Ayn Rand is a cult - Help me out here

[Black Wolf]

Excuse me if a topic has already been made about this.

I've had a little trouble contending a friend of mine who accused me of being an Ayn Rand cultist.

My response was to ask him to define a cult. I defined a cult as something that invovles sacrifice, fear tactics, a relinquishment of reason, worshipping of a false god, etc.

His response was that I'm only defining a cult in a way that specifically precludes Objectivism,. and that any "neutral" definition

I wasn't very quick with my response, but I asked him to provide me with some definitions of a cult. He didn't really give me any, he just asked me to look them up in a dictionary. I looked them up online, I couldn't find two similiar entries under cult. I thought it was lazy of him to just say "Oh, well, any neutral definiton of cult says that Objectivism is a cult". I couldn't find a single definitin that the same could not have been said for anybody.

He went on to say that Anton LaVey was based mostly on Objectivism. I disagreed. He said that I blindly rejected something that slightly deviated from Objectivism. I was not sure how I did. Anton LaVey clearly stated he was morally against another person criticizing another person without their permission. Ayn Rand was not.

His last rebuttal was that you can't call yourself an Objectivist unless you follow it by the letter. It has it's own defintion of art, politics, and metaphysics, and you can't call yourself an Objectivist unless you deviate slightly. I was a bit stuck on that one.

First of all, I didn't find Ayn Rand's definiton of esthetics to be so specific. All she said was that your art should be a reflection of your values, how the world should be according to you. She condemned innovation of art for the sake of innovating, the notion that everything is art no matter what, and many other things that artists would criticize.

But I'm really stuck on the last rebuttal. How would I respond to that?

[TLD]

His last rebuttal was that you can't call yourself an Objectivist unless you follow it by the letter. It has it's own defintion of art, politics, and metaphysics, and you can't call yourself an Objectivist unless you deviate slightly. I was a bit stuck on that one.

First of all, I didn't find Ayn Rand's definiton of esthetics to be so specific. All she said was that your art should be a reflection of your values, how the world should be according to you. She condemned innovation of art for the sake of innovating, the notion that everything is art no matter what, and many other things that artists would criticize.

Yes, this topic was discussed recently; best to look it up.

I would say your "friend" is not much of a friend: he seems to be mocking you for your values.

His argument re "cult" is totally bogus.

Saying you "blindly rejected something that slightly deviated from Objectivism" is an insult.

And it is clear he does not understand Obj. but is willing to criticize you for following it.

Per the earlier referenced discussion, be comfortable in knowing that if you hold Obj. values and principles and strive to understand them better and consistently follow them, then you can properly call yourself an Objectivist.

Edited April 19, 2010 by softwareNerd
Fixed quote block

[Rearden_Steel]

First of all, I didn't find Ayn Rand's definiton of esthetics to be so specific. All she said was that your art should be a reflection of your values, how the world should be according to you. She condemned innovation of art for the sake of innovating, the notion that everything is art no matter what, and many other things that artists would criticize.

But I'm really stuck on the last rebuttal. How would I respond to that?

Just about every philosophy and philosopher had their own ideas about these things. Does that make every school of philosophy a cult? Sound like your friend is incapable of differentiating religion and philosophical thought.

[bluecherry]

Oh noes! You can't be something unless you actually fit the definition! Damn science, what with its strictly forbidding people who just say things are related with no evidence or logical reason from being said to be scientists! Science is a cult! A cult I say! Down with science and its oppressive criteria!

I was roommates at college with somebody who had a class on cults about two years ago. At the time, out of curiosity, I asked what the criteria were to be considered a cult just to see if Objectivism did fit their definition of a cult. It didn't. We were missing a lot of key components and even major red flags. Objectivism does not encourage blind acceptance of what somebody says, contrary to what many ill informed people believe. It encourages strongly that people think for themselves and Rand in her time and pretty much any self-proclaimed adherent to Objectivism worth beans would prefer somebody just openly disagree with us because they were sincerely having trouble understanding what we were saying to somebody who would just accept whatever Rand or we told them without question. There is no effort to try to cut people off from other people in general who aren't also adherents of Objectivism. Even in Atlas Shrugged, they only lived one month out of the year in the gulch until near the very, very end, at which time they moved in full time only because it was just truly physically dangerous out in the rest of the world. We don't try to totally isolate ourselves from dissenters, we address them directly. Nothing in Objectivism tries to make it so you don't have your own life in general. You still go about your life and do what you want to do. There is no requirement of financial support to any particular other people associated with Objectivism. There is no official structure or formal hierarchy of people in Objectivism, there's not even any official membership. There is no talk about any kind of call to a "higher purpose", as in, higher than ourselves which we have some kind of obligation to, which we may need to sacrifice to. On and on it goes with cult-like traits we lack. Just because there is a small group of people with unusual ideas and practices does not make them a cult and somehow wrong.

[Amaroq]

I have a roommate who's constantly attacking me intellectually because I'm an Objectivist. If this person is disrespecting you in the course of their accusations against you, then the selfish thing to do might be to reconsider your friendship with them. There's no reason you should put up with someone who insults you.

I think the best thing you can do for yourself is to just continue learning. (Granted you're interested in such.) Not only would knowing Objectivism better help, but it's also highly recommended that you learn how to validate your ideas too. I've only read OPAR and part of VoS so far, so I don't know what to recommend for that. OPAR does describe the process of reduction, but I'm guessing ITOE might as well.

Reduction and induction are two ways (that I'm aware of) of validating your ideas, to make sure your abstract concepts are connected to reality. The goal here is not only to learn Objectivism, but to validate it. Once you've done this, you can be certain that Objectivism is correct. Certainty is very important. Without it, people can depress and damage you mentally just by attacking you with arguments that sound like they make sense, even if they aren't true.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Amaroq

[softwareNerd]

My response was to ask him to define a cult. I defined a cult as something that invovles sacrifice, fear tactics, a relinquishment of reason, worshipping of a false god, etc.

His response was that I'm only defining a cult in a way that specifically precludes Objectivism,. and that any "neutral" definition/

I'm not sure if a cult means anything other than "a group whose members believe and do stuff that the majority thing is odd". I think there is not much point arguing against fuzzy arguments. Maybe you can tell him you looked up the definition and found that Christianity is a cult.

Chances are he'll end up saying that some Christians are cult-like, but most don't take it too seriously. This, in turn is usually based on a couple of underlying premises:

(1) no philosopher can find all the truth. Therefore if anyone follows all that some philosopher says, that is sufficient proof that they are not using their reason.

(2) philosophy is something personal and not like science: so, one does not follow philosophy the way one agrees with some scientific theory; instead one reads all sorts and makes some stew of one's own

His last rebuttal was that you can't call yourself an Objectivist unless you follow it by the letter.

Following Objectivism to the letter does not mean following Rand to the letter.

[Novistador]

He is right that Anton Lavey(founder of the church of satan) largely plagiarized Objectivism in writing the satanic bible among other things, but the connection is very small.

He kept some ideas about selfishness, but threw out everything about rights, reason, and morality, while making absolutely no effort to explain the ideas he did put fourth, and in the true nature of a religion or cult essentially asked his follows to take the ideas on faith.

LaVeyan Satanism is a cult because it is based on faith, operates according to dogma, and entails the performance of rituals. Objectivism does none of those things.

In the end what LaVey created was pragmatism dressed up in skulls and A black robe.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Novistador

[LutherSetzer]

I recommend consulting the work of a professional cult exit counselor:

http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecente...ticles/BITE.htm

Does Objectivism fit the BITE model -- control by others of Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotions?

Clearly it does not.

Many multi-level marketing (MLM) organizations, however, are another matter! The movie Believe offers a hysterical view of this. I highly recommend it.

[Eiuol]

His last rebuttal was that you can't call yourself an Objectivist unless you follow it by the letter. It has it's own defintion of art, politics, and metaphysics, and you can't call yourself an Objectivist unless you deviate slightly. I was a bit stuck on that one.

That makes it sound like there are certain practices one must follow. Really, if you agree with the fundamentals, you can call yourself an Objectivist. Depending on your level of understanding, though, you may prefer a different label. What would "following Objectivism by the letter" even mean? There are no commandments, but if you did "deviate slightly" from Objectivism (there isn't much to deviate from...) of course you wouldn't be an Objectivist. But it's not like anyone is going to chase after you if you change your mind.

And from the tiny bit of research I did, there isn't exactly a neutral definition of 'cult'. It's a pejoritive term, mainly. Even still, there is nothing about Objectivism to even suggest that it is a cult movement in the pop culture sense of the term.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Eiuol

[2046]

I think that calling Objectivism a religious cult is an example of concept smuggling. It's the same as using reason in an attempt to deny reason. Objectivist ethics upholds "independence" as a virtue, never put someone else's mind in between yours and reality; never consider the fact that someone else is sure of something, but only the facts which make them sure, etc. As Rand famously said "Make me prove everything." So in charging something is making you blindly follow it without will of your own (not that he apparently even defined what he meant by "cult"), you invoke that one should follow the virtue of independence in order to deny the virtue of independence. It's like someone telling you "Think for yourself" and all your friend can say is "Think for myself? That's just what a cultist would say, isn't it?!!!"

[Dante]

He went on to say that Anton LaVey was based mostly on Objectivism. I disagreed. He said that I blindly rejected something that slightly deviated from Objectivism. I was not sure how I did. Anton LaVey clearly stated he was morally against another person criticizing another person without their permission. Ayn Rand was not.

If there is one thing that characterizes Objectivism, it would have to be reason as an absolute. LaVey rejected that. This claim is like saying that some religion is "based mostly on Christianity, except for that whole Jesus Christ thing." The best you could claim is a distant family resemblance.

[Black Wolf]

Haha, I'm certainly not going to go as far as to stop being friends with him. He does this kind of stuff very often. I thought I'd be prepared for someone accusing Ayn Rand of being a cult leader. I mean, I was smart enough to realize that Ayn Rand did not encourage.

I guess I was just unprepared for something like this. He didn't even provide a definition of a cult, he just expected me to refute it

And yeah, I'm quite aware that "cult" is a perjorative term, since I looked it up on wikipedia. It's like trying to call someone an asshole, and say that a neutral definition of asshole would satisfy Ayn Rand. Next time someone refers to Objectivism as a cult, I'll just ask them to perform a BITE test. Seriously, anyone can be a cult for as long as they have views that differ from the norm.

It might be because I just took sleeping medicine last night, I was too tired to get angry over the trivialization of a cult.

[RationalBiker]

I guess I was just unprepared for something like this. He didn't even provide a definition of a cult, he just expected me to refute it

You can't refute a charge that has not been defined... nor should you. It sounds more like he was unprepared and that he may have some floating abstraction running around in his head as to how to define a cult. I won't say "drop your friend", but I will say, don't entertain his cheap shots unless he's willing to be more explicit in his assertions. You don't have to satisfy his understanding of Objectivism (or cults for that matter), you only need to be secure that you understand what it is you have accepted to be true and why. Whether or not you choose to enlighten him is entirely a bonus.

I often choose to ignore half-baked, cheap shot accusations from people who obviously are trying to get a rise out of me. I think you friend might be doing the same thing IF he comes into unprepared and not fully ready to explain his claims. Whether you drop him or not, that is not the behavior of a friend.

[Tyco]

The cult thing is easy to negate.

What characterizes a cult?

- secrecy/secret-society

- closed to outsiders

- power over its members

- strange rituals

- charismatic/manipulative leader

Groups that meet those standards are the ones we call cults. Like the Waco folk, the Illuminati, devil-worshippers, Jonestown, Ku-Klux Klan etc. Hence the negative connotations.

Objectivism

- is a body of writing

- available to anyone on the planet

- explicitly renounces the idea of 'power' over the lives of others

- has no prescribed rituals

- has no living 'leader'

Anyone calling Objectivism a cult is indulging in severe malapropism. Objectivism is about as un-cultlike as one can get. It's got more in common with open-source software than any cult.

[VcatoV]

Number one advice: be brave and bold (which it sounds like you are shaping up to be!). Be brave, because your ideas are your own, and you are going into a world that is very hostile towards your view. Do not lose yourself. And be bold, because you will always lose defensively. The battle for ideas is won by the bold-so take the battle to him.

My response was to ask him to define a cult. I defined a cult as something that invovles sacrifice, fear tactics, a relinquishment of reason, worshipping of a false god, etc.

These are descriptors, but do not get to the essential idea for which the word "cult" gets at. You knew this-which is why you asked for a definition. Good thinking-press him on that. The burden of proof is on him to prove how it is a cult, not for you to defend that it is something for which there is nothing.

His last rebuttal was that you can't call yourself an Objectivist unless you follow it by the letter. It has it's own defintion of art, politics, and metaphysics, and you can't call yourself an Objectivist unless you deviate slightly. I was a bit stuck on that one.

My first question to him would be: oh? and how do you know that/where did you hear that from? Press him on it-he will not be able to back it up, and then his case falls. But for the sake of argument...this is in some senses both true and false, but really just displays immense immaturity. In youth, one thinks that philosophy is a GPS system, with each word of the philosopher being a blinking dot on the screen. If he veers ever so slightly, he fears the wrath of the voice of condemnation (or the robotic Lisa). The effect is the same-being new to the world, the youth is cautious, blumbering, and apt to stick closely to the dots out of fear of getting lost. But as one matures, they see that philosophy is not the dots on the screen, but the sum effect of our rational journey. The course may differ, the terrain may change, the stores may close, and the people may come and go; but east is still east, longitude 27 still longitude 27, a lake is still not crossable without bridge or boat-unless you go around it. Following philosophy to the T means following the essential and eternal principles which guide your own individual journey. It has nothing to do with listening to Rachmaninoff because Ayn Rand listened to Rachmaninoff.

[Cal Engime]

Sorry, let me put my post in the proper format.

Comrades, what is the appropriate response to this?

[2046]

Sorry, let me put my post in the proper format.

Comrades, what is the appropriate response to this?

Mostly a dishonest bunch of ad hominem from someone who had a personal problem with former friends. Sure, there probably was a "cult of personality" type thing going on, for all I know, I wasn't there. There are people that choose to do stupid or silly things all the time, being an Objectivist or around Objectivists doesn't exempt anyone from the possibility of acting this way, nor does it exempt anyone from the possibility of being a downright lying scrumbag.

But anyway, very quickly, just one example, the "Son of Rand" thing is refuted by Nathaniel Branden, and was originated by journalist Nora Ephron, who hated everything Objectivism represents. Rothbard would have known this, but that didn't stop him from making the supposed connection.

But if you want to read a funny apologetic and fawning piece, read Rothbard's own fan letter to Ayn Rand.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_4/21_4_3.pdf

[Atlas51184]

Is Objectivism a Cult? by Jim Peron

[Dante]

Sorry, let me put my post in the proper format.

Comrades, what is the appropriate response to this?

I don't come to this forum to either dish out or receive "appropriate responses" to criticisms of Objectivism, and in my experience, neither do most people who frequent this site. We're here for honest discussion. If someone looking for absolute truth to be handed to them in a single go chooses Objectivism as that truth, that is their prerogative, but some of us here have actually thought critically about our beliefs and have only come to accept Objectivism slowly, after years of reading and thinking about it.

Also, this post is a response to what I perceive as your implication that Objectivism Online is used as a transmittor of "appropriate" information to Objectivism's "followers", considering the topic under discussion, the general tone, and the word "Comrade" recalling similar structures in communist organizations. If I have misconstrued these, I apologize.