"The Betrayal of Ayn Rand"

Intellectuals and the Media
21

Okay, guys, hold on. Let me back up a little.

First of all, I did not write this article, but some of you responded as if I had; that may be understandable looking back at my documentation. My comment at the end, where my real question was, was meant to be in a separate post so you would see it as separate, but looking back I see it in the same post. Do not assume that I posted this because I agree with all his points. So I repost and restate my question:

“It seems to me that his main point is that if you are not an activist for Objectivism, you have missed the point of the philosophy, and are lazy or disengaged. But is your life your own, or does it belong to a cause?” Or in other words, is there any validity to the idea that we betray Rand if we do not actively advocate for capitalism?

I think religion is secondary to this particular discussion; the real point is that if we want to avoid waking up as slaves, we must take action. But if you say you HAVE to get involved, how is that different from saying your life is not your own? That’s the point I wanted to explore.

Now, about the atheism–if you want to argue with Rick about that,I recommend you go to the website he posted, where you’re more likely to get a direct response.

About dealing with Rick–he influences a lot of very passionate people, who could be allies in political matters and who may not be as far off as you might think.

About the Mormon religion-- It happens that Mormons have a more rational theology than possibly any other religion, and it is worth looking at the differences if you are interested. If you’re not, why even bother commenting? Few here would argue that relgion is rational; we understand what Rand meant. (Although I may not have documented my perspective enough for you to understand where I was coming from.) But how can such a substantial group of people think their religion is rational, even after reading Rand? What does that say about the human condition, and about strategies for improving the world around us? It’s really quite interesting to hear the arguments, even if they’re wrong, if you’re not busy just condemning it.

I posted here because I thought I would get rational discussion, not diatribes and insults about a religion I don’t even believe in.

Rick–I did not intend this to be a bash Rick session, or to discuss your ideas in a way you could not follow. I recommend if people want to discuss with you, they post where you asked them to. However, I was not looking for conversation with you here; I was looking for Objectivist atheists to give their perspective on a particular point. I am also interested in conversation with you about some of the points, but when I am ready for that, I will not do it here, as per your request.

To “the great rand”–I am angry that you would dismiss him because he has been indicted. The last I heard, we are still innocent until proven guilty in this country. When you violate the rights of one, you violate the rights of everyone. If you are ever accused of a crime, do you want to be condemned as guilty before the trial has been completed? The system here may not be perfect, but you are wrong to dsimiss him on the basis of news articles. If you don’t want to be here, then you are quite free to move on to other topics. I, for one, do not know if Rick is guilty or innocent of any crimes. How can I know, when I have not seen any objective evidence? All I"ve heard is gossip.

But folks, that is all irrelevant.

Please stop throwing insults and either read another thread or listen to the point. Which I repeat:

do we betray Rand’s philosophy if we do not advocate for Capitalism?

22

TFC, I have not read your essay, but if the following is an accurate summary…

The point of my essay was… … that to ADVOCATE for capitalism is more important than to crusade against religion.

…then, I’m not sure to whom your essay was addressed. I don’t know many Objectivists who crusade against religion of a non-political nature.

Of course there are times when religious people try to get laws passed, which violate individual rights. When that happens, they are also targets of the crusade for Capitalism. Apart from that, you’ll rarely see much anti-religious activism from Objectivists. As atheists, Objectivists will obviously argue against religion. However, few Objectvists are allied with the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins, because we know that one has to offer something positive, rather than purely a rejection.

Even Capitalism is not the primary focus. The primary focus is against the morality of altruism.

Most important, advocacy is not one’s standard of value. To a large extent it is an optional value that might be outweighed by many others that are more important.

23

Most important, advocacy is not one’s standard of value. To a large extent it is an optional value that might be outweighed by many others that are more important.

This is what I wanted to talk about. Suppose one said that without advocacy, we are always at the mercy of those who would organize for collectivism. Isn’t that what we are experiencing now? In a way that may be all too real, if we do not advocate for liberty, we will one day all wake up as slaves–unless you don’t believe that our liberties are right now in serious jeopardy. It may be an optional value, but the consequence of not choosing it is loss of liberty. We have that right–we can choose a value that leads to death. But we can’t deny the consequence of the choice. So the case for the self-interest of advocacy is a good one.

But it has to include the idea that it still must be chosen freely, not forced upon one by guilt. And THAT is the problem I have with this essay; it uses guilt-inducing words against those who do not advocate for capitalism. It makes me feel that I am being asked to sacrifice for my own good.

24

I , for one, agree that the original article deserves careful attention. I found it sobering, thought-provoking and sincere. The author’s affiliations, or reputation, or FCP’s integrity, are not, surely, the primary point here. I agree with FreeObjectivist in all he’s posted here.

But then -and possibly being a long time atheist helps- I am not an Objectivist who believes that our nearest and most dangerous enemy is moderate religionism.

I have seen and heard enough of ‘Attila’, the State, the Collective, to believe that that is where the O’ist’s priorities lie.

So we have religionists who are caught in a struggle to resolve Faith with Reason. Faith with Freedom; Faith with Capitalism. I am certain that these are uneasy bed-fellows in the short term, and the truly honest ones will eventually find them contradictory. Especially Reason.

Now as Ayn Rand demonstrated in that Jesus Christ quote, it is possible to find value everywhere. More, that one SHOULD look for value everywhere - at the very least, something can be taken and learned from everything. From this quote alone, and dozens of other sources, this seems clear.

The question before us is : do we throw out the baby with the bathwater? Is Capitalism in such a healthy state that we can resist all advances for alliances from every quarter? Do we really have the confidence that Reason will triumph over Mysticism?

Yes, I believe that Objectivism should stay pure to itself and in itself. I do also see other bodies as concerned about Freedom and Capitalism as we are - in fact even drawing inspiration and philosophy from Objectivism. Do we need arms-length allies, or don’t we?

25

I sense the presence of sock puppets.

26

I , for one, agree that the original article deserves careful attention. I found it sobering, thought-provoking and sincere. The author’s affiliations, or reputation, or FCP’s integrity, are not, surely, the primary point here. I agree with FreeObjectivist in all he’s posted here.

Thank you.

Do we need arms-length allies, or don’t we?

I think there is no reason to refuse alliances, providing they adhere to agreed on fundamental principles, so that we are actually fighting for the same thing. The question is, how fundamental is the disagreement over religion? Is it a fatal difference, or is there some other even more fundamental principle that can still be held despite religion? In the case of this particular religion, their flaw is not that they ascribe primacy to consciousness, but that they accept the arbitrary. As long as they confine the arbitrary to their concepts of religion, and as long as they do not ask us to live for them, I think we can form a safe alliance. I find Galt’s Oath a good standard: I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

I think if we can make it clear to them that we differ on the point of arbitrary claims and agree on the rightness of living for your own sake, they will also feel more comfortable with the alliance. Perhaps then they will not feel the need to “prove” their religion to us.

I was disappointed to find that the comment I made on Rick’s blog was not posted. http://www.rickkoerber.com/2009/06/18/the-…of-ayn-rand/307 It was respectful, so I have to wonder why. I am hoping to find that there is just a time lag for moderation, and that it will yet show up.

I sense the presence of sock puppets.

What do you mean?

27

Yeah, D’kian, don’t be bashful, tell us all.

28

Can we have a “just say no” policy towards sycophantic cultists, who are under investigation for fraud, that open multiple accounts and pretend to be other people so they troll these forums to spread mongolism and falseness like “Christian Objectivism” and act like they “oppose” collectivism?

29

Yeah, D’kian, don’t be bashful, tell us all.

I thought “sock puppet” was a current term among internet users.

30

How can anyone be ANY kind of Christian with “GIVE us this day, our daily bread” as a major element of your belief system and be anything but antagonistic to Objectivism and the ideas, tone and spirt of AS and Capitalism? That’s like being an atheist and affirming the Apostles’ Creed

To quote Rand; “[what kind of world is it] …where man proposes but a ghost disposes?”. How rational is it to believe that you live after you die [Hey Abbo-o-ott!]? Religion is inherently flawed by the Epistemology of Mysticism and the Metaphysicis of Supernaturalism; read angels, devils and other assorted ghosts and goblins. Yes, some theologies can be very logical and make sense. The Thomists are at the top of the list but the context kind of invalidates them

Also that little phrase, aside from making man a metaphysical mendicant. MUST BE for the Christian, the blueprint for any or all of the incarnations of the Welfare State and therefore sets Christianity in direct opposition to Capitalism and by extension, Objectivism. And this is an absolute and necessary fact.

To be a true, honest and knowing Christian is to be, by the Law of Identity, both of the above.

As for being hard-assed, If you don’t believe down to your bones that you have the right thing then don’t bother; you’re just a mushy moderate fit only to be a slave. I’ve been an Oist for 40 years, Why? Not because it looks cute. Because it’s the right thing. I should know, I’ve seen it all and been some of it. It got me an A in Western Civ at Profidence College. It validated my sense of life, It boosted my IQ by 34 points. To me, that says it keeps its promise: in spades! I’m gonna ditch THAT? No way! I’d be an interstellar level, trans-dimensional dufus if I did.

Objectivism is more than just a philosophical system. When it seats properly in a person’s psyche, it brings with it personality traits that enhonce being a human person: The Will to understand, the drive to excellence, self-responsibility, the universe as comprehensible and usable and the ability to know just what you can and cannot do by being able to sort it out with intelligence and then expanding one’s frontiers further out, doing tomorrow what you could not do today.

And I had to get over the idea that capitlalism was backward-thinking and Scientific Socialism was the way to go. Scientific Socialism was somewhat egoistic in that it held that each benefited from the system by making it better for all. This was the Utilitarian contra-argument to the Utilitarian idea the Capitalism was the best system. This pre-dated Objectivism by decades and was the best thing going at the time. It placed an implicit positive value on the intellect and rationality. It was based on the idea that economics, like the natural sciences, was best implemented when Nam ran the show and that capitlalism left vital economic decisions to the whim of the irrational, unlearned or stupid.

Now there can be, and have been alliances with Christians. This is possible because most Christians don’t get the above. From The OBJECTIVIST NEWSLEETER: One can join with others on an ad hoc basis.

As to activism Ayn Rand said that while she was an activist, it was not necessary or even good, for everyone to be (I think it was in the PLAYBOY interview with Alvin Toffler).

EDITIED: I almost forgot. I do believe that Rick is correct when he says that some persons who claim to be Objectivists are simply latching on to it, consciously or unconsciously, to vent their anger at religion. Whin I see things here like “I’m against whatever relgion is for” or the like. I get that. Remember, religion supports the doctrine of absolutism in truth and morality: Are you against those? And I’ve seen it here as well as elsewhere That anger is usually an “illness” of the young; been there done that, and comes from the feeling of having been cheated or is just part of the process of “leaving the house” i.e. growing up, psychologically, most such do “make their peace with God”. What is wrong with that simmering anger is that it’s an unecessary waste of time, thought and feeling. Just salvage whatever is true, leave the false behind and be glad of the chance to have better. Otherwise, whatever will you do when you come across things that Objectivism has in common with religion and you don’t have the right context to see the differences; like moral absolutism (which is probably why you fled religion), being quite doctrinnaire (which is probably why you fled religion) and the requirement of honesty (which is probably why you fled religion because it “cramped your style”) and, of course Capitalism (I had to get over that one, too: Like I said “been there, done that”)?

31

Thank you. I think there is no reason to refuse alliances, providing they adhere to agreed on fundamental principles

Which fundamental principles are we talking about? Jesus Christ being our Lord and Savior from our inherent original sin and that we must be our brother’s keepers?

32

Now there can be, and have been alliances with Christians. . . . From The OBJECTIVIST NEWSLEETER: One can join with others on an ad hoc basis.

As to activism Ayn Rand said that while she was an activist, it was not necessary or even good, for everyone to be (I think it was in the PLAYBOY interview with Alvin Toffler).

Thank you, that is what I was looking for. It just didn’t feel right to me to be told “you have to advocate.” It feels too much like being told I have to live for someone else.

Which fundamental principles are we talking about? Jesus Christ being our Lord and Savior from our inherent original sin and that we must be our brother’s keepers?

No, despite confusion to the contrary, I am not trolling or being sarcastic. I meant commitment to individual rights.

As for being hard-assed, If you don’t believe down to your bones that you have the right thing then don’t bother; you’re just a mushy moderate fit only to be a slave.

I just read Peikoff’s essay “Fact and Value,” and now I understand what you mean.

Objectivism is more than just a philosophical system. When it seats properly in a person’s psyche, it brings with it personality traits that enhonce being a human person

I thought this more or less coming in to this discussion, but after reading “Fact and Value,” I was struck by it much more deeply. I was reluctant beforehand to be firm about the things I disagreed with; as soon as I read Peikoff’s argument, I understood immediately that I need to make a moral judgment about some of the ideas that claim to ally themselves with Objectivism. As soon as I recognized this, I felt a great calm come over me, the calm of knowing that a contradiction in myself was finally in accordance with reality.

I am very grateful to Ayn Rand for the time she spent diligently thinking through this philosophy, and for all those who have taken her seriously enough to propagate it.

And Rick, if you read this, you are attempting to resolve a contradiction by redefining the terms. You can equate faith with confidence in principle, but to do so robs the word of any useful meaning. Reality will go on not conforming to those definitions, no matter how neat a resolution they appear to produce. Faith is acceptance of an assertion without any objective evidence; it inherently means the acceptance of emotion as cognition. Atheism is essential to Objectivism. Do you call yourself an Objectivist? If so, you are wrong to do so. It is not merely a silly dispute between camps that could be good allies, it is as distinct as the difference between life and death. The moral revolution you champion (yes, I did recognize where the language comes from) depends first and foremost on the inviolability of the individual mind. As soon as you claim that self-interest leads to faith (Principle 2 of your credo–I recognize that language too), you disconnect the mind from its only source of knowledge: reality. The claim that a rational god is part of reality is arbitrary, and the assertion that god authors prosperity (Principle 1) or governs in the affairs of men (the FCP Pledge) destroys a man’s confidence in his own mind. I applaud the energy of your efforts, but I must speak up against the contradiction I see in your words.

33

I don’t know if the title of this thread is really accurate. though I can understand the sentiment. ONce you get the Objectivist bug. you kind of feel that any incorrect use of it is a personal infringement.

From what I gather, Rick is a Mormon who has read AS and grew to like the characters. Did he make a commitment to the philosophy? none that I saw. He’s like a lot of persons who read ATLAS SHRUGGED or THE FOUNTAINHEAD and doesn’t get it all. Matt Allen WPRO 630 AM, Providence RI, 6-9 PM weeknights drives me up a wall He’s constantly quoting from AS but says “We have to get back to a situation of a basic belief in God and family” a month after saying “We need a John Galt solution [to welfare; ‘moochers and looters’, and taxes]”. Along with peddling some really loopy stuff like “mass consciousness” the crap that at room temperature Nutri-Sweet (aspertame) becomes formaldahyde and the Electormagnetic pulse (EMP) alarmism that Petr Beckmann disposed of two decades ago. Matt Allen IS a betrayal of Ayn Rand; trying to expropriate her ideas and mix them up with maudlin crapola. why the RI Objectivist organization hasn’t told him to take a flying frak at a rolling donut, I don’t know.

Now we find that George Norry, successor to Art Bell, of Coast to Coast supports the free market. Just listen to that for a few nights and thatl’ll make you wonder if the Democrats aren’t right This program supports stuff that is mentally ill and ought be prohibited. He claems to have cured cancer by psychic menas which is an outright fraud. The presence of this kind of lunacy in major media markets lends a certain amount of popular credibility, of the sort that “it must be either true or substantially true or it wouldn’t be on the air”, to it and this stuff, if it takes, is dangerous. This deals not in just mis-information, but disinformation. Judging by Norry’s tone of voice, he doens’t believe hafl of it. It’s like shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre.

34

I wouldn’t get too torn up over Norry. It’s entertainment. I’ve listened to Coast to Coast AM for years. Ian Punnit (weekends) is a much better host, and Norry doesn’t hold a candle to Art Bell.

And, no, I don’t fall for 99% of the BS on the show, but I work at night and it’s good entertainment.

35

Why is it that such a large number of so-called Objectivists like to write or speak, but few can demonstrate that they’ve devoted any significant thought whatsoever or any meaningful, sustained action to bringing about a veritable, tangible movement as described by Ms. Rand? …

…What are your thoughts?

Hold your horses. Rearden Metal took ten years to produce.

36

Why is it that such a large number of so-called Objectivists like to write or speak, but few can demonstrate that they’ve devoted any significant thought whatsoever or any meaningful, sustained action to bringing about a veritable, tangible movement as described by Ms. Rand? …

…What are your thoughts?

“I want, therefore, to make it emphatically clear that Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone.” -AR

37

“I want, therefore, to make it emphatically clear that Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone.” -AR

One almost has to wonder about this. Consider: Objectivism is a strong philosophy which means it is vividly defined and is doctrinnaire (All good systems are). This make it an integrated (organized and systematized) whole:means a “complete system”, This makes it exclusionary; You either is or you isn’t, anything that uses some of it is none of it. and is a distortion, misuse or betrayal of it and is said to be a betrayal or Ayn Rand, which mkes her somewhat of a revered figure (rightfully so, in the sense of Aristotle, Washington, Jefferson, Newton, Einstein, Heinlein or Moog). in The OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER, she said that there was an “intllectual division of labor” and “We are the theoreticians”. Multiple witnesses say that when someone was given the heave ho it was in front of the the assembly which kind of backs up Branden’s statements in JUDGEMENT DAY about being “the enforcer” (Reason’s review of that publication). Also the non-theoreticians were not allowed to call themselves “Objectiivsits” rather they were “Students of Objectivism”. These point to the “medical minimum” for an organization or certainly of being “organic”

Now, whether there ought be an organized Objectivism. There is what I call “institutional Objectivism” that consists of the doctine, the people who practice and promulgate it and such groups, which are organized at some level, though which it is done and the means by which it is done. It might be proper for us to develop the social networks to integrate things. I do some of it at my domain by putting all things Objectivist that pass muster with me. I use the domain to both introduce Oism in what I judge to be its purest form, and also as a “military” entity. In fact my major websites are Objectivist-related. You will see how if you use the link in my sig.

This state of affairs points to, at some point in time. an organized Objectivism, However, I’m in no hurry as this will be beyond my lifetime. I use, as my template, Church history. That is what I meant when I said elsewhere “…We could still shatter [does ‘herding cats’ do it for you]. We have yet to have our council of Nicea”. Some of that seems to be done here and for the most part, we have it right.

What we are missing are presence, a path from there to here and outreach. We have to do three things: Stop acting like we’re sui generis, et people know we’re here and participate in the society at large.

38

It appears clear that Ayn Rand’s teaching often deals with hierarchical differences. As such, she was not so much against altruism, mysticism, statism, as much as she was FOR Individualism and Reason. [I would be interested if anyone can refute this, since I have always taken it as self-evident in her writing].

The arguments I have heard against religion are mainly completely true, but on one occasion a little puzzling. Now I’m a far off observer of U.S. politics, and can’t claim to be au fait with the specifics, as you are, but I cannot quite grasp how and why it was (slightly) more important to vote in a liberal, statist government, than- as I read it- one that has backing of the religious ‘right’. The explanation given was that one can at least debate with the former, but that the religious will never respond to Reason. [Hope I got that right].

Coming from the O’ist intellectuals supporting this stance, was as I say, puzzling: what about the possibility that, with the Statists in power, they then decide to enforce religion in schools, society etc.?

Then you have two evils for the price of one, surely? Or is this much too simplistic?

So that leads me back to my original post here; the question of allowing some access of those ‘self-proclaimed religious Capitalists’ to an arms- length, totally practical, alliance with Objectivism. This is still only hypothetical in my mind, and I welcome any opinions on the inherent flaws.

But, well, the moderate Christians do have the numbers. Capitalism needs a boost, all over the world.

With Capitalism forcing a check on spreading Statism, our liberty again has a chance.

I have heard many opinions on the threat of Mysticism, but does this [my theory] mean we are ‘selling our souls’?

I stand by my previous statement that O’ism must stay pure to itself,and in itself, so if there is the faintest whiff of compromise and contradiction and moral pragmatism, I won’t hesitate to withdraw the argument. Please consider it though.

BTW, What’s a ‘sock puppet’? :lol:

39

BTW, What’s a ‘sock puppet’? :lol:

40

BTW, What’s a ‘sock puppet’? :lol:

Maximus’s picture shows what it is “in real life”. Also, on the Internet, a metaphor for a person using multiple identities, usually in order to carry on a conversation with himself.