Isn't it too late to save the world?

Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
21

Even Miss Rand encouraged certain practices that gave people cause to point their fingers and accuse, and though I admire Dr. Peikoff greatly and think that he has done more than anyone to further the study of Objectivism, there is still that tendency to excommunicate people who disagree with one point or another. 

Although I agree with much of what you wrote, I was in New York during the NBI days and I must take issue with this. Some people were intimidated by Ayn Rand, but that had more to do with who they were than with what she was. I thought she was delightful! Anyone who wants to know the Ayn Rand I knew has only to read _Letters of Ayn Rand_ or _Facets of Ayn Rand_.

Cultishness was a problem in the NBI days, but that was Branden’s doing, not Ayn Rand’s. I had my run-ins with Branden and his followers, but I am not easily intimidated. I’m sure some of them would like to have “excommunicated” me, but how can you excommunicate an Objectivist? Confiscate his brain? Here it is four decades later and Branden and his followers are long gone. So are Kelley and his minions. Most of the people I have known from Objectivism have abandoned Objectivism. I’m still here. :angry:

Rationalization is a danger to Objectivists, and I’ve seen it among those at ARI as well as Kelley’s bunch.

Rationalization and other undesirable things are not just Objectivist problems. They are human problems you will find everywhere. The problem with certain Objectivists is that before they were Objectivists they were people.

22

I was not fortunate enough to have met Miss Rand personally, but I did manage to personally attend two lectures at the Ford Hall Forum (nine years apart). I fell in love with her as I did her philosophy. The woman saved my life in the most literal sense possible. Because of her, I’ve been able to make a very difficult life, not just bearable, but enjoyable. That is no small feat.

I thought that it was probably Brandon’s influence that brought out the nuts. I saw him lecture once just so that I could see for myself. I found him to be insufferably charming, in the way a con man is charming, with the self-absorption of a child in place of the ego of an adult. Had I been younger and without the experience to recognize a bum in a suit, I might have fallen for his schtick. It is easy to understand how things got so out of hand with such a personality.

I didn’t mean to imply that only Objectivists are prone to rationalization. I’m sorry if that was the impression I gave. Since I was speaking about Objectivists, it came off as a criticism specifically against them. I don’t know of anyone who hasn’t been caught at it, including myself! It is something that everyone must guard against.

I consider Objectivists to be the most “human” of all human-beings, if you know what I mean.

I have my own ideas about why people would drop Objectivism, but I would be very interested to hear yours.

(By-the-bye, I’ve been an Objectivist for 35 years. I haven’t been able to participate as actively as I would have wished, but I’ve worked at it.)

23

Betsy,

You are so right about “The Letters of Ayn Rand”. I’m about two thirds of the way through it and my admiration for her grows with each page. Her generous nature is reflected in her responses to some unknown fans with lenghty letters explaining her novels or philosophy in more depth if she thought they were sincere in their inquiries.

One also shares in her emotional joy and disappointment upon discovering a new intellectual allly only to discover years later that they had betrayed her through a lack of integrity, courage, or adherence to inexcusable contradictions.

I highly recommend it as well.

24

I have my own ideas about why people would drop Objectivism, but I would be very interested to hear yours.

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.

25

HA! Beautifully said. Since I’ve never been among a group of people espousing Objectivism (at least, for any longer that it took to run a lecture series), my experience is much more limited than yours. I’ve known an individual of each type, however, excepting the Exploiter.

26

I’ve known an individual of each type, however, excepting the Exploiter.

That what Branden was – and still is.

27

Ah yes, Brandon’s the granddaddy of all exploiters of Objectivism! A bum in a suit who confers the snake-oil of self-esteem upon his listeners like a priest offering absolution. The man who took the “I” of Ayn Rand and turned into the ME! ME! ME! of self-absorbed intellectual retards.

I guess I’ve met all the categories after all!

28

Is it not true that self-esteem is (in Objectivist Ethics) supposed to be the reward of reason and productivity, and that self-esteem is not to be advocated as a goal apart from those two? If so, does Branden recognize this?

29

Self-esteem is a central tenet of Objectivist ethics. When Brandon talks about self-esteem, however, he offers it as a snake-oil palative for virtually all psychological problems. He didn’t start out doing this, but his theories were such that he ended up doing so. I didn’t mean to say that self-esteem itself is snake oil. Consider how that term is used these days, the way people talk about “giving” somebody self-esteem, and you’ll know what I’m talking about. You are right when you say that it is the reward for living a principled life. It certainly isn’t something that can be given by somebody else.

30

Betsy’s Guide to Ex-Objectivists (copyright 2002 Betsy Speicher)

Wow, that was great reading, Betsy.

(or maybe I’m just glad that I didn’t find myself in any of the categories :smiley: )

As of the subject of the thread:

Out here I’m quite a lone objectivist. There’s noone here who at least heard of Ayn Rand. I’ve never had a lecture given by an objectivist. All I know about Objectivism is what I’ve remembered reading Ayn Rand’s books. And I don’t know what you people complain about there being no hope for the triumph of “good”. The things I hear from people around me, even my own friends, or on the news from my country or from Europe, although they do make me sick, never actually have any effect on my goals and what I’m trying to acchieve for myself (perhaps only how I’m going to do it). There certainly were times when I was so angered by something that I thought the world was doomed, but when I found time and will to think about it I realized that it wasn’t necessarily so. The evil will get burned by reality sooner or later and I won’t hesitate if I had the chance to make it happen sooner.

31

Out here I’m quite a lone objectivist. There’s noone here who at least heard of Ayn Rand. I’ve never had a lecture given by an objectivist. All I know about Objectivism is what I’ve remembered reading Ayn Rand’s books.

Where do you live? I know Objectivists all over the world and love to arrange introductions.

And I don’t know what you people complain about there being no hope for the triumph of “good”. The things I hear from people around me, even my own friends, or on the news from my country or from Europe, although they do make me sick, never actually have any effect on my goals and what I’m trying to achieve for myself (perhaps only how I’m going to do it).

That’s because, as long as you live in a semi-free country, the quality of your life most depends on the choices you make for yourself: your chosen career, friends, and romantic partner. That’s where you spend your time and invest and seek values. Ayn Rand was right when she said, “He who fights for the future, lives in it today.”

Whether or not other people do the right thing affects THEIR lives more than it does ours.

There certainly were times when I was so angered by something that I thought the world was doomed, but when I found time and will to think about it I realized that it wasn’t necessarily so. The evil will get burned by reality sooner or later and I won’t hesitate if I had the chance to make it happen sooner

Reality is a great ally – on OUR side. :slight_smile:

32

Ed., the “you” I use in this post is generic. It is not meant to apply to anyone in specific.

My two cents.

I am someone who enjoys engaging with you all and learning about Objectivism. I share at least some of your commitments–that is, in the most general terms, a commitment to advancing rationality and productive behavior. I have only a cursory exposure to Ayn Rand through some of my friends and the essays I’ve started to read. I can’t say I like her style of writing and engaging opponents, but ultimately it’s irrelevant, because it is the ideas that matter.

That said, I think the idea that’s its 997 against 3 is counter-productive. It makes the 997 out to be a group with undifferentiated interests and commitments. For example, putting it in those terms would assimilate an influential left-wing economist like Amartya K. Sen to Karl Marx. Assimilating the two is counter-productive, because Sen makes a lot of points that counter simplistic and common place academic thinking about redistributive economics and “social justice.” He (and his wife) also have a lot of interesting things to say about Adam Smith. If his Adam Smith is not your Adam Smith, then at least you share Adam Smith in common, and you have a point of common contact to turn him around to a better way of thinking about Adam Smith.

So, when you say, for example:

It’s amazing that we now have that capitalism program! Now if they’d only set up another one at Harvard…

I would say this in resposne: Amartya Sen is at Harvard! Go talk to him, convert him. He has a Nobel Prize. Academia listens when he speaks. He’s a good place to start. Not everything you think about Harvad is true, just because it has spawned hopeless do-gooders.

Robert Nozick, while not an Objectivist, was extremely influenced by Ayn Rand’s writings. He turned around a lot of people at Harvard, and his way of thinking forced them to at least reconsider their first instincts about the role of government, our responsibilities to other people, and all the rest. I know this, because I was one of those people. I am very thankful I took a class with Nozick before he passed away a couple years ago. It turned me on to academic philosophy, which I had previously considered pointless mental masturbation. He even got John Rawls, an evil Kantian :slight_smile: , to turn around and accept revision on a few matters of principle (it should be noted that Rawls also turned Nozick around on a few things).

Finally, saying that no changes in moral philosophy have been made in the last 50 years needs some context. I’m not sure that is a useful conclusion to make about academia, but it certainly does not apply to the culture at large. The Reagan revolution would have been unthinkable (though not metaphysically impossible :slight_smile: )when Ayn Rand started writing. As a percentage of GDP, the size of the federal government is the smallest it has been since L.B.J. instituted the Great Society programs in the 60s (after Bush’s tax cuts, I think we are down to around 19%). The economy keeps growing, as does scientific knowledge (though I’ll admit that the influence of the Christian right on public policy here is getting alarming). I don’t see why you would think “evil” is growing, at least across the board. I think the most alarming trends are in popular mass culture and the numbing effect it is having on people’s minds, but I am not sure what the Randian response to that is in principle.

There is also good news in psychology. A widely influential and scientifically sound trend is Martin Seligman’s “Positive Psychology” movement http://www.positivepsychology.org/. It may not be the psychology of self-esteem, but it is a lot better than treating humans like zombies that need to be cured of their restless humanity.

The point of this sermon is just that there is no reason to take an embattled stance that says, “It is Objectivists against the world, unite!” The world will listen, if you do not try to shut out the world in advance.

33

If people are sincerely interested in how or why someone would become an “ex-Objectivist,” I think this person gives a good account: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/ooPreface.html . You could dispute that he ever was a real Objectivist to begin with, but then the distinction “ex-Objectivist” would become meaningless in practice.

34

If people are sincerely interested in how or why someone would become an “ex-Objectivist,” I think this person gives a good account: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/ooPreface.html .  You could dispute that he ever was a real Objectivist to begin with, but then the distinction “ex-Objectivist” would become meaningless in practice.

I read it. His main point is citing someone who totally misses Ayn Rand’s argument for her central moral premise: “It is only the concept of “life” which makes the concept of “value” possible.”

35

Where do you live?  I know Objectivists all over the world and love to arrange introductions.

I live in Croatia. That’s almost nowhere, but if you know any objectivists that live somewhere nearby, I’d be delighted to meet them.

That’s because, as long as you live in a semi-free country, the quality of your life most depends on the choices you make for yourself: your chosen career, friends, and romantic partner.

In a semi-free country perhaps. But I don’t know whether Croatia would qualify as such. The government here still dares to steal away 6 or so months from my life, of the most productive years of my life, to train me for the army. Personally, I have no interests to defend my country from any invaders whatsoever. In fact, they’d just give me reasons to leave. As it is, I can’t leave. I don’t have a career yet (I’m a student), meaning I don’t have money and I live with my parents (and, oh, they say they were happier when they were under communist government). And just when I finish college, I’ll get drafted instead of being left alone to start turning my knowlege into some tangible value. I just want to get it over with and live my life; MY life.

Ayn Rand was right when she said, “He who fights for the future, lives in it today.”

Which is why I opened my site. Frankly, I’m astonished about what a small number of objectivists write about individual rights. I don’t know what it’s like in the US, but from what I hear on the news, it is a catastrophe - politicians and non-politicians alike don’t care about how many rights they violate and to how many people. I wondered why isn’t there a site like mine, or a book about it already? Yes, there’s Ayn Rand’s essays, there’s Leonard Peikoff’s essays and essays from other people as well, but they concentrate on too small an area of this huge concept.

I have to go now, but I’ll continue this post tomorrow.

36

Betsy: That was very well put. I’m still pretty young, and most objectivists I know are also quite young, so I’ve known quite a few lost lambs and rebels, although so far no exploiters.

I’m not a lone objectivists, I’ve got my father and a few friends, but sometimes I do lose hope all the same. I know, rationally, that there will always be a contingent of individuals in the world who are individuals though, which is a comfort.

37

OK, I’m back now. I was using a computer at college yesterday and I had to go when I was half done with the posting.

Anyway, what I wanted to say in that last paragraph I wrote is that even though so many objectivists have written about individual rights, the whole concept is vague and not clearly defined. And I hold that it is one of the most important and fundamental things an individual can have. It begins with the words “Right to Life.” Can it be any more fundamental?

And yet, we have to deal with that UN declaration of '48. which begins with a claim that we should all be (like) brothers (act in a spirit of brotherhood).

I am convinced that individual rights are more than just word on paper put together by socialist politicians. I believe they are a concept in which, like in any other concept, one right follows from a right more fundamental than that one, which in turn follows from a more fundamental one, and so all the way down to property rights and right to life - and that right is a consequence of fundamentals set forth by Ayn Rand throughout her works.

Anyway, I don’t want to get too far off topic by explaining my understanding of the concept. What I want to stress is that in reply to Ayn Rand’s “He who fights for the future, lives in it today,” I hold that fight for the future begins with the fight for one’s rights - all of them, as they will, hopefully, be set forth by myself (and hopefully a number of other objectivists) on my site and one day in book form.

38

The most important fight is the fight for the supremacy of reason. The fight for individual rights cannot be won on any other basis.

Anyway, what I wanted to say in that last paragraph I wrote is that even though so many objectivists have written about individual rights, the whole concept is vague and not clearly defined.

Not so! Rand provides a very clear explanation of the concept of individual rights in the article titled “Man’s Rights” in the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

39

That article is reprinted from Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoist. (The book does have a subtitle!)

40

The most important fight is the fight for the supremacy of reason. The fight for individual rights cannot be won on any other basis.

Supremacy of reason? How do you fight that battle? Who and/or what do you fight it against? If you think of making the unreasonable reasonable, then you’ve already lost. You’re playing the “convert to my beliefs” game and there’s no way you can get someone to turn to reason by doing so. The only way reason can become supreme is by it finally being implemented by the reasonable.

Not so! Rand provides a very clear explanation of the concept of individual rights in the article titled “Man’s Rights” in the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

How many rights does the essay mention? Three, perhaps four. It is only an introduction, the basics of the basics. Knowing that you have the right to life and the right to your property and the right to pursuit of happiness isn’t enough. Did you know that on my site, at this moment, there is eleven individual rights listed, most of them defined properly, several vaguely (which is why I call my site a research site), and all of them are rights to action (not to being acted upon)? And still I expect the list to grow. Rights, although they have different names, are all parts of a single concept. For one of them to be possible to practice, all of them must be possible. To move you have to have the right to life and the right to movement; say you don’t have the right to movement but it is claimed you have the right to life. This is impossible because if you don’t have the right to move, it is not your life - therefore, you don’t have the right to life either. Now let’s assume that you don’t have the right to life, but have the right to movement - that’s also impossible, because you can’t move around dead. Ayn Rand, although she gave basis from which this follows, never said this. Every time, therefore, when your rights are violated, you have to build concepts from the fundamentals she has given and check whether what some person claims is true or not. And then it is only your experience - someone else will have to rebuild that concept. The purpose of science (and philosophy is science), is to build concepts not because others wouldn’t have to, but because research can move on and build greater concepts, and because when this is done, there is less margin for error. But the concept must be complete and clearly defined. Can you define right to privacy? Do you know why an individual has that right? Would you know how to tell when it has been directly violated? It would take some time for you to answer that, building the concepts from scratch, or from what Ayn Rand wrote in Man’s Rights. But if they were already defined and explained, all you’d have to do is read it (and/or learn it) and you’d know (speaking ideally). As it is, they are not.

Finally, Ayn Rand has given, among many other things, the tool for concept-building. Why do you avoid building concepts on her fundamentals, namely, why do you (or why would you) avoid building in its entirety a concept of individual rights?