Ayn Rand versus conservatives
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
Since so much of Galt's Gulch Online content has become conservative headline aggregation posting and commentary over the last several months, let's discuss what Ayn Rand thought of conservatives and conservativism. She put forth quite a bit of commentary on the subject, particularly after Atlas Shrugged came out.
To put it bluntly, she considered conservatives as big a danger to this country as she did liberals/progressives, considering both leading the country down a path towards statism, socialism, anti-capitalism, and most importantly-anti-freedom. Following is just one quote, there are a number:
“Conservatives”
Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish . . .
Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” . . .
Today’s culture is dominated by the philosophy of mysticism (irrationalism)—altruism—collectivism, the base from which only statism can be derived; the statists (of any brand: communist, fascist or welfare) are merely cashing in on it—while the “conservatives” are scurrying to ride on the enemy’s premises and, somehow, to achieve political freedom by stealth. It can’t be done.
The Objectivist Newsletter
“Choose Your Issues,”
The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan, 1962, 1
So What Do You Think Conservatives
To put it bluntly, she considered conservatives as big a danger to this country as she did liberals/progressives, considering both leading the country down a path towards statism, socialism, anti-capitalism, and most importantly-anti-freedom. Following is just one quote, there are a number:
“Conservatives”
Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish . . .
Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” . . .
Today’s culture is dominated by the philosophy of mysticism (irrationalism)—altruism—collectivism, the base from which only statism can be derived; the statists (of any brand: communist, fascist or welfare) are merely cashing in on it—while the “conservatives” are scurrying to ride on the enemy’s premises and, somehow, to achieve political freedom by stealth. It can’t be done.
The Objectivist Newsletter
“Choose Your Issues,”
The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan, 1962, 1
So What Do You Think Conservatives
Previous comments... You are currently on page 9.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/p...
Those you speak of get to vote in the same world I live in.
" Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."
Bye now.
Faith is not "the future" and reason is not the "past". We act on principles established that tell us what will happen. People also act on confidence without full certainty in the real world, based on what they do know. That is not a metaphysical faith in a speculated supernatural. You are equivocating as an apologetic for religion.
You can reject the supernatural out of hand because it is based on faith, without proof. That is atheist -- a-theist, meaning rejecting theism -- not agnostic. When someone makes arbitrary claims based on his feelings you properly reject it as cognitively irrelevant, not "gee, maybe". Possibility requires evidence.
If in addition the claims are contradictory, which they usually are beyond the most vague notions, then you know it can't possibly be true. Whether or not you are in the minority is irrelevant. No majority can tell you as an individual with your own reasoning mind what you must believe is or is possible, insisting that evidence and reason are irrelevant. Intellectual integrity means you do not submit to it.
The color blind man lacks the perceptual ability to distinguish colors, just as everyone else lacks the ability to perceive the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is far more than the range of visible light. It's not an argument for faith. A color blind man can't perceive colors the way you do (either entirely or partially) but he can understand the phenomenon abstractly when you explain physics to him.
He can in principle understand it conceptually based on reason, just as we understand much of physics today in realms that are not perceived directly -- from atomic and subatomic physics, to light and electromagnetism, to infrared astronomy, all of which are understood conceptually through proper concepts and principles based on observation and experimental confirmation. A physicist who tried to claim he "just knows" without explanation and proof would (or should) properly be dismissed out of hand along with the theists. It's not science. A physicist can and must pursue hypotheses he has some reason to believe may be true, and try to confirm or disconfirm them through experiment, but he cannot make claims to truth based on faith. Attempting to dress up faith with imaginative rationalizations as has been typical in the church and in modern Creationism, is neither reason nor science.
A person cannot simultaneously be rational while claiming knowledge from faith. They are opposites. He can try to rationalize his mysticism, but rationalization with floating abstractions to "derive" or claim to "explain" beliefs from faith is not reason -- it's the old religious endorsement of 'reason' as the 'handmaiden of faith'. He can however 'compartmentalize' and behave rationally in some realms but not others. Anyone who rejects reason entirely cannot live. Belief on faith is a constant danger of polluting and destroying rational knowledge, but some people have successfully kept them apart in some realms enough for very successful thinking, including some prominent scientists through history. If they hadn't been able to break away from the mysticism at all to achieve scientific success despite their religion, we would not be where we are today.
I personally would like to see our philosophy become more mainstream, people do not have to agree with everything to be an objectivist, just enough to get the points. We have to be more inclusive!
These arguments about objectivism vs. conservatism or is religion “okay” for an objectivist are juvenile. We have enough in common we should be finding common ground and encouraging other to incorporate more aspects of objectivism. If they choose to believe in a higher being, it affects me in no way what so ever.
“Red” is primary sensory input. We directly experience it in the presence of light of certain wavelengths. Even sighted, non-color-blind persons can describe it only through examples of objects that emit or reflect such light. “God” is not a sensory input at all, and descriptions given by believers are all over the map.
Majorities do not determine truth. Was the earth flat at a time when only an extreme minority believed otherwise?
Just because I don’t recognize a property that you do (faith) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I personally don’t sense a higher being but I leave the possibility that said higher being has choosing not to speak with me. If you ask this person if they have proof of their higher being and almost always they will respond “no, I just know”. Sounds illogical but to the vast majority of our population, this is what they sense/believe. As a rational being, how can I rule out the possibility of a higher being given the fact that I’m an extreme minority.
If you asked color blind man to describe red, what would he say?
I completely believe that you can be rational while believing in a faith. I personally have choosing not to answer this question, I’ve choosing the path of an agnostic.
I am asking whether the understanding of conscience (not the little guy on your shoulder whispering ethical advice, but a quality of being aware you exist) is worthy of the same scientific investigation you are suggesting for reason.
Do you believe we have conscience? If not, then how do you reason anything? They are related, are they not?
Load more comments...