Generally annoyed by public smearing of Objectivism...

The thread title says it all. Basically, I've been debating on a 'pro-liberty' forum for a while and I'm very open about being an Objectivist, but it does not come without it's flack. In this regard, I'm often met with claims that Objectivism is a cult, but I keep asking the same question over and over of such accusers: What is the definition of a cult? Even after I ask that, they never answer that, nor give proof for the claims that what Rand wrote or did was anything equivelent to a cult. Not even the past actions of Rand's associates [The Brandens, Peikoff, and etc] ever had the style of cultic or religious. Dogmatic, sure. Callos[sp?], right, but never ever cultic.

In the end, I have to wonder if folks will ever get their heads on straight and admit their accusations are false? Or maybe, just like the Epicureans, we'll be villified for centures to come until later to be vindicated by scholars in some far off future? Either way, I'm getting annoyed by what I call bullshit[sorry for the vulgarity].

-- Bridget

Post 1

Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 6:40pm

A Christian coworker accused me of being part of the "Ayn Rand Cult." So did a self-styled freethinking coworker. All I can say to them is RTFB -- read the friggin' books. I do not need their ideas. They need mine. I quit arguing with people who will not even bother to read the books.

As for defining and characterizing a cult as opposed to any other organization or world view, visit:

http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/articles/BITE.htm

I do not think properly practiced Objectivism meets this widely accepted standard by any stretch of the imagination. I suppose a crank could attempt to abuse it in this fashion, but anyone who bothered to read Ayn Rand and gain at least a rudimentary understanding of Objectivism would soon snap out of it. Cult leaders cannot control independent thinkers and Objectivism centers mental processes on independent thought.

Post 2

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 9:18am

Scientology is a cult - you may not agree with Objectivism, but it is not a cult - just compare real cults and they will see that it is not even close. Some of the libertarian extremes, like lew rockwell and crowd, come much closer to cult status.

Post 3

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 11:57am

Some of the libertarian extremes, like lew rockwell and crowd, come much closer to cult status.

I have attended seminars at both TOC and LVMI. I saw much more cultish behavior at TOC than I did at LVMI.

At LVMI, we actually had professors who disagreed on certain issues, like immigration. We also had people who had gotten there in different ways. These people had different influences.

Plus, the seminar was much more international than what I have seen at TOC.

Does anyone else have any actual real-life experience with Lew Rockwell or the Mises Institute here?

(Edited by Chris Baker on 8/21, 12:11pm)

Post 4

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 12:10pm

...real-life experience with Lew Rockwell...

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Peter

Post 5

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 12:15pm

Bridget,

It is obvious that you and other Objectivists are overwhelmingly superior in intelligence to these other people. Now since you have this superior mind, what is stoppping you form controlling how these inferiors perceive you and Objectivism? Since these people are inferior, it should be easy to influence them and convince them. How might you and other Objectivists go about using your superior intelligence to convince these inferiors that you are correct?

Post 6

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 2:28pm

Chris asked:

How might you and other Objectivists go about using your superior intelligence to convince these inferiors that you are correct?

No force on earth can compel an evading mind to focus.

Post 7

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 7:00pm

I use to attend Mises Institute forums when they were located in D.C. (my doctorate focused on Mises) and I went to some of their conferences, at which Rothbard also spoke. So I knew Lew back before the bad blood between him and most other libertarians and probably all Objectivists.

Objectivism is certainly not a cult but some individuals in the movement have behaved in a cult-like manner. Michael Shermer, in his fine book Why People Believe Weird Things, calls Objectivism the most unlikely cult of all, because its central tenets are reason and reality. As you�ll see in the book and in my article about skeptics in the April issue of The New Individualist, he is an admirer of Rand; he told me his daughter is listening to the audio version of Atlas. He lists among attributes of a cult: veneration of a leader; inerrancy of the leader, and omniscience of the leader. Many certainly approach Rand this way. In the early days if one disagreed with Rand�s views on smoking, homosexuality or Mozart (she didn't like his music), many considered you not a good Objectivist or that you had serious problems with your psycho-epistemology. Now even the ARI folks are wisely making the distinction between the philosophy and other beliefs and opinions by Rand which, while perhaps well-reasoned but sometimes not, did not constitute part of the philosophy.

I find that many who call Objectivism a cult have not bothered to read much or even any of the material. They should be ashamed for judging Objectivism as a cult without understanding it. When applied consistently, Objectivism is so rational and reasonable that it is about as un-cultlike as you can get.

Post 8

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 7:48pm

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is not a cult, but certain people within the Objectivist movement often act like cultists. One has to be careful to make that distinction. Actually, the anarcho-capitalists I've met are just as cultish as some Objectivists. I think that the libertarians who accuse Objectivism of being a cult are a cult unto themselves if only in their knee-jerk opposition to Objectivism. Most of them have a very superficial understanding of the philosophy, and are the last people who should be making that accusation.

- Bill

Post 9

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 8:05am

So I knew Lew back before the bad blood between him and most other libertarians and probably all Objectivists.

I asked a few people about LVMI before I went there. Ari Armstrong had a generally positive impression of it, so I went. I know that Chris Cathcart has been there as well. I left LVMI with a very positive impression.

There was some bad blood between Lew and Liberty. Our hard-working managing editor Tim Virkkala said to us once about Lew: "He hates us."

However, Liberty's publisher Bill Bradford also had a reputation for creating bad blood as well. I saw it happen with Jesse Walker, who is now at Reason.

Post 10

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 8:16am

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is not a cult, but certain people within the Objectivist movement often act like cultists. One has to be careful to make that distinction. Actually, the anarcho-capitalists I've met are just as cultish as some Objectivists.

That's an excellent assessment. There are people who act like cultists and have cultish personalities. Part of the problem with Objectivism is that I don't think the movement has done enough to neutralize such people. The movement also needs to ask: "What are we doing to attract these kind of people?"

There is only so much one man can do. David Kelley has tried very hard to do this and has done better than other groups. But there is a lot more that can be done.

I've met other people who act cultishly. There are certainly aspects like that in the world of neuro-linguistic programming. Thanks to my dealings with Objectivists, I have figured out how to deal with such people without being infected or tainted by them.

Many gurus form their own small personality cults. Some of these gurus are complete charlatans. Some of them do have some worthwhile things to say.

But for some reason, the NLP community does seem to have neutralized the effects of these people. It's not hard to tell who the good and the bad ones are. The good ones are generally very respected and are also in charge of the certification process.

Post 11

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 8:52am

Look, anytime you have an entire philosophical system created by one person, some ignorant people are going to conclude that its believers are "cultists". The fact that Objectivism, which is based on reason, technically *can't* be a cult doesn't matter to such people. Pointing out that logical contradiction won't get you anywhere with them. Their minds are made up.

I've found that people who respect me would never call Objectivism a "cult," even though they don't accept it. As for the people who do smear me like that (and who obviously don't care about offending me), I simply turn it around on them. For example, some time ago a co-worker who knew I was an Objectivist snidely said something about it being cultish. I smiled and replied, "Unlike the Catholic Church, right?" (He's a Catholic.) He quickly became ashamed and apologized.

That's how I recommend dealing with such situations. Give a sharp reply in defense of your value, but don't allow yourself to be sucked into neverending, frustrating arguments about it. They're never worth it.

Post 12

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 2:56pm

Mr. Hudgins,

I agree that Why People Believe Weird Things is an excellent book, and largely responsible for my turn away from mysticism during my late teen years. However, the section on the Unlikeliest Cult In History borrows from the Branden's accounts to make it's points.

I only bring this up so that people on either side of the PARC debate can decide for themselves what this means if they wish to read Dr. Shermer's book and compare it to PARC. In fact, shortly after PARC came out I emailed Dr. Shermer to see if he had read it himself, and how this may affect his opinion of various things Ayn Rand related.

Eddie Wood

Post 13

Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 8:01am

However, the section on the Unlikeliest Cult In History borrows from the Branden's accounts to make it's points.

There are many other accounts besides the one written by the Brandens. Some of us have had personal experience.

Post 14

Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 8:45am

Wikipedia has a decent overview of the Objectivist cult allegations at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_movement

I personally considered Shermer's argument a hatchet job rather than a fair and balanced assessment of Objectivism and its proponents. He definitely had to stretch the meaning of the key term cult to arrive at his conclusions. Take, for instance, the "ostracisms" from the "collective." Do we not all occasionally need to prune our tree of friends to increase our quality of life? If doing this makes me a "cult leader" according to Shermer, so be it. As for his claim about sexual abuse of the followers by the leader, that amounts to another long stretch. One affair conducted with the consent of all affected adults for many years may constitute imprudence but certainly not cultism. I could go further, but readers should get the idea.

That aside, I still respect Shermer's diligent work at promoting critical thinking in the mass media. I only feel sorrow that sometimes collateral damage occurs in his war against irrationality. Pathological skepticism can sometimes damage as much as can mysticism.

Post 15

Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 12:50pm

I personally considered Shermer's argument a hatchet job rather than a fair and balanced assessment of Objectivism and its proponents.

Did you read all of it?

Post 16

Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 1:31pm

Yes, Chris, I read the entire article somewhere online years ago.

Do you suggest I read it again now? Why?

I think I gave it a fair shake already.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 8/24, 1:32pm)

Post 17

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 8:14am

The article is here:

...Ayn Rand has probably influenced my thinking more than any other author. I have read all of her works, including her newsletters, early works, and the two major biographies. I have even read the Brobdingnagian Atlas Shrugged no less than three times, plus once on audio tape for good measure. Thus I am not a blind critic....

This hardly seems like a "hatchet job."

Post 18

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 1:03pm

Too many people run around like high school kids labelling themselves "Objectivists". This isn't really much different from kids calling themselves "Punk" or "Preppy".

Also, Objectivists are "seen" (stereotyped) as a group of rich yuppies. I've never met someone below the poverty line calling themselves Objectivist, though.

Another thing I've seen is useless discussion. Most self proclaimed Objectivists will argue just about anything, no matter how useless. Need examples? Look around at some debate that has simply been stretched too thin.

These are some things I've seen that could lead to this public hating of Objectivism. A lot of it, I've seen on this forum. I'm not against Objectivism, nor for it. I'm mostly for myself and not some elite club, so this is basically a neutral evaluation.

Ed Hudgens,

I've read almost all of Rand's art on Objectivism and even interact with Objectivists on this forum. I still see what could be called the "cult" aspect.
(Edited by Dustin
on 8/25, 1:38pm)

Post 19

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 7:08pm