We have inherited and passed on a revolutionary philosophy by which the world may save itself from precisely such irrationalities as religion; we have failed to create a culture to match it. Our culture has been repressive, persecutorial, joyless, prudish and downright nasty. Objectivism’s worst enemies have been … Objectivists.
We have failed in part because we have eschewed the very idea of a culture. In celebrating the "I" we have performed a kind of Anthem-in-reverse. We have become too afraid of the word "we." By dismissing anything undertaken with others as "collectivism" (ignoring the fact that real collectivism entails coercion) we have blinded ourselves to the impact we might make if we acted as a fellowship of individualists, in voluntary, life-affirming concert.
Bravo, a hopeful thought, and worth making the attempt.
I have wondered though, how many of those attracted to the Objectivist movement fit the following category.
Main Entry: so•cio•path•ic
Pronunciation: "sO-sE-&-'pa-thik, "sO-sh(E-)&-
: of, relating to, or characterized by asocial or antisocial behavior or a psychopathic personality
Main Entry: psy·chop·a·thy
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
: mental disorder; especially : extreme mental disorder marked usually by egocentric and antisocial activity
Few would dispute that these definitions apply to the ARI crowd and those who fled this site to found the ObjectivistForum where Ayn Rand is openly worshipped and honest seekers are treated as heretics.
Can this antisocial tendency/strain be overcome?
Lord knows, we all have different demeanors and personalities, and there is strength in that diversity.
Even though we share a common philosophy, does social compatibility necessary follow?