Secret Objectivist cult


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 years later...
On March 1, 2010 at 0:33 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I wanna make a secret Objectivist cult.

It's about that time. Does anybody have any ideas?

The cult attempts I have seen by a few folks at ARI and assorted mini-gurus online are simply pathetic. They get some parts right and other parts wrong. I don't think they get it wrong because of the reason and individualism in Objectivism, either. I think the cult-dudes-and-dames screw it up for no other reason than they are screw-ups.

So I am seeking a core group of cunning intelligent leaders to be the Galt Dwellers of the Inner Gulch Sanctum. Moi as guru, of course. We can expand from there.

Here's a pretty good blueprint I found on the web, although it will have to be adapted to fit Objectivist jargon:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Obviously, the mystical parts need to be cut out. But we can work around that. Notice how some of this fits the cult-making attempts of some other Objectivist groups like a glove, though? That's what makes me think it can be done right.

Move over, Rover. Top dog's comin' over!

Just for show to start with, we will probably need some cannon fodder er... marks er... followers. So in my reading on the web, studying James Arthur Ray's prospect profiles and those of the Moonies, I think we should target young people who show the following traits:

They are afraid to be alone.

They strongly feel like victims and want revenge.

They feel guilt about not being worthy.

They are prone to be naive and gullible.

They are open to accepting circular logic.

They like oversimplified ideas as answers to complex issues.

They long for an us against them group to belong to.

They handle money poorly and are used to asking others for money.

They are generally unresourceful.

They blow off facts to cling to milk-and-honey optimism.

We can mold this human clay to do whatever we want with minimum effort.

Let's go save the world in the name of Ayn Rand, folks.

Anyway, I could use the money...

:)

Michael

Sorry for my late response ( huge lolololl !!! ) . I see a connection to this today , in the folks who vote for one candidate simply because they are unconscious ( the voter , not the candidate ) . In reality , the candidates are very conscious . They are playing to these criteria  . Could you explain circular logic to me please ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Marc said:

Could you explain circular logic to me please ? 

Marc,

Circular logic means you give the definition or description of something as the reason for it (generally when asked why).

For example: A circle is round. Why? Because it's a circle.

People often complain that Rand's axiomatic concepts are circular, but they do a very clever sleight of hand. For instance, she says, "A is A." What she is doing is expressing an identification, not making a statement of causality or relationship. She was using proposition form and metaphor to express a rule, a decree, a fact, so to speak, not provide a syllogism. Similar for "existence exists."

But they treat it as an explanation. The common complaint is, "That statement doesn't explain anything." 

Culturally, Rand's fundamental axioms are the Objectivist way of God in the Old Testament telling Moses, "I Am that I Am."

You accept it or you don't. It's not an argument (which would be circular if it were), but a pillar in discourse--one to express a fundamental fact that has no why--to use as a cause for everything else. It's a way of saying: We all start here. Period. 

As Rand had a Jewish upbringing, I'm pretty sure the echo in her formulation was intentional to some extent.

But getting back to circular logic, one could say: Marc rocks because he's Marc. Just like: OL members rock because they are OL members.

That's circular, but it's true.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Marc,

Circular logic means you give the definition or description of something as the reason for it (generally when asked why).

For example: A circle is round. Why? Because it's a circle.

People often complain that Rand's axiomatic concepts are circular, but they do a very clever sleight of hand. For instance, she says, "A is A." What she is doing is expressing an identification, not making a statement of causality or relationship. She was using proposition form and metaphor to express a rule, a decree, a fact, so to speak, not provide a syllogism. Similar for "existence exists."

But they treat it as an explanation. The common complaint is, "That statement doesn't explain anything." 

Culturally, Rand's fundamental axioms are the Objectivist way of God in the Old Testament telling Moses, "I Am that I Am."

You accept it or you don't. It's not an argument (which would be circular if it were), but a pillar in discourse--one to express a fundamental fact that has no why--to use as a cause for everything else. It's a way of saying: We all start here. Period. 

As Rand had a Jewish upbringing, I'm pretty sure the echo in her formulation was intentional to some extent.

But getting back to circular logic, one could say: Marc rocks because he's Marc. Just like: OL members rock because they are OL members.

That's circular, but it's true.

:) 

Michael

Circular Logic means assuming the thing you wish to prove,  or assuming something logically equivalent to the thing you wish to prove.  The fallacy (in Latin) is petitio principii   or begging the question.  It is a Mortal Sin for a mathematician or logician to do this unspeakable thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Circular Logic means assuming the thing you wish to prove,  or assuming something logically equivalent to the thing you wish to prove.

Bob,

This is exactly the sleight of hand I mentioned when people use this argument against Rand's axiomatic concepts.

She does not make the proposition, "A is A," to prove anything. People blast her for trying to prove existence exists, and not proving it because the assumes what she wishes to prove, when she isn't trying to prove anything at all.

She is stating the rules of the game that she has seen and that others see.

Then she does her own sleight of hand by saying (my paraphrase), "If you don't play by those rules, you can't even make an objection that stands up to your own logic because you admit you might not exist. And if that is the case, there is no you to object. You are no longer in the game because you are absent. The word 'you' refers to nothing."

That's not proof, but it's pretty damn close. And it's not circular.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

This is exactly the sleight of hand I mentioned when people use this argument against Rand's axiomatic concepts.

She does not make the proposition, "A is A," to prove anything. People blast her for trying to prove existence exists, and not proving it because the assumes what she wishes to prove, when she isn't trying to prove anything at all.

She is stating the rules of the game that she has seen and that others see.

Then she does her own sleight of hand by saying (my paraphrase), "If you don't play by those rules, you can't even make an objection that stands up to your own logic because you admit you might not exist. And if that is the case, there is no you to object. You are no longer in the game because you are absent. The word 'you' refers to nothing."

That's not proof, but it's pretty damn close. And it's not circular.

Michael

There is nothing wrong with tautologies.  They are very handy because they are the very standard of True.  Any argument that leads to conclusion which contradicts a tautology  is  either bogus  or is based on a false assumption.  As the Mistress wrote --- check your premises. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There is nothing wrong with tautologies.

Identity matters. (A is A)

Bolt. Nut. Size. Thread pattern. Plastic. Steel. Brass. Titanium. Price. Availability. Layout. Torque. Can it be redesigned with fewer parts? What about electric contacts? Copper. Zinc. Gold. Power rating. Heat. Vibration. Wear. Tooling. Training. Labor. QA. Packing. Inventory. Overhead. Demand. Margin. Present value. Competitors. Sales expense. Field engineering. Obsolescence. Legal liability.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Identity matters. (A is A)

Bolt. Nut. Size. Thread pattern. Plastic. Steel. Brass. Titanium. Price. Availability. Layout. Torque. Can it be redesigned with fewer parts? What about electric contacts? Copper. Zinc. Gold. Power rating. Heat. Vibration. Wear. Tooling. Training. Labor. QA. Packing. Inventory. Overhead. Demand. Margin. Present value. Competitors. Sales expense. Field engineering. Obsolescence. Legal liability.

 

Of course.  Inclusion of an individual thing in a class or category is required to connect the thing to all the properties which are possessed by that thing and all other things which are like it.  Identity as a category name is like a file in a filing system.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now