Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ARI vs. TOC

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

Don't judge Rand or Objectivism on the basis of what her followers say or do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whoa, man, that is one strange question to ask!

Why do you have a problem with using the word evil? It is a perfectly valid English word, with a well-known set of meanings, among them "morally reprehensible" and "causing harm." In addition, it also has a well-defined meaning as a philosophical term in Objectivism: "All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil."

By asking Bowzer why he has no problem with using the word, you are asking him to prove a negative. If you think there is anything wrong with it, the burden of proof is on YOU: unless you give us arguments as to why it is wrong, we simply do not have a basis upon which to consider your contention that it is so.

In other words, it is like asking: "Why do you think apples aren't harmful to your health?"

(Except that it is also self-contradictory to some extent: If nothing is evil, how could there be a "problem" with doing anything, including using the word "evil" ?)

Nobody perverts the concept more than Libertarians do.

Most people have an unclear concept of what liberty means. That is ENTIRELY different from intentionally perverting the meaning of the word for propaganda purposes!

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't judge Rand or Objectivism on the basis of what her followers say or do.

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be glad to share them through personal email, although I would much rather suggest actually reading Chapter 4 of "Total Freedom" and of course "Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical" to learn of it, and if anything using me to get an idea of it.  I'm not sure how many who have talked here would feel that they were morally free to read it, so I'll leave it up to you.

It is an outrageous insult to an Objectivist to say he might not be "morally free" to explore any aspect of reality. Are you implying there is some Dastardly Cult Leader standing between Objectivists and the truth who decrees what Objectivists are "morally free" to read? If not, what did you mean?

p.s. BTW, I subscribed to Betsy's Cybernetter (in an above post) for a couple years, and thought it was outstanding, so I highly suggest checking it out.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

You should be very careful making accusations like these. Allow me to point out the many ways in which you demonstrate your foolishness:

What were Rand's "true reasons" for breaking with Branden? And how did you come to know these? My guess is you learned them from Branden. Kind of unfair, don't you think? I'm curious, though: have you even read Rand's stated reasons, i.e., her article "To Whom It May Concern"? That would seem to be a precondition for concluding that she lied, don't you think?

If you had read her account, you would know that she did in fact state her true reasons - Branden's immoralities. But she never claimed to state what all those immoralities were (on the contrary, she indicated that there were facts she was not revealing). What, did she have some moral obligation to publicize her affair with Branden? It was he who lied to her, who put her in a position of having to break with him publicly. Why should his immorality demand the sacrifice of her privacy?

I could go on, but this should be enough to start with. You answer those questions, and then we can talk about how Rand supposedly did not live by her philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be very careful making accusations like these.  Allow me to point out the many ways in which you demonstrate your foolishness:

What were Rand's "true reasons" for breaking with Branden?  And how did you come to know these?  My guess is you learned them from Branden.  Kind of unfair, don't you think?  I'm curious, though: have you even read Rand's stated reasons, i.e., her article "To Whom It May Concern"?  That would seem to be a precondition for concluding that she lied, don't you think? 

If you had read her account, you would know that she did in fact state her true reasons - Branden's immoralities.  But she never claimed to state what all those immoralities were (on the contrary, she indicated that there were facts she was not revealing).  What, did she have some moral obligation to publicize her affair with Branden?  It was he who lied to her, who put her in a position of having to break with him publicly.  Why should his immorality demand the sacrifice of her privacy? 

I could go on, but this should be enough to start with.  You answer those questions, and then we can talk about how Rand supposedly did not live by her philosophy.

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 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an outrageous insult to an Objectivist to say he might not be "morally free" to explore any aspect of reality.  Are you implying there is some Dastardly Cult Leader standing between Objectivists and the truth who decrees what Objectivists are "morally free" to read?  If not, what did you mean?

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Betsy, I am not claiming any authority other than your own moral judgement, as moral obligation is of course autonomous for all of us, I would assume. In terms of moral obligation, I am under the impression that some of you will consider yourselves morally sanctioning evil by buying his book and reading it. Am I wrong there? I'm under the impression that most "ARI'ians" do that, basing themselves on that very Fact/Value essay. I am an outsider, obviously, so I can't make too many accusations other than what I see in other followers, sites, posts, REVIEWS!!!, essays, etc., but they all give me that impression. If it is the case, there are a lot of fruits you are missing out on, in my way of seeing it.

Also, I didn't anticipate any help with flattery, but did enjoy your monthly newsletter, which was filled with virtues, in the two years I subscribed...

Vicki, hang in there! :) I don't agree with the use of evil either, although I do think that it is merely a difference in the moral judgement of ideas and ideologies (not that there shouldn't be any, but that several factors are left out in what comes out to be moralizing, in my opinion), and many people throw out the word without understanding who they are attacking. Especially the use of philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Plato, etc., which most people don't read, and of course 'banished' others like Kelley, Sciabarra, Branden, and I don't know who else. It makes for good rhetoric, you'd have to admit! :D But don't let it chase you away from the philosophy, if it is, because to me it is just an inessential issue in the philosophy taken to extremes in its common use by all in the Objectivism-world. It does make it seem cultish, but I am unsure what exactly is cultish, so I'll hold judgment there.

-Dominic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of moral obligation, I am under the impression that some of you will consider yourselves morally sanctioning evil by buying his book and reading it.  Am I wrong there?  I'm under the impression that most "ARI'ians" do that, basing themselves on that very Fact/Value essay.

I'm an ARI supporter and have been for many years. My bookshelf currently contains titles by or edited by Mimi Gladstein, Stephen Hicks, David Kelley, Tibor Machan, Robert Nozick, Douglas Rasmussen / Douglas Den Uyl, Chris Sciabarra, George Smith, George Walsh, Michelle Kahmi / Louis Torres, George Reisman, Jerry Kirkpatrick, Murray Rothbard, Nathaniel Branden and Robert Bidinotto, among others. I'm sure there's at least one author there 'forbidden' to ARI supporters according to the standard model. I've never kept this sort of thing a secret. I've been awaiting excommunication for over a decade at this point, but it has yet to materialize.

Some of those books have been of more value to me than others; some were an utter waste of time and money. But I've never worried about whether I was "supposed" to be reading them; my concern was simply whether reading them seemed like a worthwhile exercise ex ante.

This idea that there is some sort of index of prohibited books is a very widespread meme that is, in my experience, not supported by the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Khaight, I'm not discussing whether or not you will be banished, but I am talking about moral obligation coming from your acceptance of Peikoff's position. It is very uplifting to hear that you don't have a problem with others there, although I'm not sure it would be the case if you were higher in the hierarchy. I don't have adequate evidence to go by other than some articles I've read, so I'm not going to make these claims about what the authorities will do from the outside. But realize that I am talking about your moral autonomy as an ARI-member, somebody who I assume is not supposed to read those books (I think most of your list is on my shelf as well)---not because Peikoff said so, but because in being an "ARI'ian" it is assumed you've come to that conclusion yourself. I don't know how much sense I'm making, but what I am trying to emphasize is that ARI'ians are not necessarily sinking into argument from authority in this, and what I loosely called "moral freedom" is something coming from each individual, according to their judgment from the facts given to them. I am not questioning your honesty here, in disagreeing with the moral position and obligation.

-Dominic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideas are a life or death matter; they are in every way a matter of good and evil. Ayn Rand looked at Kant and saw the Holocaust. Hitler's power was only made possible because millions of people sanctioned his ideas by reserving such harsh judgments as naming his ideas for what they were: pure evil.

Once you grasp that ideas have a source, once you grasp that ideas have consequences, only then will you earn the right to use a word like "evil."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vicki, hang in there! :)  I don't agree with the use of evil either, although I do think that it is merely a difference in the moral judgement of ideas and ideologies (not that there shouldn't be any, but that several factors are left out in what comes out to be moralizing, in my opinion), and many people throw out the word without understanding who they are attacking.  Especially the use of philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Plato, etc., which most people don't read, and of course 'banished' others like Kelley, Sciabarra, Branden, and I don't know who else.  It makes for good rhetoric, you'd have to admit! ;)  But don't let it chase you away from the philosophy, if it is, because to me it is just an inessential issue in the philosophy taken to extremes in its common use by all in the Objectivism-world.  It does make it seem cultish, but I am unsure what exactly is cultish, so I'll hold judgment there. 

-Dominic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideas are a life or death matter; they are in every way a matter of good and evil. Ayn Rand looked at Kant and saw the Holocaust. Hitler's power was only made possible because millions of people sanctioned his ideas by reserving such harsh judgments as naming his ideas for what they were: pure evil.

Once you grasp that ideas have a source, once you grasp that ideas have consequences, only then will you earn the right to use a word like "evil."

Bowser (and others), one thing that I think a person has to be careful about in the use of statements like these are the differences between inessentials and essentials, as well as the fact that although it is the case that all ideas have life/death significance, because of the intricate relationship, that does not mean that it is possible to evaluate them in such a way. Again, I believe ideas matter, but I think that idea itself is made to mean something else, or at least something is wrong with the methodology in applying that principle. Connecting Kant and the Holocaust is a great example. I have read some Kant and found what I believe to be an honest attempt at solving the mess Hume left behind with his own best means. I see the first great philosopher with the first great devotion to personal autonomy (there were a small group who did start the notion of autonomy--instead of mere authority--in ethics before him, but nowhere near to his significance). I also see his ideas and Dualistic orientation wrong. I also see seemingly a priori efforts to give a new argument for Christianity, and an ethical philosophy that ~seemed~ to purposely misunderstand any sort of Eudaemonism, but in both those cases I still cannot judge his honesty. Religious arguments were in nearly all of the philosophers before him, and nobody understood ethical egoism. You can pull out Aristotelianism, but realize that the scholastics twisted his philosophy enough to make him seem inextricably tied to the Middle Ages (well I guess this point may be somewhat arguable, but realize that it was far from only Aquinas who was influenced by Aristotle). I take Kant as a true philosopher, not as the most evil man there was, and this does not take away from my understanding of how ideas work, and I do admit that his philosophy was wrong and has horrible implications, and he did fail in his goals. But what happened in practice long since Kant, in anything other than academics clearly taken from him, sounds odd to me when ~morally~ pinpointed somehow completely on Kant's ideas, and really is questionable to me. Maybe I'm wrong to some extent, but I still see no reason to believe in most of these links of philosophers generations removed to troubles of nations being anywhere near more important than the actors themselves, when the leaders and those who allowed them were the ones that took the ideas and have to be regarded as the main culprits, and the philosophers more closely tied are more to blame. Again, I'm not denying the connection between philosophy and history, and Rand's excellent analysis of the connections between society and philosophy (I don't think), but I am denying the responsibility laid on philosophers that I judge to be more honest than they are claimed to be, no matter how wrong they were. This is moving into a topic far from ARI vs TOC, although its origin is in a relevant issue (of how to judge ideas), so I apologize for it. I just want to sum up and say that I do understand the fact that ideas always matter, but I don't understand the method used to tie evil into the picture with this principle, which seems to completely disregard the difference between essentials and inessentials, give further connections more precedence over closer ones, and again disregard the factor of honesty/dishonesty in the development of false ideas.

-Dominic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 .

Insults? The closest I came to that was the word "foolishness," but I backed up that claim by pointing out all the questions you would have to evade to conclude "Rand lied about Nathaniel Branden!" But I don't even need that. Your latest post, calling Objectivism a cult and comparing Atlas Shrugged to The Bible, proves that I was correct in calling your blather "foolishness."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy, I am not claiming any authority other than your own moral judgement, as moral obligation is of course autonomous for all of us, I would assume.  In terms of moral obligation, I am under the impression that some of you will consider yourselves morally sanctioning evil by buying his book and reading it.  Am I wrong there? 

Yes. You can read the book without buying it from Kelley: Borrow it, buy it used, etc.

Also, it is not "sanction" even to buy it. Sanction means giving moral approval to someone or something. You are not "sanctioning" religion if you attend a friend's church wedding or buy a book at a church's rummage sale.

I'm under the impression that most "ARI'ians" do that, basing themselves on that very Fact/Value essay.  I am an outsider, obviously, so I can't make too many accusations other than what I see in other followers, sites, posts, REVIEWS!!!, essays, etc., but they all give me that impression.  If it is the case, there are a lot of fruits you are missing out on, in my way of seeing it. 

Then you are under the wrong impression. Most ARI supporters don't do that. Many, like me, condemn Kelley or Sciabarra after reading them and can give reasons for their opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vickirusell said on may 18th: "Sorry for my ignorance but I am somewhat new to Objectivism."(top of p.5)

A day later she's talking about the "Ayn Rand lied about Nathaniel Branden," Ayn Rand is God, Atlas Shrugged is the bible, Objectivism is a cult. She's also an authority on cults.

Not only a fool but a fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an ARI supporter and have been for many years.  My bookshelf currently contains titles by or edited by Mimi Gladstein, Stephen Hicks, David Kelley, Tibor Machan, Robert Nozick, Douglas Rasmussen / Douglas Den Uyl, Chris Sciabarra, George Smith, George Walsh, Michelle Kahmi / Louis Torres, George Reisman, Jerry Kirkpatrick, Murray Rothbard, Nathaniel Branden and Robert Bidinotto, among others.

I've got all of those except Jerry Kirkpatrick, plus a lot of other stuff by libertarians and those who claim to be Objectivists but aren't.

I'm sure there's at least one author there 'forbidden' to ARI supporters according to the standard model.  I've never kept this sort of thing a secret.  I've been awaiting excommunication for over a decade at this point, but it has yet to materialize.
Funny, I haven't been "excommunicated" either but I can't imagine how they would do that. Confiscate my brain? Take my Ayn Rand books away? Forbid me to be rational? Return the money I contribute to ARI? (I know many libertarians -- including Chris Sciabarra -- who contribute to ARI, and they take their money and put it to good use.)

Some of those books have been of more value to me than others; some were an utter waste of time and money.  But I've never worried about whether I was "supposed" to be reading them; my concern was simply whether reading them seemed like a worthwhile exercise ex ante.

Same here.

This idea that there is some sort of index of prohibited books is a very widespread meme that is, in my experience, not supported by the facts.

The people who spread that "meme" far and wide aren't concerned with the facts. They just want to smear Objectivism as a "cult." If there are no facts to support that claim -- well, they will just make some up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Khaight, I'm not discussing whether or not you will be banished, but I am talking about moral obligation coming from your acceptance of Peikoff's position.  It is very uplifting to hear that you don't have a problem with others there, although I'm not sure it would be the case if you were higher in the hierarchy.

Hierarchy! Now there's another Kelleyite/libertarian myth.

While it is true that some people are well respected among Objectivists, their position is due to their accomplishments, understanding of the philosophy, the values they offer, etc. and not to anyone anointing them or their social connections or place in some hierarchy.

The only thing that matters to a real Objectivist, is someone's connection to reality. If and when they break with reality, Objectivists disown them. That -- and not "excommunication" -- is the reason why the history of our philosophy is littered with the remains of former Objectivist big shots.

I don't have adequate evidence to go by other than some articles I've read, so I'm not going to make these claims about what the authorities will do from the outside.  But realize that I am talking about your moral autonomy as an ARI-member, somebody who I assume is not supposed to read those books (I think most of your list is on my shelf as well)---not because Peikoff said so, but because in being an "ARI'ian" it is assumed you've come to that conclusion yourself.

That's another myth. There aren't any ARI "members." ARI is not something you "belong" to. If you want "belonging," TOC is the place.

All someone who isn't an ARI employee can do is contribute to ARI. ARI doesn't give a damn what books you read or anything about your intellectual or personal life. That's YOUR business. ARI only cares whether your check will clear.

Since you can't "belong," you can't be "kicked out" or "excommunicated." Therefore, the only "authority" some Objectivists have is the respect they can earn and keep based on their own accomplishments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Talk about non-essential definitions!

By that definition, many businesses, families, professional associations, and political parties are "cults" too. That definition is so broad that -- coupled with the unacknowledged negative connotation evident by how people use the term -- really means "a bad group of like-minded people."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy,

I agree that you are not sanctioning a religion by going to a friend's wedding, and that you are not sanctioning a philosophy by reading it. But regardless of what you say here, it seems like everywhere I turn it is ARI'ians who refuse to acknowledge a philosopher ~at all~ because of something personal or something considered immoral in what they say, and that must include even renting them from a library. I mean the obvious cases (god i don't want to bring these in like everybody else, but it always comes up) of Branden's earlier books and Kelley's "Evidence of the Senses" not being acknowledged, to me probably disregarding their validity (although I honestly haven't fully read either, but have partly read them), parallels refusing to attend a friend's wedding because of the religious connections, in that regardless of your value for your friend you are sanctioning her religious behavior. This is the line of thinking I see, this disregard of essentials and complete detachment of everything connected to one 'bad' part (although not exactly everything, because you'd have to live in a bubble) and I don't see how it isn't the general case. Again, even though authority may play some sort of a role, I'm not suggesting that, but am suggesting the line of thinking in the individuals around ARI. I know you don't feel that from the inside they are that way at all, but from the outside I see the disassociation (regardless of validity) of everything connected to several ex-members of ARI, the brutal abuse of people like Sciabarra that have no foundations, etc.. And are you telling me that he is read? Have you seen the review several years ago in the Intellectual Activist by somebody considered an authority in ARI? What about the lines of posts here that caused my response? What about, and this is even worse, the way the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, which he is a main editor of, has been treated by Bernstein (who must have had to say that for ARI---am I wrong here?), and yet that is an excellent scholarly journal that will do wonders for the future of Objectivism in academic circles, it is to my belief. I've never seen such a horrible attack on somebody that was so unfounded, and think that if anybody read his trilogy and understood it well enough, they'd have at least a ~better~ way of portraying him, and if anybody read some of the enlightening articles in JARS (yes some may not be too good, but essentially they are highly acclaimable, for material coming from outside scholars). This is all that same line of thinking that is commonly called moralizing, and I do believe it is. And it is clearly giving the impression that ~no~ reading of these people is considered morally acceptable. How a disagreement becomes a moral sanction, and how an idea's relations to the people and other ideas tied inessentially to them, is all the same issue, and I would think that in supporting ARI's position, you are not morally permitted to go to your friend's wedding, for the same reason that it has been morally wrong to accept ideas from some others as valid because of their ties elsewhere. Perhaps there is a place where the distinction becomes essential and inessential (there must be actually), but in practice it is much further organicistic than I would accept, nevermind the dropping of the potential for honesty and dishonesty in the ideas attacked and outside of the ideas in the person attacked.

I fear that after several long posts and a long morning beforehand my brain isn't quite up to par, so unless I can get stimulated enough, I may have to stop responding soon, and may not get interested enough to come back to it for awhile. This issue has actually been eating away at me a lot lately, and it's better to argue about it than to let it chase me away from as much of Objectivism as it has lately, and I appreciate the responses I have received. Do I feel the effects of catharsis? No...still a twisting tummy. :)

-Dominic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Where are you getting this stuff? That sure isn't me or any other Objectivist I know.

Most of us are actively involved in our professions, political activities, and as UNalienated as can be. I have many non-Objectivist friends and co-workers. The main difference between me and them is that I understand some things better, but since they are rational beings too, when I explain my reasons to them, I often win them over.

You probably have often heard Objectivists say that Ayn Rand's philosophy will save the world.
True ideas are powerful.

Messianic cults believe that "salvation" is orchestrated by a human emissary of God, and it depends upon total commitment to that messiah.

So what does that have to do with Ayn Rand?

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'll bet you "can't remember where it was" because Ayn Rand never said any such thing. If she did, any right thinking Objectivist would get up and leave.

There is no tolerance for dissenting opinion, even with those whose values are not that far from Objectivism's.

Objectivists don't accept opinions that they know are false. Why should they?

Objectivists, like cult members in general, often believe themselves to be persecuted.

Not the Objectivists I know -- and I know THOUSANDS. The only paranoids I come across on a regular basis are wannabe Objectivists whining about their alienation from the evil "ARIans" who are conspiring to "excommunicate" them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

::Yawning::

:)

If you are going to tell me that there is nobody that can be called an "ARI'ian" I don't understand your point. Most people clearly tell us whether or not they are "ARI'ian" or "Kelleyian" or whatever. I don't think I fit into either of them (you may disagree), but clearly many people do. You obviously know exactly what I mean by what I say in your defenses, Betsy. Just look all throughout this site, and I can tell you who the main ones who can be called "ARI'ian" are, and who aren't. Sure, there are in-betweens and differences between those that just repeat her and those that actually come to the same conclusions, and those of you who are big supporters of ARI, yet read books by others. It doesn't erase that distinction that can clearly be made between most people, based mainly on the issues of this subject. Don't start getting analytic about 'belonging', because I have spent a lot of time trying to make points clear, and shouldn't have to strictly define every general word I mean in a forum that generally understands me. I've also made it clear that I am unfamiliar with a lot that goes on inside the ARI-world, and therefore I really don't care about the internal-hierarchy-thing, other than the fact that people like Bernstein and others who are further up are seemingly ~persuaded~ by ARI to drop connections to groups and people, so that is my understanding of the hierarchy. I forgot what else you responded to me, but this should do. I assume that there are more replies to look at...

Best wishes,

Dominic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about non-essential definitions! 

By that definition, many businesses, families, professional associations, and political parties are "cults" too.  That definition is so broad that -- coupled with the unacknowledged negative connotation evident by how people use the term -- really means "a bad group of like-minded people."

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...