| | Steve -- good post -- sanctioned it. I've enjoyed your posts -- pretty much everything you've posted has contained some thoughtful comments and given me new insights.
I agree with most of what you said. So, let me just concentrate on the areas where we might have some philosophical disagreement (or perhaps are in agreement, but I have misunderstood the intent of what you said.)
I am currently reading a book by Michael Shermer (the editor of the magazine "Skeptic"), and in the introduction he talks about what it means to be a skeptic by his definition, and why he used to consider himself an Objectivist, and some of the reasons he now no longer does. He talks about why he considers Objectivism to * objectively * have some cult-like aspects, or to put it another way, some blind spots where people who label themselves Objectivists appear to be unable or unwilling to apply a proper degree of skepticism. One example he gives is where he was scheduled to debate Peikoff, and then someone on Peikoff's staff apparently read something he'd written about the aforementioned cult-like aspects, and the debate was abruptly cancelled because he allegedly didn't have the proper degree of deference to Rand. I can quote some of the relevant passages there in a follow-up post if anyone cares to read it and perhaps dispute his conclusions.
This is a prelude to why I have some objections to this statement: "I don't know what your experiences with the Mormon church were, but any of the undersireable similarities should be ignored. They are often just a part of the personalities of some of the people who are Objectivists (be they leader or follower) or claim to be Objectivists but really aren't."
It's one thing to discount similarities due to the particular personalities of the people involved. But, if you've spent any time around Mormons, this whole business of ignoring undesirable stuff is pretty much SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). So when I read stuff that, on a gut level, sets off alarms, I do the opposite of ignore it, I start poking into why I feel uncomfortable. Some people are really, really difficult to be around, yet their logic is by and large correct -- Ayn Rand is a prime example. But, some people have what I view as flawed logic that, as a consequence manifests itself as a difficult personality.
Re this: "I'd rather play naked twister with a ugly leper than spend time trying to argue with anyone who treats some holy book as 'revealed truth' - even if that true-believer is a nice person."
Agreed. And I think some (certainly not all) Objectivists treat Rand's writings as holy books filled with 'revealed truth', in much the same way that Mormons treat Joseph Smith's writings in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon as revealed truth. Said Objectivists haven't quite gotten around to numbering the chapter and verse ("and in Fountainhead 3:35 the prophet Galt said ..."), but there is a whiff of that present, at least to my wary eyes.
Re this: "Ethics: I want a commitment to the concept that no one has the right to violate the rights of others, and that means no initiation of force, threat to initiate force, fraud or theft. And again it is the principles that are important and moving towards a better implementation - not endless arguments over what is the ideal, perfect ending point."
Aaah. I SO agree. And yet Objectivists on this forum have in fact argued that it is OK to violate the rights of others, or violate the NIOF (Not Initiation of Force) principle, in an "emergency" as they narrowly define that term, or via pre-emptive attacks on certain Mideastern countries, or by insisting that anarchists can't be Objectivists because one must have a monopoly of force in a geographic area, or ...
Yes, in each of these situations Objectivists will come up with cogent, thoughtful arguments why their IOF is OK, it's just that anyone else who carries that slippery slope just a tiny bit further is wrong. And it's just a curious coincidence that this tiny bit of being pregnant is in their personal self-interest, and the prohibited forms of pregnancy -- not so much so.
We don't need a perfect ending point. But a skeptic might be inclined to argue that, if you allow these exceptions, they can end up swallowing the rule, and that if these exceptions are allowable, it might be a sign that Objectivism isn't entirely built upon a perfect, logical moral foundation, that some further work is ahead of us.
And in fact, I have heard it argued on this forum that a commitment to the NIOF principle means you can't be an Objectivist, that such qualms mark one as a heathen libertarian, or worse, cosmotarian. ;)
Re this: "I really don't think that anyone who is an anarchist should call themselves an Objectivist and I don't have much toleration in this area."
See above. Minarchism with a government monopoly of force has a nasty habit of violating the NIOF principle. A skeptic could argue that this insistence upon this monopoly could have the logical consequence of these alleged NIOF violations.
Well, I think I've sufficiently whacked enough hornets' nests for one day. ;)
|
|
