Hegel and Beck University

[RightJungle]

The Beck U Class on Divine Providence in the Insider Extreme Section is very puzzling. I have watched Beck talk about Atlas Shrugged (although his use of "Where is John Galt" rather than "Who is John Galt" may be indicative of his neglecting to actually read the book) and yet, he apparently believes in Divine Providence which is a close match to how I understand Hegel's philosophy about God picking nation favorites.

This is just one of many contradictions that I am seeing with Beck.

Is anyone else amazed at how the man can bounce from highly effective champion of American or Political History to the incredibly illogical pronouncements of his educators?

[Selene]

The Beck U Class on Divine Providence in the Insider Extreme Section is very puzzling. I have watched Beck talk about Atlas Shrugged (although his use of "Where is John Galt" rather than "Who is John Galt" may be indicative of his neglecting to actually read the book) and yet, he apparently believes in Divine Providence which is a close match to how I understand Hegel's philosophy about God picking nation favorites.

This is just one of many contradictions that I am seeing with Beck.

Is anyone else amazed at how the man can bounce from highly effective champion of American or Political History to the incredibly illogical pronouncements of his educators?

Mary:

Sometimes I am amazed, but I do know that he has read the book. When I first came across him some five (5) or so years ago in Virginia, he was in the process of mentally moving to his current positions.

He would bring in his "dog eared" copy of Atlas Shrugged and read extensively from it. He is seriously ADD and refers to himself as "riddled with ADD." He has been off his meds for a while due to his current health problems. So if the "Where is John Galt?" was recent, that might be the reason.

An alternate explanation is either pure silly humor, or, his actual wish that a John Galt would emerge because he is right on the verge of being ready to go into a survivalist modality. He has two (2) years of food stored. He is well armed. He is preaching preparedness for a collapse.

My understanding is that he is differentiating between divine providence and manifest destiny, but I am not privy to what he espouses on his insider forum.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mary,

The best way to understand Beck is to think for yourself.

That's kind of a weird statement, isn't it? But it's true. Here are some thoughts I have on that.

1. Understand the ideas by thinking for yourself? Sure. Beck says so, himself. He constantly tells you to do your own homework and come to your own conclusions. He says never take his word for something as the abiding truth.

2. Beck is admittedly a work in progress, not a thinker with a finished, polished body of thought. He is a pioneer-like seeker of big ideas on an individual level, not a builder of societies and systems. This means he is not afraid to reverse himself if he comes across something that convinces him otherwise. Here is a quote that perfectly presents this idea. It is from the New York Times article of September 29, 2010, Being Glenn Beck by Mark Leibovich.

He often changes his mind or nakedly contradicts himself. "When you listen and watch me, it's where I am in my thinking in the moment," Beck told me. "I'm trying to figure it out as I go." He will sometimes stop midsentence and recognize that something he is about to say could be misunderstood and could cause him trouble. Then, more often than not, he will say it anyway.

3. Beck's thing is to be a large-scale dot-connector and pattern-finder. He's damn good at it, too. He is far, far more than a conspiracy theorist. But this is the opposite of a logician who tries to justify an idea by dotting all the "i's" and crossing all the "t's". Beck's very nature is messy, not neat. He doesn't tie up all the loose ends, nor does he even try. On the contrary. He often sees a hidden pattern that creates more questions than answers and he drags it out in the middle of the floor to let the cat smell it. That is why it is critical to think for yourself when looking at what he does. It's OK to disagree with him. He even welcomes it if it comes from your own honest thinking. (btw - I really identify with this way of being.)

4. As to style, Beck gave the best description I have encountered in an interview with Bill O'Reilly. He said that the difference between his manner and O'Reilly's manner is that O'Reilly thinks through what he wants to say and waits until he has a solid notion before speaking, whereas Beck thinks out loud. This is one of the reasons he can blurt out something outrageous that he later withdraws. I also identify with this way of being. In fact, this observation has helped me in my own writing. Now, after realizing this difference in writing styles, I see that there are things I write which are nothing more than thinking out loud, and there are more polished things. I never used to make this distinction and it would sometimes paralyze me, say, if I was doing too much research for thinking out loud (i.e., in writing), or if I was doing too much "thinking out loud" in a work that required that I tie up the loose ends.

As to Divine Providence, I'm not a big fan of the idea metaphysically. But I am emotionally. It's like the Law of Attraction. The idea is that if you do good things, more good things will be attracted to you. Whether that's true or not on a metaphysical level is up for grabs, but there seems to be a lot of positive coincidences in the lives of people who think like this. It's great for optimism, too. This is the direct opposite of Manifest Destiny, where the proponent believes that God gave him a mission to conquer others.

On a Beck-level, Divine Providence is for the country to expand by attracting others who come and/or join because of our goodness. Manifest Destiny is to expand by bullying.

I have not seen the Insider Extreme material, but what I just said in this last sentence is the way I have seen Beck discuss this issue.

I am so grateful that Beck is who he is in the manner he is. Following his efforts these last few years has enriched my life in a far deeper manner than almost anything else I have looked at. That doesn't mean I think he is something he is not. It is a mistake to set him on a pedestal, for instance. (It's actually a mistake to do that with Rand, too.)

Michael

[RightJungle]

Thank you both for your responses. I respect your thinking, which is why I posted this here. Selene, I am glad to know that he did read the book. The truth is that I don't really have any feel for what ADD would fell like or how it affects a person's thinking and behaviour, although I can get pretty scattered sometimes myself.

I sometimes feel incredibly distressed by the religious educators that Beck invites to share his bully pulpit.

It is making it harder for me to get our local Tea Partiers and 912ers to understand issues such as: The state of Iowa's constitution is meant to limit the state government's power, not target individuals such as:

Homosexuals who want to marry, or the women's right to abortion issue, or the plan to vote out the judges who only ruled according to the state constitution on gay marriage - they did not make a law (legislate from the bench), they stopped a law.

I was responsible for a session at "The Spirit of 1776" summit planned for November 6 in Des Moines, IA. I asked David Kelley if he could do the session, but he was booked. I asked Stephen R.C. Hicks if he could do the sessions on the history of the founding fathers and the constitution and he accepted my invitation. Then one of the other people with a little more power in the group nixed Hicks and got someone from the American Majority to come - claimed he was motivated by their wilingness to do it for free. I would have paid Hicks's fee myself! I spoke with the group members about what Hicks could do, but all they could say was that "we need to get back to our Christian Principles." This is a Patriot group - not a religion.

This is starting to sound like a whine -and it is. It is just that I would like to help the situation in this country, but I am losing my effectiveness in the local patriot groups because I want to focus on Government and Economics - not religion. In fact, everyone in the local groups have stopped communicating with me on a personal level (I still get organization e-mails of course). The only exception is my Objectivist meet-up group and a "proud non-Christian" who is politically active in the area.

Michael, you are right that Beck always says "think for yourself" - and I do - and I have e-mailed him about a dozen times about various things that I thought were relevant to what he was saying on his shows - no response from him. And yes, I know a lot of people talk to him. However, he has called people who sent him non-controversial e-mails full of emotional, intellectual sloppiness. What am I - chopped liver?

Well, I was away from O-L for quite awhile this summer and fall - studying and doing a little travelling. I will try to get into this site a little more often as it usually cheers and inspires me.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful responses to my post.

[Jerry Biggers]

To both Mary and to Michael:

I have a somewhat different view of Glenn.

I find his TV discussions and documentaries on the history of that deceptively-namen ideological phenomenon, "progressivism," to often be quite good, although he sometimes presents his material on this topic as if no one has ever said it before. He is partially right, in that the history of "progressivism" has not been discussed in the mass media (at least not in a negative light). The connections that he discusses may be new to him, but have been extensively covered in "conservative" publications as long as fifty years ago (e.g., "Fabian Freeway" and a volume by Congressman-to-be, Phil Crane. Sorry, I dont recall the exact title, both books came out in the early nineteen-sixties, and were not in themselves original, but popularizations of earlier treatments of Progressivism).

I get the impression that he is being fed (er, taught) this material from the historians that he occasionally has on, who I assume are fellow Mormons (they are faculty from Brigham Young University). This isn't a criticism - I just mean that he most likely did not discover these connections all by himself (nor does he imply that he has). Anyone that churns out all the material that he does for his TV and radio shows, magazines, internet websites, and multiple books each year, has to have a considerable research staff working for him.

Which brings up the topic of adult attention deficit disorder (ADD). Having had some personal experience in this area, I have to question whether Beck really has this now very "popular" (judging by all the media attention that it now gets) disorder du jour. There are many types of behavior that are often listed as "symptoms" of this disorder, but the primary characteristics are chronic, almost crippling, procrastination on important tasks, jumping from one task to another and then another, usually not finishing any of them; inability to focus one's attention or organize one's thoughts or to listen attentively to others, or difficulty even in settling-down and reading a book.

Judging by his output, Beck does not seem to display most of these characteristics, at least to the degree that it noticeably impedes his work. He recently had as a guest on his program, Vince Flynn, a very popular writer of thriller and other espionage-related novels. Flynn has annually published about one of his rather long novels each year for the last ten-or-so years. That is a rather grueling schedule, and doesn't seem to fit comfortably with Beck's characterization of him as a fellow co-sufferer of ADD. This isn't necessarily a criticism of Beck, I am merely stating that he has mis-characterized himself on this issue. I dare say that most people who have accurately been diagnosed as having ADD, would give practically anything to have one tenth the energy or productivity of Glenn Beck (or Vince Flynn). So, as John Stossel might say, regarding Beck and ADD, "Please! Give me a break!"

Regarding Beck's simultaneous profession of being a devout Mormon and also a fan of Ayn Rand, this is a contradiction that he shares with many conservatives. Rand wrote about this issue - what she viewed as a fatal flaw in conservatism - in a number of her essays, most notably, "Conservatism: An Obituary," and "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World." Either Beck has not read her essays, or chooses to ignore this issue, or just does not understand the crucial philosophical distinction, and contradictions, that mixing advocacy of religion and capitalism fail to resolve. One wonders if Yaron Brook discussed these issues with Glenn in his private conversations? One thing is certain, Rand would have "gone ballistic" in hearing her philosophy mixed with Mormonism. Can you imagine her sitting with Beck on his TV shows in front of his huge posters, reading "Faith," "Hope," and "Charity" (presumably, by their prominence, the values that Glenn considers to be paramount)? I think not.

It has been stated that the most important thing is to first save freedom in America by politically defeating the Left. That that is paramount and that later, we can get around to the unpleasant business of pointing-out to conservatives, the problems with mixing advocacy of religion (and its altruist bedrock) with defence of capitalism.

But there is a serious issue that that position sidesteps: it is one of Rand's most important theses: religion and its altruist etics is the foundation and justification of collectivism. Without that base, its justification collapses and its attraction disappears. But as long as this foundation of collectivism is left unchallenged, it will continue to dominate and prevail in the real world of political advocacy.

It's as simple as that: If Rand's analysis of the inseparable connection between religion/altruism and collectivism is wrong, then we should drop discussing it and also drop Objectivism altogether (because that is her crucial contribution to political analysis).

But if her analysis is correct, then how can we pretend that these issues do not matter? The conservatives have had blinders on about this issue and have refused to deal with it in any meaningful sense since Rand made an issue about it over fifty years ago.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

I don't believe Beck has ADD other than in the popular sense where people say they do because they get spacey. If he ever said that seriously, let us not forget he is a showman first and foremost. So melodrama is part of his character. I have noticed that he is overly-touchy about his health. I won't say he is a hypochrondiac, but he certainly shows some signs of it.

For research, Beck has a research staff of 40 people according to what he said one day. These are not people who work for Fox News. They are professional people who get their paychecks from his company. Now that he has The Blaze, I imagine this number has increased.

Although I have seen evidence of some Mormon influence at times (like his friendship with Jon Huntsman Sr.), I believe he is far more influenced historically by people like David Barton than by those from Brigham Young University. Wikipedia says he was influenced by W. Cleon Skousen, who was a Mormon conservative. But there are a lot of people who have written history books who appear on his show regularly and who are not Mormon.

There is your other point I want to discuss in depth later, but I want to mention a few words about it now. You wrote: "religion and its altruist ethics is the foundation and justification of collectivism. Without that base, its justification collapses and its attraction disappears."

The more I learn, the more I am coming to the conclusion that this is merely one piece of the puzzle. I believe that the fundamental issue is deeper. It often manifests itself by using altruism as a ruse to fool people (incidentally, I consider Rand's identification of this one of her finest achievements). But I believe there are other draws to bind folks together in dictatorships. Ones probably more visceral than conceptual thought.

At the present, conceptual-wise, I am leaning toward character--the choice to bully or to have good character. It might go even deeper later as I am far from done thinking about it and studying human nature materials.

But I have seen bullies use altruism to seduce those who are good people, and I have seen bullies use Objectivism to seduce those who are good people. I have read of cases of murderers whose favorite author was Ayn Rand (some day I will have to compile a list, since I never wrote them down as I encountered them) and, of course, history is full of cases of murderers who preach altruism. Thus, I do not see altruism--or Objectivism for that matter--as a cause for evil (or good). Instead, I see them as tools for something far more sinister or far more good.

It depends on what the person wants to do with them. In other words, it depends on a more fundamental choice than selfishness versus altruism on a philosophical level.

I have to stop right now, but my argument and understanding is much more nuanced than what I said here.

For example, we on the Objectivist side spend far too much time justifying our thoughts and acts if they smack of benevolence just so we will not be accused of altruism. But, on the other hand, it is good to be accused of using altruism for ignoble purposes if we are doing that. Coming from the other end, we often accuse people who have done very good things in the world of--in reality--being evil because they preached altruism and practiced service to others. And we have excused crony capitalists (ones in bed with the government)--some quite nasty--because they were capitalists and did not preach altrusim.

We have to get this stuff right. At least I have to.

Anyway, I am up for a good healthy discussion of all this as we go along. This is very important.

And I think Beck, with all his glories and flaws, is great to study for separating out these issues. He is easy to see since everything about him is larger than life.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

I don't believe Beck has ADD other than in the popular sense where people say they do because they get spacey. If he ever said that seriously, let us not forget he is a showman first and foremost. So melodrama is part of his character. I have noticed that he is overly-touchy about his health. I won't say he is a hypochrondiac, but he certainly shows some signs of it.

For research, Beck has a research staff of 40 people according to what he said one day. These are not people who work for Fox News. They are professional people who get their paychecks from his company. Now that he has The Blaze, I imagine this number has increased.

Although I have seen evidence of some Mormon influence at times (like his friendship with Jon Huntsman Sr.), I believe he is far more influenced historically by people like David Barton than by those from Brigham Young University. Wikipedia says he was influenced by W. Cleon Skousen, who was a Mormon conservative. But there are a lot of people who have written history books who appear on his show regularly and who are not Mormon.

There is your other point I want to discuss in depth later, but I want to mention a few words about it now. You wrote: "religion and its altruist ethics is the foundation and justification of collectivism. Without that base, its justification collapses and its attraction disappears."

The more I learn, the more I am coming to the conclusion that this is merely one piece of the puzzle. I believe that the fundamental issue is deeper. It often manifests itself by using altruism as a ruse to fool people (incidentally, I consider Rand's identification of this one of her finest achievements). But I believe there are other draws to bind folks together in dictatorships. Ones probably more visceral than conceptual thought.

At the present, conceptual-wise, I am leaning toward character--the choice to bully or to have good character. It might go even deeper later as I am far from done thinking about it and studying human nature materials.

But I have seen bullies use altruism to seduce those who are good people, and I have seen bullies use Objectivism to seduce those who are good people. I have read of cases of murderers whose favorite author was Ayn Rand (some day I will have to compile a list, since I never wrote them down as I encountered them) and, of course, history is full of cases of murderers who preach altruism. Thus, I do not see altruism--or Objectivism for that matter--as a cause for evil (or good). Instead, I see them as tools for something far more sinister or far more good.

It depends on what the person wants to do with them. In other words, it depends on a more fundamental choice than selfishness versus altruism on a philosophical level.

I have to stop right now, but my argument and understanding is much more nuanced than what I said here.

For example, we on the Objectivist side spend far too much time justifying our thoughts and acts if they smack of benevolence just so we will not be accused of altruism. But, on the other hand, it is good to be accused of using altruism for ignoble purposes if we are doing that. Coming from the other end, we often accuse people who have done very good things in the world of--in reality--being evil because they preached altruism and practiced service to others. And we have excused crony capitalists (ones in bed with the government)--some quite nasty--because they were capitalists and did not preach altrusim.

We have to get this stuff right. At least I have to.

Anyway, I am up for a good healthy discussion of all this as we go along. This is very important.

And I think Beck, with all his glories and flaws, is great to study for separating out these issues. He is easy to see since everything about him is larger than life.

Michael

Michael,

Well, you certainly brought up a lot of issues for discussion! I can't get to all of them right now, but I can't resist quoting you back on one point, or set of points:

"I have read of cases of murderers whose favorite author was Ayn Rand (some day I will have to compile a list, since I never wrote them down as I encountered them) and, of course, history is full of cases of murderers who preach altruism. Thus, I do not see altruism--or Objectivism for that matter--as a cause for evil (or good). Instead, I see them as tools for something far more sinister or far more good."

I'm not sure where you are going with this. So a list is compiled of murderers who like Ayn Rand....and then you say that history is full of murderers who preach altruism. So, are you saying, therefore, that neither position (Objectivist egoism or altruism) is important or crucial in social/historical/philosophical analysis because some thoroughly disreputable people admire both?

And what's wrong with advocating or claiming one's actions are based upon benevolence, as distinguished from altruism?

As far as preaching altruism or "service to others" (a rather broad term), I believe the main issue is forcing others to sacrifice themselves (which, of course, is what collectivist states require of their citizens). Individuals can be as self-sacrificial as they want, as long as they don't coerce others to follow them.

And exactly where does Rand excuse capitalists who collude with the government for favors? Just the opposite, as I recall.

You say: "Thus, I do not see altruism--or Objectivism for that matter--as a cause for evil (or good). Instead, I see them as tools for something far more sinister or far more good.

It depends on what the person wants to do with them. In other words, it depends on a more fundamental choice than selfishness versus altruism on a philosophical level."

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you implying that one's philosophical positions do not matter - that one can use (distort?) any ethical position to justify anything (an extremely subjectivist, relativist position)? If so, than Objectivism is meaningless as an ethical position. And so is Islam. Or Marxism. Or christianity. If ethical philosophies cannot be tied to the real world and to people's actions, then they are meaningless as a tool for analysis of people's actions, or to to advocate a course of alternative actions.

Then what do you propose? Or am I not reading your words correctly?

Edited October 21, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Peter]

Beck is an enigma.

At first glance he appears to be what Leonard Peikoff fears the most: A social agenda Republican. But other than asking people to pray and be good Christians he does not seem to be pushing a conservative social agenda. He may have one on the back burner (for he is LDS) but he does not worry me. what worries me is that if all his ailments kill him, America will have lost a great teacher.

Perhaps more later. It's supper time!

Independent Objectivist,

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

I am aware of all the points you made. I understand that sacrificial altrusim is Rand's idea of altruism, etc. Invalidating or demeaning that is not where I am going in my thinking.

I am more concerned with understanding human nature at the present. I don't believe Objectivism gives a complete picture of human nature, but it does give a very insightful picture of some critical aspects of human nature.

Your objections, that Rand's ideas are not what I say, are noted. Just because I leave something out does not mean I am do not understand the ideas. As I said, I know all this from thinking deeply about these ideas for several years, now, and more superficially over several decades. My problem is that I can't help but keep bumping up against the following:

If the history of the Objectivist movement had reflected the ideas as you stated them, I would not say what I have been saying. But the history of the Objectivist movement has been indicative of the fact that something is missing. Big time. And that's putting the matter mildly.

There are a hell of a lot of mean nasty people running around in our subculture waving the banner of Rand. There are too many of them to say that there is no pattern to seek. I want to know why this happened.

Here's a question for you. Do you think Objectivism, per se, has made Leonard Peikoff a better or worse man than he would have been if he had grown up as, say, an orthodox Jew? Or a Christian?

I think he would have been approximately the same. A fairly good teacher, but petty and half nuts. Vain. Mediocre writer. Good to his family. Etc.

I really do think this. Do you see it any differently?

And this guy was Rand's heir.

I'm not denigrating the ideas. But I am saying (for one major point) that I do not think the traditional scapegoats of Objectivism, like altruism, are as fundamental as Rand's admirers would like. Nor do I think learning Objectivism makes an evil person a good one.

If the "world's greatest expert" in Objectivism can't get it right a lot of the time, what does that say about the system as a tonic to save the world?

I think Objectivism is a very good body of ideas and a wonderful starting point. I think my life has been richer for starting out with it and if I had to do it all over, I would.

I do not think it is the only system of thought, though, that is a good starting point. I think many Christians and people from other religions and philosophies have used their respective bodies of thought as starting points and have gone on to lead wonderful productive lives full of happiness.

I think it is very productive to look at what they do right and look at what good Objectivists (and libertarians and fellow travelers) do right and try to find the patterns. I think that is a great project.

I also think the way to save the world, if that is the purpose of many Objectivists, is to start with character. The choice to be a good person. And I am using a short-hand for "good person" by claiming that this entails choosing not to be a bully. But this theme is much richer. And I am not sure I am at the fundament, yet.

I intend to write a lot more on this.

Michael

[rodney203]

Again, not following this thread closely, but when I'm feeling charitable toward Beck I think that maybe he's genuinely just trying to bring Libertarians and right-wingers together. I don't doubt he believes in what he's doing. I would hate to think he's just playing to both elements to keep his audience. Sometimes he delivers truly brilliant lines, then he gets a little silly. Sometimes I think he comes across better on the radio. The TV show can at times be painful to watch.

[RightJungle]

Jerry and Michael,

You two have gone beyond the call of duty here and I hope you continue in this discussion as it is being very helpful to me to hear your ideas from your POV of familiarity with Rand's work.

I have a very well defined reason for believing that Objectivism holds the answers to how to solve our country's problems - not because the philosophy has foreseen the details of all of our problems, nor provided an off the shelf answer to all of our problems, but because it has provided us with the fundamental guidance to make reality the final authority in our judgments. Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Barbara Branden's lectures on Efficient Thinking, the entire body of Nathaniel Branden's work, the rationality of the science of econonmics developed by Ludwig von Mises, Tara Smith's in-depth studies of Rand's philosophy - all of this and much more that has been done by many more thinkers has given us all we need for a do over that we CAN get right this time.

Mary Lee

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

I am aware of all the points you made. I understand that sacrificial altrusim is Rand's idea of altruism, etc. Invalidating or demeaning that is not where I am going in my thinking.

I am more concerned with understanding human nature at the present. I don't believe Objectivism gives a complete picture of human nature, but it does give a very insightful picture of some critical aspects of human nature.

Your objections, that Rand's ideas are not what I say, are noted. Just because I leave something out does not mean I am do not understand the ideas. As I said, I know all this from thinking deeply about these ideas for several years, now, and more superficially over several decades. My problem is that I can't help but keep bumping up against the following:

If the history of the Objectivist movement had reflected the ideas as you stated them, I would not say what I have been saying. But the history of the Objectivist movement has been indicative of the fact that something is missing. Big time. And that's putting the matter mildly.

There are a hell of a lot of mean nasty people running around in our subculture waving the banner of Rand. There are too many of them to say that there is no pattern to seek. I want to know why this happened.

Here's a question for you. Do you think Objectivism, per se, has made Leonard Peikoff a better or worse man than he would have been if he had grown up as, say, an orthodox Jew? Or a Christian?

I think he would have been approximately the same. A fairly good teacher, but petty and half nuts. Vain. Mediocre writer. Good to his family. Etc.

I really do think this. Do you see it any differently?

And this guy was Rand's heir.

I'm not denigrating the ideas. But I am saying (for one major point) that I do not think the traditional scapegoats of Objectivism, like altruism, are as fundamental as Rand's admirers would like. Nor do I think learning Objectivism makes an evil person a good one.

If the "world's greatest expert" in Objectivism can't get it right a lot of the time, what does that say about the system as a tonic to save the world?

I think Objectivism is a very good body of ideas and a wonderful starting point. I think my life has been richer for starting out with it and if I had to do it all over, I would.

I do not think it is the only system of thought, though, that is a good starting point. I think many Christians and people from other religions and philosophies have used their respective bodies of thought as starting points and have gone on to lead wonderful productive lives full of happiness.

I think it is very productive to look at what they do right and look at what good Objectivists (and libertarians and fellow travelers) do right and try to find the patterns. I think that is a great project.

I also think the way to save the world, if that is the purpose of many Objectivists, is to start with character. The choice to be a good person. And I am using a short-hand for "good person" by claiming that this entails choosing not to be a bully. But this theme is much richer. And I am not sure I am at the fundament, yet.

I intend to write a lot more on this.

Michael

{The following response is considerably revised or restated from its first posting late last night}

Michael,

You wrote:

"If the history of the Objectivist movement had reflected the ideas as you stated them, I would not say what I have been saying. But the history of the Objectivist movement has been indicative of the fact that something is missing. Big time. And that's putting the matter mildly.

There are a hell of a lot of mean nasty people running around in our subculture waving the banner of Rand. There are too many of them to say that there is no pattern to seek. I want to know why this happened."

Something is missing, alright. A major component that is missing has been identified and commented on extensively by the Brandens (by Barbara on this site, and at presentations at conferences; and by Nathaniel - most concisely in the Epilogue, "Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand," in The Vision of Ayn Rand; and by Kelley, in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand). It is lack of tolerance toward even the slightest deviation from the "party line," as stated by Peikoff, Binswanger, ARI, et al. Of course, Ayn Rand also displayed this behavior, both before "the break," AND perhaps even more so from 1968 to her death in 1982 (an inconvenient but glaring fact that the ARIans refuse to acknowledge because it undermines their scapegoating of the Brandens).

But recognition of the intolerance issue just describes the behavior - the symptom, not the cause. The real question is why this phenomenon continues at all in a philosophy that stresses reason, individualism, and independence. Many of us here on OL and with groups such as The Atlas Society, look upon the behavior - antics - of Peikoff and others associated with ARI, and just shake our heads, "Why are they acting like this? Don't we share common beliefs and values as expressed in Rand's writings? What's wrong with them?"

IMO, what's wrong with them is not the whole question. It's also, in a sense, what is wrong with us?: that is, what we observe in the behavior of some Objectivists, but fail to identify. Many of us are going on the assumption that the leaders of the "orthodox" ARIan wing, and their vociferous adherents are really, deep down, "just like us," but have just failed to understand certain essential aspects of Objectivism. That if we could only talk more to each other, these differences would be resolved.

I think that this conclusion is a major error. We tend to believe it because, superficially, we seem to share the same values. The key word here is "superficially." That's the mistake: we are not the same. I think that the key behaviors of the ARIans bear a much closer resemblance to similar traits expressed by the the Trotskyites and other ideological sects on the left, than they do to us. The call for "loyalty oaths," the restriction on what topics can be discussed, the re-writing of Founder's sayings and the attempted deletion of written references to others that are now considered persona non grata, the incessant purges of deviant individuals, the shunning of those expelled, the refusal to cooperate with "tolerationists" (such as libertarians, or worse, "Kelleyites") even on commonly shared political goals, all of these are behaviors that the ARIans share in common with the members of extreme leftist groups and with some religious cults.

Some of us keep waiting for our ARIan "friends" to "come around." Some think that this will happen when Peikoff and the "old guard" pass away. Nope. Not gonna happen. The Hsiehkovians are eagerly waiting in the wings to supplant the Peikovians (in fact, they can hardly wait). Of course, they will have competitors for the throne, so expect some power struggles. Once again, why is this happening? It is happening because Objectivism fulfills for the "orthodox," a chronic need that is also shared by adherents of other "closed" ideological systems and some religions - it is a totalistic system that they are depending upon to fulfill a need in their personalities, in their character. It is complete. It seems to have all the answers. But, the ideology itself, is all window dressing. Instead of Objectivism, it could be a variant of Marxism, or some religious cult. The set of behaviors that these people display has been accurately described and analyzed in Eric Hoffer's The True Believer. Those that have not read that book should pick it up and see how much in common the ARIans have with other "true believers."

The "orthodox" Objectivists don't care about "independence:" people who cluster (perhaps I should say, "cloister") together, keep checking each other's loyalty, and show suspicion and hostility to outsiders, are hardly displaying "independence" as a character trait.

You also asked:

"Here's a question for you. Do you think Objectivism, per se, has made Leonard Peikoff a better or worse man than he would have been if he had grown up as, say, an orthodox Jew? Or a Christian?

I think he would have been approximately the same. A fairly good teacher, but petty and half nuts. Vain. Mediocre writer. Good to his family. Etc.

I really do think this. Do you see it any differently?"

I am not familiar with the belief structure of orthodox judaism, but insofar as it (or, maybe, "Hassidic" Judaism? Just guessing, I'm ignorant about that system, also) offers the same social structure as Peikoff has with the "orthodox" Objectivists, I think that he would fit in quite nicely. My guess is that he left the academic world because he was uncomfortable with the free and open atmosphere (relatively speaking) of question asking that he would have had to endure. Being the legal (not intellectual) heir of Rand's estate gave him the golden (literally) opportunity to avoid impertinent questions from students or other faculty.

I think that Objectivism offers a lot, but it does not have "all" the answers. It is not "perfect" - Rand did not possess omniscience. Nor did her own behavior, according to most accounts, perfectly reflect all the ethical proscriptions of her philosophy (a fact that really annoys those who demand perfection in their Leader). And, of course, people have led productive and happy lives without having ever been exposed to the philosophy. But this does not mean that Objectivism is superfluous or not useful as an explanatory tool for understanding some key issues in philosophy and its applications to human life. I think it does that better than any other system of thought that I am familiar with. But it should not be misused and grotesquely distorted into a club, to enforce a horrific conformity to standards that are the opposite of its actual stated beliefs, as some have tried to do.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

I agree with all of your comments. And with Mary's about reality being the final arbitrator.

But neither explain why people would take from Rand's work a structure for rationalizing their bullying.

I believe that something really deep needs to be developed that shows how and why people seek power, then crave it if they allow this to develop in their souls, and why they prefer bullying and demands for conformity over allowing people to develop at their own speed--or even balance. And it needs to be done on a level of looking into the Objectivist world. I don't mean just criticizing Peikoff and ARI, either.

The way I see it, Objectivism is a great system for presenting a body of good moral standards. It is a lousy system for teaching them.

Here is one point I believe people could think about. What is a fundamental behavioral difference between religion and philosophy?

How about this?

A religion has weekly social meetings where people go to get a moral tune-up. (Some religions do this at shorter intervals than a week, but I will stay with a week for the sake of illustrating the periodicity.)

Now why is this valuable? Nobody is forced to go. They go because they want to and because this fills a need in their lives.

I believe this is an element of human nature Objectivists ignore. (And this is essentially ignored in the literature, although there are a few mentions.) They imagine that once you learn what is good and bad, you can put the book on the shelf and just go out and be that way. This ignores two realities: (1) That circumstances constantly change and this morally wears you out just trying to keep up with them, and (2) Our stream of awareness is all over the place. Sometimes we are weak, sometimes distracted, sometimes tired, sometimes so involved in an issue we can't see straight, and on and on an on.

It's great to be able to step back and listen to someone talking about what is good and how it applies to everyday living. I mean issues like how you should treat others, whether to be honest or not, how to seek inspiration and motivation when you are down, why choosing the right thing over the easy thing brings you greater satisfaction, etc., etc., etc.

If you don't get these periodic tune-ups, you get lost and start flopping around morally. (And the Objectivist doctrine of moral perfection totally wipes this reality out of awareness if you accept it.)

In this light, a closed structure like ARI (at its worst--I qualify because want to make sure that people understand that I believe that ARI has a good side) appeals to people who sense this need but don't have a manner of articulating it. There are no weekly meetings at ARI, but there are lectures, some social stuff, a clear set of rules, etc.

I believe an open system terrifies them. They not only have to think for themselve, they have to generate the inner security of belief in their own mind to operate in a truly independent manner and they have to imagine a world where they cannot get a moral fix by looking at others to see what they do.

Gotta run right now, but this is one problem I am seeing clearly.

Michael

[RightJungle]

Michael,

Amazingly, I have sometimes thought that an Objectivist "church" meeting on Sunday mornings with inspiring Objectivist songs to sing, and a tweny minute message on this week's concerns would be a good idea. How that gets done, I don't know. Maybe that would create the reprehensible club that Jerry talked about in his latest post.

I asked a musician in book club about writing Objectivist music and he listed off names like Chopin, Mozart, et al. Point taken. But I want songs that say what Objectivists think in a poetic, moving way. I attend a monthly Objectivist meet-up and we talk to each other through e-mail on anything that comes up that motivates us to respond. I really like this little group. We all disagree about all kinds of details, but we keep coming back to the core ideas to find "solutions" to the disagreements.

It isn't so much a moral flopping around problem that I see - it is more the relief from the exhaustion of interacting with people who are not aware of this way of thinking that drives the need for socializing with people who sort of agree with you. I say sort of because Objectivists, happily, think for themselves, which makes for stimulating conversations.

Another aspect of that is that church is like theater - it is structured with Act 1, Act 2, denouement. It is meant to affect your emotions. Having your emotions affected can be enjoyable, the deeper the thinking the deeper the emotions. I would just like to hear the message address today's issues from the Oist POV. Objectivism is meant to help us discover how to live HAPPY lives, after all.

Thank you for your thoughtfullness.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Mary Lee Harsha

[anthony]

Another aspect of that is that church is like theater - it is structured with Act 1, Act 2, denouement. It is meant to affect your emotions. Having your emotions affected can be enjoyable, the deeper the thinking the deeper the emotions. I would just like to hear the message address today's issues from the Oist POV. Objectivism is meant to help us discover how to live HAPPY lives, after all.

Thank you for your thoughtfullness.

Ms. Harsha,

Terrific observation. My related version: the more I think, the more I care, and vice-versa.

We need constant reminding.

Thank you.

Tony

[Selene]

Mary:

RUSH is considered as a group espousing Objectivism.

Understanding Ayn Rand through the music of Rush

Author:

zikzak

Topic: Many people have unfairly maligned Ayn Rand, the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. This has always confounded me, for no other person has developed such a rational approach to living as she. I believe the underlying reason is that most of her works, like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, are simply too complex and involved for most people. Thankfully, a group of Canadian musicians took the time during the 80's to distill the complexity of Rand's philosophy into music that we can all understand.

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.22.0219.37804.html

Adam

[Peter]

I am a bit squeamish about Glenn. Sometimes it is embarrassing to watch him, as someone mentioned.

Peter

Glenn Beck Says: No Proof of Evolution

By Max Fisher | October 20, 2010 3:06pm

Fox News host Glenn Beck has denounced the theory of evolution, saying that he knows it is false because he has never seen "a half-monkey, half-person." Beck coming out against evolution is hardly surprising, but his not-so-persuasive scientific analysis has drawn the usual round of mockery and revulsion. Scientists say that our closest living ancestors are not monkeys but apes, with which we share a common ancestor. Records of one of the most recent known common ancestors, sahelanthropus tchadensis, indicate it lived about 7 million years ago. Here is Beck's case against evolution.

How many people believe in evolution in this country? I'd like to see. I mean, I don't know why it's unreasonable to say this. I'm not God so I don't know how God creates. I don't think we came from monkeys. I think that's ridiculous. I haven't seen a half-monkey, half-person yet. Did evolution just stop? Did we all of sudden -- there's no other species that's developing into half-human?

It's like global warming. So I don't know why it is so problematic for people to just so, I don't know how God creates. I don't know how we got here. If I get to the other side and God's like, "You know what, you were a monkey once," I'll be shocked, but I'll be like, "Whatever."

They have to make you care. They have to force it down your throat. When anybody has to force it, that's a problem. You didn't have to force that the world is round. Truth is truth. You don't have to force the truth.

Talking Points Memo's Jillian Rayfield quips, "Have you ever seen a half-monkey, half-person? No? Well neither has Glenn Beck, which is how he knows evolution doesn't exist."

Libertarianism blogger Doug Mataconis sighs, "The extent to which denial of basic science is becoming de rigueur on the right is summed up in this excerpt from Glenn Beck’s radio program today. ... This is what conservatism has come to?"

Beck's statement comes one week after Tea Party star and Delaware Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell argued that anti-evolution "creationism" theory should be taught in public schools.

[BaalChatzaf]

I cannot bear to watch or hear Glen Beck. When Beck comes on, I switch channels or turn off the t.v..

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Peter:

That is not accurate.

Beck's statement comes one week after Tea Party star and Delaware Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell argued that anti-evolution "creationism" theory should be taught in public schools.

O'Donnell's argument is quite clear. Her argument is that the federal government has no right to force a local school district to teach only evolution. She specifically mentioned a local school board that wanted to also teach "intelligent design." She argued that local control trumps federal imposition of curriculum.

Lo and behold, since I am an expert on this particular issue, there is no federal right to an education. It is specifically a state right that is conferred through state constitutional dicta.

Adam

[Jerry Biggers]

I am a bit squeamish about Glenn. Sometimes it is embarrassing to watch him, as someone mentioned.

Peter

Glenn Beck Says: No Proof of Evolution

By Max Fisher | October 20, 2010 3:06pm

Fox News host Glenn Beck has denounced the theory of evolution, saying that he knows it is false because he has never seen "a half-monkey, half-person." Beck coming out against evolution is hardly surprising, but his not-so-persuasive scientific analysis has drawn the usual round of mockery and revulsion. Scientists say that our closest living ancestors are not monkeys but apes, with which we share a common ancestor. Records of one of the most recent known common ancestors, sahelanthropus tchadensis, indicate it lived about 7 million years ago. Here is Beck's case against evolution.

How many people believe in evolution in this country? I'd like to see. I mean, I don't know why it's unreasonable to say this. I'm not God so I don't know how God creates. I don't think we came from monkeys. I think that's ridiculous. I haven't seen a half-monkey, half-person yet. Did evolution just stop? Did we all of sudden -- there's no other species that's developing into half-human?

It's like global warming. So I don't know why it is so problematic for people to just so, I don't know how God creates. I don't know how we got here. If I get to the other side and God's like, "You know what, you were a monkey once," I'll be shocked, but I'll be like, "Whatever."

They have to make you care. They have to force it down your throat. When anybody has to force it, that's a problem. You didn't have to force that the world is round. Truth is truth. You don't have to force the truth.

Talking Points Memo's Jillian Rayfield quips, "Have you ever seen a half-monkey, half-person? No? Well neither has Glenn Beck, which is how he knows evolution doesn't exist."

Libertarianism blogger Doug Mataconis sighs, "The extent to which denial of basic science is becoming de rigueur on the right is summed up in this excerpt from Glenn Beck’s radio program today. ... This is what conservatism has come to?"

Beck's statement comes one week after Tea Party star and Delaware Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell argued that anti-evolution "creationism" theory should be taught in public schools.

Yesterday, I was watching PMSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who is a contender (along with his fellow comentators on MSNBC) for being the most vitriolic cable news commentator and the dual prize for demagoguery and all-around asshole. His program predictably drips of venom, gross exaggerations, ridicule, and sarcasm.

Given the above caveats, he is occasionally very funny. Last night, he included two excerpts from Rush Limbaugh's and Glenn Beck's radio/TV/internet broadcast shows.

The segment from Limbaugh showed him gesticulating wildly while describing his reaction to some recent pictures of Obama who he thought looked literally "demonic" in his appearance. Limbaugh himself looked unkempt, overweight, and sort of slovenly. After letting Limbaugh continue this rant on about Obama's demonic appearance, Olbermann quipped (with a mischeivous smirk), "Considering how you yourself look, are you sure you want to go there?"

Olbermann followed with the excerpt from Glenn Beck's TV show (mentioned in the post above) where Beck is trying to ridicule the idea of evolution, along the lines of "I just don't believe that Man descended from a monkey! I mean I never saw a halfman-halfmonkey!" Olbermann interjected, with the same sly grin, "The way you look, are you sure you want to go there?"

I have to admit, I thought that was hilarious! Not fair (Olbermann has no intention of trying to be fair), but still amusing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Beck needs to stay out of the science lab.

He is great in the history room. And in the good character room. I haven't seen anyone with his level of appeal do better.

But his science, well, I usually digest that part as entertainment...

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Mary,

I sympathize with your political struggle in Iowa (gawd, I sound so Marxist!).

On the Objectivist(ic) church idea, that idea has been experimented with a number of times, but not with much, if any, success (that I am aware of). For one thing, most of us godless folk are practicing "7th Day Sleepists." For another, it is the singing, the mindless recitations, the braindraining Sunday School lessons, the boring sermons designed for those who want others to tell them how to think about moral issues,...these are all the things that sent us fleeing from the pews, in the first place! I'm afraid the image of Leonard singing his revised rendition of Nearer My God To Thee, is not likely to attract many Objectivists - even among the "orthodox."

Seriously, though, the secular substitute for religious Sunday services has been tried by various "Humanist" organizations for many years. I don't believe it has met with much success, either. Although in several of the larger cities, they have continued to try this. Some have also tried using the Unitarian-Universalist "churches" for this venue. I have attended some meetings of the Humanists in the past. These usually ended up sounding like (actually, were) political action meetings for lost-cause Marxists. The Unitarian meetingss were, if anything, even more pathetic. In addition to forums for the usual neo-Marxist drivel, the Unitarians would inject aspects from all religions, christian, buddhist, Zen, Islamic, Bahai, etc.(After all, you don't want to offend anyone!) A virtual smorgasbord of mystical incoherence. I didn't find either of these alternatives very palatable.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Jerry Biggers]

Michael,

In addition to what I just posted to Mary, regarding the (in)viability of an Objectivist substitute/replacement/ alternative to church services, there is another problem (or set of problems):

1) In addition to all the reasons that I related above, Objectivists (of whatever stripe) are unlikely to respond favorably to this idea. You are welcome to try, of course. O'ists have generally had unpleasant experiences with churches earlier in their lives. They are also aware, and no doubt quite sensitive, to criticisms of Objectivism in the MSM as a neo-religious "cult." Consequently, anything even close to putting that smear into actual reality is likely to keep them away from any involvement with that idea.

2) I, and many others, have kept ARI away at "arm's length" due to the almost-cultic actions (purges, history rewrites, etc., etc.). While I believe that we should not abandon any particular tenants of Objectivism (while continuing to subject it to critical analysis), just because those aspects have been attacked by the MSM, I also do not wish to provide any fuel that they would jump upon to "prove" that Objectivism really is a neo-religious cult. I'm afraid that an attempt to establish a replacement for Sunday church services (no matter what it is called) is exactly the kind of trap that the collectivists would like us to voluntarily walk into.

[RightJungle]

Thanks, Jerry.

I had not even thought about how Sunday O Services could be used as weapons. I don't really intend to do anything with it. I've got a project or two to work on so I won't be at loose ends. Thanks for your sympathy (empathy?). Right now I'm going through a little separation anxiety of my own. I don't attack my friends head on about religion, I just keep asking them to try to keep it separate from government. But your warning about where that can lead needs to be taken seriously. Truth be told, I miss some of my rowdy friends.

I want to close out for the week with the following:

The source of my referral to Hegel and Beck came from his "Insider Extreme" show about Divine Providence. The Divine Providence History Class is taught by Dr. Peter Lillback, the author of "George Washington's Sacred Fire", which Beck held up on his show, but I did not buy because.... Dr. Peter A. Lillback is President and Professor of Historical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary located in Philadelphia.

He quotes the Declaration of Independence in his beautifully soothing speaking voice: "With Firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence...." - this meant that all of those founders who signed the Declaration of Independence believed that there was some notion of God's involvement in Human History"..."That all they had was a prayer, that God was a God of Just People and that in his Providence he intervened on behalf of those who were seeking to do his will. In that Providence we see many many experiences in American History that show that God was at work." Lillback then tells about the time Washington and his army were trapped by the British and how the British stopped the fight to get a good night's sleep only to wake the next morning to a fog bank that stayed in place until the last American soldier had escaped the trap. Says Lillback: "America is here today because of a Providential fog bank that came at just the right moment in time.." He then asserts that many other such events occured during the Revolutionary War.

Then he pulls out a dollar bill and tells how the eye at the top of the pyramid is "God the Father, the agent of Providence (the agent? then there's something higher than God?), smiling on America, rescuing the country"...and that "the continental congress chose the symbol of the Pyramid because they wanted the nation to last" as had the Egyptian Pyramids and that "it showed God's many signal..(couldn't understand what he was saying).. of Divine Providence on behalf of the American Cause. And it means that he has smiled at our undertakings."

Lillback also wrote the book "Wall of Misconception" about the idea of the separation of Church and State.

"In Wall of Misconception, Dr. Peter A. Lillback examines our nation's historic understanding of and the founding fathers' intention in the relationship of our Constitution to matters of faith, ethics, and morals, taking into account the historical and biblical context as well as the concept's relation to today's culture. This is both the layman's and professional's definitive guide to the separation of church and state and indeed, the separation of God and government."

"...an important book and a must-read." Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr. Retired, US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

"How often have you heard it stated on TV, in the press, or at the water cooler that "the wall of separation between church and state" are words taken right out of the US Constitution? In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution - what is popularly referred to as "the establishment clause," the only part of the US Constitution that even deals with religion and faith - contains no reference whatsoever to a "wall of separation," or, for that matter, any sort of wording including the phrase "separation of church and state." the only words in the US Constitution concerning this topic are found in the First Amendment, where it is written, "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That's it. Yet these sixteen words have been elaborately interpreted by some as having a meaning that has no basis in the founders' intentions or historic records. (This emphasis on the First Amendment to the Constitution is ignoring Article VI: ....The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.")

"Where then has this mountain of contention come from, resulting in a "wall of misconception" between church and state, and indeed between God and government? (It comes from Article VI) The phrase "wall of separation" was coined by Thomas Jefferson in his private 1802 letter of response to the Danbury Baptist Association, wherein he reaffirmed the federal government's intention to protect the public's rights of conscience to believe and practice their faith without fear of interference from government." ( Ihaven't looked that up lately.)

"Several prominent citizens' rights organizations will contend that this purported wall is being routinely breached by people of faith, yet others will assert that any action by the government to impede an individual's right to pray in school or at a public event, to display a Christmas tree in public, or to say "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is itself a Violation of the First Amendment."

"US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in a court opinion that "The 'wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history... It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.""

(And this is where things get hairy. A Supreme Court Justice? Zounds.)

Source of quotes on the books: http://www.providenceforum.org/wallofmisconception

What has happened here in Iowa: We had a good candidate for the 3rd district Congressional rep who lost the nomination to a male bimbo, I think in part because the 912ers adopted him and had him sign the 912 pledge, etc. The relatively sane may have shied away because of that. Brad Zaun, the Republican has come out as supporting an amendment to our state constitution to stop Gay Marriage and define marriage as one man/one woman. He has also supported banning all abortions. These issues are far more important to Iowa's fundamentalists than our moral rights and political freedom are. Maybe my concern about these campaigns on social issues are a waste of time and energy. Maybe after all is said and done, it won't really change anything here. All I can do is vote for the legislators who don't want to deal with these social issues. I will vote for Eric Cooper, the Libertarian candidate for Governor because it just doesn't matter to me if the Democrat or Republican wins. Might as well vote for someone who knows what his principles are and why.

Anyway, back to the Hegelian connection. I thought that Hegel's thoughts on God's habit of choosing favorite nations to support sounded a lot like Lillback's claims. I suppose the only connection between them is that similarity and nothing else of any importance.

As for the wrangling among Objectivists - Branden was once asked how many different schools of Objectivism exist. He said, "How many Objectivists?" I've been taking my lead from his attitude. Objectivists can afford to disagree as long as they keep coming back to relying on the authority of Reality. If they don't, well, just one more thing to worry about.

The thing that I think is missing from Objectivism is probably based on our lack of omniscience. Outsiders may expect that of us - that's their problem. It would be nice if we could all agree to accept that about ourselves, then we wouldn't have to treat every little deviation from ARIan orthodoxy as if it was a mortal sin. Thankfully, most of us don't anyway.

In my Objectivist group we have Rand fans, Peikoff fans, and then there's me. I'm the only one in the group who reads or listens to the Brandens or Kelley or Tara Smith (oh, one of them has heard her lecture on non-objective law.) But we keep looking forward to our meetings and enjoying the interaction.

So, that's it for the week-end for me. I'll be back Sunday night for more enlightenment and, cough, cough, entertainment.

[Selene]

Oh no!!

Mary Lee is observing a Saturday Sabbath! I knew it! An Objectivist Witches Coven! Probably has a gold Ouija board shaped like a dollar sign!

Just kidding - enjoy.

Adam

Edited October 22, 2010 by Selene