I have to admit to a dreary weariness at the
constant mischaracterizations I read of what Objectivism says and the
implications that arise from its principles. (See my previous blog
entry, “
Stupendous Stupidity.”)
I find such distortions even more egregious and suspect when coming
from people who say that they have, in essence, “outgrown” Objectivism.
They “know better” now.
Yeah. Right.
Here’s a little treasure from a grad student in “international relations” (heaven help us all...):
“Objectivism requires a dose of humility.”
According to this fellow, Rand’s ideas “are extreme and sometimes
self-parodying.” He also confuses how some people inappropriately
treat(ed) Rand and her philosophy with the actual principles the
philosophy espoused. He does (almost) correctly state some of those
beliefs but then dismisses them without argument. As most of these
types do, he casually and cavalierly rejects such ideas as
individualism, personal happiness as a goal, the principle of the
non-initiation of force, laissez-faire capitalism, and limited
government with an
ad hominem fallacy: “I came to realize that
most of Rand’s political ideas are cruel, absolutist garbage that leave
little room for tolerance and respect for others.” He then demands the
impossible: adherence to both a “life-affirming confidence” and the
“humility of a monk, a saint, or Socrates.”
No. Objectivism already demands a kind of “humility,” if you will, but
one greatly divorced from what this writer desires. No (real)
Objectivist (or libertarian) displays the hubris of folks like this who
seek a “social safety net” and “tolerance” (of what? for what reason?)
and a world in which absolutes do not exist. No Objectivist would have
the temerity to suggest that he or anyone else should dictate (by
force) how others should peacefully lead their lives. No Objectivist
would advocate enslaving one group of people for the economic benefit
of another. No Objectivist would be so intolerant as to violate the
autonomy of another by legally prohibiting freedom of association in
the name of “tolerance.”
No. Any Objectivist worthy of the name realizes that he does not
possess the knowledge or wisdom or right to make others act as he
thinks they should. Of course, this is not actually “humility” in the
sense this grad student is using the word. Such an Objectivist
worldview is nothing more — and nothing less — than the recognition of
and respect for
reality.
The only “garbage” in evidence here is what this masters student has
stuffed into the web of contradictions that his mind has become. He’s
welcome to it.
(from
Don't Get Me Started!, 11-27-07)
