Objectivism's Plague: Questions

[JennaW]

I think most, if not all, of us know a lot of factors that are behind the "religious" take on Objectivism. I'd like to see it grow into a philosophy that I wouldn't mind calling myself a more complete admirer of, so now I'm wondering what are some suggestions to "heal" whatever errors have been made in the past and currently?

Obviously, it's more than just a list of "don'ts"-- I think don't are easy to say but extremely hard to do. Perhaps a more understanding and balanced approach to application would work where individuals can remain so without the usual memorize-regurgitate factor; and be helped to come up with their own ideas fearlessly.

But ultimately, I'm sticking to my main suggestion: that before Objectivism is taught, independence of thought, self-esteem, and critical thinking need to be developed first.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Jenna wrote:

...before Objectivism is taught, independence of thought, self-esteem, and critical thinking need to be developed first.

So right, but not realistic. It's like saying, people should be grown-ups before making babies.

Existentially, psychology precedes philosophy: a point often missed. On the one hand, the problems with Objectivism are due to the unintegrated elements of psychological development in its originator and in its practitioners. On the other hand, the problem with Objectivism is that it is not a complete enough perspective on human existence to guide its practitioners to integrated psychological development.

The weaknesses of Objectivism all seem to revolve around understanding human nature. We DO need to put together a more complete understanding of the human psyche. And we DO need to focus on better understanding what processes and behaviours are in our self-interest based on a more complete understanding of the human psyche.

Paul

[JennaW]

Paul-- I agree with you. Before/as one is being taught autonomy, critical thinking, etc., one must be psychologically balanced as a person as well. If anything is to come out of a human being's mind, that human being would be better served if the mind was healthy if what's to come out is a philosophy of rationality, life, and joy for that person.

[kmk818]

Ellen Plasil is an attorney in Connecticut; she also raises and shows Labradors. Contrary to common belief---starting with comments in her book---Ellen's friends did not abandon her en masse. In fact, a number of them (who were, typically, also his patients) confronted Leonard with Ellen's claims of being sexually abused. His response, in essence, was that he would reply to the charges BUT "...not at this time".

Many stopped therapy with him immediately. He never responded to anyone's satisfaction and took off for Florida. Several of Ellen's friends, including a journalist, worked together to bring Leonard's monstrous behavior to the attention of at least one newspaper in Florida.

Ellen is from Chicago and lived there for awhile after the Lonnie Leonard period of her life.

[AndrewED]

Dear Ms Branden,

I felt very excited a few mornings ago to find this site precisely because of its strong immunity to the Objectivist plague. So I appreciate your question very much. Ayn Rand's works entered my life directly and deeply 16 years ago and never left. Your book came shortly thereafter, and, like Mr Branden's memoir, it served me in many ways, including: to protect me against the plague; to deepen my understanding of the philosophy; and to solidify my gratitude and reverence toward, and thus my spiritual connection with, Ayn Rand and you who were with her. With great and ongoing difficulty, you all birthed this liberating set of ideas into the world. I have tried to understand it, and you have helped me.

Honestly, most of my excitement the other morning arose from finding a place to give something back. I mean, specifically, to post an essay I wrote a year ago on a radical development in Objectivism I believe I have made. At least, it has profoundly helped me.

And now here you are with your question. I believe this development applies quite directly to the issue of the plague and, because it treats of the primary axiomatic concept of Objectivism, it could provide the deepest possible explanation of the phenomenon you have so eloquently described and tragically experienced. Were you to read it, I believe you would see the connection immediately. Please find it here: The Being of Existence: expanding an Objectivist axiom Without giving too much away now, it forms the basis of my response to this question of yours in particular (whose box I would have checked had you made a poll of it):

2. Is it consistent with any or all of the principles of Objectivism?

In short, the constant schisms among Objectivists arise from a schism at the root of the system. The schism lies in its conception of reality itself, between two kinds of being: one acknowledged and other denied. As the denied kind actually makes up the bulk of what is--and therefore, what is with the denier--the denial severely destabilizes the personality of the denier. This in turn, causes the enormous fear which, as you related in your talk, Objectivism and Rage, leads to the aggressive expressions of anger--blame and condemnation--so prevalent among Objectivists.

Yours,

Andrew Durham

Edited September 13, 2006 by Andrew Durham

[Rich Engle]

Andrew's on to it:

The schism lies in its conception of reality itself, between two kinds of being: one acknowledged and other denied. As the denied kind actually makes up the bulk of what is--and therefore, what is with the denier--the denial severely destabilizes the personality of the denier.

I think you are talking about the interior domain vs. the exterior domain-- is that what you mean?

I'm not sure it makes up the bulk, but it's good for at least one quarter of what is...

Denial, yes, maybe, in varying degrees. Maybe more just misunderstanding. If you put yourself solely into the "it" world, and don't give credence to what's doing inside, that's a problem, and it will affect how you work with others who are dealing with the same kinds of issues.

There's a lot of work out there about Objectivism and psychology, etc. And, yes, BB and NB did a tremendous amount to shine light and loosen this up. Maybe that's why they get such a toxic reaction from certain types of folk.

Edited September 13, 2006 by Rich Engle

[AndrewED]

Rich,

I can see how I was unclear. Rather than "--and therefore, what is with the denier", I should have said, "including what is with the denier". No, I am talking about much more than the interior domain. I am talking about the plenum of lifeforce, the sea of energy, that we live in. It is interior and exterior. It is sensible in both places.

This why I say it is the bulk of what is. My experience of it is that it is more than 99% of what is. And also why I say denial rather than misunderstanding. It is like a cultural "final solution" for reality itself that has been going on for thousands of years, which Objectivism merely makes very clear, at least, to and for me.

If you put yourself solely into the "it" world, and don't give credence to what's doing inside, that's a problem, and it will affect how you work with others who are dealing with the same kinds of issues.

There's a lot of work out there about Objectivism and psychology, etc. And, yes, BB and NB did a tremendous amount to shine light and loosen this up. Maybe that's why they get such a toxic reaction from certain types of folk.

I totally agree. In the fever pitch of my involvement in the ideas of Ayn Rand, I became even more repressed than I already was, which says a lot, I'm afraid.

********************

Just came across this quote:

If we could read the secret history

of our enemies, we should find, in

each man's life, sorrow and suffering

enough to disarm all hostility.

---Longfellow

Edited September 22, 2006 by Andrew Durham

[Victor Pross]

"One should forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged."

HEINRICH HEINE

[AndrewED]

"One should forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged."

HEINRICH HEINE

I have certainly felt this. Thankfully I did not act on it. And I have only been capable of forgiving some people once they died of natural causes. But I would never stand by it as a mature or wise position. This is not how great souls see things. If it is a political position--and hanging often implies that--I find it cynical, hypocritical, and the attitude of not merely the killer, but the mass murdering public official.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Andrew Durham

[Victor Pross]

My goodness, that sounds grim...

It's a good thing I meant it only in jest.

[Dragonfly]

My goodness, that sounds grim...

It's a good thing I meant it only in jest.

As probably did Heine, who was quite witty.

[AndrewED]

My goodness, that sounds grim...

It's a good thing I meant it only in jest.

As probably did Heine, who was quite witty.

Wish I'd read him! There oughtta be a "lighten up" smiley for posts like mine. Oh maybe its this one

Edited September 22, 2006 by Andrew Durham

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hmmmm. Maybe if he had said, "... before they are shot..."

Michael

[AndrewED]

Hmmmm. Maybe if he had said, "... before they are shot..."

Michael

Now that, I would have known was a joke

[Rich Engle]

Hmmmm.....

I'm finding this all quite interesting!

Andrew, when I said interior domain, I was talking in terms of Ken Wilber's "AQAL" model, of which the interior is one of four quadrants. Where I go with that is that there are some in Objectivism who seem to discount the interior, because they are, er, object-driven. Close to pure empiricism? I don't have good language for this yet. The problem is addressed through O-epistemology, but I've always seen a hole there.

I have to get more clarity in discussing this issue. I think we are talking along the same lines.

I'll see if I can find a way to throw this on the table a little more straight. Not easy.

[AndrewED]

Rich,

Wilber--I'll check out AQAL.

I have purposely remained vague about my thesis within Barbara's topic because my essay spells out everything clearly, in context. Have you read it? (Or read it lately? I've been revising it heavily since I got here with it).

[AndrewED]

Rich,

If I understand correctly, Wilber's AQAL interior describes part of existence, thus is not what I am talking about. BUT I found hints of a bigger application of the idea of the interior at the very bottom of this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQAL

That may or may not contain what I'm saying, but it approaches it, anyway. Again, there is much more in my essay. It is more abstract, thus more inclusive, I think. I love Wilber because inclusiveness is his goal, too. I just don't know his ideas.

[Rich Engle]

Andrew...

What part at the bottom? I'm familiar with the page. I wouldn't mind running this one out, it's of great interest to me.

Yes, inclusiveness. He's a very good integrator. Are you talking about the "Recent Work" part where it breaks out into 8 rather than four?

Edited September 22, 2006 by Rich Engle

[AndrewED]

Yes, under "Recent Work".

I will add that while I love Wilber for his goal, since I don't know his work, I don't know if he actually succeeds, therefore, whether I would agree with him. But if not, his ideas can at least serve as a pointer to something else. I'm game.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Andrew Durham

[Rich Engle]

I think the fastest way to get his essence is to read "The Marriage of Sense and Spirit"

You might want that sent to you in a plain brown wrapper...

And I guess Koestler's work on holons...

And how failed integration completes pathology... then for one thing you get those weird websites where people all scream and yell at each other.. heh.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Rich Engle

[AndrewED]

TOTALLY AWESOME DEVELOPMENT

Rich,

Suddenly working out this question somehow got really complicated. I mean, now there was this essay of mine for you to read and a stack of books for me. Standing back from it all, I couldn't figure out how I had ended up in a conversation about cosmology when I just wanted to talk about metaphysics. I didn't mind, I was just puzzled. I agree with Ayn Rand that cosmology is not properly a part of philosophy. What had I done?

Then I figured out what in my essay had led me to it all: my still trying to use the words existence and non-existence; to define them; to keep them in the Objectivist metaphysics AT ALL. Attempting, as a philosopher, to describe the precise physical nature of reality is a mistake. That is the job of scientists, who now have made a real science of the ancient guessing game of cosmology. So why keep these words? I found a better word with which to replace existence (being). And I had translated it into an axiom and a formal definition of reality to boot, things philosophy actually needs. There's no need for the outmoded words, nor for any explanation of them.

This is so great. I came here for feedback on the essay. I got it, directly and indirectly, through everything that I and everyone said. It baffled me for a week and then it sank in. I just rewrote and retitled the essay, Existence Isn't Everything. You people are awesome! Thanks to our efforts, I think my essay is, in its new conception, at least on its way to readability.

Yours,

Andrew

Edited September 25, 2006 by Andrew Durham

[ekalski]

It was built into Objectivism because it was built into Ayn Rand. She saw everything in black and white. You were either for her or against her. You are either 100% for Objectivism or you are against it. A major tenet is "No gray."

The philosophy could not have existed without that attitude. It was the foundation upon which the strengths of Objectivism are built.

I think the problem is two fold. 1) Once Ayn Rand developed the philosophy she knew it cold. Others did not. And like any genius, it is hard for the genius to understand just how difficult it can be for others who are not at that mental level. Other people have to work through mental and emotional habits.

What does all the above mean? Answer - there wasn't enough patience with people from the beginning of the movement.

Also, Objectivism is based on the concept of man the hero. It doesn't take enough into account man the human (not all humans are heros). It takes time to learn any philosophy. Mistakes are made. I know that Ayn Rand said she accepted mistakes, but it must be very hard to tell whether an action or statement is a mistake or a crime against Objectivism.

Ayn Rand set the stage. Her viewpoint did not stop with her death. Therefore the purges continued.

2) In terms of emotions, the base is Passion. How hard it is for passion and patience to co-exist.

So my final answer is the plague comes from a strength of Objectivism, seeing things in black and white - a foundational factor of the philosophy. But it also comes from a psychological flaw in Ayn Rand. Her inability to understand people who are not geniuses. She found things easy which others found difficult. And she had so much passion she found patience difficult. For others... their passion meant a mistake became an argument, for which they received excile from the movement.

Ayn Rand guarded her philosophy at all costs. And cost her it did. I think when it comes to philosophy Ayn Rand was a giant, a hero. When it came to her personal psychology, her passion at times blinded her to important elements she would have otherwise seen coming. Ayn Rand was both hero and human. One led her to great heights, the other to some sadness only she and perhaps a very few people truly knew about.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Ed Kalski

[sjw]

With regard to the periodic denunciations and "excommunications" that have plagued the Objectivist movement since its beginnings, what do you think is the cause (or causes)?

...

Please explain your answers. Many thanks.

I don't think Ayn Rand thought ahead very far or much at all about how or whether Objectivism should be organized as a movement. She had a lack of interest in this and just didn't think much about it. And I think she was the only one really qualified to do it. I think it's a tragedy for the spread of her philosophy that she didn't, though I certainly would not say that she ought to have done this work even though I wish she had. She was already an Atlas; to ask more of her would be the lowest form of being ungrateful.

So what now? I have no comment at this time.

Shayne

[studiodekadent]

With regard to the periodic denunciations and "excommunications" that have plagued the Objectivist movement since its beginnings, what do you think is the cause (or causes)?

1. Is it an entirely understandable phenomenon, needing no explanation other than the characters and actions of the people who have been denounced?

Probably not. I do not think that in the course of any denunciation-excommuninication that the exiled party was genuinely 'evil'. Most denunciations have been either based on non-philosophical issues (i.e. refusal to continue a torrid affair)... the only one that does involve genuine parting of company over ideas was the Peikhoff-Kelley split.

2. Is it consistent with any or all of the principles of Objectivism?

It is consistent with a very strong and literalist interpretation of "Judge and prepare to be judged," although I would not consider such an interpretation to be the correct one. Also, one can say it is inconsistent with the Objectivist differentiation of error and evil (as Kelley points out), as well as being inconsistent with the contextual nature of Objectivity (again as Kelley points out).

3. Does it arise from strengths in the philosophy of Objectivism?

Objectivism's moral certainty, surely, plays a role. Now, I do not want to get rid of Objectivism's moral certainty... after all it is a strength of the philosophy. But the moral certainty of the philosophy can trigger moral hysteria if it is not kept in check with deep contextual analysis of something before evaluating it. Many people will judge on face value rather than take the context into account (they would argue that context is non-essential).

4. Does it arise from errors or weaknesses in the philosophy of Objectivism?

The pure philosophy? I wouldnt say so. The philosophers? Certainly. As I said before, Rand's concept of Objectivity has its contextuality that usually saves it from intrinsicism. It seems that in the case of the most fervent denouncers that this mechanism has broken down.

5. Does it arise from virtues in the personality and character of Ayn Rand?

The strength of her conviction.

6. Does it arise from flaws in the personality and character of Ayn Rand?

Her apparent paranoia and almost apocalyptic thinking that we are all going to hell in a handbasket. Also, like many classical liberals, she seemed to suffer the "Im the real defender of freedom, you are a fascist!" complex (Mises did as well... he once stormed out of a Mont Pelerin meeting calling everyone a fascist over a disagreement with methodology). Maybe we could say Rand occasionally fell prey to rationalism.... it can happen to any of us, especially in a heated argument.

As Kelley said, fighting alone in the battle of ideas can hurt... one tries to fix this isolation... but in doing so, some create a rather cultish inner circle and supress disagreement (even rational disagreement) with an iron fist.

7. Is its source to be found in the psychology and character of a particular type of person who is strongly drawn to Objectivism?

Certainly the psychology does contribute.... Objectivism attracts a lot of lonely and socially awkward young people (and I am one of them). Objectivism recasts them from the disease into the cure. This is not a mistake of Objectivism, not a flaw in it per se, but it can trigger an emotional process that can generate true believers. I was saved by reading the philosophy before the fiction.

8. Is it caused by the teachings of one or more Objectivist organizations?

ARI. This is self-explanatory, since they treat judgement like a Kantian duty, and they obviously get some sort of sadistic pleasure from delaring others immoral and depraved. They basically say that anyone that disagrees with them is an evader, or at least its a 'safe assumption' that they are evaders.

9. Is its source to be found in a handful of nut cases of no importance or consequence?

If Pope Leonard the First is of no importance or consequence, than yes. He certainly is a nut case. I had a friend once, who dresses like I do (and hence wears makeup), he went to an ARI conference and one of them asked him "What would Ayn Rand think about you wearing makeup?" His answer was "I dont care." He, to borrow your words Ms Branden, chose Howard Roark over Ayn Rand. I think that this board, generally speaking, agrees: when its a choice between loyalty to Objectivism or loyalty to ObjectivISTS, we take the former.

[Alfonso Jones]

I put my answers after Barbara Branden's questions...

With regard to the periodic denunciations and "excommunications" that have plagued the Objectivist movement since its beginnings, what do you think is the cause (or causes)?

1. Is it an entirely understandable phenomenon, needing no explanation other than the characters and actions of the people who have been denounced?

It is a sad phenomenon which has been quite destructive. Many of those who have been excommunicated have been more Objectivist, IMO, than those who have excommunicated them, and those who have participated in the chorus of judgment.

The excommunications have not all been rooted in the character or actions of those being denounced. Sometimes they have been as much rooted in the character of those doing the denouncing, and/or incidentals which have no rational basis being made matters over which one should “divide.”

Some people need “absolute certainty” on everything. It seems that they just can’t stand to say “I do not know the answer at this time.” And such personalities seek authority – whether it be Ayn Rand, the Pope, or some other person, enthroned into absolute authority (whether the person wanted that authority or not).

2. Is it consistent with any or all of the principles of Objectivism?

No. It is inconsistent with the principles of Objectivism. It drives away from first-hand mindedness to slavish adherence to whatever are the current pronouncements of those with the “authority” to excommunicate. And the notion that a Peikoff or a Schwartz would have the depth of understanding to make such a judgment is amazing in its lack of groundedness.

In that regard, as if it mattered, where does the notion of “Intellectual heir” as applied to Peikoff come from, other than his imagination? I can find no place where Rand ever applied the term to him. She termed him “an Objectivist philosopher” and complimented “The Ominous Parallels,” quite highly. But Nathaniel Branden was the only one I ever recall seeing named by Rand as intellectual heir. (All of which leaves aside the questionable nature of the title “intellectual heir!”)

3. Does it arise from strengths in the philosophy of Objectivism?

No. See above.

4. Does it arise from errors or weaknesses in the philosophy of Objectivism?

No.

5. Does it arise from virtues in the personality and character of Ayn Rand?

No.

6. Does it arise from flaws in the personality and character of Ayn Rand?

No. (This is the hardest answer for me.) I think that she did, by the authority position she had, pass (sadly) on the opportunity to indicate clearly that she wasn’t passing that role on to anybody. The author of any system inevitably has a certain authority system – they may not have the final answers – but they can surely speak to original intent. When the mind is as formidable as that of Ayn Rand, then there is an excellent chance that they will do better than anyone in their generation at filling out details, working out puzzles and apparent points of tension, ... Somehow, the notion of first-hand mindedness never seemed to sink into a significant fraction of the “Objectivist” community. Instead, rapid and unquestioning assent to whatever is said by ______ (fill in the blank with an authority in the nominal Objectivist community) seems to be the rule. Ever see anybody take on Peikoff in a serious discussion (dare I say “argument”) at a conference, or elsewhere, from within the O community?

It is one for thing for Ayn Rand to say “This person does not represent me or my philosophy.” And to give concrete (valid) reasons. It is another thing for someone else to do that. Quite another thing.

7. Is its source to be found in the psychology and character of a particular type of person who is strongly drawn to Objectivism?

Could be. Sadly, some of those who are attracted to any radically distinctive position will be “true believers” who will by their behaviors reveal that they HAVE NOT INTERNALIZED the positions they espouse.

8. Is it caused by the teachings of one or more Objectivist organizations?

Not so much the teachings, but the BEHAVIORS of the ARI have not been helpful in this regard. The leadership of ARI must bear the great portion of the responsibility for this, of course.

9. Is its source to be found in a handful of nut cases of no importance or consequence?

No.

That being said, there are some nut cases who have certainly contributed to the problem. But they would have had no credibility in this behavior if there were not those in leadership positions engaging in the behaviors.

Some people enjoy this. It attracts attention, and lets them to pretend to be leaders.

10. Is it none of the above?

No.

Alfonso