On Objectivism & Politics Part 5

Rand wrote the following in a letter to a fan:

It took decades of collectivist philosophy to bring this country to its present state. And it is only the right philosophy that can save us. Ideas take time to spread, but we will only have to wait decades—because reason and reality are on our side. (Letters of Ayn Rand, 596)

We find Rand in this passage making two very broad assumptions:

1. That’s Rand’s own philosophy represents “reason and reality.”
   
2. That rational ideas (that is, ideas based on “reason and reality”) spread quicker than non-rational ideas—presumably because most human beings prefer “reason” to "non-reason."

The first assumption is so fanatically rediculous is so utterly rediculous it necessitates an intrinsic tautology within the criticism. Yes, I suppose she does assume that her philosophy represents "reason and reality." What philosopher or any sane person would not. Clearly, if Mr. Nyquist is to better than Ayn Rand, he should not make her broad assumptions. He lists a broad assumption of hers to be assuming that her own philosophy represents "reason and reality." Thus, in this case, Mr. Nyquist not to make the same assumption must not assume that his philosophy is of the same status, and why stop there? Why should he assume that his understanding of Rand represents "reason and reality?" Why does he assume any critique of anything represents "reason and reality?"

Thus, I have proven that there are three possible explanations for this.

1. Mr. Nyquist is criticizing Rand for something he is committing himself, thus making him inconsistent at the least and hypocritical at the mot.

2. Mr. Nyquist vindictively criticizes Ms. Rand for something he does not do, meaning he is actively writing using a philosophy he does not believe is based on reason or reality, making all his conclusions based on said philosophy entirely arbitrary when it comes to how much insurance he has in it.

3. Mr. Nyquist decided to point something out that would objectively never be considered a valid criticism, making that point completely null and void, and proves that he hand nothing better to point out.

The the second point, I would advise Mr. Nyquist to educate himself on the law of identity. Ms. Rand said that it took decades of collectivist philosophy to bring this country to its present state, while saying it would take decades for her ideas to spread. She does not quantitatively differentiate the decades that it took for the collective philosophy to spread and the decades that it would take her ideas to spread. Any belief that she attempted to make clear that the decades that would at some point result in the mass acceptance of her ideas are shorter in comparison to the decades that it took for the collectivist philosophy to bring the United States of America to its present state is completely arbitrary in nature.