cuffy meigs, ayn rand, and the delusion of superiority

Savage may be telling the truth when he says ‘I’m not a liberal, I’m not a Republican’ but he is an @$$hole.

Speaking of conservative wankers who think they’re punk rock, I’ve noticed that I’ve gotten a lot of hits from people googling the name ‘Cuffy Meigs’ lately. Since it’s the name of a character from Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ this isn’t entirely surprising. There’s probably some college class out there suffering through her prose and have been sentenced to write an essay about it. They have my sincere sympathies. One of my favorite moments in South Park is when Officer Barbrady learns to read and says, ‘At first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of crap, I am never reading again!’ Of course, there are people who love her books with a passion that is not incomprehensible once you get to know these people.

Most art, even if it is not entirely universal in its appeal will still resonate with people of widely varying personality; Beethoven, Shakespeare, The Beatles, ‘The Wizard of Oz’, ‘The Lord of the Rings’, and countless other cultural artifacts are loved with devotion across generations and continents. Some pieces of literature, however, are so idiosyncratic that they are like a prose Rorschach test. Ayn Rand is perhaps the best example of this phenomenon, though certainly not the only one. There is something about the written word that is very compelling to the human mind; although this is an obvious truth it is still worth considering its profoundity. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all consider themselves to be ‘People of the Book’ even if they don’t all agree on the particular texts. Scientologists accept the writings of L Ron Hubbard with scriptural reverence. Mormons base their interpretation of Christianity on the book that Joseph Smith wrote. Although the Vedas are an oral tradition these chants are the basis of the Hindu worldview. Interstingly, Buddhism has no essential text, not even the sayings of Gautama. Buddhism is practice of philosophy without being a particular religion or philosophic ideology.

In the interests of being as objective as possible, I confess that if all of humanity were forced to assemble into teams for the Dodgeball Game At The End of Time and I were not allowed to stand by myself I would go amongst the Buddhists. Don’t worry, Kenny, I love Jesus. I think He was a Buddha who went about it differently than old Guatama did and got interesting results. The Gospels and New Testament are books that contain within them the wisdom to transform humanity, and they have done that for nearly two thousand years and will continue to do so for quite a long time to come. My understanding and acceptance of Christ’s Message demands that I reject many of the basic tenets of the religious tradition that surround it. I realize that when I describe myself as a Christian I don’t mean what others do when they use that word, and an honest appraisal of my own choices, preferences, and beliefs puts me on the team with the saffron robes. This is because I can be a Buddhist who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ without being any less of a Buddhist wheras most Christians would have a real problem with that idea. I believe the Christian Message has ultimately been a good one for humanity and that it essentially contains truth. I admit that it is my acceptance of this truth that is the basis for my rejection of Ayn Rand’s writings and philosophy as backward and bankrupt, but there are also more rational reasons as well.

Rand’s notions on the Virtue of Selfishness and her ideas of how things ‘ought’ to be appeal to people who wish to congratulate themselves on how nifty they are by virtue of just being themselves. For all of her rhetoric about self-reliance and the irrationality of expecting something not earned, Rand’s writings inculcate a sense of undeserved accomplishment in her adherents. While she trumpets that happiness should be the goal of every individual, her definition of happiness is more of a description of self-satisfaction than anything else. Her criticisms of Kant and others are so off the mark that it is clear she didn’t understand them at the least and makes the accusation by her former lover and disciple Nathaniel Branden that she never even read Kant ring true. Despite insisting upon a ‘rational’, ‘objective’ reality her philosophy is solipsistic wishful thinking in its expression; her ‘oughts’ are her own desires and fantasies made creed. Her supposed solution to Hume’s ‘is-ought’  dilemma is as much a demonstration of the problem Hume warned about as it is an ignorant glib dismissal-‘The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the relation between ‘is’ and ‘ought”. So much for Ayn Rand.

Which brings me to Cuffy. I googled our names and immediately found comment 32 here and giggled because it’s the appropriate alliteration for that irony. Apparently he was still thinking of me in April. I checked his ‘about’ page and he describes himself as a ‘missle defense insider & protector of empire’. What else is there to say, really? So much for Cuffy Meigs.                       

4 Responses to “cuffy meigs, ayn rand, and the delusion of superiority”

  1. lol
    Well, I cannot fathom your delusive pain of Inferiority, nor I want to.
    There at above, it is written <The Furious Buddha!

    What you people made of Buddha? a starter of a new religion called Buddhism? Again same dogmatism and irresponsibilities about your actions engrossed you! Buddha fought against those things which you acquired and committed the same mistake again, made it an unearned misunderstood “follow-line”!

    Rhetoric about self-reliance and the irrationality of expecting something not earned

    Lol irrationality of expecting something is rhetorical???
    Sure you want to be a looter or a thief.
    A thief, a corrupt, a beggar, a bribe-demander obviously expects things unearned.

    I know why you are against it. Because, you know nothing about Buddhism
    Weren’t you thinking of Bauddh Bhikshuk while writing all this non-sense?
    Yes you were.
    And you never understood right that’s why you can support the wrong.

    her definition of happiness is more of a description of self-satisfaction than anything else.

    and what is your definition of happiness? Satisfaction of the looter? Satisfaction of the communists/Marxists? Satisfaction of the poorest person on the earth?
    So you will opt for death by hunger for the cause of satisfying the poorest man’s hunger?
    I know the person like you enjoys talking like this. (As they can merely talk)!

    If your happiness is dependent on someone else, if you will sing not for your own happiness but for the happiness of someone else (say a dominatrix who will beat your ass if you won’t sing for her) than you are a slave and nothing more. And obviously some people you enjoys being slave.
    You can surely keep criticizing Ayn Rand because her books are above your mental level, plus it is your freedom to express your delusions and incapability. But that won’t change the fact that every Individual seeks for liberty, for freedom for self-reliance. And to ask for and practice inalienable Individual rights is not solipsism, it is Rationalism, Objectivism. In no way Ayn rand supported solipsism.
    Anyways, you will enjoy reading this, I am sure.
    Liberty, Tolerance, Freedom of expression and Political Correctness

  2. GarGi Dixit-
    You are right. I certainly did enjoy reading that.

  3. GarGi Dixit-
    Thank you for inviting me to view your site. The problem with your thinking, as I see it, is that you tend to let your outrage lead your logic and your ideals blind you to reality. For example, for some reason you are arguing against both caste systems and whatever it is you mean by ‘political correctness’ and ‘tolerance’. Are you upset that people have their lives dominated by caste systems and that it’s impolite to use ethnic slurs in public? I also read your post about age of consent issues and I find it disturbing that you think a 16 year old girl could concievably give adult consent to a sexual relationship with a 40 year old man.
    If we were to allow your schemes to determine our justice system it would be a field day for predators and a step backwards into the dark ages for victims of abuse. Thank you for providing a beautiful example of the mindset I was trying to describe.

    Winston Delgado (The Furious Buddha)

  4. lol wow!
    The color of blog now is better than it was before.

    its good to visit here again!

    Reason For Liberty

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: