Is Objectivism a Cult?

[@LibertyWarrior68]

The biggest and most dangours cult is statism.

[@katherinekelly6432]

Ayn Rand was an imperfect human being just as all of us are. I think it is important to separate the creation from the creator. Whatever mistakes or flaws in Ayn Rand this should not be used to devalue what she created. They are two separate things. Her philosophy may be imperfect but that does not mean that it does not hold value or truth. My advice on any philosophy is to not swallow it like a pill but test it against your own reality and experience to determine it's usefulness and validity to you. I have found Objectivism to be useful in understanding aspects of human behavior including my own.

[@llamasarus1]

Having only read her biographies and not her work, I agree

[@bioautonomism1246]

Well reasoned and nicely stated. However, if you were ever around Objectivists in the late 1960's (I was) you would know that it was either/or, black or white, 100% of the time. As I grew up, I realized Rand was smart and a good novelist, but she wasn't always correct. There are a lot of contradictions in her work.

[@katherinekelly6432]

@@bioautonomism1246 Ayn Rand, George Orwell, Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn and others were touched by the horrors of unchecked state power. Objectivism is Rands answer to Communism at the individual level. From the point of view of the individual instead of the point of view of the collective. Human beings crave a utopia on earth. They want to be free of the horrors that being conscious human beings entails. Communism plays on the same psychological needs in people that religion does but simply replaces God with the state. With communism you do not need to die before you can experience heaven. It plays on the mass delusions of humanity that actually keep humanity enslaved. The problem with Objectivism is it does not work without a moral value system already in place. In the absence of this moral value system acting selfishly is not acting in ones own self interest. True self interest is enlightened self interest . She could never convey this in a understandable manner because of the paradox that unenlightened people do not know that they are. They took her words and twisted them to suit their own needs and wants.

[@bioautonomism1246]

@@katherinekelly6432 She wrote great novels and had a ton of great points. However, her insistence that her philosophy was absolute true put her in the position of having nit-pickers pour over all contradictions. this is her fault, not mine. Self interest is not a moral question.

[@joeblue4116]

@@katherinekelly6432 Interesting. Are you saying that you understand Ayn Rand because you are enlightened?

[@wagfeliz]

Cult has religion meaning, its related to adore something divine, completely the opposite of Objectivism.

[@coldee785]

Yeeeaaa your definition of religion is flawed. Check your premises

[@BefallenLegate]

@@coldee785 I'll do you a solid. You've brought nothing to the table and i'm earlier than you are to the prior post. I do agree that no one seems to be able to define exactly what a spaghetti monster in the sky (just a metaphor) in ones own personal mental state is. I personally believe the bible is a history book from thousands of families noting their wins and fails. What do you bring to the table though with your statement?

[@danielswaim5566]

I wouldn't say that Objectivism is very much like a cult, but the philosophy of Ayn Rand, as academic philosophy, is little more than circular question begging. She seemingly solves the central problems of philosophy by denying their status as problems. That's fine, I guess, as philosophy-o-life stuff goes.

[@177SCmaro]

Well, if it concerns academics, it must be true.

[@ArrogantEgoist]

This doesn't make sense. Demonstrating that a so-called problem (such as the alleged conflict between causality and free will) is not a real problem, is not question begging.

[@JohnLemieux]

177SCmaro We're all academics.

[@177SCmaro]

John Lemieux Speak for yourself. And it kinda goes without saying, but I was being sarcastic.

[@JohnLemieux]

177SCmaro Yes I could tell, you hold "academics" in contempt.

[@kdemetter]

My concern is that when I hear some objectivists on KZbin, they are speaking about Ayn Rand as is she's a saint, and they are quoting her work like it's scripture. Here's my question : if you were to discover something in philosophy that contradicts Ayn Rand's belief, but actually serves and improves the core principles of objectivism, would you accept it, and promote that henceforth ?

[@YorickReturns]

@K. De Metter You should promote the truth, yes. But you seem to be conflating Objectivism and the application of Objectivism. If you disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, you are not an Objectivist. However, that's not the same as disagreeing with Ayn Rand's application of Objectivism to a particular context. For example, if Ayn Rand liked a particular genre of music, disagreeing with her on that doesn't necessarily make you a non-Objectivist. You have to distinguish between the philosophy of Objectivism and the applications of the philosophy of Objectivism. As for Ayn Rand's being a saint, well, if you are an Objectivist, in other words if you believe that Objectivism is true (regardless whether you agree with Ayn Rand's every application of Objectivism or not), you will of course revere her. Why wouldn't you? Philosophy is of fundamental importance, and, if you are an Objectivist, Ayn Rand has hugely improved your life.

[@alexanderleeart]

@@YorickReturns scary shit! I think that's where it gets weird, the threat of being excluded from the group of True Objectivists if you disagree on a philosophic principle.

[@YorickReturns]

@@alexanderleeart Things are what they are. A non-Objectivist is not an Objectivist. What's scary about that? If you agree with some parts of Objectivism but disagree with other parts, the resulting philosophy is not Objectivism: give your new philosophy a different name, while giving credit to Ayn Rand for the parts taken from Objectivism. That's the proper way to do things, not David Kelley's so-called 'open Objectivism', which is Kelley's intellectually dishonest way of labelling as 'Objectivism' whatever philosophy he happens to hold. Objectivism is not a club. It's a philosophy. Nobody else can exclude you. It's you who exclude yourself.

[@alexanderleeart]

​@@YorickReturns My point is that I've personally known many Objectivists who form social groups on the basis of their shared interest in the philosophy, and actively shun people from said groups who stray from the orthodoxy. Therefore there's a social pressure to conform, and that is where it resembles a cult.

[@YorickReturns]

@@alexanderleeart "I've personally known many Objectivists who form social groups on the basis of their shared interest in the philosophy". There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. "actively shun people from said groups who stray from the orthodoxy." That is surely to be expected, if the social group is indeed based on a shared interest in Objectivism. "Therefore there's a social pressure to conform". If someone doesn't believe in Objectivism but wants to be part of some social group of Objectivists, he may feel pressured, but that's on him. He's the one being cultish by wanting to be part of a social group in which he doesn't belong.

[@victrolajake]

Im an objectivist and my name´s Biddle

[@jeremyhansen9197]

We don’t determined to authority, I mean just look at what Rand said. We don’t agree with everything Rand, I mean Rand told me not to agree with her and I obeyed. I just agree with every single principle from her ‘metaphysics’ to her ‘ethics’ because she got it right and we have the truth no one else has figured out. We accept difference in of opinion in objectivism, and if you don’t then you’re not really and objectivist. If it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself it’s not a cult.

[@jrshep]

The "blank slate" is a metaphor. That we are born with a "blank slate" does not imply (necessitate) that we cannot do anything with it, no more than does the fact we are born with a "blank visual/perceptual slate," not having seen anything, for example, imply that we will not be able to see something once we are presented with it. Your assertion implies that we cannot learn anything that we do not already know. Asking for examples is asking you to hold my hand? That's quaint.

[@jrshep]

The first time I saw you write "tubla rasa," I figured it was a typo. The second time, I realized that you didn't know how to spell "tabula," so I decided to say something. It's not something to sue someone over. You learned something that you did not know and should be grateful. I could have either said something or not; I decided to say something. If it's any consolation, I had to look up the "tubla" just to make certain you weren't referring to something else besides tabula rasa.

[@jeffersonianideal]

Did Ayn Rand ever talk about or write about cults? Did she ever identify those particular organizations and/or philosophies that she considered to be cults?

[@ArrogantEgoist]

You should see that Newton's discovery of an important system of truths would require him to use non-loony, sober thinking.

[@jrshep]

Good stuff, Craig! Thank you!

[@jrshep]

If she were wrong about that (that people are born tabula rasa) it would not be a minor detail; it would mean that people, that individuals, are born with innate ideas, innate conceptual knowledge. That would put her in the Platonist camp, not the Aristotean camp. She is in fact correct. People are born tabula rasa.

[@tkloppel]

Maybe it's because those who like the philosophy, and Rand herself, do not see her as "emotional and moody". You seem to be suggesting that everyone should see it the way that you do. There are multiple sources for commentary on Rand - not all of them maker her out to be "loony".

[@jrshep]

It's "tabula rasa," not "tubla rasa," and it means "blank slate." A blank slate doesn't mean that there is no slate, no potential, but that there's nothing written on the slate. All contemporary philosophers, biologists and evolutionary psychologist agree that man is not born tabula rasa? All? Perhaps most, but that only shows that most can be wrong. The issue is not that man is born with a nature, but whether or not there are any inborn, innate ideas. The slate is conceptually blank.

[@ArrogantEgoist]

John Shepard is right about your needing to find a dictionary. There is no such word as "hertibility," which you have used repeatedly.

[@angelo66bc]

Ayn Rand admired independent thinkers so much that she would pronounce you insane if you disagreed with merely 1% of her philosophy. Her friends were all much younger acolytes. Her husband was an unemployed drunk who went from being an extra in films to painting in order to kill time while he made no money. It's ok to buy into the cult of "objectivism" if you're a teenager. I can only feel pity for grown ups that are "objectivists". Read up on how she applied her philosophy in her life, how she treated friends, how she cheated on her husband, how she judged people as termites or lice for merely disagreeing with her views. In one of the books on the cult of ayn rand there is a story of a group of young people (acolytes) gathered around in her living room. Each one had to declare who was the greatest influence and most important person in his/her life. Naturally, all the regulars would declare that Ayn Rand was by far the most important person in their life. One newbie did not know how to roll and he said that his best friend who was there for him while his parents went through a divorce was the most important person in his life. The rest just writes itself. I cannot imagine the cult invited him back for a second visit. If you're a grown man advocating for the childish philosophy of Ayn Rand, then you have not learned to think for yourself and you have wasted your intellectual life. You my friend, I'm sorry to say, are a second hander.

[@SaiGirl]

What has been said here has also been said about adherents of Marx and Freud as well; often using the same literal phrases. The characters of Rand's fictional narratives embody the "independence" of the Nietzchean "uber mensch": Standing above the "common herd" and therefore not subject to the latter's pedestrian values, standards and behavioral mores. Watch (or read) Barbara Branden's narrative "The Passion of Ayn Rand". Then it' becomes obvious just how the word "objective" is used..

[@jrshep]

I've never heard of "hertibility" before. Hertibility - genetic and "enviromental" interaction; evolution. Interesting to learn that I think that "enviroment" is the only factor (of?). Given that you are suggesting further reading, might I suggest a good dictionary for spelling. Perhaps a grammar book would be helpful as well.

[@ArrogantEgoist]

Well, the Objectivist virtue of justice would require gratitude--not indifference--to the discoverer of the new knowledge that you've acquired (whether that is Newtonian mechanics or Objectivism).

[@muckypup595]

The "anti-cult"...well said.

[@dougrees6777]

If we followed the principle you expressed, we would have a high regard for Karl Marx. After all, he was an independent thinker, not a "second-hander". He may have been influenced by the ideas of Hegel and Feurbach (as well as those of Adam Smith and David Ricardo), but he stood their ideas on their heads.

[@Jazzper79]

Karl Marx was certainly a second-hander, as his entire thinking was based on not to question authority and that the individual must sacrifice himself to the masses. His ideas was not based in reality, but based on powerlust. He was the Toohey in The Fountainhead. He wanted people to be dependend on others.

[@jrshep]

Becoming a rationalist? What scientific evidence am I denying? What facts of reality am I evading? You have not presented any scientific evidence. You say that man has inborn instinctual knowledge, automatic valuations and automatic emotional responses. Again, how about some examples of each of those? ("instinctal," "intergrate," "intergrated," "knolwedge" - are you evading the existence of dictionaries and proper spelling, or is this evidence of "instinctal knolwedge"?)

[@TravelingCoder]

In my experience, Objectivism tends to function like a fundamentalist religion in the sense that it's followers tend to mostly just affirm Ayn Rand's beliefs and not really expand on them or really think out their implications. For example, on the issue of workplace safety, they will usually just point out how the workers aren't being directly coerced into working while downplaying how general economic circumstances give them little choice. Also, they tend to try to emphasize differences rather than similarities, similar to how the fundamentalist religious person will shun other members of their faith for minor disagreements.

[@jacebastian7192]

No one owes anyone else a bunch of opportunities or jobs to choose from:)

[@TravelingCoder]

If people are supposed to put their self-interest first, then that means they should fight for any regulations or programs they feel would protect their well-being. You're basically saying that they should sacrifice their safety for the collective good of capitalism.

[@jacebastian7192]

Hi TravelingCoder:) No one should ever sacrifice themselves for the collective "anything". I don't advocate for Capitalism because it's "collectively good". I advocate Capitalism because it is the ONLY social system there is that does NOT violate individual rights. Meaning; it is the only social system in which physical force is banned from human relationships; i.e., every individual is free to live their life according to the judgement of their mind, (again, only as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights to do the same). That being said, anyone who advocates for regulations of any kind, other than those restricting the use of physical violence against each other, IS advocating the use of physical force against others, and denying some people's rights to live their life, (in this case, the business owners).

[@TravelingCoder]

But what force is is subjective. One could argue land ownership is based on initiation of force. Some goes for patents.

[@jacebastian7192]

Force is definitely not subjective. for example; someone who creates a product, and convinces people to buy it, of their own free will, (i.e, without lying about what the product does/using any other kind of fraud), is NOT the same as someone who uses a gun to steal money from people. The first uses the Voluntary willpower of all those involved, the second takes the power of free will away from someone.

[@goodluck4037]

Bro...yes we def judge religions and schools of thought based on the actions of people who do things in the name of said religion or school of thought. Beeg Lol.

[@jrshep]

I'm sorry, but you simply make no sense. Perhaps English is not your native tongue. I assumed that it was, but with all of the misspellings, poor grammar and inane comments you have made, I'm starting to wonder otherwise. Regardless, it would take little effort to at least check and correct your spelling before you post. You've certainly not made a case against the idea that we are born tabula rasa, but you did at least concede that we are born tabula rasa conceptually.