Ayn Rand, Ch. 1-5

Philosophy 102

Upon reflection and rejection of the theory of relative matter and a rejection of subjective god-imposed values in search of something that we find to be "true", we are left with the mindset that it is important to pass arbitrary judgment onto values, ignore unattainable universal truths in favor of what either we can know, what can make us happy, or any of those reasons - the main element in common being a rejection of relativism and 'higher unattainable truth' in favor of a self-constructed meaning. Most of these people turn to religion, ignoring its flaws and shortcomings, because they know that is where they will find spiritual fulfillment - in the belief of a god and higher power, someone to set rules that we must live by so that we do not have to create arbitrary fragmentations of them ourselves. But, skeptics raise the point that our comprehension of "God" in this sense is as arbitrary and unattainable as functioning on a higher level as atheistic philosophers strive to achieve as well. The end result, maintain the theists, is happiness stemming from [a definition of their own design and weighted relevance of their choosing], which in their eyes outweighs the pursuit of 'actual' truth. Now, when one is to construct a system of functioning, be it a government, moral code, or other philosophy under this notion, once again it is with the belief that it is important to believe one's tenets to be absolutely true in the spectrum that we as humans can understand (making it true to them, disputable to others). The negative translation of this is that it places too much stock on how it makes the individual feel, rather than on some higher level - the implications of which could philosophically pass approval on racism, aristocracy, division of wealth, and opposition to universal human equality - all dependent on the resultant effect on the individual (i.e., if they believe one's own feelings is all it takes to make something true).
Take this in the context of Soviet Russia. One could easily speculate that the communist brainchildren (Marx, Engel, Stalin) said the following: "We create our own truths; this functioning - taking away wealth from the upper classes, nationalizing banks and industry all in the name of the working classman - this functioning may violate the lives of some, even most, but that is irrelevant: we believe this system to be true and 'fair in the long run', and even if it infringes upon the rights of some, that is acceptable because it is what we believe to be true and we make it true." Now, this is undisputedly the Soviet extension of the belief I highlighted in the first paragraph. Now, while they are free of self-contradiction and by their own regard entitled to hold such a tenet as true (as are they by the definition I highlighted), there are obvious terrible repurcussions to it, perhaps not in their eyes but certainly in the eyes of others. Here we are faced with a conundrum: the true belief of some upon the clash of others. I am trying to avoid speaking in universal terms such as "What gives them the right to hold their belief in the face of suffering of others?" or "What makes theirs more important to be acted out and executed than others?" because obviously in their eyes their belief is more important, more relevant since we have struck down the notion of universal relativity. BUT I must maintain that this system of functioning, while some might believe it to be true, befits no one. What kind of world would we be living in if everyone simply did what they believed to be true based on an [arbitrary or even 'inspired'] idea of truth? Truly, there must be a middle ground to be reached, if even to appeal to those in charge from the Hobbesian, self interested view of "God forbid someone would do the same thing to you!" A middle ground must be reached, and a compromise must be attained between believing one's self to be true by ANY criteria (even divine inspiration) and compromising to a sense of universal relativity under which nothing would have any meaning. This appeal can only come from, and be acted out by those who believe in, the notion that everyone lives a life, morals exist (which these self-constructed absolutists must belief by their own definition), and that the Golden Rule has some value rather than being just words on a piece of paper.
In summary, the Soviets show that by their own construction of absolutes and objectivism, Ayn Rand contradicts herself into showing that an introduction of objective thought without any subjectivity allows for monstrosities on a physical level, compared to subjectivity without objectivity allows for monstrosities on a philosophical level. Objectivism without subjectivism is what leads to state sponsored terror, and those who believe in self-constructed truths as an alternative to complete subjectivity I believe pass implicit judgment on horrors of this level. A balance must be reached.