"In order to gain (or retain) acceptance by the orthodox Objectivists, you have to bend over backwards to prove your acceptability. Especially if you once collaborated with the Brandens and/or TOC, you must furnish more than mere assurances that you have “seen the light.” Instead, as part of your rite of passage, you must “come out” as "realizing" just how evil and “anti-Objectivist” the Brandens and Kelley and their supporters are."
Since an attitude as described above is the very opposite of individualism, it goes against Objectivism's own principles.
How tolerant of other opinions is Objectivism?
Is it just the the dogmatic orthodox groups that are so intolerant and non-indivdualistic, or is there something in the philosophy itself, with its constant pressure to pronounce moral judgment on others, that could encourage dogmatism, as N. Branden wrote in his "Benefts and Hazards" article?
Why Being Morally Denounced by Objectivists May Be a ~Good~ Thing
in Objectivism 401
A blog by Roger Bissell in General
Posted
"In order to gain (or retain) acceptance by the orthodox Objectivists, you have to bend over backwards to prove your acceptability. Especially if you once collaborated with the Brandens and/or TOC, you must furnish more than mere assurances that you have “seen the light.” Instead, as part of your rite of passage, you must “come out” as "realizing" just how evil and “anti-Objectivist” the Brandens and Kelley and their supporters are."
Since an attitude as described above is the very opposite of individualism, it goes against Objectivism's own principles.
How tolerant of other opinions is Objectivism?
Is it just the the dogmatic orthodox groups that are so intolerant and non-indivdualistic, or is there something in the philosophy itself, with its constant pressure to pronounce moral judgment on others, that could encourage dogmatism, as N. Branden wrote in his "Benefts and Hazards" article?