Seamless Objectivism


caroljane

Recommended Posts

X-Ray brought up Nathaniel Branden's article:

"In his article "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosphy of Ayn Rand", Nathaniel Branden wrote:

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. "

Reading what he wrote here, it is obvious that he mis-interpreted what Ayn was saying. That may have been caused by his exposure to her controlling personality, but these words that he attributes to her and which are repeated else where by her actually make perfect sense. Her philosophy is described as an integrated, non-contradictory philosophy for living on this earth. And it sure looks that way to me. Sometimes posters here say that there are contradictions in Objectivism. But I can't see them myself. I would like to have them pointed out.

As to Branden's claim that her statement leads to a religious following by her fans - that obviously happened, but that is more a statement about the fans under Rand's direct influence than about Objectivism.

And another thing - Rand herself expected Objectivism to be expanded upon by others. Why is there so much talk about open and closed systems of Objectivism? Of course it is open - all knowledge is open ended.

If I could make one wish about the split, it would be that it had not happened - that the players would have worked things out like the intellectuals they were but didn't live up to, and helped each other reach even greater heights - including Leonard.

Mary,

Here’s the full statement by Branden:

Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.

The example he pointed to was her rabid opposition to a woman president, but check out any of the forum discussions on OL. The number and variety of disagreements is huge. Branden is not endorsing the cavalier fragmentation of Objectivist principles. He is mainly talking about details and applications. Many if not most Objectivists may have some basic agreement on fundamentals, but the details and ramifications are rife with controversy.

A classic example of a major disagreement among Objectivists is whether benevolence should be a virtue. (See David Kelley's book, Unrugged Individualism.) Another would be the question of the morality of sexual intimacy devoid of some degree of value affinity. There are countless specific applications of philosophical principles that involve varying degrees of intelligent debate. Scrape the bottom of that barrel and you will find the brain-dead 'Objectivists' who leap to condemn anybody who honestly disagrees with any Objectivist tenet. But the question of when condemnation becomes warranted leaves valid room for discussion.

An example of an apparent contradiction within Objectivism is Rand’s endorsement of both [a] the principle of noncoercion, and the legitimacy of forced taxation in the transitional stages of a free society.

In addition to dogmatism, the frequent use of moral condemnation by various Objectivist intellectual leaders (e.g., Peikoff) has served to foster the religious environment you mentioned. The penchant to condemn people who stray from the orthodox party line for spurious reasons was a quirk of Ayn Rand’s which Peikoff subsequently enshrined as an official Objectivist personality disorder. Peikoff's repudiation of David Kelley for refusing to morally condemn libertarians is a brazen display of such religiosity. The recent incident involving the official denunciation of John McCaskey is another blatent example.

Once again, it is Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand’s self-proclaimed intellectual heir, who gets the booby prize for declaring Objectivism to be a closed system and the resulting fall-out. You can follow a related discussion of that issue here.

More on Open and Closed System

Edited by Dennis Hardin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This set me to wondering, where would the Objectivist movement be now if nothing had ever happened between the Brandens and Rand beyond continued intellectual partnership, and Nathaniel had remained her intellectual heir?

I asked Nathaniel Branden this question several years ago and he declined to answer, saying that it was impossible to speculate because too many things would be different.

One of the key things that would be different, as I see it, is that the individual leading the Objectivist movement would have been a person who actually seemed to represent and symbolize a rational, benevolent moral ideal--instead of a craven, paranoid curmudgeon with a Napoleon complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the key things that would be different, as I see it, is that the individual leading the Objectivist movement would have been a person who actually seemed to represent and symbolize a rational, benevolent moral ideal--instead of a craven, paranoid curmudgeon with a Napoleon complex.

Who is the craven, paranoid curmudgeon with a Napoleon complex?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the key things that would be different, as I see it, is that the individual leading the Objectivist movement would have been a person who actually seemed to represent and symbolize a rational, benevolent moral ideal--instead of a craven, paranoid curmudgeon with a Napoleon complex.

Who is the craven, paranoid curmudgeon with a Napoleon complex?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert:

Sounds like Pope Leonard to me.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Kelley got the boot because of Barbara's bio and the libertarian thing was a rationalization that grew like a cancer into other relationships respecting LP. Regardless, if there had been no split the entire Rand-Branden relationship would have been different and the teaching of Objectivism by NBI, if there had been an NBI or even a teaching of Objectivism--wasn't that the purpose of AS, except for what it was called?--would have had a different flavor. How much different? Who knows?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X-Ray brought up Nathaniel Branden's article:

"In his article "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosphy of Ayn Rand", Nathaniel Branden wrote:

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. "

Reading what he wrote here, it is obvious that he mis-interpreted what Ayn was saying. That may have been caused by his exposure to her controlling personality, but these words that he attributes to her and which are repeated else where by her actually make perfect sense. Her philosophy is described as an integrated, non-contradictory philosophy for living on this earth. And it sure looks that way to me. Sometimes posters here say that there are contradictions in Objectivism. But I can't see them myself. I would like to have them pointed out.

As to Branden's claim that her statement leads to a religious following by her fans - that obviously happened, but that is more a statement about the fans under Rand's direct influence than about Objectivism.

And another thing - Rand herself expected Objectivism to be expanded upon by others. Why is there so much talk about open and closed systems of Objectivism? Of course it is open - all knowledge is open ended.

If I could make one wish about the split, it would be that it had not happened - that the players would have worked things out like the intellectuals they were but didn't live up to, and helped each other reach even greater heights - including Leonard.

Mary,

Here's the full statement by Branden:

Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.

The example he pointed to was her rabid opposition to a woman president, but check out any of the forum discussions on OL. The number and variety of disagreements is huge. Branden is not endorsing the cavalier fragmentation of Objectivist principles. He is mainly talking about details and applications. Many if not most Objectivists may have some basic agreement on fundamentals, but the details and ramifications are rife with controversy.

A classic example of a major disagreement among Objectivists is whether benevolence should be a virtue. (See David Kelley's book, Unrugged Individualism.) Another would be the question of the morality of sexual intimacy devoid of some degree of value affinity. There are countless specific applications of philosophical principles that involve varying degrees of intelligent debate. Scrape the bottom of that barrel and you will find the brain-dead 'Objectivists' who leap to condemn anybody who honestly disagrees with any Objectivist tenet. But the question of when condemnation becomes warranted leaves valid room for discussion.

An example of an apparent contradiction within Objectivism is Rand's endorsement of both [a] the principle of noncoercion, and the legitimacy of forced taxation in the transitional stages of a free society.

In addition to dogmatism, the frequent use of moral condemnation by various Objectivist intellectual leaders (e.g., Peikoff) has served to foster the religious environment you mentioned. The penchant to condemn people who stray from the orthodox party line for spurious reasons was a quirk of Ayn Rand's which Peikoff subsequently enshrined as an official Objectivist personality disorder. Peikoff's repudiation of David Kelley for refusing to morally condemn libertarians is a brazen display of such religiosity. The recent incident involving the official denunciation of John McCaskey is another blatent example.

Once again, it is Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's self-proclaimed intellectual heir, who gets the booby prize for declaring Objectivism to be a closed system and the resulting fall-out. You can follow a related discussion of that issue here.

More on Open and Closed System

Thank you. There's a lot of good thinking here. I kinda get the idea that you see Branden's statement as okay. I have his new Vision of Ayn Rand book, so I will go re-read his essay as the back of the book. In the meantime, I followed your open/closed link. All there made sense.

I'm going to indulge in a little Sunday afternoon cogitating and speak to just the two examples that you described as major disagreements and an apparent contradiction within Objectivism.

(1) Is benevolence a virtue? My simple answer without a lot of logic to wade through is that benevolence is not a virtue - it is an effect of the action of virtue. When I have "done good for myself" by pursuing rational values through the seven virtues I develop a benevolent attitude toward my universe and the people that I encounter in it. That attitude could be expected to affect my response to someone needing a hand up. Or it might cause me to seek a friendly encounter with someone who appears to be in the same or similar relationship to the universe. Rand demonstrated the opposite, too. Remember the railroad worker at the site of the tunnel disaster whose little brother had committed suicide in the face of directive 10-289? That worker might have been willing and able to save those aboard the train, but his sense of a benevolent universe had died with his brother and he made no effort on behalf of the passengers who no longer counted as fellow human beings to him.

(2) The apparent contradiction between the endorsement of both [a] the principle of noncoercion, and the legitimacy of forced taxation in the transitional stages of a free society. When moving from the way we "do government" now to one which limits itself to the protection of indiviudal rights, two things are required: (1) a general understanding throughout the society of how noncoercion expresses itself in a free society and (2) a plan for reaching that state of being in which all of the entitlement programs have been turned over to private organizaions or have been taken up by private citizens who not only care but also understand that they have no right to force everyone else to pay for it. Instead they become great persuaders of other private citizens to help them in their efforts. While the plan is bein drawn up and executed, you would not want to announce one day, "All right all of you lazy wellfare recipients - the gravy train just quit running."

Actually there's a third thing - a continuing committment from the citizenry to keep a watch out for the power hungry who would use the cause of "the public good" to expand the range of their power.

Edited by Mary Lee Harsha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mary:

Excellent points.

If, your rational self interest is enhanced by being other directed, that, as you noted, "...is an effect of the action of virtue." Most people derive pleasure from working in concert with others towards a common goal. I know I do.

Working in a team or community structure is virtuous to me and pleasures my rational self interest. It also gets things accomplished without government.

Developing that "...plan for reaching that state of being in which all of the entitlement programs have been turned over to private organizations [sic] or have been taken up by private citizens who not only care but also understand that they have no right to force everyone else to pay for it." is achievable.

A transitional period is what we are going through now. How do you deliver services that can no longer be provided by government? The answer is rather simple. Disconnect the individual's money from government and leave it in his or her hands by increasing percentages while the local citizenry begins to create local businesses which replace those services.

This is a basic starting point.

Good post.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to indulge in a little Sunday afternoon cogitating and speak to just the two examples that you described as major disagreements and an apparent contradiction within Objectivism.

(1) Is benevolence a virtue? My simple answer without a lot of logic to wade through is that benevolence is not a virtue - it is an effect of the action of virtue. When I have "done good for myself" by pursuing rational values through the seven virtues I develop a benevolent attitude toward my universe and the people that I encounter in it. That attitude could be expected to affect my response to someone needing a hand up. Or it might cause me to seek a friendly encounter with someone who appears to be in the same or similar relationship to the universe.

Mary,

I think you are exactly right on that. I prefer your rendition of benevolence as "not a virtue [but] an effect of an action of a virtue", to my previous working model of it being a 'sub-virtue'.

I'm going to adopt it if you don't mind. :)

Isn't it ironic that a person can arrive at this point of genuine benevolence, rationally and 'naturally' -- when centuries of advocated or even, coerced, compassion and fellow-love, have created only resentful guilt in societies?

Such is altruism.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benevolence is virtuous. Arguing whether it is "a virtue" among a limited number of enumerated virtues is like arguing with how many other angels it can dance on the head of a pin.

So, it's a virtue with no argument? What virtues can we argue about?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even had their been no break between Rand and Nathaniel, I had known for some time that my days with Rand and NBI were numbered, and that I could not remain much longer. I had seen too much -- too much dogmatism, too much authoritarianism, too much cruelty, too much deceit, too much blind worship of authority figures, too much hatred of those who did not agree with us. After Rand broke with Nathaniel, I felt duty-bound, with Rand's agreement, to attempt to find a way to save NBI without Nathaniel. So a few members of the NBI staff and i worked eighteen hour days to project the financial possibilities of a more modest NBI that I could run. We arrived at a set of figures that proved that to be eminently feasible. But throughout all this intense work, the thought kept pounding in my head, "I don't want it to work! I don't want it to be possible! I want the whole madness to end! -- I want to be through with it all, and free."

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. There's a lot of good thinking here. I kinda get the idea that you see Branden's statement as okay. I have his new Vision of Ayn Rand book, so I will go re-read his essay as the back of the book. In the meantime, I followed your open/closed link. All there made sense.

I'm going to indulge in a little Sunday afternoon cogitating and speak to just the two examples that you described as major disagreements and an apparent contradiction within Objectivism.

(1) Is benevolence a virtue? My simple answer without a lot of logic to wade through is that benevolence is not a virtue - it is an effect of the action of virtue. When I have "done good for myself" by pursuing rational values through the seven virtues I develop a benevolent attitude toward my universe and the people that I encounter in it. That attitude could be expected to affect my response to someone needing a hand up. Or it might cause me to seek a friendly encounter with someone who appears to be in the same or similar relationship to the universe. Rand demonstrated the opposite, too. Remember the railroad worker at the site of the tunnel disaster whose little brother had committed suicide in the face of directive 10-289? That worker might have been willing and able to save those aboard the train, but his sense of a benevolent universe had died with his brother and he made no effort on behalf of the passengers who no longer counted as fellow human beings to him.

(2) The apparent contradiction between the endorsement of both [a] the principle of noncoercion, and the legitimacy of forced taxation in the transitional stages of a free society. When moving from the way we "do government" now to one which limits itself to the protection of indiviudal rights, two things are required: (1) a general understanding throughout the society of how noncoercion expresses itself in a free society and (2) a plan for reaching that state of being in which all of the entitlement programs have been turned over to private organizaions or have been taken up by private citizens who not only care but also understand that they have no right to force everyone else to pay for it. Instead they become great persuaders of other private citizens to help them in their efforts. While the plan is bein drawn up and executed, you would not want to announce one day, "All right all of you lazy welfare recipients - the gravy train just quit running."

Actually there's a third thing - a continuing committment from the citizenry to keep a watch out for the power hungry who would use the cause of "the public good" to expand the range of their power.

Mary,

Your "Sunday afternoon cogitating" is quite impressive.

Here is David Kelley’s definition of benevolence (as a rational virtue):

Benevolence is a commitment to achieving the values derivable from life with other people in society, by treating them as potential trading partners, recognizing their humanity, independence and individuality, and the harmony between their interests and ours.

David Kelley, Unrugged Individualism

Kelley named three key aspects of benevolence: civility, sensitivity and generosity. Justice is the means for dealing with other people on the basis of trade. Benevolence is the means for creating opportunities for trade.

This makes benevolence an explicit guiding principle of your daily behavior, rather than an emotional by-product, as you have described. I agree with you that benevolence becomes easier to practice when one is rational in all aspects of one’s life. However, I agree with Kelley that it is essential that we adopt it as an explicit principle (or virtue), because that step is necessary to assure that we practice it consistently, regardless of how we happen to feel at any given moment.

I think your resolution of the "apparent" contradiction between noncoercion and temporary taxation is good. Notice that I said “apparent” contradiction. I don’t see it as a contradiction at all. A fully free society is a goal we want to achieve, and like any goal, it requires attention to the reality of what will be required to achieve it. If a rational president and congress abolished all taxation overnight, thus wiping out the entire apparatus of government as we know it in a single step, the ensuing chaos would be a horror beyond anything we could contemplate.

To achieve our goal, we must take it step by step, respecting the practical reality of what implementing full individual rights for everyone requires. This is not, incidentally, a conflict between theory and practice. It is the policy of looking closely at reality to determine what is necessary if we are to get where we want to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even had their been no break between Rand and Nathaniel, I had known for some time that my days with Rand and NBI were numbered, and that I could not remain much longer. I had seen too much -- too much dogmatism, too much authoritarianism, too much cruelty, too much deceit, too much blind worship of authority figures, too much hatred of those who did not agree with us. After Rand broke with Nathaniel, I felt duty-bound, with Rand's agreement, to attempt to find a way to save NBI without Nathaniel. So a few members of the NBI staff and i worked eighteen hour days to project the financial possibilities of a more modest NBI that I could run. We arrived at a set of figures that proved that to be eminently feasible. But throughout all this intense work, the thought kept pounding in my head, "I don't want it to work! I don't want it to be possible! I want the whole madness to end! -- I want to be through with it all, and free."

Barbara

Barbara,

It is clear that most of us who were on the outside looking in had absolutely no clue about the reality of what was really going on in the insular world of Ayn Rand and NBI. Obviously the proposal of you and/or Nathaniel continuing as leaders of the Objectivist “movement” was out of the question.

And yet, even 43 years later, there are those of us who may never stop wishing for that, wondering if there might have been some way to heal that irreconcilable breach and to right all the things that had gone so terribly wrong.

That fantasy of an Objectivist “shining city on a hill”—as far removed as it was from reality--motivated me to do all I could to create that world for myself, in my own life. I guess that’s why part of me continues to cling to it even today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is David Kelley’s definition of benevolence (as a rational virtue):

Benevolence is a commitment to achieving the values derivable from life with other people in society, by treating them as potential trading partners, recognizing their humanity, independence and individuality, and the harmony between their interests and ours.

David Kelley, Unrugged Individualism

Kelley named three key aspects of benevolence: civility, sensitivity and generosity. Justice is the means for dealing with other people on the basis of trade. Benevolence is the means for creating opportunities for trade.

This makes benevolence an explicit guiding principle of your daily behavior, rather than an emotional by-product, as you have described. I agree with you that benevolence becomes easier to practice when one is rational in all aspects of one’s life. However, I agree with Kelley that it is essential that we adopt it as an explicit principle (or virtue), because that step is necessary to assure that we practice it consistently, regardless of how we happen to feel at any given moment.

Excuse my interruption, Dennis.

One minor point is that I don't think Mary at all indicated benevolence as only "an emotional by-product" - but anyhow, it's certainly not how I view it.

It is more of a sense of life thing in my view, born from egoism, and made explicit through focus on reality.

While D.Kelley's identification and analysis of the criticality of benevolence was a major leap for Objectivism, I also wonder about over-emphasizing the "trading partner" aspect in his definition.

Pragmaticism, perhaps?

Benevolence is benevolence for its own sake, imo, and is an automatic, secondary, concept that grows from consistent practice of the rational virtues.

Your approach is close to mine, with just a little more conscious choice involved in yours.

So I do not disagree with you. (Or with Kelley.) My experience has been slightly different, that's all.

To elevate benevolence to a virtue in its own right, is to also ever-so-slightly diminish it, morally and rationally. It is the cart that follows the horse, imo.

Tony

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even had their been no break between Rand and Nathaniel, I had known for some time that my days with Rand and NBI were numbered, and that I could not remain much longer. I had seen too much -- too much dogmatism, too much authoritarianism, too much cruelty, too much deceit, too much blind worship of authority figures, too much hatred of those who did not agree with us. After Rand broke with Nathaniel, I felt duty-bound, with Rand's agreement, to attempt to find a way to save NBI without Nathaniel. So a few members of the NBI staff and i worked eighteen hour days to project the financial possibilities of a more modest NBI that I could run. We arrived at a set of figures that proved that to be eminently feasible. But throughout all this intense work, the thought kept pounding in my head, "I don't want it to work! I don't want it to be possible! I want the whole madness to end! -- I want to be through with it all, and free."

Barbara

Barbara,

Nice to see you weigh in, but sad to think that we caused you to come in on such a painful subject. My wish still stands. If Dagny can wish, so can I. Here is what I said:

"If I could make one wish about the split, it would be that it had not happened - that the players would have worked things out like the intellectuals they were but didn't live up to, and helped each other reach even greater heights - including Leonard."

As frustrated as I sometimes feel about the conflicts delaying the Objectivist promise (even now), it can't even begin to compare to what you and the other members of the original collective experienced. And yet, after all of that you had to bear, we can see the power that the philosophy has had in your lives. Like Nathaniel said, it can help us greatly and hurt us greatly, but I hope you agree that it helped more than it hurt. Of course, my perspective is from 30,000 feet up while yours is at ground level.

One thing I know for sure. I'm very grateful that you and Nathaniel and all of the other "experienced Objectivists" were there, and that you are still in the world to provide perspective and wisdom. For instance: I just listened to your book's cds about focus and problem solving again to remind myself of how to manage a difficulty playing in my life right now. I wonder if you and Nathaniel and other Oist writers know how important your clarity of thought and writing are to those of us who have found your work over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had only been in the New York area since the spring of 1968 and learned about the split on Sept. 20th when I walked into NBI after being absent for a month expecting it was movie night and was told by Barbara herself behind the front desk. From my personal perspective it would have been worse if it had happened a year later and much, much better if it had happened a year sooner. From the standpoint of Objectivism as a cultural and intellectual force, it was about right. By that I mean NBI was appropriate in the 1960s as a counter force to the idiocies of the time and animadversions upon Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged from all almost quarters. I think 1968 was the great pivotal year when faith in our elders and significant others including government came into sharp focus because of the Vietnam War causing a great transformation realized over all subsequent years since and what happened to Objectivism was similar and coincident to that. However, the teachers of the philosophy refused to make the transition and opted for continuing Rand's intellectual authoritarian top-down approach after her death most exemplified by Peikoff's reaction to The Passion of Ayn Rand and breaking with Kelley.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant:

Excellent observation.

It was certainly a watershed year across the board.

1) the spate of assassinations;

2) the reality impact of how destructive the war was on the soul of America;

3) the extensive breakdown of "law and order;"

4) the "police riot" at the Democratic convention in Chicago [which I was at and the "police riot" was certainly not one sided].

5) the rise of new political and social movements, of which Objectivism's power was temporarily blunted by the split and

subsequent dogmatism of Ayn and her cadres.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the teachers of the philosophy refused to make the transition and opted for continuing Rand's intellectual authoritarian top-down approach after her death most exemplified by Peikoff's reaction to The Passion of Ayn Rand and breaking with Kelley.

--Brant

Bingo.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> too much dogmatism, too much authoritarianism, too much cruelty, too much deceit, too much blind worship of authority figures, too much hatred of those who did not agree with us.

> a few members of the NBI staff and i worked eighteen hour days to project the financial possibilities of a more modest NBI that I could run. We arrived at a set of figures that proved that to be eminently feasible. But throughout all this intense work, the thought kept pounding in my head, "I don't want it to work!..."

Barbara, why once Nathaniel was out, couldn't you have moved things in a non-authoritarian, more open, straightforward, non-cultish direction? Why was that not attempted ultimately? Would Rand have resisted any such steps? Or was she a distant figure with 'hands off' who would allow you to run things your way pretty much?

Was it burn out or frustrated hopelessness or some other issue? Do you have any regret not doing the above when you look back with years of hindsight?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> too much dogmatism, too much authoritarianism, too much cruelty, too much deceit, too much blind worship of authority figures, too much hatred of those who did not agree with us.

> a few members of the NBI staff and i worked eighteen hour days to project the financial possibilities of a more modest NBI that I could run. We arrived at a set of figures that proved that to be eminently feasible. But throughout all this intense work, the thought kept pounding in my head, "I don't want it to work!..."

Barbara, why once Nathaniel was out, couldn't you have moved things in a non-authoritarian, more open, straightforward, non-cultish direction? Why was that not attempted ultimately? Would Rand have resisted any such steps? Or was she a distant figure with 'hands off' who would allow you to run things your way pretty much?

Was it burn out or frustrated hopelessness or some other issue? Do you have any regret not doing the above when you look back with years of hindsight?

Phil, it's hard to believe you are this ignorant about what happened, though I believe you. After minimal consideration, Rand spiked the whole idea. That was that.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is David Kelley’s definition of benevolence (as a rational virtue):

Benevolence is a commitment to achieving the values derivable from life with other people in society, by treating them as potential trading partners, recognizing their humanity, independence and individuality, and the harmony between their interests and ours.

David Kelley, Unrugged Individualism

Kelley named three key aspects of benevolence: civility, sensitivity and generosity. Justice is the means for dealing with other people on the basis of trade. Benevolence is the means for creating opportunities for trade.

This makes benevolence an explicit guiding principle of your daily behavior, rather than an emotional by-product, as you have described. I agree with you that benevolence becomes easier to practice when one is rational in all aspects of one’s life. However, I agree with Kelley that it is essential that we adopt it as an explicit principle (or virtue), because that step is necessary to assure that we practice it consistently, regardless of how we happen to feel at any given moment.

Excuse my interruption, Dennis.

One minor point is that I don't think Mary at all indicated benevolence as only "an emotional by-product" - but anyhow, it's certainly not how I view it.

It is more of a sense of life thing in my view, born from egoism, and made explicit through focus on reality.

While D.Kelley's identification and analysis of the criticality of benevolence was a major leap for Objectivism, I also wonder about over-emphasizing the "trading partner" aspect in his definition.

Pragmaticism, perhaps?

Benevolence is benevolence for its own sake, imo, and is an automatic, secondary, concept that grows from consistent practice of the rational virtues.

Your approach is close to mine, with just a little more conscious choice involved in yours.

So I do not disagree with you. (Or with Kelley.) My experience has been slightly different, that's all.

To elevate benevolence to a virtue in its own right, is to also ever-so-slightly diminish it, morally and rationally. It is the cart that follows the horse, imo.

Tony

Tony,

Thanks for your perspective. Could you be misinterpreting the trader principle as "materialistic"? I'm sure you must be aware that it applies equally to spiritual values such as warmth and friendship. All the richly rewarding aspects of social interaction and human relationships involve the trading of spiritual values.

Without benevolence as an explicit, guiding principle in human relationships, you would be unlikely to practice it at those times when you were not experiencing it as a concomitant and by-product of rationality. And no matter how rational you are, there are bound to be those times when you are not feeling all that benevolent.

The emotion of benevolence and the social principle of benevolence are really two separate things. I cannot agree that adopting benevolence as an explicit principle diminishes the emotion in any way. Adhering consistently to a policy of acting a certain way toward others does not require faking your emotions. Civility, sensitivity and generosity are behaviors, not feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have to admit, part of me believes that the Rand/Branden split and Piekoff/Kelley splits may have been beneficial.

As Barbara portrayed so well in Passion, the NBI culture was indeed, unfortunately, cultish. Whilst the actual ideas of Objectivism themselves are anti-cultish, these ideas were disseminated and practiced within the context of an heirarchial group led by a highly charismatic individual (Ayn Rand).

One telling factor is how the Objectivist movement grew cultish in situations where Ayn Rand herself was perceived to have been attacked. NBI formed after the publication of Atlas Shrugged, and we all know the rhetorical firestorm directed at Ayn Rand after the publication of Atlas. In many ways its no surprise NBI's culture was significantly cult-like; when a subculture is stigmatized by the dominant culture of which it is a part, said subculture has a tendency to become insular, paranoid and hostile ("Minority Siege Mentality").

The Rand-Branden split may have damaged NBI and the spread of Objectivist ideas at large, but at the same time it also dissolved a cultish institution.

The publication of Passion seems to have been a precipitating factor for the Kelley/Piekoff split. Whilst Passion was (IMO) a very fair biography that showed enormous respect and affection for Ayn Rand (in spite of her personality flaws), it caused a lot of the Objectivist movement's higher-ups to recoil and repeat the cycle. In response to something perceived as an attack, they grew insular, paranoid and hostile to the outside world.

This time, the 'sane' element within the Objectivist movement managed to regroup and create a non-cultish Objectivist institution (TAS/TOC/IOS).

I'm a goth. "Orthodox" Objectivists would probably accuse me of having a malevolent sense of life. I'm also fond of Hayek and Evolutionary economists like Joseph Schumpeter. This, to Orthodox Objectivists, is unnacceptable.

If the "splits" didn't occur, its quite possible that the only Objectivist institutions would have been the cultish orthodoxy.

And if that were the case, I would be rejected as an Objectivist.

Like it or not, a case can be made that those "splits" are responsible for independent, non-cultish Objectivism having at least some advocates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Adhering consistently to a policy of acting a certain way toward others does not require faking your emotions. Civility, sensitivity and generosity are behaviors, not feelings. [Dennis]

Good points: To the degree that you fully accept, have, and practice those three - civility, sensitivity, and generosity, and are wholly on the 'benevolence premise' as a policy and practice it's a combination of an attitude with an action that you've integrated into yourself enough that it normally emerges as part of who you are.

In other words, at that point it becomes a 'character trait' rather than an occasional or erratic practice.

Aristotle called a virtue you have a 'habit'. Which is a good one word way of looking at it. You can have a habit of eating vegetables or getting up at dawn and jogging, but your feelings about doing these things, whether joyful and enthusiastic or weary, resentful, dutiful acceptance or somewhere in between, are not relevant to whether or not you have the habit (or virtue, if eating veggies can be said to be one.)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now