Objectivism/Ayn Rand Cult?

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Objectivism/Ayn Rand Cult?

Post by _Moniker »

I find it interesting that those that grew up LDS (group think, prophet worship, giving up worldly goods, etc...) often say that Ayn Rand followers are a cult.

This bemuses me. Often.

Have you questioned why you think it is a cult (if you do)? Have you just heard others refer to it as a cult and accepted that ? Why do you believe it is a cult?

So, let's start with some cult requirements and others can tell me how Objectivism fits them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.

2. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

3. The group is preoccupied with making money.

4. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

5. Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

6. The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).

7. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

8. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

9. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).

10. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).

11. The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

12. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.

13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.

14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.


Another checklist:

1. Deception - Group identity and/or true motives are not revealed. The group leaders tell members to withhold truth from outsiders.

2. Emotional Leverage/Love Bombing - Instant friendship, extreme helpfulness, generosity and acceptance...Group recruiters "lovingly" will not take "no" for an answer-invitations impossible to refuse without feeling guilty and/or ungrateful. "Love", "generosity", "encouragement" are used to lower defenses and create an ever increasing sense of obligation, debt and guilt.

3. Exploit Personal Crisis - They use an existing crisis as a means of getting you to participate. They exploit vulnerability arising from:

* Broken relationships
* Death in the family
* Loss of job
* Move to new location
* Loneliness/depression
* Guilt/shame
* Stress/fear

4. Crisis Creation - They employ tactics designed to create or deepen confusion, fear, guilt or doubt. i.e. "you aren't serving God the way He intended." Questions areas of faith never before examined or explored and attack other faiths specifically.

5. All The Answers - Provide simple answers to the confusion they, themselves, create. Support these answers with material produced or "approved" by the group.


Programming

1. Intense Study - Focus is on group doctrine and writings. Bible, if used at all, is referred to one verse at time to "prove" group teachings.

2. Opposer Warnings - Recruiters are told that "Satan" will cause relatives and friend to say bad things about the group to try to "steal them away from God." Recruits soon believes group members, alone, are truthful/trustworthy.

3. Guilt and Fear - Group dwells on members' "sinful nature" (many use public confession). Guilt and fear arising from "failing God" are magnified to manipulate new member.

4. Schedule Control & Fatigue - Study and service become mandatory. New member becomes too busy to question. Family, friends, jobs and hobbies are squeezed out, further isolating the new member.

5. Attack Independent Thought - Critical thinking is discouraged as prideful and sinful, blind acceptance encouraged.

6. Divine Commission - Leader(s) claim new revelation from God, within past 200 years, in which all but their group are rejected by God. They, alone, speak for God.

7. Absolutism - They insist on total, unquestioning obedience and submission to the group, both actions AND thoughts. Group "love" and acceptance becomes dependent upon obedience and submission. Unconditional love...isn't.

8. Totalism - "Us against them" thinking. Strengthens group identity. Everyone outside of group lumped under one label.


Retention

1. Motive Questioning- When sound evidence against the group is presented, members are taught to question the motivation of the presenter. The verifiable (sound documentation) is ignored because of doubts over the unverifiable (presenter's motives). See Opposer Warnings (#2 above).

2. Information Control - Group controls what convert may read or hear. They discourage (forbid) contact with ex-members or anything critical of the group. May say it is the same as pornography making it not only sinful and dangerous but shameful as well. Ex-members become feared and avoidance of them becomes a "survival issue."

3. Isolation, Separation & Alienation - Group becomes substitute family. Members encouraged to drop worldly (non-members) friends. May be told to change jobs, quit school, give up sports, hobbies, etc.

4. Coercion - Disobedience, including even minor disagreement with group doctrine, may result in expulsion and shunning.

5. Phobias - The idea is planted that anyone who leaves goes into a life of depravity and sin, loses their sanity, dies, or will have children die, etc. Constant rumors of bad things happening to people who leave. No one ever leaves for "legitimate reasons."

6. Striving for the Unreachable - Group membership and service are essential for salvation..."Work your way into God's favor." NO matter what you do, it is never enough.


Try this one out:

Cult Information Centre (31 Characteristics)

Every cult can be defined as a group having all of the following five characteristics:

1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members

2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society.

3. Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.

4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds recruit people.

5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.


Mind Control techniques include:

1. Hypnosis
Inducing a state of high suggestibility by hypnosis, often thinly disguised as relaxation or meditation.

2. Peer Group Pressure
Suppressing doubt and resistance to new ideas by exploiting the need to belong.

3. Love Bombing
Creating a sense of family and belonging through hugging, kissing, touching and flattery.

4. Rejection of Old Values
Accelerating acceptance of new life style by constantly denouncing former values and beliefs.

5. Confusing Doctrine
Encouraging blind acceptance and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible doctrine.

6. Metacommunication
Implanting subliminal messages by stressing certain key words or phrases in long, confusing lectures.

7. Removal of Privacy
Achieving loss of ability to evaluate logically by preventing private contemplation.

8. Time Sense Deprivation
Destroying ability to evaluate information, personal reactions, and body functions in relation to passage of time by removing all clocks and watches.

9. Disinhibition
Encouraging child-like obedience by orchestrating child-like behaviour.

10. Uncompromising Rules
Inducing regression and disorientation by soliciting agreement to seemingly simple rules which regulate mealtimes, bathroom breaks and use of medications.

11. Verbal Abuse
Desensitizing through bombardment with foul and abusive language.

12. Sleep Deprivation and Fatigue
Creating disorientation and vulnerability by prolonging mental an physical activity and withholding adequate rest and sleep.

13. Dress Codes
Removing individuality by demanding conformity to the group dress code.

14. Chanting and Singing
Eliminating non-cult ideas through group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases.

15. Confession
Encouraging the destruction of individual ego through confession of personal weaknesses and innermost feelings of doubt.

16. Financial Commitment
Achieving increased dependence on the group by 'burning bridges' to the past, through the donation of assets.

17. Finger Pointing
Creating a false sense of righteousness by pointing to the shortcomings of the outside world and other cults.

18. Flaunting Hierarch
Promoting acceptance of cult authority by promising advancement, power and salvation.

19. Isolation
Inducing loss of reality by physical separation from family, friends, society and rational references.

20. Controlled Approval
Maintaining vulnerability and confusion by alternately rewarding and punishing similar actions.

21. Change of Diet
Creating disorientation and increased susceptibility to emotional arousal by depriving the nervous system of necessary nutrients through the use of special diets and/or fasting.

22. Games
Inducing dependence on the group by introducing games with obscure rules.

23. No Questions
Accomplishing automatic acceptance of beliefs by discouraging questions.

24. Guilt
Reinforcing the need for 'salvation' by exaggerating the sins of the former lifestyles.

25. Fear
Maintaining loyalty and obedience to the group by threatening soul, life or limb for the slightest 'negative' thought, word or deed.

26. Replacement of Relationships
Destroying pre-cult families by arranging cult marriages and 'families'.


*chanting in black cloak while reading Atlas Shrugged*
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

I'm still reading up on Objectivism...
...but right now, I would think it makes about as much sense to call it a 'cult' as it would to try and claim that these guys were part of a cult:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bM_l443VV4

I think if someone were to claim that those guys were - in some way - in a 'cult', what they'd really mean to say is:

"Ohh - you're scary! Please stay well over there and don't talk to me. (Or look at me. Or hurt me! Eeeek!)"
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:I'm still reading up on Objectivism...
...but right now, I would think it makes about as much sense to call it a 'cult' as it would to try and claim that these guys were part of a cult:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bM_l443VV4

I think if someone were to claim that those guys were - in some way - in a 'cult', what they'd really mean to say is:

"Ohh - you're scary! Please stay well over there and don't talk to me. (Or look at me. Or hurt me! Eeeek!)"



OOOOOooooooooooOoooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I AM AN ANTICHRIST!!!!!!!!

Woop! I wuv you!

Don't know what I want but I know how to get it............................. 'cause I want to be in anarchy!

*glad my kids aren't home -- which makes me uber lame cause I'm sitting here*
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Oh, and see I was hanging out with a bunch of fellars that thought they were anarchists and I was the girl reading the books and telling them how it SHOULD be done. ;)

*yes and that makes no sense -- which makes it even cuter to reflect upon*
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

Moniker wrote:Oh, and see I was hanging out with a bunch of fellars that thought they were anarchists and I was the girl reading the books and telling them how it SHOULD be done. ;)

*yes and that makes no sense -- which makes it even cuter to reflect upon*

Hahahah! Yeah - I can kinda picture that...
...brilliant! :)
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Yes, teens are so often brilliant. ;)

How we saw ourselves ----> Image




What we were -------> Image
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

I believe it was Carl Sagan (or was it Michael Shermer?) who made the connection between Rand and the cult of personality. Whether it was an actual cult or not, I don't know, but I thought he brought up some interesting points including Rand's abuse of power and also sex.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

asbestosman wrote:I believe it was Carl Sagan (or was it Michael Shermer?) who made the connection between Rand and the cult of personality. Whether it was an actual cult or not, I don't know, but I thought he brought up some interesting points including Rand's abuse of power and also sex.


Yah, it was Shermer. Don't know if Sagan did?? Not familiar with him saying anything about Rand.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/skmag/un-cult.htm

Here is the problem I have with Shermer's argument:

3. _The critic of part of a philosophy does not necessarily repudiate
the whole philosophy_. This is a personal caveat to Objectivists and
readers of _Skeptic_ alike. Rand critics come from all political
positions--left, right, and middle. Professional novelists generally
disdain her style. Professional philosophers generally refuse to take
her work seriously (both because she wrote for popular audiences and
because her work is not considered a complete philosophy). There are
more Rand critics than followers. I am not one of them. Ayn Rand has
probably influenced my thinking more than any other author. I have read
all of her works, including her newsletters, early works, and the two
major biographies. I have even read the Brobdingnagian _Atlas Shrugged_
no less than three times, plus once on audio tape for good measure. Thus
I am not a blind critic. (Some of Rand's critics have attacked _Atlas_
without ever reading it, and Objectivism, without ever knowing anything
about it. I have encountered many of these myself. Even the pompously
intellectual William Buckley spoke of the "desiccated philosophy" of
_Atlas_, "the essential aridity of Miss Rand's philosophy," and the tone
of _Atlas_ as "over-riding arrogance," yet later confessed: "I never
read the book. When I read the review of it and saw the length of the
book, I never picked it up." Nothing could be more irrational.) I accept
most of Rand's philosophy, but not all of it. And despite my life-long
commitment to many of Rand's most important beliefs, Objectivists would
no doubt reject me from their group for not accepting _all_ of her
precepts. This is ultimately what makes Objectivism a cult.


He understands that to say one is an Objectivist you accept in full the philosophy or ascribe to it. That makes one an objectivist. He's in a tiff 'cause he is NOT an objectivist (as he admits) and apparently thinks that he should be called one anyway (or accepted into their ranks) even if he doesn't accept the philosophy in full. Huh?

Most people that read Rand are on college campuses or in positions of government (Greenspan) and accept parts of her philosophy or are swayed by it (I know I was -- youth), but that doesn't mean we're in a cult -- does NOT mean we stop questioning. What that makes us is those that took bits and pieces and were influenced by Rand -- yet that does NOT make one an objectivist.

Rand had a philosophy -- not a thorough one (but one nonetheless) and what her philosophy is called is Objectivism -- to be an Objectivist you subscribe to the philosophy. It's that simple. No one tells you that you are unable to disagree -- no one hunts you down and pulls you back into the ranks, no one tells you NOT to question -- the only requirement for calling yourself an Objectivist is that you accept the philosophy. If you don't you are not an Objectivist.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

This is a rebuttal to Shermer:

http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philosoph ... /cult.html


Another:

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult1.html

Shermer takes some traits of real cults and attempts to reinterpret them to prove his thesis. But on virtually every count Objectivism does not fit these attributes. Here are his points and my rebuttal to them.

1) "Veneration of the Leader. Excessive glorification to the point of virtual sainthood or divinity." Rand was revered but I don't think anyone thought she was either divine or a saint. The problem with this attribute of cultism is twofold. First, it makes the philosophy responsible for the actions of some adherents. Second, it is vague in meaning. Rand had her fans but I don't think she exceeded the adulation that some rock stars or sports heroes receive. Yet, no one would accuse these individuals of having a cult. It seems that the reason fan adulation is used to accuse Rand, but not Madonna, of cultism is because Rand discussed serious philosophical concepts.

2.) "Omniscience of the Leader: Acceptance of beliefs and pronouncements on virtually all subjects from the philosophical to the trivial." Rand was a social commentator which means she did discuss various aspects of life but rarely the trivial And she constantly was asked to justify her statements, and she offered reasons for holding the positions she did. In a typical cult the leader does not justify his beliefs but claims them on authority. This didn't happen within Objectivism. Also it should be remembered that Rand did express opinions which she said she could not prove -- not exactly the actions of a cult leader. The fact that one expresses viewpoints on many issues alone does not warrant the charge of cultism.

It is widely believed that Rand commented on many more issues than she actually did. For the most part her commentaries were restricted to issues of philosophy, current politics and art. She rarely departed from these fields. Articles on psychology were almost always written by Nathaniel Branden. And neither of them spent much time on economics. The main NBI lectures on economics were given by Alan Greenspan. And Rand's newsletters almost never discussed the subject. On a handful of occasions the Objectivist Newsletter (62-65) ran very short articles by Nathaniel on economics. Otherwise the only real discussions were reviews of books written by free market economists like Mises and Hazlitt. Rand's entire writings on economics in all her newsletters (1962 to 1976) are comprised of the following articles: "The Obliteration of Capitalism" (1965); "What is Capitalism?" (1965); "The Moratorium on Brains" (1971); and "Egalitarianism and Inflation" (1974).

Her dearth of material on economics would be odd for someone who is allegedly so cultic especially since she is widely known as an advocate of laissez faire capitalism. Very few cult leaders suggest that their followers go to non cult members for information. Rand routinely did this. Any Objectivist looking for material on economics was pointed to dozens of books written by non-Objectivists. Philosophically, Rand disagreed vehemently with Mises yet on five occasions her newsletter ran glowing, supportive reviews of his books. All knowledge didn't emanate from Rand in Objectivist circles. She, herself, often gave credit to others. She readily learned from Isabel Patterson about American history and, in spite of their differences, recommended Patterson's book The God of the Machine.

The typical cult leader does make pronouncements on all subjects. Rand didn't. The cult leader usually only refers to himself as the source of all correct understanding. Rand regularly recommended the works of others. The cult leader, if willing to recommend others, usually doesn't recommend individuals who aren't part of the cult. Rand frequently recommended the works of individuals who were clearly outside Objectivist circles. Mises and Hazlitt were utilitarians. Patterson was religious. Rand's newsletter even recommended reading a book by the Leftist Betty Friedan. In fact all the books that were recommended by Rand's newsletters were written by non-Objectivists. This is rather odd for such cultists!

The fact that Rand regularly bowed to the expertise of others is one indication that she didn't perceive of herself as an omniscient leader.

3.) "Persuasive Techniques: Methods used to recruit new followers and reinforce current beliefs." This is vague and undefined. I'm not at all sure what Shermer means nor how it applies to Objectivism. There is nothing that I can think of which indicates that Rand or NBI tired to "recruit new followers." Rand wrote novels which elicited a great response from large numbers of people. But she didn't write to solicit "members". The lecture series conducted by NBI was the result of people contacting Rand and not the result of Rand recruiting followers. Nor can I find in any of the lectures, which can still be obtained rather easily on tape, nor in any of the newsletters, an attempt to encourage individuals to "recruit" others. If Rand took any position on this matter it would seem to be that she thought such recruitment to be a waste of time. Yet "recruitment" is almost the prime function of a cult.

4.) "Hidden Agendas: Potential recruits and the public are not given a full disclosure of the true nature of the group's beliefs and plans." If anything Rand was totally up front about her philosophy. There was no hidden agenda within Objectivism and I have never seen any insinuation that there was. Rand could easily have had several layers of "initiates" where different beliefs were emphasized at different levels. L. Ron Hubbard used his science fiction novels to create interest in Dianetics and from there the initiates are recruited to Scientology. But Rand did no such thing. What she told the "Collective" did not differ from what she told the public.

5.) "Deceit: Recruits and followers are not told everything about the leader and the group's inner circle, particularly flaws and potentially embarrassing events or circumstances." This, on the surface, appears to be a plausible critique except that it's irrelevant to Objectivism. Objectivism is a secular philosophy and not a religion. The fact that there were people who were attracted to Rand's ideas does not mean that she is obligated to reveal every aspect of her private life. I have never seen Nietzsche, Kant, or any other philosopher criticized for this reason. And as far as I know the only "flaw" or "embarrassing event" which is attributed to Rand is the affair with Nathaniel Branden. In this regard Rand was certainly far less flawed than many of the most esteemed philosophers.

6.) "Financial and/or Sexual Exploitation: Recruits and followers are persuaded to invest in the group, and the leader may develop sexual relations with one or more of the followers." This is also unfair. Rand did have an affair with Nathaniel Branden. There was no attempt to receive financial aid or sexual favours from anyone else who admired Rand. There was, in fact, no "group" for this to happen within. Now various thinkers, throughout history, had sexual relations with individuals who were close to them and could be called "followers" but these thinkers aren't accused of being cult leaders. Did Oscar Wilde lead a cult because he had an affair with Lord Alfred Douglas? If Rand had had an affair with a plumber who had no interest in her ideas then Shermer wouldn't be using this to prove cultism. In fact what Shermer is implying is that one sexual affair creates a cult. And it implies that if Rand did not want to be accused of cultism she would have to have been monogamous or, at the very least, only have a sexual relationship with someone who disagreed with her ideas or was mindless. And if she had, then what would that say about her?

Shermer also paraphrases Nathaniel and Barbara Branden: "In both Barbara's and Nathaniel Branden's assessment, then, we see all the characteristics of a cult." In fact this is completely false. We have gone through Shermer's assessments of cultism and find that Objectivism is constantly falling short of the required traits. Barbara has, in numerous conversation with me, denied that she thought Objectivism was a cult. Shermer does not show how the Brandens ever provided evidence for his claim; he simply asserts it. He quotes Nathaniel as saying that there were cult-like traits but this is not the same thing as saying it is a cult. Saying that someone has cat-like traits does mean that they are a cat. It should also be remembered that Nathaniel's memoirs were rather prejudicial -- a fact which I think he even recognizes since he has released a complete rewrite. I believe that many incidents he recounted have been revised in a way that is kinder to Rand. What Nathaniel has said in the past will have to be modified by his new version of his memoirs.

Shermer also states: "But what about deceit and sexual exploitation? In this case 'exploitation:' may be too strong a word, but the act was present nonetheless." Now it seems he is saying that there was no exploitation but Rand had sex with Nathaniel and this alone is enough to justify the charge of cultism. Perhaps Shermer isn't attempting to come across as some anti-sexual Puritan but he does so none the less.

7.) "Absolute Truth: Belief that the leader and/or group has a method of discovering final knowledge on any number of subjects." This is included on the list because Mr. Shermer does not believe in absolute truth. But what other kind of "truth" is there. Gravity is an absolute truth. To deny absolute truth is to deny truth as a category all together. Truth is that which corresponds with reality. For truth to be non-absolute then reality must also be non-real. This is an odd position for an avowed leader of the "Skeptics" movement to take. When Shermer denies the validity of astrology or psychic powers he is asserting that they are false. He isn't equivocating and saying they are possibly correct. But for something to be false it is also absolutely false. For absolute falsehood to exist there must also be absolute truth. To deny the absolute nature of truth is to deny truth all together. And in the end this belief in, and of itself, need not be equated to cultism.

8.) "Absolute Morality: Belief that the leader and/or group have developed a system of right and wrong thought and action applicable to members and nonmembers alike. Those who strictly follow the moral code may become and remain members, those who do not are dismissed and punished." Rand taught moral philosophy -- as did any number of philosophers. And she believed that her code of morality, in the fundamentals, was based on reality and reason and thus absolutely true. But there was still no group for "followers" to join if they lived in accordance with Objectivist morality. Yes, Rand thought that reason was applicable to everyone. Imagine the outrage if she had said it was a virtue applicable to only whites, or males, or heterosexuals. She said that a code of morality based on the nature of man was applicable to all humans. Why this should qualify as cultism is beyond my understanding.

Now, Shermer seems to place morality in the same category as truth -- there is no absolute morality and no absolute truth. But if there are no absolute moral principles then what is the problem with genocide? Rand's system of ethics was quite different from other competing systems in that she first asked the question: what is the function of a code of morality? She wanted to know why morality was necessary. And then she tried to understand morality based on the facts of reality. A system of ethics built on this structure is fundamentally different than a religious moral code. The religious ethical systems are ultimately based on authority -- its moral because we/God/Scripture say so. Rand, instead, based ethics on human nature. This means that morality is discovered scientifically. It is open to debate because it is not authoritative. Rand's morality is thus very different from other moral systems. By its nature it is open to debate and discussion. And this mitigates against any cultic tendencies.

Shermer then takes Rand's belief in ethics and totally confuses them with what she called a "sense of life." He mentions an incident where Rand found out someone enjoyed a type of music totally outside her own aesthetic realm. She said, "Now I understand why he and I can never be real soul mates. The distance in our sense of life is too great." Rand was not saying that this person was immoral. She obviously is saying that to be her "soul mate" one must have a similar sense of life as her own. But she was not referring to the individual's morality at all.

Another incident is used to prove cultism. Shermer quotes Barbara Branden as recounting how someone at an Objectivist gathering said it would be morally justifiable to murder Nathaniel because he hurt Ayn. Barbara makes it clear that this person was immediately shouted down by everyone else present. This is supposed to help prove Shermer's case of Objectivist cultism -- if not then why did he include it? But is it fair to saddle Rand, and an entire philosophy, with the ravings of one individual? Is atheism responsible for the actions of Stalin? Certainly the reactions of everyone else present speaks volumes more than the ranting of one individual.

Shermer's analysis is plagued by several errors. While he has read Objectivist material and Rand's work he doesn't "know" the subject. This allows him to make obvious errors. He says, for instance, that Rand's first two novels were failures. This is not true. We the Living sold out of its first printing but the publisher hadn't expected it and had destroyed the plates. Anthem wasn't published in the US but in the UK where it sold steadily for some time. They weren't best sellers but they certainly weren't failures. And, contrary to Shermer, John Galt never said he would stop the "ideological" motor of the world. This is completely out of context. Shermer also charges that Rand was guilty of a "moral inconsistency" because of the affair with Branden. This must mean that she violated her own morality. This is an interesting charge but I don't know exactly which Objectivist moral principle he is saying she violated. And Shermer never actually tells us.

It is also enlightening to look at the lives of the members of the Collective years later. While many of them had a break of one sort of another with Rand on the personal level, none of them, to my knowledge, have abandoned their fundamental belief in her philosophy. None of them exhibit any traits of "cultish" behaviour years later and yet they are still Objectivists. If Objectivism itself leads to cultism then one would think that these individuals would still exhibit such traits especially since they are still Objectivists -- but they don't. Over and over individuals who broke with Rand, on a personal level, used the basic philosophical principles she taught them to justify the break.

Rand said that each individual must think for himself. There are cases, and not a few, where Objectivists split with Rand and told her that they were thinking for themselves and disagreed with her. She didn't like it, but then who among us relishes people telling us we are wrong? But the principles of Objectivism laid a foundation which kept these individuals from accepting cultish beliefs and attitudes. It is very common that when individuals break with one cult that they join another. I don't know of one prominent Objectivist, who had a personal break with Rand, ever joining anything else remotely looking like a cult. And because cults are usually dominated by one person, a break with that person often leads to a renunciation of the beliefs as well. Yet these so-called cult members have not broken with the philosophy even after breaking with the philosopher. Such a consistent pattern would indicate that they did not accept the philosophy because of the authoritative teachings of its founder.

Outside the collective there was never a wider Objectivist movement per se. People attended lectures but never joined anything. It may be that individuals far removed from Rand herself might exhibit cultic attitudes similar to the ones Shermer discusses but this is not Rand's fault nor a valid means for criticizing Objectivism as a philosophy. Those friends of Rand in the Collective are certainly not guilty of cultism. In fact if they had exhibited such traits the Collective probably would have lasted until Rand's death. The fact that such traits were missing is one reason the circle fell apart.
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

asbestosman wrote:but I thought he brought up some interesting points including Rand's abuse of power and also sex.

Can you elaborate here asb? So far, I've read some of Rand's arguments, which I have many disagreements with at this point. But I'm not aware of Rand's abuse of 'power and sex'...

I'm sure I'm missing a lot - I'm only just looking into this now. But could you point me towards the specifics here? Surely you can't just be talking about having philosophical opinions right? (No matter how strange...)
Post Reply