vickirusell

Oh yes, I will. I said I would not argue. I will, however, discuss. Regards, Vicki

Why not continue the discussion regarding dogmatism and Objectivism, Dominic? Who dictates the content of conversation here? Is this a moderated forum or is anyone free to express his/her views? I don't believe you have to continue responding to those who do not discourse with you in a respectful manner but that does not mean you have to stop discussing the issue with those willing to do so.

You are correct.

You can only be insulted by my posts if you attribute my general statements regarding Objectivists to yourself. Of course, there are Objectivists who are not cult-like in their attitudes. Perhaps I ought to have made that clear so am doing so now.

You appear to be more interested in arguing every little point and mischaracterizing things I've said as well as taking them out of context. I've said what I have to say. I've no desire to get into further arguments over the matter. The name-calling has begun rather quickly and I simply don't engage in that. You can agree or disagree with me. Those who are interested in listening to what I've said, truly considering it, can do so, and those who are not don't have to, yes? Truth is, I'm already bored.

I agree it's a broad definition. I was trying to keep it simple. But you seem to be forgetting the most important part of the definition and my explanations afterwards -- the withdrawal from society which most businesses, families, professional associations, and political parties do not engage in; the elevation of the cult above other members of society, and the belief that they hold an exclusive monopoly on the truth.

Dear Dominic: I appreciate your concern but please don't worry about me "hanging" in there. I'm quite fine thinking on my own two feet. But I do appreciate your friendliness. But you do question or withhold judgment on exactly what is "cultish." I can tell you. In the 1960s when the Objectivist movement came into being, there were many cults in America. There have been different periods of time in American history wherein cults have flourished. The 1960s was one of them (I could go into why but I don't think it's necessary to explain what a cult is). Willa Appel (author of "Cults in America") holds that generally, "cults are groups of people who share a common vision and who see themselves as separate from the rest of the world--some withdrawing literally from society, others merely withdrawing psychologically. The internal structure of cults varies; they may be ill-defined, loosely related groups of equals who share responsibilities and power, or they may be rigidly hierarchical." So that is a general definition. Cults can be quite extreme (think of Jonestown, Guyana). Of course, Objectivism cannot be considered as extreme. However, what is common to most cults is the alienation of its followers from society, their standing in opposition to society, often denying its legitimacy and they often believe that they are different AND superior to the rest of the world. You probably have often heard Objectivists say that Ayn Rand's philosophy will save the world. Messianic cults believe that "salvation" is orchestrated by a human emissary of God, and it depends upon total commitment to that messiah. I recall reading somewhere but I can't remember where it was so forgive me if I paraphrase incorrectly but Rand said something to the effect that one would have to abandon one's past, everything one has ever stood for, and embrace Objectivism. I see Atlas Shrugged not unlike the Bible. It's curious how many times Objectivists feel the need to read and re-read Rand's books. Why one doesn't take what knowledge or information gained and then move on to gaining more information from other thinkers about the nature of existence. I say Ayn Rand is the Objectivist movement's messiah. We are asked to "revere" her (by Piekoff). I find the use of that word interesting. Not admire, not value, not like, but revere -- a word with a religious connotation. Ayn Rand is the Objectivist movement's God (or Goddess if you will). There is no tolerance for dissenting opinion, even with those whose values are not that far from Objectivism's. Objectivists, like cult members in general, often believe themselves to be persecuted. Some glorify the past, some fear the apocalypse. Often, I've read followers talking about the "end of the world" or that Rand will "save the world." This is typical cult jargon. According to Appel, it is possible for cults to "mature" into full-fledged religions or political entities although she states that most do not reach maturity. It could be that Objectivism will mature in that manner. I do not know. I suggest you read some books about cults. You will see language from other cults that is not unlike the language I find when reading posts to these lists as well as some of Ayn Rand's own writings. There is much I like about Ayn Rand but what I don't see among Objectivists are truly independent thinkers. Someone asked my opinion of the ARI v. TOC issue. I think you can deduce my thinking from my posts.

Further discussion between you and me is ended other than to say that I have read ALL of the articles. I will not respond further to your insults .

A philosopher who claimed that her philosophy was the ONLY philosophy to follow and yet did not follow that philosophy herself (i.e. Nathaniel Branden -- wherein she lied about the true reasons for her break with him). That made her dishonest. Now, did that make her evil? I wouldn't say so but I would point out that she too "did wrong" at times. I judge Rand by her words and deeds and the followers by theirs. However, there is a striking similarity between the two (with the exception that she was, of course, much brighter).

Asking someone to ask why they use a word is not asking the person to prove a negative. The concept of "proving a negative " has to do with proving that something that does not exist DOES NOT exist. Perhaps you are confusing the "negative" connotation of the word evil with a negative. Why do I have a problem with the use of the word? That I can tell you. First of all, your definition of the word is a rather narrow one. I believe that the word "evil" can be distinguished from other words such as "wrong," "bad," "mistaken," "incorrect," -- all of which those who adhere to ARI could use when describing Libertarians. So, the choice of the word "evil" -- the connotation is extremely harsh. It means, among other things, "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked." Ayn Rand bandied the word around rather loosely, as do most Objectivists. Let me put it this way. I would consider a serial killer evil or a brutal dictator evil. I would consider those who have ideological disagreements with me, particularly on a very abstract concept such as "liberty" to be either wrong or mistaken, particularly in the case of Libertarians, Republicans and/or Democrats. Calling people "evil" does not make one good. It does not prove a position. It is simply name-calling and Objectivists do a lot of that. It serves to elevate them above the rest of society, thinking that, in some manner, they have exclusive jurisdiction over the truth and goodness. You must first prove that Libertarians do intentionally pervent the concept (and not by arguing "what he said"). Now, how do you know their intention? Do Libertarians come right out and say "Yes, we are intentionally perverting this concept so that we can wreak havoc and widespread destruction"? I sincerely doubt that and I've never heard any Libertarian say such a thing. Although I am not a Libertarian, I've met those who appear to believe that they are correct. So again, how does Bowser draw the conclusion that such individuals are evil and why the easy use of the word? If Libertarians are evil, as my questioning went, then a good deal of people are evil. And that goes back to my point that Objectivists bandy that word around as if it justifies their positions when, in fact, it does not.

My question is why do you have no problem with using the word "evil"? If you describe Libertarians as "evil" because they pervert liberty in your opinion, then you must also consider Republicans and Democrats evil because they pervert the concept even more. This leads me to conclude, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you consider MOST people evil because most people embrace a "perverted" notion of liberty if one considers Rand's idea of liberty to be the correct concept. I have read the two articles. You ARE indeed throwing the word evil out rather loosely. You are also being rather authoritarian. Rather than explaining why you do this, you keep referring to the words of the "authorities". This is cult-like thinking and behavior. I suggest you do some reading on the nature of cults. You will find that the word "evil" is used very loosely in cults. What is YOUR definition of the word "evil"? I suggest that you'd like me to put this aside because you are not adequately defending your own position.

"Libertarians, on the other hand, have perverted the Objectivist concept of "liberty" and it is in that context that they are evil and should be reprimanded. In fewer words, they should know better!" Libertarians are evil according to you for having perverted the Objectivist concept of "liberty". You said it. I didn't. As far as the 99.9% thing, I was not referring to your own use of the word evil, but the brandishing about of that word by many Objectivists...your usage being only one small example of same. I have heard that followers of Ayn Rand are cultists and this type of language leads me to believe it to be true. I like her writings but am confused by this movement. The discussion forums I've joined are filled with bickering, name-calling, and evil, evil, evil. Don't know what to think.

I have read over the posts with some interest. One in particular...the notion that Libertarians are "evil" for perverting the notion of liberty. I find that to be a rather strong word. Are people evil for being wrong or incorrect? For having a different opinion? Or, can they be honestly mistaken? How can an entire group of people be labeled "evil" simply because of a difference of opinion on the notion of liberty? This kind of thinking is what disturbs me when I read about the schizm. Based upon what I've read posted by many who calls themselves "Objectivists", it seems that 99.9% of the world can be called evil. And the .00001% of the world who are "good" Objectivists are the only good people who exist? ??

I am new to this forum and am ashamed to say that I do not know very much about the schizm between ARI and TOC. Can anybody relay this to me in very simple terms? Sorry for my ignorance but I am somewhat new to Objectvisism. Regards, Vicki Rusell