My final Rant(s)

[bmacwilliam]

Well Michael, I'm quite frustrated. Mostly with myself for the foolish endeavour of investigating Objectivism, but also at the people who make up the "movement". To me, it evokes the same feelings in me as when a homophobic preacher who preaches against sin etc. gets caught in a homosexual prostitution bust.

Objectivists are so quick to denounce the rest of humanity as irrational losers (one of Rand's favourite passtimes) yet themselves continually commit the most heinous crimes against reason. I tried to give the ideas (Rand's ideas) a chance to stand on their own, but they don't. I tried to re-read Rand, but I cannot get through it. Her writings are so pathological and hate-filled, I just can't justify the effort. More on that later.

Now concerning your (MSK's) post in another thread...

"I also don't like cigarettes. I have a problem with banning them, though, just as I would have a problem with legally banning people from eating paper."

This is a completely irrational statement and I will not dignify it with a response.

You write:

"and being aggressive in general going to change anything or anyone's minds? "

I am fed up with this foolishness. You would need a logical mind to see the truth and change your mind. Not much evidence of that in these circles.

I have come to conclude that anybody who finds any significant value in anything that Rand has produced is either mentally ill, intellectually deficient or both (that's an argument from intimidation, but unlike Rand's intimidations, the conclusion is justified by evidence). Here's why - let's look at some facts...

1. Rand/Objectivism is not taken seriously in academic circles. The philosophy itself is full of holes and errors.

2. The entire diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder fit Rand like a glove (and only 5/9 are needed) - I could provide multiple concrete examples of each and every line item here

3. Rand uses the argument from intimidation so often in her writing it's unbelievable (and unacceptable).

4. Differences of opinion are viewed as moral offences (see #2)

5. The Hickman "thing" - She's completely sick and twisted. This is horrible.

Any one of these items taken on their own should be enough to stay away. This is partially why I'm frustrated with myself for not coming to the proper conclusion sooner. Why on earth would someone continue to defend or study her? The only logical conclusion is that they share the pathology, and/or are extremely gullible and lured by her very authoritative style.

You (MSK) accused Nyquist of an anti-Rand bias. He concluded...

"No one who is educated in these matters and is endowed with the ability to think critically can ever regard Objectivism as anything other than a mistake. (p. 367)"

I would agree, but would change the "and" in the sentence to an "or". Put another way, I had just as much chance of becoming an Objectivist as not when I first began reading. It is Rand's writing and ideas that produced that conclusion. Bias has nothing to do with it.

You then write:

"As to the quotes above, these kinds of sentiments and evaluations are highly insulting. They did not have to be presented in that manner. I agree that Rand could get pretty insulting"

Or.... They're true. And the insulting manner is perfectly appropriate because Rand continually insulted anything, everything and everyone that disagreed. So much so that her consistent arguments from intimidation pre-insulted the reader even before they had a chance to disagree. The consistent attitude of "reason and reality imply Objectivism" is very insulting to anyone with even basic critical thinking skills.

You quoted Scott Ryan:

"However, an acquaintance of mine (who was associated with the Objectivist movements during the early 1970’s) lost his first wife to suicide because of her belief that, by Objectivist standards, she was a flawed specimen of humanity who did not deserve to live (or in Randian terms, had not “earned the right” to hold herself as her own “highest value” by “achieving” her own “moral perfection”.) And she was not the only Objectivist or ex-Objectivist to commit or attempt suicide. (p. 378)"

You write:

"Of course, I feel deeply for the person who lost his wife and I do not wish to make light of his loss, but to insinuate that Objectivism is a philosophy that leads to suicide goes way over the fence"

However, this is further evidence that Objectivism attracts other narcissists who at their core believe that they are unworthy. It is a magnet for this type of person. Just look at where this Jeff kid here is heading as one quick example.

You write:

"I regard Rand as a brilliant thinker who wrote the foundation of a practical, efficient and easily learnable rational philosophy for individuals for living on earth. Her emphasis on production and happiness strikes young high-achievers like an oasis in the desert. Her moral validation of reason was probably one of her greatest legacies to mankind that will far outshine all of the rest down the centuries. "

I obviously do not share this viewpoint, and, because I conclude the evidence clearly supports something much more sinister, I have little respect for those who do.

I am clearly of no benefit to anyone on this forum who holds Rand in any esteem. For that reason I may defend any comments/arguments against what I have written, but will make a voluntary departure soon afterward.

Bob

[Ellen Stuttle]

Now concerning your (MSK's) post in another thread...

"I also don't like cigarettes. I have a problem with banning them, though, just as I would have a problem with legally banning people from eating paper."

This is a completely irrational statement and I will not dignify it with a response.

Will you dignify it by explaining why you consider it irrational? I'm merely curious; I'm not planning to argue with you about it. You sound as if you think that cigarettes and/or eating paper should be banned. If that is what you think, then I think that you don't understand what freedom means.

(Btw, I am not an Objectivist, but I am an advocate of political freedom.)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

You [MSK] quoted Scott Ryan:

"However, an acquaintance of mine (who was associated with the Objectivist movements during the early 1970’s) lost his first wife to suicide because of her belief that, by Objectivist standards, she was a flawed specimen of humanity who did not deserve to live (or in Randian terms, had not “earned the right” to hold herself as her own “highest value” by “achieving” her own “moral perfection”.) And she was not the only Objectivist or ex-Objectivist to commit or attempt suicide. (p. 378)"

You [MSK] write:

"Of course, I feel deeply for the person who lost his wife and I do not wish to make light of his loss, but to insinuate that Objectivism is a philosophy that leads to suicide goes way over the fence"

However, this is further evidence that Objectivism attracts other narcissists who at their core believe that they are unworthy. It is a magnet for this type of person.

As it happens, I know some case details about the particular person Scott was talking about. Significantly more was involved in her emotional difficulties than Objectivism. Likewise with a couple other cases some of the details of which I know wherein an Objectivist or ex-Objectivist committed suicide. I'd say it's obvious that there has to be more than angst over not being a worthy Objectivist operative if someone is so distressed as to commit suicide. To blame Objectivism for the suicides does, as Michael says, go "way over the fence."

Ellen

___

[bmacwilliam]

You [MSK] quoted Scott Ryan:

"However, an acquaintance of mine (who was associated with the Objectivist movements during the early 1970’s) lost his first wife to suicide because of her belief that, by Objectivist standards, she was a flawed specimen of humanity who did not deserve to live (or in Randian terms, had not “earned the right” to hold herself as her own “highest value” by “achieving” her own “moral perfection”.) And she was not the only Objectivist or ex-Objectivist to commit or attempt suicide. (p. 378)"

You [MSK] write:

"Of course, I feel deeply for the person who lost his wife and I do not wish to make light of his loss, but to insinuate that Objectivism is a philosophy that leads to suicide goes way over the fence"

However, this is further evidence that Objectivism attracts other narcissists who at their core believe that they are unworthy. It is a magnet for this type of person.

As it happens, I know some case details about the particular person Scott was talking about. Significantly more was involved in her emotional difficulties than Objectivism. Likewise with a couple other cases some of the details of which I know wherein an Objectivist or ex-Objectivist committed suicide. I'd say it's obvious that there has to be more than angst over not being a worthy Objectivist operative if someone is so distressed as to commit suicide. To blame Objectivism for the suicides does, as Michael says, go "way over the fence."

Ellen

___

Yes, I agree. But my point is that I think it's evidence that Objectivism attracts troubled souls. I honestly do not think an intellectually and emotionally healthy person can be an Objectivist.

[bmacwilliam]

Now concerning your (MSK's) post in another thread...

"I also don't like cigarettes. I have a problem with banning them, though, just as I would have a problem with legally banning people from eating paper."

This is a completely irrational statement and I will not dignify it with a response.

Will you dignify it by explaining why you consider it irrational? I'm merely curious; I'm not planning to argue with you about it. You sound as if you think that cigarettes and/or eating paper should be banned. If that is what you think, then I think that you don't understand what freedom means.

(Btw, I am not an Objectivist, but I am an advocate of political freedom.)

Ellen

___

Tobacco(nicotine) is a freakishly addictive substance sold by companies with an extraordinary history of deception. To compare this substance with "eating paper" is astonishingly irrational.

FWIW, and I don't want to get into a tobacco discussion, but I'm all for allowing people to smoke if they choose to be so stupid or cannot kick their addiction or whatever. But allowing a toxic, highly addictive substance to be manufactured and sold to the public is not logical.

Bob

Edited December 18, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Ellen Stuttle]

As it happens, I know some case details about the particular person Scott was talking about. Significantly more was involved in her emotional difficulties than Objectivism. Likewise with a couple other cases some of the details of which I know wherein an Objectivist or ex-Objectivist committed suicide. I'd say it's obvious that there has to be more than angst over not being a worthy Objectivist operative if someone is so distressed as to commit suicide. To blame Objectivism for the suicides does, as Michael says, go "way over the fence."

Ellen

___

Yes, I agree. But my point is that I think it's evidence that Objectivism attracts troubled souls. I honestly do not think an intellectually and emotionally healthy person can be an Objectivist.

Bob, do you know of any belief system which has ever been formulated, no adherent of which has committed suicide? If the sheer fact that an adherent of a particular belief system commits suicide is to be taken as evidence that that system attracts troubled souls... I hope you see my point. The "evidence" you cite proves too much, since it would apply to every belief system (I'm aware of).

Ellen

___

[Danneskjold]

Where to start, where to start....

Objectivists are so quick to denounce the rest of humanity as irrational losers (one of Rand's favourite passtimes) yet themselves continually commit the most heinous crimes against reason. I tried to give the ideas (Rand's ideas) a chance to stand on their own, but they don't. I tried to re-read Rand, but I cannot get through it. Her writings are so pathological and hate-filled, I just can't justify the effort. More on that later.

Ad Hominem. You make the mistake of equating Objectivism directly to Rand and are attacking Rand not the ideas. Ayn Rand is certainly held in high regards as the starter of the movement, however, we here do not believe that she is a faultless demi-god. She made her mistakes, just as everybody else has. Hate-filled? Maybe, but her hate was directed towards ideas and people that let those ideas define them.

"I also don't like cigarettes. I have a problem with banning them, though, just as I would have a problem with legally banning people from eating paper."

This is a completely irrational statement and I will not dignify it with a response.

I would point out a logical fallacy if you actually used logic in this part of your post. The way I see it this roughly translates to one of two things:

1) The fault in this argument should be readily apparent and it is not a difference in degree, but a difference in ideas. Which would be wrong, because as you later pointed out your problem was with the degree of harm that it does.

or 2) Because you have no legitimate explanation but disagree on principle. Objectivists believe in personal freedom, if you want cigarettes go ahead and have them. Your body, your choice.

My position there may be a false dichotomy, I'm just saying that those are the two most likely translations though.

I have come to conclude that anybody who finds any significant value in anything that Rand has produced is either mentally ill, intellectually deficient or both (that's an argument from intimidation, but unlike Rand's intimidations, the conclusion is justified by evidence). Here's why - let's look at some facts...

1. Rand/Objectivism is not taken seriously in academic circles. The philosophy itself is full of holes and errors.

Argument from authority. Besides, noticed anything about academic circles lately? There are communist professors at Harvard, are these the academic circles to which you allude?

2. The entire diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder fit Rand like a glove (and only 5/9 are needed) - I could provide multiple concrete examples of each and every line item here

3. Rand uses the argument from intimidation so often in her writing it's unbelievable (and unacceptable).

4. Differences of opinion are viewed as moral offences (see #2)

5. The Hickman "thing" - She's completely sick and twisted. This is horrible.

That's ad hominem. We're talking about Objectivism, not a particular Objectivist. Besides, I accepted this system of beliefs with full knowledge of Rand's faults as a human being. Some of her ideas were right, some were wrong.

Any one of these items taken on their own should be enough to stay away. This is partially why I'm frustrated with myself for not coming to the proper conclusion sooner. Why on earth would someone continue to defend or study her? The only logical conclusion is that they share the pathology, and/or are extremely gullible and lured by her very authoritative style.

Strawman. We are lured by the ideas. Not her. Objectivism as I follow it is not about Rand, it's about logic. We do not follow Rand, we follow logic. She, in her prime, set out a good basis to follow, and we run with that. It's also a false dichotomy to say "the only logical conclusion" which implies that we're either insane or illogical.

Or.... They're true. And the insulting manner is perfectly appropriate because Rand continually insulted anything, everything and everyone that disagreed. So much so that her consistent arguments from intimidation pre-insulted the reader even before they had a chance to disagree. The consistent attitude of "reason and reality imply Objectivism" is very insulting to anyone with even basic critical thinking skills.

Ad hominem. Jesus Christ, try attacking Objectivism as a philosophy and backing up your arguments. You want to attack Rand, fine, but attack Rand as Rand, not as Objectivism.

However, this is further evidence that Objectivism attracts other narcissists who at their core believe that they are unworthy. It is a magnet for this type of person. Just look at where this Jeff kid here is heading as one quick example.

I'm a teenager. Teenagers occasionally have onslaughts of stress at which time they feel like the whole world is against them and on their shoulders and the pressure is too much. I'm still standing, I'm going to have straight A's or something pretty close at the end of the semester, the youngest player on a varsity baseball team that has a legitimate shot at the state championship, and I try to pursue my intellectual goals outside of that. That is pressure. I set the bar high for myself because that's where I want it, occasionally I feel like I'm failing and I get down on myself, but I get back up within a week. Since I've found Objectivism I've been happier than before. The place I'm heading is major league baseball so at least if you leave this forum you'll still see me on tv.

Also, Objectivism is about rational egoism. Knowing how good you are at what and where your boundaries are while still having self-esteem. This is another ad-hominem attack. You are attacking those who hold the beliefs instead of the beliefs.

Edited for typos.

Edited December 18, 2006 by Jeff Kremer

[Judith]

Just look at where this Jeff kid here is heading as one quick example.

I would say that "this Jeff kid here" is headed to very high places indeed.

Judith

[bmacwilliam]

I'm a teenager. Teenagers occasionally have onslaughts of stress at which time they feel like the whole world is against them and on their shoulders and the pressure is too much. I'm still standing, I'm going to have straight A's or something pretty close at the end of the semester, the youngest player on a varsity baseball team that has a legitimate shot at the state championship, and I try to pursue my intellectual goals outside of that. That is pressure. I set the bar high for myself because that's where I want it, occasionally I feel like I'm failing and I get down on myself, but I get back up within a week. Since I've found Objectivism I've been happier than before. The place I'm heading is major league baseball so at least if you leave this forum you'll still see me on tv.

Also, Objectivism is about rational egoism. Knowing how good you are at what and where your boundaries are while still having self-esteem. This is another ad-hominem attack. You are attacking those who hold the beliefs instead of the beliefs.

Edited for typos.

Hey, maybe you'll make it to the big leagues - best of luck.

Yes, my post was largely ad hominem - on purpose. I have made my objections to the more technical aspects elsewhere. If you take the time to understand Philosophy in a more academic light, you'll see that you can drive trucks through the holes in Objectivism. It was not my purpose to point out specific errors.

I can attack the beliefs AND those who believe them when Rand is defended. The corollary to most of Rand's grand pronouncements was that dissenters were evil/stupid and other various insults. If you believe these "ideas", then yes you will be judged as well. I think the evidence is clear that she was a deeply disturbed individual. Her ideas were often connected, inextricably sometimes, to hate-filled judgements.

Gotta run for now.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

As it happens, I know some case details about the particular person Scott was talking about. Significantly more was involved in her emotional difficulties than Objectivism. Likewise with a couple other cases some of the details of which I know wherein an Objectivist or ex-Objectivist committed suicide. I'd say it's obvious that there has to be more than angst over not being a worthy Objectivist operative if someone is so distressed as to commit suicide. To blame Objectivism for the suicides does, as Michael says, go "way over the fence."

Ellen

___

Yes, I agree. But my point is that I think it's evidence that Objectivism attracts troubled souls. I honestly do not think an intellectually and emotionally healthy person can be an Objectivist.

Bob, do you know of any belief system which has ever been formulated, no adherent of which has committed suicide? If the sheer fact that an adherent of a particular belief system commits suicide is to be taken as evidence that that system attracts troubled souls... I hope you see my point. The "evidence" you cite proves too much, since it would apply to every belief system (I'm aware of).

Ellen

___

I see your point yes and you are correct. However, you use the word "proves". I didn't, nor did I imply it. I just said "evidence" and qualified it with an " I think". I was outlining a suspicion, nothing more.

Bob

[Laure]

"Her writings are so pathological and hate-filled". I really don't know what writings you're referring to. Was it the part where Dagny and Hank rode the first run of the John Galt Line? Was it the part where Rearden carried Tony as he was dying of a gunshot wound, and bent to kiss his forehead? Was it the page in Anthem when the hero had discovered the word "I" for the first time in his life? Was it the end of The Fountainhead where Dominique rode the elevator up towards her hero?

And pathological implies some kind of sickness. Later you accuse Rand of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and say that she met every one of the criteria. Here they are:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people

4. requires excessive admiration

5. strong sense of entitlement

6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

7. lacks empathy

8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her

9. arrogant affect.

My evaluations (note that I was not Rand's psychiatrist -- but I bet you weren't either):

1. Sure, but is it narcissism if you really ARE "all that"?? My God, man, Atlas Shrugged was named second most influential book after the Bible, don't you think she was entitled to think highly of herself?

2. Maybe preoccupied with fantasies of ideal people, but that was HER CHOSEN JOB as a novelist.

3. Yes to the first part, no to the second. She thought she could be understood by most everyone.

4. Eh, I don't know, you'd have to have known her personally.

5. Absolutely not. She never thought anything should be GIVEN to her; she EARNED it.

6. NO. She was opposed to sacrificing others to herself.

7. Another I-don't-know.

8. NO. Her philosophy was opposed to envy, and from what I have read about her, she was not an envious person.

9. She didn't seem arrogant to me in videos of her public appearances.

So, I would judge that she did not have NPD. Your accusation looks like an attempt to scare away people like Jeff, who is not falling for it. It sounds a lot like sneering to me. "Who did she think she was, being so proud of herself just because she was a best-selling author? Who did she think she was, being SO CERTAIN that she was right?" I say she had every right to be proud and every reason to be certain.

[Danneskjold]

Well Michael, I'm quite frustrated. Mostly with myself for the foolish endeavour of investigating Objectivism,

Yes, my post was largely ad hominem - on purpose. I have made my objections to the more technical aspects elsewhere. If you take the time to understand Philosophy in a more academic light, you'll see that you can drive trucks through the holes in Objectivism. It was not my purpose to point out specific errors.

I can attack the beliefs AND those who believe them when Rand is defended. The corollary to most of Rand's grand pronouncements was that dissenters were evil/stupid and other various insults. If you believe these "ideas", then yes you will be judged as well. I think the evidence is clear that she was a deeply disturbed individual. Her ideas were often connected, inextricably sometimes, to hate-filled judgements.

Gotta run for now.

Bob

Sorry, doesn't jive. You can't represent this as an attack on Objectivism then attack the people. As to the holes big enough to drive trucks through, enlighten me. So far on this forum I've seen legitimate attacks on Objectivism, both ARI and TOC, and legitimate explanations and solutions presented by Objectivism.

You want to have a problem with the people, fine. But when you start out calling Objectivists hypocrits because of their lack of logic and then proceed to make a post in which there is no paragraph, written fully by you, that is devoid of a logical fallacy you come off...well...hypocritical.

[Brant Gaede]

Gee. Can I come out of the shelter yet?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I find it hard to take you seriously all the way down. Why on earth would a rational, sane and mature person wish to address a group of irrational, foolish, mentally ill, intellectually deficient, narcissistic, emotionally unhealthy people he does not respect?

Why?

Yet here you are not only prompting, but holding court on a swan song.

Hmmmmmmm...

Draw your own conclusions. I have drawn mine.

Go in peace Bob. I wish you well. I mean that.

You have good in you. You seek something and did not find it in Objectivism. I hope you find whatever it is some day.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

To add onto what Michael said there:

It almost seems as if (you may as well ignore those first words of this sentence) you are trying to convince a bunch of people that they are degenerates. Good luck with that one.

Edited for politeness.

Edited December 19, 2006 by Jeff Kremer

[Rich Engle]

What I have seen is that, often, there are people that are looking for a one-stop solution for living, in the form of a system, movement, ideology, religion, whatever it is they are examining and maybe "trying out."

They are looking for perfection, I guess. Something that answers all the questions. This is only an observation, I am not indicting Bob--this just reminded me of other times I've seen things like this.

I'm not an Objectivist; but it had a huge influence on me. And, it made me an asshole for quite a few years.

On the other hand, there remain many, many things from it in me that are good, and true and beautiful and they came from Rand. But then again, I'm one of those who managed to reconnect in a pretty decent manner to Objectivism after having thrown it under the bus, because I didn't like how it affected me. And I did that, mainly, through reading the work of evil arch-nemesis Nathaniel Branden. HE understands how to have Objectivist thought in your life. He just does.

I don't (any longer) confuse the "movement," the people, with what was written. And I do think that's easy to do. I also know that there are a lot of folks that say you have to swallow Objectivism whole, that you can't cherry pick it. Well, says them, I guess. For me that was the way to retain what I consider the good stuff.

I don't need to "join" anything. Even being a Unitarian Universalist, I'm not in a "club." I'm a club of one, connected to those I respect, admire, know, and in some cases, love. THAT is my affiliation, that's how it's wired.

It's not a take it or leave it situation, to my mind. It's a take what you need and leave the rest thing for me.

[Paul Mawdsley]

I'm still trying to figure out what it means to call myself an Objectivist. Depending on the meaning, I either am or I am not. It doesn't really matter. I think and operate from many Objectivist principles. I also think and operate from a number of non-Objectivist principles. I see a lot of what Rand wrote about in the world. I also see a lot of what she did not see, or actively attacked. I agree with Rich. Take the principles that resonate with your authentic perspective, leave the ones that do not, and keep searching for the missing pieces. Self-actualization is the goal, not fitting into a role that comes with some label and a set of rituals.

Paul

Btw: Bob, you have surprised me. I did not think you were so extreme or absolute from my original contact with you. Isn't it the extremist and absolutist in Rand that bothers you? Aside from that, she is just another person who may have made some mistakes in judgement. I find, once I see her as holding yet another relative perspective on the world, even if it is an enlightening and influential one, her downside bothers me less.

Edited December 19, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[bmacwilliam]

"Her writings are so pathological and hate-filled". I really don't know what writings you're referring to. Was it the part where Dagny and Hank rode the first run of the John Galt Line? Was it the part where Rearden carried Tony as he was dying of a gunshot wound, and bent to kiss his forehead? Was it the page in Anthem when the hero had discovered the word "I" for the first time in his life? Was it the end of The Fountainhead where Dominique rode the elevator up towards her hero?

And pathological implies some kind of sickness. Later you accuse Rand of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and say that she met every one of the criteria. Here they are:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people

4. requires excessive admiration

5. strong sense of entitlement

6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

7. lacks empathy

8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her

9. arrogant affect.

My evaluations (note that I was not Rand's psychiatrist -- but I bet you weren't either):

1. Sure, but is it narcissism if you really ARE "all that"?? My God, man, Atlas Shrugged was named second most influential book after the Bible, don't you think she was entitled to think highly of herself?

2. Maybe preoccupied with fantasies of ideal people, but that was HER CHOSEN JOB as a novelist.

3. Yes to the first part, no to the second. She thought she could be understood by most everyone.

4. Eh, I don't know, you'd have to have known her personally.

5. Absolutely not. She never thought anything should be GIVEN to her; she EARNED it.

6. NO. She was opposed to sacrificing others to herself.

7. Another I-don't-know.

8. NO. Her philosophy was opposed to envy, and from what I have read about her, she was not an envious person.

9. She didn't seem arrogant to me in videos of her public appearances.

So, I would judge that she did not have NPD. Your accusation looks like an attempt to scare away people like Jeff, who is not falling for it. It sounds a lot like sneering to me. "Who did she think she was, being so proud of herself just because she was a best-selling author? Who did she think she was, being SO CERTAIN that she was right?" I say she had every right to be proud and every reason to be certain.

I could back up each and every line item. Let's just do one - #8 - you said:

"Her philosophy was opposed to envy, "

#8 says - "OR believes others are envious of him or her "

READ #8 AGAIN THEN READ BELOW

Here's a quote from an essay (Philosophical Detection 1974)

_____________

"Nobody can be certain of anything" is a rationalization for a feeling of envy and hatred toward those who are certain.

____________

This is a perfect example of #8. It couldn't be more clear. You're wrong.

It's also a perfect example of how so many of her ideas were connected to hate. Not to mention she's completely wrong in that statement. That alone is enough to put her book down and stop.

I could give numerous examples for ALL items. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

Bob

[Laure]

"Nobody can be certain of anything" is a rationalization for a feeling of envy and hatred toward those who are certain.

The truth hurts, doesn't it, Bob?

[Rich Engle]

"Nobody can be certain of anything" is a rationalization for a feeling of envy and hatred toward those who are certain

A bit of across-the-board psychologizing, to be sure.

The thing is, Bob, she was right in many cases. There actually are people that operate that way. Just not everyone-- that's the trap that some people who read Rand fall into.

I did find it admirable and innovative, how she was able to trace down common catchphrases that people use without knowing their origin. You know, things like "Everything is relative" and such.

I do see the ugliness you see, Bob. God knows I've raised enough hell about this kind of stuff. But, like many things, it's a very much half/full or half/empty situation. Which way to look at it?

The best feeling I ever got out of Objectivism was right after reading Atlas and The Fountainhead for the first time, and back to back. I think a lot of people say that.

And as I have said elsewhere, the most miserable feeling I ever got out of it started with my initial, years-ago forays into forums. It was crushing, and on the whole it didn't remotely resemble what I thought would be there. I think that's different now, with OL. There's a lot of goodness and value that goes on here.

It took me a long time to unclamp from the ugliness that's out there, and sometimes I still get set off. But again, half/full prevails for me.

Perhaps, as an exercise, you should also search out the beautiful parts of her writing. They exist.

[Danneskjold]

Objectivism for me:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

— Ayn Rand

That added to where she said that no idea is above checking (can't find the quote) and you've got Objectivism. If any two people follow those guidelines with (this is where this becomes a hypothetical) perfect logic, then they will come out with the exact same philosophy.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Btw: Bob, you have surprised me. I did not think you were so extreme or absolute from my original contact with you. Isn't it the extremist and absolutist in Rand that bothers you? Aside from that, she is just another person who may have made some mistakes in judgement. I find, once I see her as holding yet another relative perspective on the world, even if it is an enlightening and influential one, her downside bothers me less.

I, too, was taken by surprise at the vehemence you've displayed in this recent exchange, Bob. (I hope you're still reading and will see this note.) I hadn't expected it from what I recall of the posts of yours I read on RoR. But I miss an awful lot of posts, having little time for elist correspondence, so I think I must have not been noticing increasing frustration on your part building up.

I hope you won't just disappear from this list. I think you have interesting material to contribute. And I'll more or less second what Rich has said about the pluses and minuses. There are aspects I very much value from Rand. And I do think she was an extraordinary visionary and novelist. (I'd say "visionary" rather than "philosopher." The reasons could be a long discussion.) On the other hand there are things I've disliked about her from the beginning -- and I understand what you're talking about in speaking of the "hate"; I agree that that is there. Also, again in a similar way to Rich, I was disappointed when I began to encounter Objectivists in New York City. (I moved to New York City from the Midwest in September 1968.) The degree of regimentedness, conformity, the number of her admirers who I thought were persons who were seeking The Truth instead of the adventure of the constant quest, upset me.

Anyway, I do hope you'll stick around.

Ellen

___

[bmacwilliam]

I'm still trying to figure out what it means to call myself an Objectivist. Depending on the meaning, I either am or I am not. It doesn't really matter. I think and operate from many Objectivist principles. I also think and operate from a number of non-Objectivist principles. I see a lot of what Rand wrote about in the world. I also see a lot of what she did not see, or actively attacked. I agree with Rich. Take the principles that resonate with your authentic perspective, leave the ones that do not, and keep searching for the missing pieces. Self-actualization is the goal, not fitting into a role that comes with some label and a set of rituals.

Paul

Btw: Bob, you have surprised me. I did not think you were so extreme or absolute from my original contact with you. Isn't it the extremist and absolutist in Rand that bothers you? Aside from that, she is just another person who may have made some mistakes in judgement. I find, once I see her as holding yet another relative perspective on the world, even if it is an enlightening and influential one, her downside bothers me less.

Paul,

I'm frustrated with myself for not digging deeper sooner when I suspected she was more and more off her rocker as I continued reading and re-reading some things.

When I discovered the whole Hickman thing, it threw me over the edge. This is really bad stuff - indicative of her true nature in my opinion. This "fits" very well with my developing distaste for her and her ideas over the last while. When I read Prescott's account of this it made me sick.

Some of Rands ideas I find I agree with, but that's simply not good enough. I do not believe that her ideas are original nor unique, so in a very real way the ideas that I do agree with are not hers at all. Her delivery of the ideas is unique, more or less, but in a bad way. I cannot separate her ideas from her delivery when so often they're connected to some kind of threat, intimidation or hatred. Mystics for example are motivated " by hatred for mans mind" and altruists by "hatred for man's life" and on and on. (An Untitled Letter 1973).

So what happens is that instead of just arguing against a concept she disagrees with, she inserts a non-existent hatred motivation, which of course exists in HER and not the subject of her scorn. This is dangerous and toxic in my opinion, especially for young people.

I guess I just see her now for what she is, and this is not someone worthy of praise at all, quite the contrary.

Bob

Edited December 20, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

There are ideas you raise that are very much worthy of discussion (and we will discuss them on OL), but not in the atmosphere of wholesale contempt for Rand that you promote.

You've made your point. Rand is psycho and so are we (in addition to being idiots) for liking her works. We get it. You wanted your grandstand exit and, as an exception and in a gesture or good will, you got it.

The good will is not being reciprocated. Enough already. There are other people out yonder who long for your message. Please scratch your itch for vitriol elsewhere.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.