The Argument from Intimidation

(Originally written July 20, 2006 in Book 3)

The Argument from Intimidation
Ayn Rand

Linehan - Thank God this is my last essay to read in this book! Rand's philosophy has made me weary of philosophy, whereas most increase my appetite for it, especially philosophies I dislike. But Rand's is like a burden on my back. I know that to remove the burden I must continue to the end. Gladly, this is the end (for now)!

The argument from intimidation is not really an argument, but a psychological pressure which stalls debate.

This pressure resembles the fallacy, ad hominem. Ad hominem is Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false.

The 'ad hominem' does two wrong things in this case.
1) Candidate X's immorality (real or invented) is offered as proof of the falsehood of his argument
2) The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

The argument from intimidation usually presents itself as: only an evil person would believe such-and-such.

The tone of a voice usually indicates this argument. It is a tone of scorn or belligerent incredulity.

The argument from intimidation has no real facts or arguments, only volume. The argument shows intellectual impotence.

The psychological source of the argument from intimidation is social metaphysics. Social metaphysicians regard the consciousness of other men superior to his own and to the facts of reality.

It is an anti-self view which fears moral rebuttal from others. A social metaphysician will forsake reality rather than be found immoral by another man.

A social metaphysician bows to the pressure when confronted with a moral sanction.

This form of terror is unknown to 'psychologically healthy men'.

Linehan - If the fear of being disliked, the trademark of 'social metaphysicians', is a trait of psychological unhealthy, then only megalomaniacs are psychologically healthy. This seems a bit absurd, but fits into the Objectivist mentality nicely.

Arguments from intimidation prey on the weak-minded, those who are paralyzed by fear or the young and innocent.

College professors often use the argument from intimidation to stifle independent thought.

Linehan -

Thankfully, "The Virtue of Selfishness" is done. The Objectivist ethic produces self-righteous, self-assured, pompous asses who denounce self-righteous, self-assured, pompous asses who have power. The difference between the objectivists and who they condemn is that those they condemn are in power. Rand figures that since all men wish to be megalomaniacs by nature and that 'altruism' or various forms of it, disapprove of megalomaniacs, then altruism must be bad. She doesn't really have many sound arguments other then the argument from intimidation, which she masks as 'high-minded intellectualism'. All that she and Branden condemn in her book are linguistically polished as her values. Most of Rand's work is despicable, but she does make some good points:

1) First and foremost she is correct in believing that man is and end and valuable.
2) She makes some good arguments on the role of government.

Otherwise she has left a bad taste in my mouth. But, that is mainly because she betrays her notion of man being valuable as an end. There is no such thing as potential value of men. Either they are valuable as an end or not.

Rand is inconsistent. Worse, she is wholly despicable.