Ayn Rand versus conservatives
Posted by Zenphamy 8 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
You're mixing premises and conflating definitions.
Taking a point for what I said is as petty as it is myopic.
"Objectivists" are not a sect of believers adhering to dogma. They're just people that recognize, understand, and agree with the rationale of Objectivism. As with any 'normal' group of people, there are varied levels of learning and comprehension. Who they are and what they do does not define Objectivism.
In response to information about existence, there is a point at which the "inevitable human question" becomes absurd. Reality is the final arbiter.
Human reason makes happy and thriving human life possible. Your fantasies of arbitrary "revelations" into otherworldly mysticism on behalf of the supernatural do not. The overthrow of religious domination by the Enlightenment emphasis on reason resulted in only a few hundred years in a magnificent human advancement and prosperity undreamed of in the thousands of years dominated by religion.
In contrast, "Faith and force... are corollaries: every period of history dominated by mysticism, was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny." -- “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World” in Philosophy: Who Needs It? https://estore.aynrand.org/p/218/phil...
Yes, the irrationality of a "desire" for otherworldly immortality is a "cardinal flaw".
Load more comments...