Betsy

My family, and just about everyone I grew up with, was raised according to the tenets of Secular Judaism. Some of the commandments are: Thou shalt go to college and enter a profession. Thou shalt not marry outside thy faith. Honor the Sabbath and keep it holy. Go shopping. Thou shalt not go to a synagogue except for a wedding, Bar Mitzvah, or for the High Holidays when thou art wearing thy new clothes and flirting with college boys taking pre-med. Thou shalt leave religious mishigas (tr. nonsense) to thy grandmother and humor her that thine days may be enriched by the money she may leave thee. Thou shalt not marry a rabbi. What kind of living is that? Better a doctor or a lawyer. Honor thy father and thy mother lest they lay a guilt trip upon thee ... especially thy mother. Thou shalt not pay retail. Etc. ...

Take whatever time you need and be fair with yourself. We all begin at different starting points and have different issues. Instead of being discouraged by how far you still have to go, measure your progress by how far you've come.

That's true. That's true too. Actually, I think it is more the case that rationality can help you make better use of the inteligence you have, but it can't actually increase your intelligence. Eddie Willers was as rational -- and as moral -- as John Galt, but they varied widely in inteligence.

I'm not surprised, but I would consider it well-deserved rather than "childish." And speaking of hostility, that wasn't a particularly friendly remark on your part. If you want to engage in what Ayn Rand called an "Argument from Intimidation," you'll have more luck with people who are more easily intimidated. Good! So is a mugger. Funny, I missed that one. Where in Galt's Speech was that? Some have never learned the difference between rational self-interested assertiveness and irrational aggression. The fact that Ayn Rand was elderly, alone, and frail and that Devers was blocking her way into her own apartment (and presumably the security call button inside her apartment) had nothing to do with it.

I agree, but I believe the "historical and cultural reasons" for being more educated and intellectual reduce to the underlying Aristotelian epistemology and its resulting this-earthly individualism. Observe that Aristotelianism, applied incorrectly, can also lead to Rationalism: the Rationalism of the Christian Scholastics or the Rationalism of the Jewish philosopher, Spinoza. The Marxism tends to come from two sources: Rationalism and the necessity for Jews to band together and rely on the collective community to survive in a hostile world. In a more benevolent atmosphere. like the US today, most Jews aren't very religious, they freely intermarry with non-Jews (a huge no-no in the Old Country), and a lot of them are switching their party affiliation to the Republicans. The "social reasons" again reduce to Aristotelian epistemology. A little bit of good philosophy does wonders for your brain.

It's only been a year since you first read Atlas! I've integrated Objectivism down to my toenails, but it took me eight years to do it. Integrating Objectivism requires a lot of reading, thinking, re-thinking, and learning by doing and that all takes TIME. You can consult one of the best Objectivist therapists for free. Dr. Ellen Kenner has a weekly radio show and she takes and answers questions from her audience. See http://www.drkenner.com Several Objectivist therapists I know also have therapy groups and the cost is quite low. Many take health insurance. They can also refer you to good therapists at low-cost or no-cost clinics. See Dr. Michael Hurd's web site, http://www.drhurd.com, or read his book, Effective Therapy, for guidance.

It sure is. And when did you last hear of men being cautious because there was a female rapist on the loose in the neighborhood? That's part of it. What conquers me, and most of the women that share my standards, is a man's self-confidence and his ability to deal with reality and master it.

Sorry, but I will not be distracted with something I wasn't saying. Why don't you address something I DID say such as: In fact, despite its faults, Israel is the only democracy and the only outpost of Western Civilization in the Middle East. All other countries are either actual racist theocracies (Iran, Saudi Arabia) or dictatorships. Israel isn't a laissez faire uptopia, but they recognize individual rights -- including the individual rights of its Arab and Muslim citizens -- better than any other country in the region. They are also America's only reliable ally in the Middle East. Now THERE's a good reason to defend Israel. I daresay I know a lot more about the principles of Objectivism (note the capital "O") than you do. I daresay Ayn Rand (note the respectful, non-familiar use of her full name) understood the issue better than you do. During the 1967 Six Day War, Ayn Rand was a guest on the most popular late-night TV show in America: The Johnny Carson Show. Addressing the nation, she made a strong, clear defense of Israel, said it was an issue of civilization (Israel) vs. barbarism (the Arabs), and got a standing ovation when she declared she was not only supporting Israel morally, but that she had also sent MONEY to the Israeli cause.

Actually, it is not an issue of equality nor of superiority and inferiority. It is an issue of difference. Men and women are different. Those differences are important, delightful, unavoidable, and make a romantic sexual relationship possible. I oppose those in today's culture who dislike and distrust the opposite sex and seek to erase those wonderful differences by making the opposite sex more like their own. That is a BIG mistake.

Maybe that's because you've only been exposed to philosophies that stress the negative that way. Most moralities are impossible to practice and just blame people, put them down, and make them feel guilty. While it is true that holding someone morally responsible for his actions follows from the fact of free will, the most important thing for an Objectivist is practicing rationality himself and and admiring, trusting, respecting, and dealing with people who think and act properly. Rationality has little to do with intelligence and more to do with the answers to questions like: Do you distinguish between what you think and what you feel? Are you clear about what you have inconclusive evidence for and what you know with certainty? When your conclusions clash with those of your friends and authority figures, do you give in to social pressure? If you find a contradiction in your thinking, do you ignore it? How much mental effort are you willing to spend to understand the things which are most important to you? === Those are fundamental choices everyone has to make and everyone is capable of making, regardless of his level of intelligence.

Diana, The issue seems to be, "Can you properly use the word "Objectivism" to refer to new philosophical ideas which are based on and consistent with Ayn Rand's philosophy?" Maybe it would help to clarify things to first answer the question, "Why does it matter?" We both know -- and reject -- people who want to take ideas which are not consistent with Objectivism and call them "Objectivism" in order to exploit Ayn Rand's reputation. It is obvious why it matters to them. On the other hand, many Objectivists, myself included, have done original work, discovered new philosophical truths, and applied Objectivism to areas which Ayn Rand didn't get around to. Such works stand on their own and their authors don't label them "Objectivism." Their only concerns are whether their ideas are true, communicating them to them to, and convincing, thinking people, and having their own authorship acknowledged.

Certainly! But it is also a fact that it doesn't have to be that way. A woman can be taken by force. That fact gives rise to feminine vulnerability which has important effects on the dynamics of male-female relationships.

No it's not. In fact, despite its faults, Israel is the only democracy and the only outpost of Western Civilization in the Middle East. All other countries are either actual racist theocracies (Iran, Saudi Arabia) or dictatorships. Israel isn't a laissez faire uptopia, but they recognize individual rights -- including the individual rights of its Arab and Muslim citizens -- better than any other country in the region. They are also America's only reliable ally in the Middle East.

I hope you see the differences between accidentally killing someone and PURPOSELY killing someone or PAYING someone to kill people.

Of course we have physical and psychological limits. The only thing that is volitional is human consciousness, and not all of human consciousness at that. Perception is automatic and mechanical. Emotions are automatic reactions based on our value premises. Memory and perceptual associations are automatic too. The only part of consciousness which is volitional is that part only human beings have: our conceptual faculty. We can select if and what aspects of reality we consciously focus on and think about. Reasoning is a self-directed process and everything else people do is either automatic or follows inevitably from the volitional, self-directed process of reasoning.

That is because they are not really anti-hatred. They are just against anybody hating THEM. It is similar to the reason why "tolerationists" are so intolerant toward those they disagree with and go off on hysterical rants labelling their opponents "tribalists," "cultists," "rationalists," etc. Tolerationists don't want to be tolerant. They want to be tolerATED.

Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers for killing people in Israel. Some of the people killed were Americans. That is a FACT.

I think both of the Speichers are agreed as to what force is (in a politcal contect): physical contact made by one person with the person or property orf another person without the other person's consent. The quibbling comes in when using terms like "act of force." Then you have the option as to whether to include threats of force under that. That's optional. Either way, threats of force are wrong, negate choice, violate rights, and deserve retaliation too.

It might be, but I really don't have enough evidence to be sure yet. There are other possibilities. Beware of "filling in the blanks" -- the knowledge gap we always have about others because we can't read minds -- by making assumptions. That's something we all do and it's fine to entertain hypotheses about another person's thinking and motivations. A problem arises, however, if we don't carefully distinguish between assumptions and established facts. Sometimes we can assume the best about others and trust them way too much or assume the worst about them and then unnecessarily get all upset about it.

Considering that all his postings here are promoting Nathaniel Branden ... I wouldn't be so sure. ;-)

That what Branden was -- and still is.

I read that as saying that a moral person VALUES the truth. The truth is not just a bunch of words but something which is extremely IMPORTANT to a moral man. Since it is not psychologically possible, even for a severely repressed person, to be emotionally indifferent to his own important values, it leads to the conclusion that such a person does not really value the truth that much.

I didn't. I worked my way through high school and college at many jobs and one of them was as a salesgirl at Woolworths. The customers were often unreasonable and the management was unsupportive and short-sighted. I set it as a personal goal, in addition to earning my $1 an hour, to learn as much as I could there. I kept my eyes open and my brain in gear. I learned a lot about good management and bad management by seeing what the boss did wrong. Many years later that came in handy when I was responsible for a department and 13 employees. I saw how a store operated and learned the jargon. That helped me land big software development contracts with retailers in New York City. I agree with what Ellis Wyatt told Dagny about the people in the valley. She smiled. "I know, this is a place where one employs nothing but aristocrats for the lousiest kinds of jobs." "They're all aristocrats, that's true," said Wyatt, "because they know that there's no such thing as a lousy job—only lousy men who don't care to do it."

OK. Here's .... Betsy's Guide to Ex-Objectivists (copyright 2002 Betsy Speicher) In the 40 years that I have been associated with Objectivism, I have seen 80-90% of the people I went to lectures and conferences with, and considered my best friends and teachers, drop out. I have watched and studied them so carefully that I now know what to look for and I can pretty accurately predict who will eventually drop out and why. Most of the people who drop out of Objectivism were once sincerely devoted to it. Their problem was that, in one way or another, they were seeking something from Objectivism that it could not give them. What did they want? Many different things. There are as many wrong reasons to affiliate with Objectivism as there are wrong answers to the problem 2 + 2 = ?. Still, there are some common goals and personality types among the dropouts. THE REBEL The Rebel is attracted to Objectivism because of what it is AGAINST: the authorities and standards that he wishes to reject. Objectivism intimidates his parents, stymies his teachers, and grosses out his minister -- and that's why he loves it. "Who does [Dad, Rev. Mills, the boss, etc.] think he is, telling ME what to do?" is his battle cry as he takes up Objectivism with a vengeance. Eventually, he discovers that Objectivism is FOR something. Objectivism has standards. Objectivists _expect_ him to actually be and do something specific. "Who does [Ayn Rand, Peikoff, Schwartz, etc.] think they are, telling ME what to do?" he cries as he drops out and becomes a libertarian. THE LOST LAMB The Lost Lamb just wants to belong and to be loved. He's been rejected by the Peter Keatings, so he seeks validation and acceptance from the people who reject the Peter Keatings: Objectivists. He tries to fit in by espousing all the right ideas and participating in all the appropriate activities. It does work for a while until someone disagrees with him or doesn't give him enough attention and approval. Then he's shattered. It's all _their_ fault, he decides. Those Objectivists are too damn _judgemental_. He drops out and looks for a place to belong and someone who will accept and tolerate him no matter what he is or does. He may find David Kelley. THE TRUE BELIEVER Eric Hoffer wrote about the man who looks for a Great Cause to give meaning to his otherwise meaningless life. It has to have an Infallible Leader whom he can follow and who will shield him from personal responsibility. A True Believer can be the most dedicated and zealous Objectivist you ever saw. He constantly defends US -- Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, ARI, etc. -- against THEM -- theists, libertarians, any Lost Lamb he suspects of straying from the Objectivist fold, etc. True Believers stick tenaciously until they discover, to their horror, that their Infallible Leader may have made a MISTAKE. What did Ayn Rand say about a woman President? Peikoff likes Beethoven? Objectivist leaders are disagreeing with each other? He doesn't know what to believe or who to follow, so he just gives up and drops out. Great Causes are interchangeable, so you never know where he'll turn up next. THE EXPLOITER An Exploiter is attracted by the fact that Ayn Rand was a strong and famous personality with many loyal supporters -- and he wants a piece of the action. The Exploiter seeks followers and paying customers from among the ranks of Objectivists. Exploiters have included some knowledgeable and intelligent former Objectivist teachers, leaders, spokesman, and wannabe spokesmen, people with a political agenda, as well as the totally clueless proponents of get rich quick schemes and "Objectivist" countries in Costa Rican jungles. Since Objectivists don't like being exploited, Exploiters don't have to drop out. They are eventually ignored, sued, ridiculed, or kicked out. ---- The Rebels, Lost Lambs, True Believers and Exploiters drop out. The good news is: the real Objectivists STAY.

Ayn Rand had a very positive estimation of Eddie Willers. Leonard Peikoff, in his introduction to Journals of Ayn Rand writes: One of the unique features of her mature hero-worship, by contrast, is her explicit benevolence towards the honest average man (as represented by Mike in The Fountainhead and Eddie Willers in Atlas Shrugged). Ayn Rand herself writes to a fan (Letters of Ayn Rand, May 27, 1960 To Miss Sachs): You are right in your interpretation of Dr. Stadler's fate, but not of Eddie Willers's. Eddie Willers is not necessarily destined to die; in a free society, he will live happily and productively; in a collectivist society he will be the first to perish. He does not have the ability to create a new society of his own, but he is much too able and too honest ever to adjust himself to collectivism. [...] The Eddies and all rational men will also profit in a proper society—but that is a secondary consequence, not one's primary goal. [Emphasis on "rational" Ayn Rand's]