Peripheral Issues & Dogmatism

[Jerry Biggers]

Below is the concluding excerpt from Branden's article, "Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy oy Ayn Rand," of which a slightly revised version is included as an Epilogue in The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism (2009, Laissez Faire Books/Cobden Press):

Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.

The true believers might respond by saying, “How can you call it dogmatic religion when we can prove every one of Ayn Rand’s propositions?!” My answer to that is, “The hell you can!” Prior to our break, Ayn Rand credited me with understanding her philosophy better than any other person alive—and not merely better, but far better. I know what we were in a position to prove, I know where the gaps are. And so can anyone else—by careful, critical reading. It’s not all that difficult or complicated.

This may sound like a trivial example of what I mean, but it’s an example that has always annoyed me personally. I would love to hear some loyal follower of Ayn Rand try to argue logically and rationally for her belief that no woman should aspire to be president of the United States. This was one of Rand’s more embarrassing lapses. If we are to champion the independent, critical mind, then the philosophy of objectivism can hardly be exempt from judgment. Ayn Rand made mistakes. That merely proves she was human. The job of her admirers, however, is to be willing to see them and to correct them.

Sometimes, when her admirers begin to grasp their mistakes, they become enraged. They turn against everything she had to say. They feel betrayed, like children who discover that their parents are not omnipotent and omniscient. That’s another hazard to which I’d like to draw your attention.

Ayn Rand might turn over in her grave to hear me say it, but she really did have the right to be wrong sometimes. No need for us to become hysterical about it or to behave like petulant eight-year-olds. Growing up means being able to see our parents realistically. Growing up relative to Ayn Rand means being able to see her realistically—to see the greatness and to see the shortcomings. If we see only the greatness and deny the shortcomings or if we see only the shortcomings and deny the greatness, we remain blind.

She has so much that is truly marvelous to offer us. So much wisdom, insight, and inspiration. So much clarification. Let us say “thank you” for that, acknowledge the errors and mistakes when we see them, and proceed on our own path—realizing that, ultimately, each of us has to make the journey alone, anyway.

[Peter]

Thank you for your posting, Jerry! I sent a copy to Diana Hsieh.

Our Barbara is a wise person.

Peter Taylor

[Jerry Biggers]

Thank you for your posting, Jerry! I sent a copy to Diana Hsieh.

Our Barbara is a wise person.

Peter Taylor

I probably should have made it clearer that the excerpt that I quoted above was from Nathaniel.

However, I have also posted in the Barbara Branden Corner of OL, her excellant article, "Objectivism and Rage," which elaborates on some of the distortions that some self-appointed latter-day apostles have commited in the name of Objectivism.

I am sure that Ms. Hsieh would like to "thank you," probably in a manner you would not appreciate, for your thoughtfulness. But, one never knows, it's possible that she would see the light, and switch sides. Again.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[anthony]

However, I have also posted in the Barbara Branden Corner of OL, her excellant article, "Objectivism and Rage," which elaborates on some of the distortions that some self-appointed latter-day apostles have commited in the name of Objectivism.

Jerry,

Thanks.

Required reading for Objectivists? I think so.

"O and R" was an important turning point (ha! is there any other kind?) in my later development as O'ist: the idea, as personified by Barbara, that it is possible to be rational, without being angry at the world; to be judging, without condemnation.

In fact, without compromising any principle, a gracious Objectivist.

Tony

[Extropy]

I have made two searches in these boards for both dogma and domatism.

Is this where you guys discuss the danger of dogmatism in the most rational synthesis of human nature in history? Because, y'know, that's the theory's only real threat.

love,

Matt

Edited June 21, 2011 by Extropy

[Selene]

I have made two searches in these boards for both dogma and domatism.

Is this where you guys discuss the danger of dogmatism in the most rational synthesis of human nature in history? Because, y'know, that's the theory's only real threat.

love,

Matt

Matt:

Start your own specific thread. It will be easier.

You can be more precise in how you want to frame the question/

Adam

Edited June 21, 2011 by Selene

[Extropy]

I will, believe me, I've been trying to address the subject for the last half decade of my life.

I have made two searches in these boards for both dogma and domatism.

Is this where you guys discuss the danger of dogmatism in the most rational synthesis of human nature in history? Because, y'know, that's the theory's only real threat.

love,

Matt

Matt:

Start your own specific thread. It will be easier.

You can be more precise in how you want to frame the question/

Adam

[Xray]

I will, believe me, I've been trying to address the subject for the last half decade of my life.

I have made two searches in these boards for both dogma and domatism.

Is this where you guys discuss the danger of dogmatism in the most rational synthesis of human nature in history? Because, y'know, that's the theory's only real threat.

love,

Matt

Matt:

Start your own specific thread. It will be easier.

You can be more precise in how you want to frame the question/

Adam

Extropy, the "Open vs. Closed System" thread might also be an option:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5604&pid=136408&st=20entry136408