churces they are forced to attend and government schools they are forced to attend.
6. bildanielson says:

   4/24/2008 at 11:34 am

   The statistics related to the popularity of Ayn Rand’s novels, not to mention her non-fiction works (which are numerous), are impressive. Based on this alone, one can conclude that her writing is anything but “excruciatingly bad.” If it were so, the facts would simply be different – no one would buy her books.

   According to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, the enduring appeal of Ayn Rand’s writings should not be surprising: “Ayn Rand offers readers the opportunity to experience masterful plots with heroes who show us the crucial importance of reason and the supreme value of pursuing our own individual happiness. Based on the growing popularity of her books since their publication, we can confidently predict that sales are bound to increase–and that’s a hopeful development not only for the future of capitalism in America but also for the future of freedom on Earth.”

   I’ll side with Flashy and Ayn Rand on this one, and I will gladly defend her and her philosophy of reason and rational self interest anywhere, anytime, and any place.
7. bildanielson says:

   4/26/2008 at 9:06 am

   Regarding flashy’s comment about Reisman, I think it is noteworthy and meaningful here to point out Dr Reisman’s very articulate and absolutely correct view of what anyone who seriously wants to understand capitalism needs to understand. Moreover, Roadkill has made the critical error here of assuming that capitalism exists in a philosophical vacuum, or worse has some other-worldly premise. It does not – capitalism implies the acceptance of a this-wordly, proreason philosophy. The Roadkill’s of the world would like us all to believe that you can have your mystic cake, and eat it, too. Simply put, such non-argument arguments against Rand indicate one is simply not fully cognizant of what capitalism really encompasses and why it is consistent with the founding principles of this country, particularly the Declaration of Independence and to a lesser degree what now passes for common understanding and application of The Constitution.

   George Reisman is not just any economist, Dr. Reisman is utterly non-pariel when it comes to discussions of capitalism, and free market theory. His ability to integrate the philosophical defense which Rand put forth, with von Mises’ unparalleled contributions to economics is at first blush obvious, but in the full view brilliant. Simply put, Reisman is one of the top economists and thinkers in the world. He personally knew Ayn Rand, and for roughly 25 years met with her frequently – and they spoke,”extensively about her writings.” Moreover, Reisman was deeply influenced by “her philosophy extolling individual rights and the value of human life and reason.” As much as Reisman was influenced by Rand, he was even more enamoured with von Mises. Reisman stated that, “One economist above all must be singled out as the leading intellectual defender of capitalism, namely, Ludwig von Mises.” His intellectually antagonist relationship with Murray Rothbard is a fitting accent to this man’s great mind.

   I have written on numerous occasions stating that Mises was the man who killed Marx, and for this alone he will go down in history as one of individual freedom’s greatest defenders. I gleaned that from my own personal readings of Mises, particularly his short but enlightening book, “The Anti-Capitalist Mentality” but more comprehensively in “Socialism.” Moreover, I have read extensively of Rand’s works -both fiction and non-fiction. Before I ever knew who George Reisman was, I intuitively felt the commonality between these two great minds. Reisman did the hard work for me, and reading him is challenging but rewarding at every single step. I have tinkered with Rothbard and perused the works of the classical economists as well as the writings of many of America’s founders, just as many of you have done as well. But what makes Reisman uniquely qualified is that he personally knew and spoke with (at times extensively) Rand, Rothbard, von Mises, Hazlitt and others who set the standard by which all others who claim to embrace capitalism are measured. Indeed, George Reisman, in my view, wrote the book on capitalism – figuratively and, incidentally, literally (it is entitled Capitalism!). It is no understatement that George Reisman has one of the highest intellectual pedigrees on the planet. Now, does this make him infallible? Of course not. But it does place him in a position of utter respect and admiration for his mind by anyone who would dare use this term, capitalism, as if they are in full grasp of its meaning. Studying his thoughts and opinions on this subject is absolutely required before one ought to have an opinion.

   Here is what Reisman had to say about anyone who wishes to understand capitalism:

   The essential and principal themes which must be understood include the following, that: (1) the individual pursuit of material self-interest under freedom is the foundation of the development of capitalist institutions and of economic progress and prosperity; (2) the economic institutions of a capitalist society— among them private ownership of the means of production, division of labor, saving and capital accumulation, economic competition and economic inequality, and the profit motive and the price system—make possible continuous economic progress and continually rising living standards for all; (3) the material self-interests of all men are harmonious under capitalism, and that the extension of economic freedom, and thus the progressive movement toward logically consistent, laissez-faire capitalism, is the solution for all the leading political economic problems of our time, such as mass unemployment and depressions, inflation, shortages, economic stagnation and decline, monopoly, and international and domestic economic conflict.

   Philosophically, Reisman holds Rand in the same light as John Locke and I agree. Her brilliance was stunning because she was the first to provide a full philosophical defense of capitalism, her works are extensive and challenging. The only complaint I have as regards Atlas Shrugged was that it ended too soon and the she was too good to the villains… Those who take pot shots at Ayn Rand are taking pot shots at capitalism, individual freedom, and the fundamental ideas of the enlightenment which brought to us initially man’s best shot at freedom – America, the idea. She needs to be accepted at face value, understood for her brilliance and insight, and applied not in a cultist and irresponsible (non-thinking) way, but as a practical lesson in reality done so with eyes wide open.
8. Roadkill says:

   4/26/2008 at 1:29 pm

   Bildanielson,

   I was considering a curt response to your post of the 24th, which was a little too self-serving (viz., quoting the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute to justify Rand’s writing), but your elaboration on the 26th convinced me otherwise. That is, your second post is thoughtful and well-written, and I appreciate the insight it brings to the discussion.

   I think that the crux of our disagreement has to do with the role of religion in society.
   It seems to me that science and capitalism – even laissez faire capitalism – are not inherently inconsistent with religion except in the writings of Rand. And I think I can muster some evidence that some of your other icons of rationalims felt the same way.

   I have already pointed out that Einstein found religion to be a “strong and noble motive” for scientific inquiry, and that scientists “are the only profoundly religious people.” So it is apparent that perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived – certainly the greatest physicist and scientific theoretician – did not see an inconsistency between religion and the pursuit of knowledge. Why do you?

   Moving on to economic theory, you will find none of Rand’s hostility toward religion in either Hayek or Von Mises. The Road to Serfdom is silent on the issue, which is telling. Considering the importance of “Serfdom” as a foundation for capitalist theory, why would the author leave out comment on such a huge subject if he thought that religion was a problem for, or weakness of capitalist society? Even more revealing is a later work of Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, in which he devotes the last chapter “Religion and the Guardians of Tradition” to a sympathetic reflection on religion and tradition. In that book, Hayek observes that the striking feature of religion is its attitude of humility, even reverence, towards the great moral institutions without which our complex liberal democratic societies could not have developed. Religion, says Hayek, guards against “the rationalist delusion that man, by exercising his intelligence, invented morals that gave him the power to achieve more than he could ever foresee.” That is, Hayek found religion not only tolerable, but an important role-player in mankind’s ability to achieve.

   So too Von Mises, who spoke sympathetically of religion in many of his works. In The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, Von Mises states “Metaphysics and theology are not, as the positivists pretend, products of an activity unworthy of Homo Sapiens, remnants of mankind’s primitive age that civilized people ought to discard. They are a manifestation of man’s unappeasable craving for knowledge.” In Socialism, Von Mises sees the positive aspects of religion in that it brings to the believer “consolation and courage; it enables [man] to see himself as a thread in the fabric of eternal life, it assigns to him a place in the imperishable plan of a world creator, and places him beyond time and space, old age and death, high in the celestial pastures.” These are not thoughts that would be found in the atheist writings of Rand, who alone amongst the defenders of capitalism sees peril in the existence of religious belief.

   I have read Hayek, Von Mises, and Rand, and subscribe to most everything they have written. But like Hayek and Von Mises, I do not see the incompatibility of capitalism and religion that Rand professes to be necessary for human achievement. Why is it that you feel Rand is right on this issue, and Hayek and Von Mises off base?

   Like many great minds in the Judeo-Christian tradition, Hayek, Von Mises, and Einstein saw compatibility between faith and reason; indeed, they saw faith and reason as working together, hand in hand, in man’s quest for truth and achievement. It is only Rand and her disciples that find this connection anathema, and denounce it as heresy with such religious-like ardor.
9. bildanielson says:

   4/27/2008 at 10:57 am

   I appreciate the tenor Roadkill, I suspect we would agree on a great many points regarding the merits of capitalism and free markets, so insofar as this is concerned we are, most likely, kindred spirits in the realm of economics (I think). One point on my reference to Yaron Brook, it was your comment at the outset to which this was a reply. You stated that, “Not only is her writing excruciatingly bad, but I find her misogyny and atheism repugnant.” Well, one could take from that (flashy certainly did) a direct attempt to impugn her using “atheism” and the supposition of hatred for women as a discrediting factor. As if there is something inherently evil with non-belief, “atheism,” that is so recklessly attached to her. Whether one takes facts from Dr. Brook, or from some other source, they are facts nonetheless that can be verified. The link in my reply goes to the article discussing the fact that sales of Ms Rand’s books have exceeded 25 million. Assuming the data on their web page is accurate, I think it is rather obvious that her works are enormously popular and have a world-wide audience of, and appeal to, millions who have been (and continue to be) deeply impressed by her work. The other non-argument I read now and again is this idea that “I read Rand when I was in high school and now that I have grown up her message has been revealed as passe or flawed.” Every time I engage someone who initially states this, I discover that they have not studied her non-fiction works and/or not read all of her novels. Or, they work for the local government school district (just kidding). Now, one may not like her style, and that’s fine, but all too often we see this as a convenient add-on to a knee-jerk reaction to her non-belief in a proactive God, and especially her total rejection of man-made religion. Which, by the way, is utterly consistent with Einstein.

   Also, it is imperative to understand (and frankly, there are some -many- Randians out there who do not get this) that Ayn Rand’s goal in writing novels was not philosophical enlightenment, but rather the portrayal of man as an end in himself; not the means to any further end. And that one of the by-products of this is that it will end up benefiting all men better and faster, in fact it is the only way in the long run. Now, this is not to suggest that Ms Rand had some inner, suppressed, pangs of altruism. It is simply the recognition that by pursuing ones rational self-interest (not hedonistic, irrational, greed and consumption) when applied across the spectrum that it turns out all men benefit personally far better, with a higher living standard, and profoundly greater self-esteem and confidence than any other approach. I try to explain this to people who have not read substantially in her work and it typically just escapes them (and I am not referring to you here) in their fog of self-immolation and inbred or indoctrinated sense of self-sacrifice as a virtue. So in portraying the ideal man, she necessarily had to first define and describe the conditions necessary for him to exist. I think the quote she made in this regard was that this portrayal would be the “greatest value” she could ever offer a reader. I agree. At the end of the day, this is her greatest legacy because clearly it is the system of capitalism, the theory of the trader, that she championed in a way, and at a time, that was (and is) so dearly needed..

   Now, one can draw a rather profound distinction between entertaining the idea of a “creator” (active, passive, no longer functioning, temporarily on vacation, etc) verses man-made, revealed, religion. The former cannot be ruled out conclusively while the latter, when subjected to even rudimentary, fact based, scrutiny falls apart rather quickly and is, quite frankly, the root of many world problems and the justification for socialism as well as many-a-slaughter. Where all man-made religions run afoul is this pretext of death worship, self-sacrifice, and self-immolation that is implicit (in fact, required) – it implies the antithesis of capitalism (its requirements) and glorifies collectivism, and in some versions, such as Christianity, explicitly does so. Taken to its logical consequences you end up with slaughters in Jerusalem with glowing reports back to Rome of “blood up to our stirrups,” and on and on and on – all under the banner of Christianity. Then there are the presumptions of the reality of supernatural interventions into an otherwise physical, natural law-based world. This is particularly what Rand utterly rejected, this is what Einstein rejected, this is what Newton and Galileo implicitly rejected, this is what Aristotle rejected. Moreover, for Rand, her absolute conviction on the non-initiation of physical force flew in the face of many/most religions that from time to time actually glorify it. Then you have the devout Islamists, and I don’t think I need to describe the viciousness of their man-made version of the the supernatural realm… Far worse are the eastern man-made religions that essentially celebrate one simply becoming an abject zombie – nonthinking, nonentity, where the non-life is the ideal. What a great world that would be… The eastern religions are far worse, in my view, than the western religions because of this profound anti-mind goal/premise. In all cases, without exception, man-made religions require you to check your mind at the door and forces you to be, at best, a psychological dualist – and when there is a conflict all of these religions require you to abdicate your mind to the will of a non-entity’s dictates as revealed to someone apparently connected to the other-world. This is what Rand rejected in favor of the rational man who never is required to check his mind at any door because it is his mind that allows him to survive, it is the unique requirement of man that he has to use his rational mind to survive. All the successes one can point to, all the discoveries that have allowed man to thrive are due to the use of his own mind in the pursuit of survival and to increase his knowledge of the natural world. Again, this is fully consistent with both Einstein and Mises.

   So, what Rand did was to take a very logical step in the development of a philosophical system that would in one package defend the only social system (capitalism) for humans living together on earth that was simultaneously rational and profoundly moral, but did not rely on revelation or the supernatural. No one had ever even attempted this before in such a way, and she accomplished a great deal in this effort. In order for her philosophy (Objectivism) to be consistent, it had to summarily eliminate all the man-made religions as the basis for making moral decisions. At that point, rejecting any deist possibility is merely a logical step in the development of that package that she took, but such can hardly be characterized as evil. It should be obvious to all that Pol Pot and Stalin, although atheists, did not slaughter under that banner, but rather under the name of communism. Ayn Rand and Mises were atheists, pro-capitalist, egoists, and clearly promoters of free market economics, non-violence, peace and prosperity. I think we can all agree that these are positive things… Their writings are a case for why such a doctrine serves to promote human life and well being. Personally, I think Ayn Rand made a mistake by calling herself an atheist because it results in a whole host of unrelated diversions away from the essence of her work and allows people to think of her as an intellectual bedfellow of the likes of the above named creeps – nothing could be further from the truth.

   A true scientist does not dogmatically read and presume it truth a religious text, say the discussion of the end days (which is now again popular), or creationism, or the virgin birth and resurrection, and then go out and use “reason” to accumulate convenient artifacts that, when linked to support the forgone conclusion dictated in the religious text, stands up and says, viola, we have “scientific proof” that the earth was created in six days, dead men can get up and walk, a virgin actually did give birth, and the facts now clearly “prove” that we are all going to come to judgment day in four years. Quite the contrary, a scientist, whether it be Newton in developing Principia or Optics or Einstein in his development of the theory of relativity use a process of integration, not revelation.

   The fact of the matter is that Einstein was not a friend of man-made religion. He was far closer to the views of, say, Thomas Paine who, being a deist, similarly rejected all man-made religion, particularly Christianity. Einstein rightly rejected both the dogmatic believer (evangelicals) and the radical atheist as closed minded. You get no arguments here… If Einstein would have been a fully practicing evangelical fundamentalist Christian, which he most certainly was not, I dare say he could not have allowed himself to proceed with his work lest he live as a hypocrite. More importantly, consider Newton, or for that matter Charles Darwin (who studied divinity at Cambridge). Incidentally, just like Newton, Darwin’s theory was the result of a lifelong effort of integration using an incredible amount of factual evidence (just his travels upon the Beagle are a part of his life that we all should look up to). All three men (and Rand) stood on the shoulders of those scientists and thinkers who came before them. Clearly, Einstein stood on the shoulders of Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton. My view on Einstein is that because of some of the radical atheists attempting to claim him as one of their own he had to say something to shut them up, and he did. He also said something when he was accused of being part of the Judeo-Christian community – he rejected both, but left open the possibility, however improbable, of some otherworldly power – but his work did not come from that notion, it came from the integrations performed and the mathematics he labored upon, just as Newton did. The parallel to Jefferson and many of the founders (notably Thomas Paine) in that regard is interesting (recall the problems Jefferson had when he was campaigning for the presidency – the letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists).

   The problem I see, and will typically react to rather quickly, is the presumption that the tag, atheist, as applied to Rand (or von Mises for that matter) is presumptively evil. Communism is evil, National Socialism is evil, Fascism is evil, Marxism is evil, and most recently, Islam, is demonstrating evil. And they are evil (bad) because of the atrocities done in their name and the fact that the initiation of violence, physical force, and tyranny are part and parcel of such doctrines’ full implementation.

   So, the answer to your question is that I would not argue that Rand is wrong while Mises and Hayek right, or vice versa. On this issue you can only have an opinion that she might be wrong based upon religious faith, not objective fact. That is, by the way, the point of departure for the radical Randians. Mises was willing to be a bit more reflective, but was certainly not personally advocating for religion, let alone the evangelical nonsense that we see bubbling up today in, for example, the republican party. Rand’s ideas are geared specifically to man here on earth, whatever else there is beyond the grave is of little concern for if life is to mean anything it should be that it is to be celebrated and pursued with gusto for its own sake and wonderful value. If she is to be considered a radical for something it is capitalism (and pursuing ones own life, for its own sake) for which she was a radical, because such is the one and only system that can truly free man to live up to his potential. Aristotle taught us that reality is real, Rand brought us a philosophical defense of capitalism based on that notion; a notion that does not require one to check their brain at the door of the church, synagogue, or mosque, or leave our minds completely at the foot of a buddist temple. She, just like the scientists you mentioned, stands on the shoulders of Aristotle and Locke, but through a process of integration developed a unique philosophical approach that in my view gets far too little honest attention.

   Lastly, I find it utterly refreshing that Rand, Moses and Thomas Paine could all sit down together and agree on the proper state for man here on earth (individual freedom and liberty), while disagreeing on the best path to get there…

   Again, thanks for the tenor of your reply – and don’t be alarmed if I don’t re-reply to your reply to this, I got a million things to do!!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.