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 16.
As to national identity, that seems to be a somewhat nebulous description that has changed numerous times over the last 200+ years, particularly as the 'defender of individual rights and freedom'. And I can't think of a single President in our history that has not abused that description to one extent or the other.
It should be noted that she never said she was against conservatives only that "many today" approached the argument from those false angles. That was why the video was described as "Rand explains how many conservatives attempt to justify capitalism on fallacious grounds."
Logical, Rational Reason Does Not = God. Only Belief Can = Fairy Dust, Magic Incantations, Ghosts, or Flying Pigs
(not sure who took the point, but thanks)
Rand was right, political freedom cannot be achieved by stealth. Those who fight for it must have a completely consistent philosophy down to its first premises. Ayn Rand has defined that philosophy, and for that those of us who choose to fight owe an incalculable debt of gratitude. Thanks again, Zenphamy, for highlighting an issue that goes to the core of an important philosophical conflict.
These things, among others, are some of the items that prevent my full acceptance of objectivism.
I'll admit, my Star Trek analogy wasn't entirely precise, still it was accurate enough. Spock was logical, he used reason and logic to make his decisions and it hindered his ability to lead.
Thus
reason vs faith, objective vs. subjective, practical vs pragmatic split took place in those times. It seemed far enough for the purpose.
This may help.
" Plato was a typical playboy from a wealthy, connected Athenian family until he met a man named Socrates, who taught him that the surest path to wisdom was rational contemplation, and that being a “lover of wisdom” or philosopher was the highest form of life.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by...
the article continues I just gave the beginning
Plato taught his students that all of us want to be part of something higher, a transcendent reality of which the world we see is only a small part, and which unites everything into a single harmonious whole. All of us, he said, want to crawl out of the cave of darkness and ignorance, and walk in the light of truth.
“There is no other road to happiness,” Plato concluded, “either for society or the individual.”
Plato’s most brilliant pupil, however, arrived at a very different view. Growing up in a family of Greek physicians, Aristotle learned early on the value of observation and hands-on experience. We don’t live in a cave, was his reply to Plato; we live in the real world. “Facts are the starting point” of all knowledge, Aristotle wrote. So instead of accepting his teacher’s belief in pure contemplation, Aristotle said our path to knowledge comes through logical, methodical discovery of the world around us–and the facts that make it up.
Aristotle asks: “How does it work?” Plato asks: “Why does it exist at all?”
Plato asks, “What do you want your world to be?” Aristotle asks, “How do you fit into the world that already exists?”
Plato asks, “What’s your dream?” Aristotle replies, “Wake up and smell the coffee.”
Two different world-views; one great debate. And here are five important lessons we can learn from both of them.
A second source introduces Epicurus who varied with Aristotle in application covering metaphysics and epistemology...but besides the sample below better to it for yourself
"
Aristotle never really did use the term "metaphysics," but he did call the area of that particular subject matter as first philosophy or the study of being qua being. Like Ayn Rand, Aristotle believes in an external objective world that is set apart from any man's consciousness. When he means is that "A is A," everything is an objective reality and our minds can only perceive reality, not create it. Although everything is set in an objective standard, each and every human being can perceive objects in many different ways. The world is made up of independent entities that nothing exist separately from and that all else depends on.
Aristotle believes that there are axioms used in all reasoning. Axioms, to Aristotle, are the most fundamental principles that he uses before explaining what substance and essence entail. These axioms are self-evident laws that do not need proof. Therefore, he also states that we must be concerned with the principle of non-contradiction. This principle means that one thing cannot at the same time be and not be, nor can an attribute at the same time belong and not belong to the same object in the same respect. This is his first principle and, therefore, it is not derived from anything else."
The article continues ...
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/W...
Aristotle was one of the first to look back to how reason might have begun and subscribes reason as the major difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom (who are instinctive in nature.)
I think Rand would have appreciated the initial support but would have had a falling out fairly quickly.
Seems akin to a philosophic allergy.
What is perhaps less well known is David Hume’s influence on U.S. conservatives and Friedrich Hayek. The blog The American Conservative calls Hume “The First Conservative” and the First Principles, a conservative philosophical journal agrees. Hume gave us the problem of induction, denied that causality exists, and most importantly for this article, he rejected Locke’s natural rights and the idea of ethics based on reason. Locke’s natural rights are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, form the basis for the Bill of Rights, and was the foundation of most of common law at the time. Ultimately, Hume attacks reason and science in order to make room for religion and tradition.
Hayek was highly influenced by Hume. This paper entitled, Hayek on the Role of Reason in Human Affairs, Linda C. Raeder, Palm Beach Atlantic University, explains:
For Hayek, the rules of morality and justice are the same as they were for David Hume: conventions that have emerged and endured because they smooth the coordination of human affairs and are indispensable, given the nature of reality and the circumstances of human existence, to the effective functioning of society. For Hayek as for Hume the rules of morality and justice are not the products of reason and they cannot be rationally justified in the way demanded by constructivist thinkers. And since our moral traditions cannot be rationally justified in accordance with the demands of reason or the canons of science, we must be content with the more modest effort of “rational reconstruction,” a “natural-historical” investigation of how our institutions came into being, which can enable us to understand the needs they serve.
http://hallingblog.com/2015/08/17/the...
Load more comments...