I'll give you some more grist for your thought.
<<Clearly, she was true to her principles of not compromising her belief system which meant that she made enemies of all those who are devoted to the collective. So she strikes two chords in people: A very positive chord in those who think her philosophy was a necessary and useful antidote to a society which leeches moral choice from individuals and uses collective might and religious guilt to choose what an individual may or must value...and a negative chord in communists, socialists, collectivists, and those who believed her philosophy opposed the spirit of community and cooperation which is an extension of the natural family unit.>>
I don't mean to be rude, but you are castigating religion and then subcribing to a cult, IMO. That strikes me as ironic to the max. And like all cult leaders Rand had a superiority complex, when in fact she was just a sad psychologically ill person who made life hell for people. She had a hellish childhood. Fits.
Hell, people like me, hard core existentialists, cannot be accused of any sort of dogma. We are much more in the nihilistic camp and don't believe in much of anything as being real. And science says nothing is real, just a probability.
Her talk of objectivism is pure psychobable, not unlike all other's who proclaim some superior understanding. If you want surperior understanding I would stick to Bertrand Russell and Steven Pinker (now there was superior understanding) who recently pointed out there is less violence today than at any time in history. Now that is important.
We are just worms, including Rand, squirming around in the mud with a few insights here and there. Nothing more.
Was Hitler good or bad? You may want to debate that, but not me. He was bad and I don't need a ten page treatise to say why. I am more in the Jeffersonian self evident camp-lol (I think that was Jefferson).
And Knee jerk? Hardly, knee jerk, how about 50 years of hard core looking and studying. As Russell said. I found nothing and neither did Rand.
So I am more in the Platonic camp. Everyone is suffering, so be kind to them.
I have found that most of the hostility to Rand is a knee jerk reaction based on a misunderstanding or a gratuitous misinterpretation of her philosophy. But I want to be fair to your proposition. So let me give this the structure that I think it merits on the basis of my personal familiarity with her work and with her critics.
Basically, there are two channels of attack by those determined to undermine her unflagging popularity:
1. They attack her as a person (which even if true would be feckless as an argument against her philosophy),
or
2. They attack her philosophy (sometimes fairly rationally in which case we can sincerely examine the validity of their criticisms).
Of course, the record shows that much of the antipathy toward her flowed from a collective "self righteousness" in defending what she attacked in her writings. And let it be admitted: She DID ATTACK--and she attacked without mercy and without compromise. So it is not surprising that the people or the things she attacked should coalesce into a defensive core--swinging back viciously...and sometimes with a convenient oversight of the facts.
But having stated this for the record, let us set it aside and examine the criticisms leveled against her by others--whether sincerely offered or originating from personal malice. Whenever one takes an extreme position they will be both loved and hated. Many Christians have contempt for Islamic beliefs. Many Muslims think Christians are next to the devil. Many Christians think atheists are evil because their belief system considers "free thinking" to be an affront to the god they were taught to worship. Republicans and Democrats (of course) are superior to one another in almost all respects and there may even be some doubt that they belong to the same order of primates. And other examples are endless. What this means for us is that an extremely hostile opposition to Rand and her philosophy is expected--and indeed the absence of such would suggest a suspension of natural law in the universe.
So I would like to look at this fairly because your question was fairly posted. However, tonight I am going to a dance. Perhaps tomorrow I can respond to this. I will separate the grievances levelled against her into personal censure and difference of opinion on her philosophy. I believe we shall find that many of the philosophical arguments are merely a misinterpretation--willful or otherwise. |
