From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (BOB HOOKER)
Subject: flaming RAND ( Re: Rand on Godel, QM))
Organization: ILS
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:18:18 GMT


In article <1993Jan21.090041.27717@ulrik.uio.no>, solan@smauguio.no (Svein
Olav G. Nyberg) writes:

> That's just what the bullies in the school-yard used to say, too;
> "Can't you take a joke, asshole?!".
> 
> Now, begone, before I get to flaming.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 	Solan
> 
Come on big guy,  lets get it on. I keep forgetting that for many here on
the NET the memories of the pains of the playground are still very fresh.  


But allow me to start if I may.  Objectivism is a dangerous degeneration of
the human condition which results from a total isolation of the self from
the surrounding world which threatens the objectivist.  This movement
attracts those who lack any connection to the world of others,  it feeds on
a strange need for certain people to feel better,  more perfect then other
people.   This need comes from a horrific fear of others.   

Once one has accepted the Objectivist notions then a very ugly self-
reinforcing cycle begins.  Very abnormal of misanthropic behavior is
suddenly justified as signs of advanced perfection and rationality.  Which
in turns increases the social isolation of these individuals.  They tell
themselves that the world would stop without them,  if they shrugged their
roles,  but the world goes on taking less and less notice of their
existence.

I myself was once enamored by the objectivist position,  in my freshmen
year in College I read Atlas Shrugged and some of Rand's philosophical
works.  On reflection I see that though I thought I was getting a more
objective picture of the world I was in fact more isolated from it.  I
would speak to myself about the control I exerted via the agency of my mind
like some type of sympathetic magic of a witch doctor.  But I simply became
more paranoid,  after all I was the rational man who knew reality,  who
could shape the world into my own image,  who could be used to measure the
entire earth.  I Ego. 
The others around me were lesser human who feared me.  It was the other who
saw me as a threat.  Objectivism projects the fear of the other out onto
the world.  It no longer is that we are afraid of others in the world but
rather others are afraid of us and want to stop us.  Thus the Objectivist
is liberated from his hatred and fear of other humans but pays the price of
endless paranoia.  Others are out to wreck his accomplishements,  prevent
his success,  fear his genius.  Stalin could probably said to be one of the
few humans to act out objectivist intentions.
 
All Objectivisim can probably be boiled down to Temporary Delirium in a
state of advanced Paranoia.  Rand was clearly a very ill woman and only an
unstable personality could have unleased an un-taught-out self delusion so
foil upon the unsuspecting vulnerable minds of humanity.  

Randian Dellusionalism start with the assertion that What is Is.  Never is
there any real effort to figure out how we know what is that is from what
is that is not.  The entire delusion of grandeur rest on this statement, 
which in it arbitrary un-philosophical vagueness can rationalize all of the
poor victims paranoid misconceptions.

Then the great true man,  the John Gault is presented,  the idea man.  Rand
who never deals with the real lived lives of everyday human beings always
presents this man in the state of idealized non-reality.  This ideal man
accomplishes things that no single man could ever accomplish in this world,
 he can create light bulbs from candles in two years,  he can bring the
very existence of society to a halt in no time what so ever,  simply by
denying the world his brilliance.  

Since these characters lack any humanity, any real faults  they provide
little guidance to living ones life day to day,  nor do they provide much
in the way of inward guidance to deal with  the crisis of life that we must
all face.  They are characters for a dream world and they are for people
who live in a dream world.   But they are never intended to be real guides,
 they are only intended to rationalize an isolation of delusion of
grandeur.

But this is not the worst of it,  for the world will always be full of
romantic dreams who don't know the difference between a good and a bad
novel or piece of philosophy.  For Rand gives us the evil rest of the
world.  Most prone for here spite is the college professor.  Even in an age
where America's business men are losing to Germans and Japanese,  many of
which were educated by our professors (who are the best educators the world
has ever known),  may still judge the professor as inferior to the business
man.  Why?  a professor is likely to evaluate and judge our disturbed
objectivist.  In the professor lurks the possibility of rejection, failure.
 He must be turned into a caricature as soon as,  and Rand provides him
with a weapon.  Academics are evil destroyers of wealth and time wasters, 
they fail to see the true objective truth that is the truth that
objectivist know because they are objectivists.  

Then there are the other humans out there that our poor delusional can only
secretly feel are superior.  "No" says Rand,  "they are are leaches on your
productive work.  You are more perfect then they are,  better then they
are,  the world would stop without you,  you are responsible for everything
they have." 

But then the most unnatural Randian perversion takes place,  a crime
against the species itself,  an inhuman farce against philosophy, art,
humanity and life itself.  

Rand asserts that altruism,  that felling for others,  that compassion, the
"humanity" itself is valueless and must be put aside.  Never does she
examine the true implications of these ideas,  to salvage such insanity she
imposes the restriction that humans can not use force on others to gain
their will,  but why is it that I can not use force against someone to
impose my wishes?  since I need not feel any apathy or compassion,  since I
have no commitment to put another before me,  why should I not use force. 
Rand simply says this only to save this bit of $.10 philosophy to its ture
purpose.

Rand never gives anything other then idiotic assertions on these moral
issues,  but Rand's anti-altruism is never intended as a moral guide.  In
fact none of Randianism is meant to guide man in action on this earth, 
rather it is intended to guide man in non-action, in isolation,  in retreat
from a scary, chaotic less then perfect world.  The anti-altruism of Rand,
which is riddled by logical contradictions never contradicts itself,  since
it is not intended to be acted upon but only to rationalize the hatred of
humanity that Objectivists feel.