Why all this infighting?

[BaalChatzaf]

Just a general question. Why do I see so much infighting among Objectivists or people who claim adherence to Objectivism? Objectivism is supposed to be a philosophy of reason and reason should be able to resolve the disagreements or clarify the issues. But what do I see? Not only disagreement (which is inevitable) but some rather nasty sniping and people making very personal remarks. It has the appearance of an Argumentum of Homiem cluster f**k. For advocates of reason that seems mighty strange. Why do people get so personal? To quote the great Rodney King --- Can't we all just get along?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Infighting is not peculiar to Objectivism; far from it. Infighting can be found in every ideological movement one cares to examine, from early Christianity to Marxism.

Ever spent much time around Marxists? I did in my college days, and Marxists make the infighting among Randians look like a stroll in the park. In the early days of Christianity dissenters were branded as heretics and punished in various ways, including executions.

Why does this seem to be a universal phenomenon? Why are heretics (internal dissenters) typically more hated than infidels (outsiders)? I think there are three major reasons.

First, heretics should know better. Unlike infidels who may be totally unfamiliar with the tenets of a belief system, heretics understand the basic principles but dissent from some of them nonetheless. And there can be no excuse for this. The problem must lie in a willful refusal to accept the truth. Heretics are morally culpable in a way that infidels may not be; they are essentially traitors to a cause. (Thomas Aquinas emphasized this point in calling for the execution of heretics after their second relapse.)

Second, heretics pose more of a threat to an orthodox belief system than do most infidels, for they eat away at the belief system from within -- and they can speak with some authority, given the common framework they share with orthodox members.

Third, heretics create a number of serious problems for the spokespersons of orthodoxy. If a belief system is presented as rigorous and internally consistent, then how are knowledgeable heretics even possible? The very existence of heretics must be explained away by the establishment, and this is often not easy to do. Heretics, moreover, compete for the allegiance of novitiates, so they constitute a threat to the growth of an orthodox movement.

Ghs

Give me that Old Time Religion, that Old Time Religion.....

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

GHS: your analysis of this is one of the best I've seen.

Yes, George nailed it. This thread is a wrap.

Shayne

[9thdoctor]

Give me that Old Time Religion, that Old Time Religion.....

Good enough for me!

BTW there's a good book about the early Christian heresies called When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein, he also wrote Aristotle's Children, which I saw referenced on this site some months ago. He makes the subject engaging. 4th century Christians were a nasty bunch.

[George H. Smith]

GHS: your analysis of this is one of the best I've seen. I would another point, at the risk of ruining the momentum: heretics are also (usually) personally known to the Orthodox in some way, thus creating the "hell hath no fury" factor.

Good point. I would add that charismatic movements have additional problems of their own. Rand was a intensely charismatic figure, and her personal influence and authority sometimes conflicted with her written statements on the value of independent thinking. After her death, in a manner that I didn't foresee, Rand's charisma became institutionalized, so to speak, when she supposedly said to Leonard "Peter" Peikoff: "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

This biblical reference may seem far fetched, but the psychology involved is a common one in both religious and secular movements.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Don't wrap it; I'm sure to come up with something brilliant sooner or later.

--Brant

maybe something wonderfully awful

[Philip Coates]

George is correct about the history of fights over 'heresy' in other movements and his three reasons why it has been so reviled. However he's wrong about his leading point in terms of the all important issue of *relative degree*:

> Infighting can be found in every ideological movement one cares to examine

First of all, he stacks the deck in his choice of examples. It's a mistake to take the most extreme examples - Marxists and early Christianity as representative or typical of ideological movements. The Christianity of the Inquisition hardly represents Christians today. And you don't see bitter moral condemnations all the time between baptists, pentecostalists, methodists, and presbyterians, do you?

If you look at the political movements today, you will certainly find infighting, expulsions, denunciations but you will also find a considerable degree of 'fusionism' or at least being willing to work together to elect candidates that in very broad terms fit the ideology, or to fight for causes, or to work collegially in journals and conventions, joiint publications, and so on.

What you see in the case of the Objectivist movement is a higher degree than in most ideological movements of intrinsicist, absolutist, infallibity-oriented, moral and epistemological "puritanism". It's true-believerism carried to a whole 'nother level than you would see in even a movement tea party-ist or conservative or religious sectarian or socialist or liberal or conservationist. Or various ideological movements in the areas of education or science, to get away from politics.

Cognitive psychologists vs. behaviorists? Homeschoolers vs. charter schoolers?

Yes, you can find infighting and schisms and bitter animosities in any movement that is large enough. But here are some differences *of degree* for the Objectivist movement as compared to many (if not most) "ideological movements":

1) The denunciation and expulsion tends very quickly to become -moral-. The idea that the opponent is not merely confused but -evil-. An absolute monster. An evader. You shouldn't even sanction him by speaking to him, must break off all associations, can't cooperate for a common purpose, etc.

2) For a group an order of magnitude smaller than the socialists, or current day Christians, the magnitude and frequency and totality of the 'breaks' and infighting are very high. It's so high that it's one of the first thing people notice when they come to Objectivist websites or in the bios of Rand. It's one of the first things mentioned when campus clubs meet (I've started a number of them). It's often a membership restriction for groups, websites, etc. -- we are 'open' Objectivists; we don't deal with George Reisman; we don't allow 'tolerationists', etc.

3. It's impact is much more damaging for Objectivists because we don't already have a foothold or comfort level or sympathy in the popular or intellectual culture, and thus when the infighting vs. insight and appeal ratio is so high, people constantly get a bad and 'cultist' impression. Marxists and leftists don't have as much the reputation (deserved or not) of being cultists.

,,,,,,,,,

(I also think George is a bit mistaken on a couple other points, or at least in what they might imply regarding how seriously we should take 'infighting'. I'll hold off on that.)

[George H. Smith]

Give me that Old Time Religion, that Old Time Religion.....

I understand your point, but I want to emphasize that the perennial conflict between the "right thinking" of orthodoxy and the "wrong thinking" of heresy has no inherent connection to religion. As I wrote in "The Meaning of Heresy" (in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies):

An organization must establish an identity by which to differentiate members from nonmembers. If an organization is ideological, then its identity will be defined by a credo -- a set of beliefs or principles that determines the conditions of membership. The ability of the credo to withstand philosophic scrutiny is irrelevant here. Whether rational or irrational, a credo constitutes the "orthodoxy," the intellectual foundation, of a movement. An organization without an orthodoxy is an organization without ideas.

What gives the Peikovian approach a religious flavor is not its orthodoxy per se. The religiosity lies in the method of dealing with dissenters. There are basically two options here. One can view dissenters as part of the natural expansion of a movement, one that might yield beneficial results. Or one can view dissenters contemptuously as willful enemies of the truth. There is no doubt which option Peikoff & Co. have chosen.

Ghs

[anthony]

Infighting is not peculiar to Objectivism; far from it. Infighting can be found in every ideological movement one cares to examine, from early Christianity to Marxism.

Ever spent much time around Marxists? I did in my college days, and Marxists make the infighting among Randians look like a stroll in the park. In the early days of Christianity dissenters were branded as heretics and punished in various ways, including executions.

Why does this seem to be a universal phenomenon? Why are heretics (internal dissenters) typically more hated than infidels (outsiders)? I think there are three major reasons.

First, heretics should know better. Unlike infidels who may be totally unfamiliar with the tenets of a belief system, heretics understand the basic principles but dissent from some of them nonetheless. And there can be no excuse for this. The problem must lie in a willful refusal to accept the truth. Heretics are morally culpable in a way that infidels may not be; they are essentially traitors to a cause. (Thomas Aquinas emphasized this point in calling for the execution of heretics after their second relapse.)

Second, heretics pose more of a threat to an orthodox belief system than do most infidels, for they eat away at the belief system from within -- and they can speak with some authority, given the common framework they share with orthodox members.

Third, heretics create a number of serious problems for the spokespersons of orthodoxy. If a belief system is presented as rigorous and internally consistent, then how are knowledgeable heretics even possible? The very existence of heretics must be explained away by the establishment, and this is often not easy to do. Heretics, moreover, compete for the allegiance of novitiates, so they constitute a threat to the growth of an orthodox movement.

Ghs

Excellent points. Ultimately, mankind needs to become more rational about himself but it is a "long and winding road". Objectivism is just one of countless attempts to achieve this.

GHS: your analysis of this is one of the best I've seen. I would another point, at the risk of ruining the momentum: heretics are also (usually) personally known to the Orthodox in some way, thus creating the "hell hath no fury" factor.

Great overview of dissonance in any movement.

To suggest another approach, is that I believe there's a large problem with authority inside Objectivism.

On three levels :- those who know more, or consider themselves "keepers of the flame",and so on, push themselves to positions of power;

those who admire authoritative and powerful leaders, become their followers, and aid them in setting up a 'tribe';

those who want neither to lead nor follow, (so far,so good!) BUT, have to oppose, as a 'matter of principle,' everyone else. (They tend towards automatic disagreement, and are never known to give credit where it's due - the other side of the judgement coin.)

IOW,: leaders, followers and mavericks; a microcosm of any society.

If this has any merit to it, then I believe it is a 'trichotomy', that somehow skirts round the central principles of Objectivist egoism and independence...and benevolence.

Tony

[Selene]

Give me that Old Time Religion, that Old Time Religion.....

Good enough for me!

BTW there's a good book about the early Christian heresies called When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein, he also wrote Aristotle's Children, which I saw referenced on this site some months ago. He makes the subject engaging. 4th century Christians were a nasty bunch.

Great opening from a great movie - nice selection.

Even Gary Cooper succumbed!

But hell then he went over yonder a killed him a mess of Heines!

Adam

Edited September 18, 2010 by Selene

[George H. Smith]

George is correct about the history of fights over 'heresy' in other movements and his three reasons why it has been so reviled. However he's wrong about his leading point in terms of the all important issue of *relative degree*:

> Infighting can be found in every ideological movement one cares to examine

First of all, he stacks the deck in his choice of examples. It's a mistake to take the most extreme examples - Marxists and early Christianity as representative or typical of ideological movements. The Christianity of the Inquisition hardly represents Christians today. And you don't see bitter moral condemnations all the time between baptists, pentecostalists, methodists, and presbyterians, do you?

I said nothing about "all the time." Moreover, the denominations you mention were the largely the result of ideological splits.

If you look at the political movements today, you will certainly find infighting, expulsions, denunciations but you will also find a considerable degree of 'fusionism' or at least being willing to work together to elect candidates that in very broad terms fit the ideology, or to fight for causes, or to work collegially in journals and conventions, joiint publications, and so on.

If you are speaking of the Republican and Democratic parties, then these organizations are more pragmatic than ideological. Neither has a coherent ideology that I have been able to discern.

What you see in the case of the Objectivist movement is a higher degree than in most ideological movements of intrinsicist, absolutist, infallibity-oriented, moral and epistemological "puritanism".

I don't think this is an accurate characterization. There is nothing "infallibility-oriented" (etc.) about Objectivism per se. How a philosophy is presented by some of its proponents is a different matter that the principles of the philosophy itself.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Great opening from a great movie - nice selection.

Even Gary Cooper succumbed!

[video deleted]

But hell then he went over yonder a killed him a mess of Heines!

The Fountainhead would have been a much better movie if Gary Cooper had not played Roark like an upscale Sgt. York.

Ghs

[Selene]

Great opening from a great movie - nice selection.

Even Gary Cooper succumbed!

[video deleted]

But hell then he went over yonder a killed him a mess of Heines!

The Fountainhead would have been a much better movie if Gary Cooper had not played Roark like an upscale Sgt. York.

Ghs

George:

Yes . Even Coop felt that he blew the role. Unfortunately, I was so mesmerized by the first exposure to Rand's ideas and my absolute adoration of Cooper and his characters, Lou Gehrig, marshal in High Noon, the moral Southern Colonel in Vera Cruz, Sgt. York, etc. that I selectively distorted his performance! lol. Young and star struck.

I have just been looking into Tallulah Bankhead and her amazing life, especially in Radio in 1941, and she had something real clear to say about Coop as her reason to move to Hollywood!

Adam

Edited September 18, 2010 by Selene

[George H. Smith]

George:

Yes . Even Coop felt that he blew the role. Unfortunately, I was so mesmerized by the first exposure to Rand's ideas and my absolute adoration of Cooper and his characters, Lou Gehrig, marshal in High Noon, the moral Southern Colonel in Vera Cruz, Sgt. York, etc. that I selectively distorted his performance! lol. Young and star struck.

I have just been looking into Tallulah Bankhead and her amazing life, especially in Radio in 1941, and she had something real clear to say about Coop as her reason to move to Hollywood!

Adam

I always liked Gary Cooper (Sgt. York was one of my favorite movies as a kid, and High Noon still is), but I don't think he had much range as an actor. The worst part of Cooper's performance as Roark was his reading of the courtroom speech. Punctuated with arbitrary pauses and weird inflections, it's as if he didn't understand a word he was saying. To this day I find that scene excruciating to watch.

When my stepdaughter was a high school sophomore, I tried to get her interested in Rand by watching The Fountainhead. What a huge mistake that turned out to be.

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

Yes . Even Coop felt that he blew the role. Unfortunately, I was so mesmerized by the first exposure to Rand's ideas and my absolute adoration of Cooper and his characters, Lou Gehrig, marshal in High Noon, the moral Southern Colonel in Vera Cruz, Sgt. York, etc. that I selectively distorted his performance! lol. Young and star struck.

I have just been looking into Tallulah Bankhead and her amazing life, especially in Radio in 1941, and she had something real clear to say about Coop as her reason to move to Hollywood!

Adam

I always liked Gary Cooper (Sgt. York was one of my favorite movies as a kid, and High Noon still is), but I don't think he had much range as an actor. The worst part of Cooper's performance as Roark was his reading of the courtroom speech. Punctuated with arbitrary pauses and weird inflections, it's as if he didn't understand a word he was saying. To this day I find that scene excruciating to watch.

When my stepdaughter was a high school sophomore, I tried to get her interested in Rand by watching The Fountainhead. What a huge mistake that turned out to be.

Ghs

Lol. Yes. Does not translate well to the "young uns". I have found Anthem, which is not one of the non-fiction books she wrote that I enjoyed reading, to be an excellent first read for young folks.

When I oral interped Roark's speech, I did a great job. Of course, I reversed Coop's approach which was awful. It is a very passionate speech which he totally booted.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> And you don't see bitter moral condemnations all the time between baptists, pentecostalists, methodists, and presbyterians, do you? [Phil]

> I said nothing about "all the time." Moreover, the denominations you mention were the largely the result of ideological splits. [George]

Please don't take 'all the time' -literally- and then miss my main point which is that Christian movements pretty much aren't doing all this infighting compared to the Oist movement.

On your second statement,your original claim was that ideological movements are very comparable to Objectivists in terms of infighting. My point is that the Christian churches with their ecumenicism, mutual tolerance, joint projects, and in many other ways are a clear counter-example: It doesn't matter -how- they arose.

[George H. Smith]

I always liked Gary Cooper (Sgt. York was one of my favorite movies as a kid, and High Noon still is), but I don't think he had much range as an actor. The worst part of Cooper's performance as Roark was his reading of the courtroom speech. Punctuated with arbitrary pauses and weird inflections, it's as if he didn't understand a word he was saying. To this day I find that scene excruciating to watch.

When my stepdaughter was a high school sophomore, I tried to get her interested in Rand by watching The Fountainhead. What a huge mistake that turned out to be.

Ghs

Lol. Yes. Does not translate well to the "young uns". I have found Anthem, which is not one of the non-fiction books she wrote that I enjoyed reading, to be an excellent first read for young folks.

When I oral interped Roark's speech, I did a great job. Of course, I reversed Coop's approach which was awful. It is a very passionate speech which he totally booted.

Adam

During the nearly seven years that I worked as the executive editor for Knowledge Products, I spent many, many hours in a Nashville recording studio as the technical adviser while the tapes were being recorded. My job was to make sure that the readings were true to the original sense.

I worked with some excellent actors, but they were dealing with difficult passages from Hobbes, Locke, and others. This is when I became painfully aware of how stressing the wrong words can significantly change the meaning of a passage. At first I tried to explain the meaning of a troublesome passage to the actor, but this proved cumbersome, even futile. Then our director, Pat Childs, suggested a simple solution -- indeed, one so simple that it's hard to believe that I didn't think of it myself. I took the actor's script and simply underlined the words that should be "punched." The results were instantaneous.

Since those days I have occasionally wondered why someone didn't do the same thing with Cooper's script of Roark's speech.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

> And you don't see bitter moral condemnations all the time between baptists, pentecostalists, methodists, and presbyterians, do you? [Phil]

> I said nothing about "all the time." Moreover, the denominations you mention were the largely the result of ideological splits. [George]

Please don't take 'all the time' -literally- and then miss my main point which is that Christian movements pretty much aren't doing all this infighting compared to the Oist movement.

On your second statement,your original claim was that ideological movements are very comparable to Objectivists in terms of infighting. My point is that the Christian churches with their ecumenicism, mutual tolerance, joint projects, and in many other ways are a clear counter-example: It doesn't matter -how- they arose.

I understand your point, but I would contend that the ecumenical spirit of some Christian denominations is directly related to their watering-down of orthodox doctrines -- sometimes to the point where there is almost no coherent doctrine remaining -- only some glittering generalities instead. You won't find nearly as much "tolerance" among fundamentalist groups who, whatever their faults may be, at least believe in something.

Before the the 18th century anarchist (and husband of Mary Wollstonecraft) William Godwin became an atheist, he had been a member of a small Calvinist sect called the Sandemanians. Godwin once remarked that whereas Calvinists believed that 99 of every 100 Protestants were going to hell, the Sandemanians believed that 99 of every 100 Calvinists were going to hell.

Now that's real Christianity.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Sounds like it was time for a new sect which claimed that almost all the Sandemanians were going to hell? ..Or at least a sect whose position is that Sandemanians is a really stupid name?

> I would contend that the ecumenical spirit of some Christian denominations is directly related to their watering-down of orthodox doctrines -- sometimes to the point where there is almost no coherent doctrine remaining -- only some glittering generalities instead. You won't find nearly as much "tolerance" among fundamentalist groups who, whatever their faults may be, at least believe in something. [GHS]

That sounds reasonable - if they are wishy-washy in their beliefs, they are hardly likely to consistently be demonizing those who differ on every little thing. But I don't know, however, the degree to which modern day sects -don't- have strong doctrines. Certainly there are many who do. Fundamentalism is on the rise. The rise of born-again types, Pentecostalists, etc. But even they are pretty ecumenical. However, I'm not an expert on specific doctrines, that's just the sense I have from occasional contacts and readings across my life....I'm open to other evidence, though.

(I do have a couple more disagreements, however, which I'll try to post shortly.)

Edited September 18, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> Infighting is not peculiar to Objectivism; far from it...Why does this seem to be a universal phenomenon?... [GHS, #23]

> What you see in the case of the Objectivist movement is a higher degree than in most ideological movements of intrinsicist, absolutist, infallibity-oriented, moral and epistemological "puritanism". [Phil, #31]

> I don't think this is an accurate characterization. There is nothing "infallibility-oriented" (etc.) about Objectivism per se. How a philosophy is presented by some of its proponents is a different matter that the principles of the philosophy itself. [GHS, #35]

Yes, but this whole discussion of George's post #23 was about how the philosophy is presented, how it is practiced, not the principles of the philosophy itself. That's what a discussion of infighting is all about.

And my argument [which I made in some detail in post #31] is that Objectivists tend to be an extreme case in regards to frequency or degree, to totality or uncompromisingness of the infighting and 'heresy-slinging' and excommunications and claims of 'evil' among the opponents.

I listed many well-known ideological movements that much more seldom have all of these behaviors. (Why the behaviors are semi-suicidal is another subject.)

Edited September 19, 2010 by Philip Coates

[kiaer.ts]

> Infighting is not peculiar to Objectivism; far from it...Why does this seem to be a universal phenomenon?... [GHS, #23]

> What you see in the case of the Objectivist movement is a higher degree than in most ideological movements of intrinsicist, absolutist, infallibity-oriented, moral and epistemological "puritanism". [Phil, #31]

> I don't think this is an accurate characterization. There is nothing "infallibility-oriented" (etc.) about Objectivism per se. How a philosophy is presented by some of its proponents is a different matter that the principles of the philosophy itself. [GHS, #35]

Yes, but this whole discussion of George's post #23 was about how the philosophy is presented, how it is practiced, not the principles of the philosophy itself. That's what a discussion of infighting is all about.

And my argument [which I made in some detail in post #31] is that Objectivists tend to be an extreme case in regards to frequency or degree, to totality or uncompromisingness of the infighting and 'heresy-slinging' and excommunications and claims of 'evil' among the opponents.

I listed many well-known ideological movements that much more seldom do all of this.

"Much more seldom"?

[Brant Gaede]

> Infighting is not peculiar to Objectivism; far from it...Why does this seem to be a universal phenomenon?... [GHS, #23]

> What you see in the case of the Objectivist movement is a higher degree than in most ideological movements of intrinsicist, absolutist, infallibity-oriented, moral and epistemological "puritanism". [Phil, #31]

> I don't think this is an accurate characterization. There is nothing "infallibility-oriented" (etc.) about Objectivism per se. How a philosophy is presented by some of its proponents is a different matter that the principles of the philosophy itself. [GHS, #35]

Yes, but this whole discussion of George's post #23 was about how the philosophy is presented, how it is practiced, not the principles of the philosophy itself. That's what a discussion of infighting is all about.

And my argument [which I made in some detail in post #31] is that Objectivists tend to be an extreme case in regards to frequency or degree, to totality or uncompromisingness of the infighting and 'heresy-slinging' and excommunications and claims of 'evil' among the opponents.

I listed many well-known ideological movements that much more seldom do all of this.

"Much more seldom"?

That's a hell of a lot of seldom--more than I've seldom seen

.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Sounds like it was time for a new sect which claimed that almost all the Sandemanians were going to hell? ..Or at least a sect whose position is that Sandemanians is a really stupid name?

At least one person has some interest in this obscure sect.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT-L36e8ucE?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT-L36e8ucE?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT-L36e8ucE?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

As for "Sandemanians" being a really stupid name, perhaps Robert Sandeman should have changed his name. Imagine if Rand had stayed with her real name of Rosenbaum.

Randian has a nice ring to it -- but Rosenbaumians or Rosenbaumites?

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

Randian has a nice ring to it -- but Rosenbaumians or Rosenbaumites?

It would be Rosenbaumster.

I kinda like it.

[George H. Smith]

And my argument [which I made in some detail in post #31] is that Objectivists tend to be an extreme case in regards to frequency or degree, to totality or uncompromisingness of the infighting and 'heresy-slinging' and excommunications and claims of 'evil' among the opponents.

This simply isn't true. In an earlier post you characterized my example of Christianity as "extreme" -- but it's not extreme at all when viewed in the context of Christendom's 2000 year history. Most of this history, including post-Reformation thought, is marked by an obsession with heresy. Indeed, the most famous figures in both Catholicism and Protestantism, such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin, wrote a great deal about heresy, and Christian heretics were frequently subjected to unimaginable suffering. For example, when Servetus was sentenced to burn by Calvin & Co. for his denial of the doctrines of the Trinity and infant baptism, he was (like many heretics) literally roasted over a slow fire. It took Servetus thirty minutes to die.

Given the many centuries that this kind of persecution went on, to call Objectivism an "extreme case" of "heresy-slinging" shows an astonishing lack of historical perspective.

Ghs

[Selene]

Ahh...I love the smell of slow roasted heretics in the morning!

Adam

I cannot believe I just typed that!