inconsistency in ideology

[Hayyah]

Hello,

First off, I want to let you know (since there have been many threads posted here about Islam) that I am a devout Muslim who believes that the end result of reason is faith. As such, I'm not too fond of Objectivism, but I also don't discount all of its tenets, since ironically, some of them correspond with my religious beliefs and personal philosophy.

Anyway, the greatest reason for my distrust of Ayn Rand's teachings comes from some of her statements about the Arab diaspora. She stated, "The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are... [Arabs are] savages who don't want to use their minds..."

Before comparing this is other tenets endorsed by the Ayn Rand Institute, I'd like to point out that it's inherently illogical since Palestinians (a proud group of people to which I belong) were mainly farmers, not nomads, and they did not resent Israel for having modern science (this is a ridiculous assertion), but rather for pushing them off their land. It's really this simple. Trying to bend the reasoning any other way is an exercise in obfuscation. As an Objectivist, I would imagine Miss Rand would believe it is praiseworthy to wish to keep one's own property...?

However, politics aside, the greatest confusion I have about the above quote is its inconsistency with Objectivism. It certainly seems that when Miss Rand was approached with a topic that affected her emotions, the objectivity flew out the window.

The ARI posted an Op-Ed piece by Debi Ghate which quotes Ayn Rand as saying, "[Racism is] the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced by his internal body chemistry, which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." Ghate continues, "It means placing the group's standing above the individual's, valuing the arbitrary (a man’s ancestry) over the essential (his own character or ability.) Judging individuals by their race is evil no matter what incarnation it takes... How do we actually correct the injustice of segregation? ...By decisively rejecting the claim that members of a racial group (who have nothing in common but a physiological attribute) are interchangeable. And by denouncing "diversity" as an anti-value--and as the new racism."

In case the inconsistency isn't already obvious, let me expand. In the first quote, Miss Rand refers to millions of people who descend from some of the oldest civilizations on earth as "primitive savages." Where's the possibility of individuality here? It has been extinguished. Once this style of language is used, millions of diverse people are no longer individuals. Israelis become the individuals, and those around them are identified as a homogeneous collective -- an idea as illogical and untrue as its antithesis, that all Jews are the same.

Furthermore, by saying the Arabs surrounding Israel are 'savages who don't want to use their minds,' aren't Miss Rand and ARI at odds, since the former is judging men's intellectual traits by their body chemistry, by their collection of ancestors?

Finally, to claim that Israel has a right to exist whereas Palestine doesn't since Israel has a more diverse society (a very arguable point) and more technology, is to go against ARI's post which rightfully claims that diversity is often a new form of racism.

This isn't the only inconsistency I have seen while learning about Objectivism, but I find it the most troubling, since it results in a numbness to human life, and the extinguishing of individuals who have been errantly identified as a collective.

I'd like to ask you: Am I a savage who doesn't want to use my mind? Does anyone truly have the right to make this claim for millions of individuals, especially when discussing life or death?

--Jannah

[BaalChatzaf]

Post deleted by original poster.

Edited September 10, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I am preparing a longer post of welcome. Any more posts like that will be deleted.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jannah,

First let me welcome you to OL. I am particularly pleased someone from the Muslim world is interested in learning about Objectivism (as I have been learning about Islam).

Please do not confuse the kinds of Objectivists on OL with those from ARI. Speaking for myself, I was in Brazil for 32 years and married into an Arabian culture family (the father of my ex-wife was first generation Bedouin descent and her mother was first generation Lebanese descent). Her father was Muslim and mother was Catholic (as often happens in Brazil).

I have two boys, Roark and Ragnar, with whom I am estranged, but who have grown up in this culture. I cannot damn it without damning my own children and I refuse to do that.

I worked in motion pictures for a while in Brazil. The man who taught me most everything I know about the basics was a film director named Fauzi Mansur, first generation Palestenian descent. I became quite familiar with the feeling you mentioned of being pushed off your land. I am of two minds on this (one highly sympathetic and one not), as I will explain below.

But in short, you will find a much friendlier approach with me than you will with many Objectivists. For the record, I would like to direct your attention to an essay I wrote when I started studying about Islam:

Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues

If you scroll down the main page to the "Outer Limits" section, you will see a section called "Mideast." I have tried to keep the entries to this section on an informational level, not on a soapbox one. My intention is to understand before judging anything.

You will also see that Barbara Branden specifically eschewed ARI's "nuke 'em all" policy with this thread criticizing (in the strongest terms possible) Craig Biddle's call to bomb schools and mosques:

The Lepers of Objectivism

Unfortunately with the whole Israel issue, including the Islam versus Jew part, evaluation is ALL and the facts are always squeezed to fit whatever evaluation is being promoted (usually "the other side is evil"). This goes for both sides. It is hard to discuss any issues when this has heated up to the point where almost no one is rational anymore. But we try to do this here on OL.

With all this in mind, let me make a comment or two about what you wrote. First things first.

I'd like to ask you: Am I a savage who doesn't want to use my mind?

I do not know you and can only evaluate this question on the basis of one post, but I can assure you that I do not think this. Your post showed a great deal of learning and goodwill, despite any disagreements that may develop from there. (And I am one who believes in that disagreements are healthy among people of goodwill.) I do not fear you and I offer you my hand in friendly greeting. I look forward to our discussions.

Anyway, the greatest reason for my distrust of Ayn Rand's teachings comes from some of her statements about the Arab diaspora. She stated, "The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are... [Arabs are] savages who don't want to use their minds..."

This was not Rand's finest moment. I personally do not agree with it and factually it is wrong. However, I do think there is an element of hatred of modern science and civilization involved, but from what I know of the people I have met, it is no more and no less than elsewhere in the world (especially in modern universities). I do not see this as a cultural problem, but as one of individual acceptance. I personally have known many Muslims who love modern science and civilization.

Before comparing this is other tenets endorsed by the Ayn Rand Institute, I'd like to point out that it's inherently illogical since Palestinians (a proud group of people to which I belong) were mainly farmers, not nomads, and they did not resent Israel for having modern science (this is a ridiculous assertion), but rather for pushing them off their land. It's really this simple.

I wish it were. But I see that things are not simple at all. For every wrong on one side, there exists a wrong on the other. I know many wonderful people among both Palestinians and Jews, people who have touched my life in a strongly positive manner and I would not give up any of them. For the record, if someone pushed me off my land, would I be angry? Hell yes. But on the other end, if I were in a minority group and living in the middle of a dire threat to me from all sides (often based on racial hatred), would I be belligerent? Hell yes.

I see both problems (and those are only two) and both are dead wrong. One does not obliterate the other, nor make it right. This whole thing is a holy mess all the way round, and that's stating it mildly.

I do not wish to discuss Ms. Ghate's writing because I have not read it. I will say one thing to you, however. I am greatly distressed to see Objectivism being used as an intellectual justification for bigotry. I see this too much for comfort. You are absolutely correct in noting that bigotry is collectivism and this is against Objectivist tenets.

As far as any interchange between the Muslim culture and Objectivism is concerned (within the friendly molds I am suggesting here, not within the Islam-hatred promoted elsewhere), what do you see in terms of specifically incorporating individual rights as a social principle within Islamic thinking? This is the starting point from the Objectivist end.

Incidentally, I am moving this to the Living Room since the section you posted to is for technical issues about Objectivist philosophy, not the application.

As one last comment in this post, please excuse any excessive hostility this poster or that may present. Bashing Muslims (or any other group except organized terrorists and other such who have proven to be evil through their acts) is not my policy and I will try to keep the acrimony level down. I hope we can have some kind of rational dialog. That is my fervent wish. I know I probably do not need to state this, but excessive hostility from the Muslim side will also not be tolerated.

If you want to interact with good people for coming to intellectual understanding and a healthy exchange of ideas, you have come to the right place. Let's all hope this spirit continues.

Once again, Jannah, welcome.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Welcome! You make many good points. Many years ago before Ayn Rand's death I tried to make similar points to a prominent Objectivist. I of course got no where.

[Alfonso Jones]

Anyway, the greatest reason for my distrust of Ayn Rand's teachings comes from some of her statements about the Arab diaspora. She stated, "The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are... [Arabs are] savages who don't want to use their minds..."

The ARI posted an Op-Ed piece by Debi Ghate which quotes Ayn Rand as saying, "[Racism is] the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced by his internal body chemistry, which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." Ghate continues, "It means placing the group's standing above the individual's, valuing the arbitrary (a man's ancestry) over the essential (his own character or ability.) Judging individuals by their race is evil no matter what incarnation it takes... How do we actually correct the injustice of segregation? ...By decisively rejecting the claim that members of a racial group (who have nothing in common but a physiological attribute) are interchangeable. And by denouncing "diversity" as an anti-value--and as the new racism."

I'd like to ask you: Am I a savage who doesn't want to use my mind? Does anyone truly have the right to make this claim for millions of individuals, especially when discussing life or death?

--Jannah

Jannah -

First of all - welcome to Objectivist Living.

I have excerpted a few paragraphs from your longer post, above.

To address the questions in your last paragraph first: I don't know you yet, but I see no indications in your post which would lead me to the conclusion that you are a savage, or that you do not want to use your mind. Your writing suggests the opposite on both counts, in fact.

Now, if you hang around long you will find that many who post here have strong objections to many stances of the Ayn Rand Institute. In fact, if Ayn Rand were alive today I am confident that she would have objections to many stances of the Ayn Rand Institute. The "nuke 'em all" pronouncement is one of the most notorious. You have highlighted some others in the items I quoted above.

And yes, Ayn Rand could occasionally get a full head of steam on an argument and overrun reason. She was such a fast thinker and integrator that seldom would others contradict her.

Now, expect some vigorous give and take in this forum. Participants take ideas seriously, and will speak with passion about them.

Glad you've joined us.

Alfonso

[studiodekadent]

Hayyah,

Welcome to Objectivist Living. I would like to add my welcome in addition to those of MSK and the others.

First, I agree that some of the positions endorsed by the Objectivist orthodoxy are not ones that I would personally endorse. This site is mostly composed of those that differ on points with the Objectivist orthodoxy, although we agree with the essentials of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

For a site that criticizes the ARI from an Objectivist perspective, please look at www.ariwatch.com. I have enjoyed that site quite a lot.

It is correct that Palestinian culture was agrarian rather than Nomadic. However, Arab cultures do differ from eachother and certainly some Arab cultures are Nomadic (the peoples of the land currently called Saudi Arabia have a nomadic history I believe, please correct me if I am wrong). Rand certainly did treat Arab cultures as identical, unfortunately. However that mistake is easily corrected.

they did not resent Israel for having modern science (this is a ridiculous assertion), but rather for pushing them off their land. It's really this simple. Trying to bend the reasoning any other way is an exercise in obfuscation. As an Objectivist, I would imagine Miss Rand would believe it is praiseworthy to wish to keep one's own property...?

I would agree that much of Arab rage in general, and most (if not all of) Palestinian rage in particular, against the Western world is due to the creation of Israel. So on this point (the cause) I would agree with you. I may not however agree with all of your premises (i.e. I dont believe in collective property rights, only individual ones, so I do not believe in national self-determination on the basis of ethnicity), but that is a different issue.

It certainly seems that when Miss Rand was approached with a topic that affected her emotions, the objectivity flew out the window.

This unfortunately has happened a few times (for example, the Woman President issue), luckily these are correctible and not essential to Objectivism as a philosophy.

Furthermore, by saying the Arabs surrounding Israel are 'savages who don't want to use their minds,' aren't Miss Rand and ARI at odds, since the former is judging men's intellectual traits by their body chemistry, by their collection of ancestors?

Certainly to some degree. It is obviously unfair to say all Arabs are irrational. Some are, obviously, but not all. Also, lets not forget that Jews have their fundamentalists too, who are just as irrational as Islamic Fundamentalists and Christian Fundamentalists. This does not mean all members of the same religion are as irrational as the Fundies.

I'd like to ask you: Am I a savage who doesn't want to use my mind? Does anyone truly have the right to make this claim for millions of individuals, especially when discussing life or death?

Well, you obviously are not a savage trying to avoid the use of your mind. Otherwise you wouldnt have come here. And I agree that no one can truly make a blanket condemnation of a collective. If there is even one innocent in that collective, condemning the collective as a whole is an error, and a potentially murderous one.

[mvir9]

Jannah,

I enjoyed your post a great deal. Self-possession goes wonderfully with intellectual investigation.

You are correct to say that collectivism is in fundamental disagreement with Objectivism. However, this goes both ways. It may be easy to lump all Objectivists into one category . . . but we, like everyone else, are individuals first. I like to think of my beliefs as Individualist Objectivism

It took me years after finding Rand to discover that an Objectivist "community" existed. Once I did, I quickly discovered that every person, including myself, has his own take on Objectivist philosophy. I find this fact pleasing. What a boring, static world it would be if we all agreed on everything.

Regarding your initial concern with Objectivist views of the Arabic world, let me say this:

A horribly small number of Americans know anything about the Arabic world. And, of course, ignorance is not bliss -- for the Americans, or for the individuals living in the Arabic world who are judged based on ignorance. Ignorance is not an excuse for bad judgments, but it is a fact in too many cases. In my case, I never saw a reason to delve into Arabic history -- it had no impact on me or my family (or so I thought), and it held no interest for me. Instead, I obsessed over English history (which I still adore). After visiting ground zero, I was hit very hard with the fact that I was completely ignorant about the Arabic world (and I was not pleased with myself). I immediately started my research -- I read every possible thing I could get my hands on. To this day, I continue my research and enjoy learning about Arabic culture. One of the benefits of my research is that it created in me a great deal of respect for the Arabic culture. Prior to my research, I had no respect for it at all.

What is my point? Please be patient. I am not alone in my desire to learn about your culture, and I am not alone in approaching the subject of your culture with an open mind. Most Objectivists will withhold judgment until they have enough facts to make a reasonable assessment. Granted, they may not always come to the same conclusion as you, but they will give you a fair hearing as long as you are interested in an honest, civil debate. From your initial post, it seems to me that you are interested in honesty and civility. Thank you for that. Likely, we will all learn a lot from this exchange.

Virginia

[Chris Grieb]

Jannah; I would like to add my agreement with Virginia's post. I want to hear what you have to say and from my earlier post in this thread I think you're on to something. Ignore Bob.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I moved this topic to the Mideast section for archiving in the correct thematic place and deleted the links in the other sections.

It is obvious to me that, despite the tone, the original poster was not interested in discussion but was on a Palestinian propaganda mission at 9/11 time. It has been over 2 weeks and he has not responded to any discussion.

I have no idea what he expected to accomplish by doing that, but OL is a discussion forum. Not a propaganda vehicle.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

That's very sad. I thought there was something to his first discussion.

[mvir9]

I agree Chris . . . it is too bad. Like you, I had thought that there was some substance here. Frustrating, indeed!

[BaalChatzaf]

I agree Chris . . . it is too bad. Like you, I had thought that there was some substance here. Frustrating, indeed!

Why am I not surprised? I told you guys so.

Ba'al Chatzaf