Being an objectivist should feel like having superpowers

[moralist]

Jerry writes:

This discussion seems to be wandering (OTH, it could just be my mind,..) from the original question/postulate stated by Marcus, "Being an Objectivist should be like having superpowers." (as in "powers ways above that of mortal humans",...don't remember the exact quote from the Superman series from the early 1950s). By the way, we're not talking about high intellect or even genius here. I will grant that Rand and some (not all) of her acolytes , are "geniuses," but genius is not the same as having super powers.

Marcus, Which of the following, all of which were blessed by Ayn in one form or another as having "gotten it," do you feel have displayed "super powers"?

Nathaniel Branden? Barbara Branden? (Both, extremely bright, possibly of genius level - but both got into a disastrous situation which led to the closing of NBI and the near destruction of Objectivism as a movement.). I might add that Rand herself did not exactly display her super powers before, during, or after this debacle.

Well, how about the "last man standing?" - Leonard Peikoff ? In what way do you feel that he has displayed - and used - his super powers bestowed upon him by Ayn? Do you regard his behavior toward others interested, or indeed well versed in Objectivism, that have had the effrontery to disagree with his interpretation on various issues regarding Objectivism or Objectivist authors? Has he shown here a real, no - superior understanding of human relations due to his super powers? Is "purging" from the Objectivist movement, those who have publically questioned one or more of his pronouncements, as he has done on multiple occasions, a sign of his super powers?

Let's not stop with Leonard. How about the last 30 years of ARI. Did they display powers far above that of mere mortals? Are they wowing the academic and intellectual world with presentations, striking new highs never seen before.

Finally, Leonard thought that the publishing of Atlas Shrugged would display such blindingly obvious intellectual virtuosity that Objectivism would takeover the intellectual scene in mere months. Instead, 57 years later, Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand are hardly viewed as dominating Western culture.

Now, if the originator of Objectivism cannot demonstrate her super powers in a way that is convincing to the whole Western world, why do you feel that those who read her now should be displaying super powers above and beyond what she accomplished?

I'm totally out of the loop on big O personal dirt as I tend not to be interested in groups or leaders. They seem to me to be antithetical to the little bit I know of the principles Ayn Rand wrote about.

However, I do have a "super power". Well... it's not exactly super because there is nothing to prevent anyone from having it if they truly believed that it had any real value to their life:

It's protection from evil.

To the extent that I do good and don't do evil... to that same extent I'm protected from it. It's not like super flying or super strength, it's more like a subtle kind of invisibility like when evil people couldn't find Galt's Gulch. In a similar manner evil people leave me alone to enjoy my life, simply because I don't even show up as a blip on their radar screen. There's nothing there for them to feed on. In a world of predators and prey... the trick is to learn how to be inedible.

Inedible is being neither predator nor prey.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Greg. I am your father. Join with me and together we will rule the galaxy as father and son (or at least California-Arizona-Nevada)

--Brant

you don't know the power of the dark side!

evil is as evil does (heh, heh, heh)

[9thdoctor]

^ I'm at a loss at what this all means I'm afraid. You've essentially explained nothing. You have no argument to even begin a debate. And I'm quite glad you've decided to remove yourself from the discussion.

I referred you to MSK's post. Click the link and read it. I'm not going to take the time to write my own version of it, particularly since MSK's is so well done, IMO.

Marcus, Which of the following, all of which were blessed by Ayn in one form or another as having "gotten it," do you feel have displayed "super powers"?

Nathaniel Branden? Barbara Branden?

This calls to mind an even better example of Objectivist hubris, namely the affair. In Barbara's book she writes about the times Rand was asked in question periods about having two lovers at once, that she would answer that only giants can do it successfully. In the movie I recall the scene when Rand (Helen Mirren) is first trying to sell Barbara and Frank on the idea, saying something along the lines of “ordinary people couldn't do this, but we're not ordinary people”. It certainly didn't work out very well.

Inedible is being neither predator nor prey.

Inedible, eh? One of the best lines Ian Fleming ever wrote is in the novel Live and Let Die, after Bond's sidekick Felix Leiter is fed to sharks. The bad guys dump him where Bond will find him, still alive, with a note attached reading: He disagreed with something that ate him. This scene was adapted into the movie License to Kill, BTW.

My point being that making yourself inedible doesn't necessarily protect you from being chewed up and spat out. I mean, if I need to have a point in a case like this, where all I really wanted to do was share a good quote.

[moralist]

Dennis writes:

My point being that making yourself inedible doesn't necessarily protect you from being chewed up and spat out.

My own experience has been different from yours. I've found that the protection from being preyed upon by others is enjoyed simply by giving up preying on others. Whoever foregoes the meal of taking advantage of others immediately becomes unpalatable to others, and drops out of the food chain.

There is another world which flourishes completely outside the zero sum dog-eat-dog world of predator and prey.

Greg

[anthony]

There is sense in what you say Greg - objectively, by dismissing the false dichotomy of prey and predator. Whether removing oneself from the predatory chain makes one less tasty to the hyenas is dubious of course - and as some magical "consequence", ludicrous! - but it is often evident that people who live by sacrificing others', die by others (in a manner of speaking).

Call it a self-fulfilling victim mentality: to primitive instincts, the top hyena fears, and half-expects to be eaten one day, because all he associates with and understands is the pack.

[moralist]

Tony writes:There is sense in what you say Greg - objectively, by dismissing the false dichotomy of prey and predator. Whether removing oneself from the predatory chain makes one less tasty to the hyenas is dubious of course -

That principle has been proven to me time and again by my own personal experience, so I go by the consequences of my actions.

but it is often evident that people who live by sacrificing others', die by others (in a manner of speaking).Call it a self-fulfilling victim mentality: to primitive instincts, the top hyena fears, and half-expects to be eaten one day, because all he associates with and understands is the pack.

This same principle when applied to the realm of truth and lies:"The easiest man to con is a con man." Greg

[9thdoctor]

Dennis writes:

My point being that making yourself inedible doesn't necessarily protect you from being chewed up and spat out.

My own experience has been different from yours.

I was being facetious. Obviously, right?

[moralist]

Dennis writes:

I was being facetious. Obviously, right?

I accept what you said as a valid disagreement. After all, almost no one knows that goodness protects us from evil.

Greg