Is Objectivism a scam?

I can easily define a scam. It takes more than 50% from *intelligent actors* (or their surrogates).

Am I being scammed here? I think my losses in time outway the benefits reaped.

Scott

Post 1

Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 11:25pm

Scott:

By virtue of your asking this question, I'd have to say that you're correct in your questioned concern.

Next question?

J:D

Post 2

Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 11:27pm

John,

Could you please elaborate :-D

Scott

Post 3

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 12:08am

Scott,

From whom are you learning Objectivism? Have you read much of Ayn Rand's own works? As a negative, you may end up disagreeing with her, as some do, and you might even end up hating her ideas, but I know of nobody comes away from actually reading Rand's works and thinking they've been scammed.

Good question, though. Want to elaborate a bit more on where you feel the sting? (In general terms, that is - no need to start a flame war by mentioning names.)

Michael

Post 4

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 12:43am

Scott:

You ask:

John,

Could you please elaborate :-D

     Of course. No problem.

     By virtue of your asking this question, I'd have to say that you're correct in your questioned concern.

     I hope I answered your question satisfactorily.

     Next question?       ;-D

J:D

Post 5

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 6:50am

Scott, you first need to take the "Objectivist Personality Test" and then you can move up to the "Introduction to Objectivism" course. They are all available at ARI for a nominal fee. This can help you get rid of your altruist Thetans.

Post 6

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 12:46pm

Thanks for the offer Kurt, but I prefer to exercise my own altruist thetans by punishing myself giving to those who don't reciprocate.

I'm learning, just as the Thetans will learn, whatever creed, even Objectivism, they camoflage themselves in, they'll waste as much time as their more-clever victims do.

Scott

Post 7

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 1:01am

Scott,

=================
I can easily define a scam. It takes more than 50% from *intelligent actors* (or their surrogates).

I think my losses in time outway the benefits reaped.
=================

Could YOU please elaborate? "Return on investment," is that the standard to which you're alluding? You invest time & energy into learning a philosophy for living on earth. You reap specific rewards from that. Are you saying that the time & energy you've spent on learning Objectivism has outpaced any rewards so far? Do you think that you're experiencing growing pains on a learning curve, or that you've reached a summit by which you can address the both the objective height of your travels, and the worth of the effort?

Are you saying that, on the whole, humans would be better off without Objectivism (because of a universally-negative time/energy/rewards dynamic)? And how is it that I am in a such a state of peace-of-mind now, after discovering Objectivism? Would you be so bold as to say that I must be "fooling" myself? That my "inner peace" has been "constructed" by exhuberent, wily, mental machinations? Do you grant that I may find Objectivism of immense value, while you have felt personally let down by it?

Ed

Post 8

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 11:37am

Ed,

Could YOU please elaborate? "Return on investment," is that the standard to which you're alluding? You invest time & energy into learning a philosophy for living on earth. You reap specific rewards from that. Are you saying that the time & energy you've spent on learning Objectivism has outpaced any rewards so far?

No, not at all. The time and money I spent reading Rand &, much lesser, Peikoff, I consider well-spent.

Ya'll, the Usenet and 'net in general, are a different matter.

As for the rest, Oh Please Ed. Putting words in another's moulth is so shallow.

If the observers don't know better, enought to discern your feeble insinuations, the hell with y'all.

Scott

Post 9

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:46pm

Scott,

I asked you fricken questions. They were questions only. I admitted a total lack of background knowledge on your scam-statement. Because of that, when inquiring, I casted a wide net.

So sue me,

Ed

Post 10

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 1:09pm

Y'all might be a troll if.....

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 1/31, 1:09pm)

Post 11

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 1:50pm

If ya�lls� mama does not even bother to remove the Marlboro from her lips before inviting Ed to go to hell, well then, ya�ll might be a troll.

Post 12

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 3:24pm

Color me "scratching my head."

Post 13

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:11pm

L W,

It�s a play on Jeff Foxworthy. He is famous for this. It goes like this:

�Some people aren�t sure if they are a redneck or not. Here�s a good test:

If your moving day consists of putting the axles back under the house, then ya�ll might be a redneck.�

And he repeats it over and over:

�If your summer barbeque invite says to bring something for the grill, but not squirrels, then ya�ll might be a redneck.�

Post 14

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:51pm

That's fine - there's plenty of armadilloes laying around the sides of the roads...;-)

Post 15

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 6:02pm

Thanks Jon,

Being from the South I should have picked up on that.

Post 16

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 9:52pm

In the sense I'm using it, A scam is a fraud, a game. A set of characteristic transactions with an apparent, ostensive purpose but really about accomplishing ulterior purposes.

For instance, "politics" as the (Bierce) "A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."

Religion as a political and social-club, rather than the means for optimizing truth/understanding and life. One sees numerous kinds of students of objectivism. And schools/forums splitting up over disputes.

Power is in co-opting, if not defining, the terms and language used. But a scam is still a scam, and the ulterior motives are the causes whether the game is philosophy, religion, or whatever.

Scott

Post 17

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 10:35pm

Scott,

================
Religion as a political and social-club, rather than the means for optimizing truth/understanding and life. One sees numerous kinds of students of objectivism. And schools/forums splitting up over disputes.

Power is in co-opting, if not defining, the terms and language used. But a scam is still a scam, and the ulterior motives are the causes whether the game is philosophy, religion, or whatever.
================

Okay. There is a system of belief/principle, and there is the prostitution of a system of belief/principle. Are you saying that Objectivism is (or has been) predominantly prostituted as a power-grab?

Ed

p.s. Philosophy is not a "game."

Post 18

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 5:23am

Hi Scott.

You asked,

I can easily define a scam. It takes more than 50% from *intelligent actors* (or their surrogates).
Am I being scammed here? I think my losses in time outweigh the benefits reaped.

No, you are not being scammed. Far from it. I think of a scam as perpetrating a fraud on someone. No one is out to steal your money or even your mind. No one is acting. We are all simply going about our lives fairly independently and share a common love for the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Just fellow travelers. Sure things get heated up and there are guru wannabes posturing that they have all the answers, but that is just the side show, not the main event, and it is found anywhere that ideas are discussed.

You could easily spend boatloads of money and endless amounts of time buying books and reading everything, but that is a personal choice. Balance is key. We are learning and all education requires resources of time and money. There is a huge difference between the self-study and discussion of ideas involved in being an Objectivist and being lured into a scam. Namely, scams are intended to rip someone off, not help them grow.

By focusing on yourself and your own personal values, your philosophy will help guide you through day to day living, not get in the way. Think of Objectivist as a tool, not a rule.

Kat

Post 19

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 2:36pm