Been anticipating this. Didn't read all of it(have to eat and live you know), but I know what brought it on. Since they were founded, they have had an abiding hostility to Christianity. Anyone who is a Christian and studies history will tell you, all you have to do is wait and watch an outfit like this, and it will die of it's lack of faith. If you wanted to describe them, think of America founded by Atheist Capitalism. Or simply put, you cannot love G*d, and mammon(money). Their point is only money. Sooner or later, you have to look out the window.
I'm going to disagree with Sean, here. If organized Objectivism is suffering from anything, it's that it's in the hands of academics, who exist in a world where ideas don't have to work in the field to be popular and thrive. In isolation, this would not be a problem, as the intellectual ferment in your local university's philosophy department has no bearing on whether the traffic signals work on the street outside. It's only when Academia tries to apply itself to practical matters that the wheels start to come off.
Writ large, the whole western world is suffering the effects of the academic's love of collectivism imposed as political policy. Writ smaller, you have establishment Objectivism under Peikoff thrashing itself to pieces against reality. If Objectivism, as described by Rand and as I've practiced it myself for over 30 years, wasn't so rooted in concrete worldly truth, Peikoff and company could do as they like with it and brand us all as "not real objectivists" and nothing material would change. As things are, though, the majority of non-academic Objectivists are simply raising a finger (guess which one) in the direction of the establishment, muttering “Eppur si muove”, and getting on with dealing with the world and our neighbors rationally. It isn't lack of faith that troubles us, it's a load of university wonks who are behaving like that townswomens' guild from Monty Python, and assaulting each other with fists and handbags.
Ayn Rand educated us before we really saw the threat and she did that in detail in Atlas Shrugged.
What I believe she didn't fully appreciate were the active Marxists and their very real plan of action and subversion against the U.S. It is unclear as to if her conclusions will be borne out. The Soviets were able to rule for quite a while and some would argue that they still do.
What is clear is her explanation of power relationships and legalized theft by government members and use of state agency for control and unearned enrichment. I am indebted to her for this part of my education and pray for her soul. Too bad that this book isn't required reading but then it would seriously undermine the Marxists and their operations.
While I have not had the time to wash myself with Randian extract I have always felt I would find common ideas. Being a libertarian I always looked upon them as the utopian version of the philosophy. Much like other versions of utopia its fine for collegate waterheads to debate and fume over it has little relevance to actual reality.
WHICH Randian civil war? It's been happening since '68. I wrote off Movement Objectivism in 2008, when a vote for Commies was mandated to stop somebody who "might" be influenced by Christianity. Indeed, one reason I accepted Christ was because it became obvious that both Wiccans and Objectivists were batshit crazy in ways that Christians were not. I owe a great deal to Rand, but she was a product of her time, and there's a surprising amount of unreconstructed Bolshevik in both her and her followers.
Peikoff has become a poster child for Acton's dictum that "power tends to corrupt..."
All humans have a need to believe in something larger than themselves. Objectivism is an appealing moral creed for atheists, to the point that it has by and large been hijacked by them.
But...
To a large extent that's OUR fault. Believers shouldn't look down their noses at identical moral conclusions reached in the absence of faith. We're ignoring the fact that you can reasonably arrive at "thou shalt not steal" on many different paths that do not involve belief in God.
And, while I see Sean's point, I find it a bit simplistic to assert that Objectivism is dying from a lack of faith - after all, many Christian groups die off in similar ways and this cannot be attributed to atheism.
I would submit that Objectivism is dying because it is run by sinful humans, which is exactly the same reason Christian groups fracture.
And that human tendency to fracture is the rub for me. But for our nature, Christians and Objectivists would be allies in the fight against government supremacy. Whether Objectivists live in a cave or have entire walls of windows is irrelevant. We believers have a depth of insight into human nature that atheists do not, and it is up to US to overcome our own smug but still sinful nature, and to use our wisdom as a tool to bridge these gaps to build the largest moral coalition possible.
Seems to me it's been hijacked - like everything else - by the Leftards.
There can be no more "right wing" ideology than pure Randian Objectivism.
The Enemy cannot allow any "movement" to stand which includes as its core tenet an utter rejection of collectivism in all its forms -- ergo it **MUST** be destroyed or coopted.
It seems plain that the latter goal has been achieved - when Rand's selected heir is ordering all followers to vote a straight collectivist ticket, the mission is well accomplished.
Personally, I see no conflict between Christianity and objectivism - in fact I find that most often some tidbit of the latter helps me to better understand the former.
G*D gave us all Free Will.
As I said in another comment elsewhere, we'd never need Galt's magic machine if we could but harness the energy of Rand's whirring in her grave.
The issue is not religion, nor is it ivory tower academia. The issue is, at it's essence, that 'orthodox Objectivism' has violated one of it's founder's own basic tenets.
That is that each person has the right, and the duty as a human being, to seek to know and describe reality.
Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen. We are fighting a war of ideas, a war of philosophy, and ideas and their science ARE supremely important.
Peikoff has made himself this war's Saruman. Fireplaceguy is spot on target regarding Peikoff as a poster child for Lord Acton's famous quote, but I completely disagree that religion plays any significant part in this. Anyone seeking a better understanding of this battue would do well to go more than a millimeter deep and look past religion. Hoffer's "the True Believer" would be a good place to start.
Peikoff has assumed Rand's role, and is repeating Rand's errors in attempting to compel correct individual thought, without having Rand's towering genius and extraordinary discoveries to redeem him.
Peikoff has become an authoritarian, and is thus the enemy.
LMWatBullRun - I agree that religion really has nothing to do with this mess.
Re-reading my post, I now regret my effort to gently chide Sean - particularly upon seeing that, as I was writing, Billy Beck had jumped in and said what I was really thinking. If I could re-do the post I'd end it with a more blunt statement of the fact that one can arrive at "thou shalt not steal" without religion, and merely tell Sean to pull his head out.
Somewhere in my boxes of books there's a copy of Hoffer's True Believer, but I read it years ago when I had far less understanding and I don't remember it well. It'll be faster at this point to pick up another copy at a used bookstore next time I'm in town, which I will. Thanks for the recommendation.
I dont think too many of these "Randians" are gonna be shooter types, for either side. Too paralyzed by debating the nature of Freedom and Liberty in theory to go out and get some in practice. To me, this has all the relevance of a Harry Potter Book Club falling apart. Who cares?
This first article is more scholarly, the second a leftist screed, but still contains information you ain't never seen yet. So don't get your panties in a wad, unless you already knew that...
Ayn Rand worshipped a serial murderer.
Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman by Michael Prescott http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm
ATLAS SHRIEKED: AYN RAND’S FIRST LOVE AND MENTOR WAS A SADISTIC SERIAL KILLER WHO DISMEMBERED LITTLE GIRLS http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manson-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/
The fact that you, together with the majority of our countrymen, made and continue to make such remarks means that collectivist authoritarianism has made huge strides in blindfolding you to the nature and extent of the conflict we find ourselves involved in.
Put another way; if freedom loving people abandon the battlefield of ideas to the totalitarians, you will be fighting this war on their terms. Fighting a more numerous prepared enemy on their preferred ground is NEVER a good idea. These united States won our first revolution against the most powerful empire in the world because we won the war of ideas FIRST, because we stood for something better than our opposition. The American Revolution was fought and won in the minds of the colonists long before 1775.
If we lose this coming revolution, it will be because we lost the battle of ideas.
Oh, and by the way, your stereotype of 'Randians' is flawed. Lots of Objectivist and Libertarian intellectuals compete in highpower matches and attend Appleseeds to polish our skill at arms, in addition to polishing our skills with words. Both are important, and each has it's place. And WE know WHY that is so.
Or as another put it- "For every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose"
As a former Objectivist I am saddened to see the state of Ms Rand's legacy. Not surprised, just saddened. Nothing is forever. Even protons decay (which a Physicist such as The Imminent Dr. Peikoff would admit). That Ms' Rand's "heir" should resort to such blatantly UN-objectivistic actions is entirely predictable. Clearly his position has gone to his head. He is now the "Pope" of Objectivism. His pronouncements are gospel and never to be questioned. The result is Objectivism is self destructing. Oh well, shit happens.
Ayn Rand's principles will survive. They do not depend on who promotes them. Besides the reason that I became a "former" objectivist is that I realized that absolute anything does not work in the real world.
17 comments:
Been anticipating this. Didn't read all of it(have to eat and live you know), but I know what brought it on. Since they were founded, they have had an abiding hostility to Christianity. Anyone who is a Christian and studies history will tell you, all you have to do is wait and watch an outfit like this, and it will die of it's lack of faith. If you wanted to describe them, think of America founded by Atheist Capitalism. Or simply put, you cannot love G*d, and mammon(money). Their point is only money. Sooner or later, you have to look out the window.
I'm going to disagree with Sean, here. If organized Objectivism is suffering from anything, it's that it's in the hands of academics, who exist in a world where ideas don't have to work in the field to be popular and thrive. In isolation, this would not be a problem, as the intellectual ferment in your local university's philosophy department has no bearing on whether the traffic signals work on the street outside. It's only when Academia tries to apply itself to practical matters that the wheels start to come off.
Writ large, the whole western world is suffering the effects of the academic's love of collectivism imposed as political policy. Writ smaller, you have establishment Objectivism under Peikoff thrashing itself to pieces against reality. If Objectivism, as described by Rand and as I've practiced it myself for over 30 years, wasn't so rooted in concrete worldly truth, Peikoff and company could do as they like with it and brand us all as "not real objectivists" and nothing material would change. As things are, though, the majority of non-academic Objectivists are simply raising a finger (guess which one) in the direction of the establishment, muttering “Eppur si muove”, and getting on with dealing with the world and our neighbors rationally. It isn't lack of faith that troubles us, it's a load of university wonks who are behaving like that townswomens' guild from Monty Python, and assaulting each other with fists and handbags.
Ayn Rand educated us before we really saw the threat and she did that in detail in Atlas Shrugged.
What I believe she didn't fully appreciate were the active Marxists and their very real plan of action and subversion against the U.S. It is unclear as to if her conclusions will be borne out. The Soviets were able to rule for quite a while and some would argue that they still do.
What is clear is her explanation of power relationships and legalized theft by government members and use of state agency for control and unearned enrichment. I am indebted to her for this part of my education and pray for her soul. Too bad that this book isn't required reading but then it would seriously undermine the Marxists and their operations.
While I have not had the time to wash myself with Randian extract I have always felt I would find common ideas. Being a libertarian I always looked upon them as the utopian version of the philosophy. Much like other versions of utopia its fine for collegate waterheads to debate and fume over it has little relevance to actual reality.
Grenadier1
WHICH Randian civil war? It's been happening since '68.
I wrote off Movement Objectivism in 2008, when a vote for Commies was mandated to stop somebody who "might" be influenced by Christianity. Indeed, one reason I accepted Christ was because it became obvious that both Wiccans and Objectivists were batshit crazy in ways that Christians were not. I owe a great deal to Rand, but she was a product of her time, and there's a surprising amount of unreconstructed Bolshevik in both her and her followers.
That kind of crap has been going on with the Objectivist crowd since the time Rand herself was leading it.
It's why Rand hated libertarians.
Sean: no one of your outlook could ever *possibly* what is going on in this affair.
Stop being pathetic.
Good commentary in that link.
Peikoff has become a poster child for Acton's dictum that "power tends to corrupt..."
All humans have a need to believe in something larger than themselves. Objectivism is an appealing moral creed for atheists, to the point that it has by and large been hijacked by them.
But...
To a large extent that's OUR fault. Believers shouldn't look down their noses at identical moral conclusions reached in the absence of faith. We're ignoring the fact that you can reasonably arrive at "thou shalt not steal" on many different paths that do not involve belief in God.
And, while I see Sean's point, I find it a bit simplistic to assert that Objectivism is dying from a lack of faith - after all, many Christian groups die off in similar ways and this cannot be attributed to atheism.
I would submit that Objectivism is dying because it is run by sinful humans, which is exactly the same reason Christian groups fracture.
And that human tendency to fracture is the rub for me. But for our nature, Christians and Objectivists would be allies in the fight against government supremacy. Whether Objectivists live in a cave or have entire walls of windows is irrelevant. We believers have a depth of insight into human nature that atheists do not, and it is up to US to overcome our own smug but still sinful nature, and to use our wisdom as a tool to bridge these gaps to build the largest moral coalition possible.
Otherwise, we aren't fighting to win.
Seems to me it's been hijacked - like everything else - by the Leftards.
There can be no more "right wing" ideology than pure Randian Objectivism.
The Enemy cannot allow any "movement" to stand which includes as its core tenet an utter rejection of collectivism in all its forms -- ergo it **MUST** be destroyed or coopted.
It seems plain that the latter goal has been achieved - when Rand's selected heir is ordering all followers to vote a straight collectivist ticket, the mission is well accomplished.
Personally, I see no conflict between Christianity and objectivism - in fact I find that most often some tidbit of the latter helps me to better understand the former.
G*D gave us all Free Will.
As I said in another comment elsewhere, we'd never need Galt's magic machine if we could but harness the energy of Rand's whirring in her grave.
DD
The issue is not religion, nor is it ivory tower academia. The issue is, at it's essence, that 'orthodox Objectivism' has violated one of it's founder's own basic tenets.
That is that each person has the right, and the duty as a human being, to seek to know and describe reality.
Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen. We are fighting a war of ideas, a war of philosophy, and ideas and their science ARE supremely important.
Peikoff has made himself this war's Saruman. Fireplaceguy is spot on target regarding Peikoff as a poster child for Lord Acton's famous quote, but I completely disagree that religion plays any significant part in this. Anyone seeking a better understanding of this battue would do well to go more than a millimeter deep and look past religion. Hoffer's "the True Believer" would be a good place to start.
Peikoff has assumed Rand's role, and is repeating Rand's errors in attempting to compel correct individual thought, without having Rand's towering genius and extraordinary discoveries to redeem him.
Peikoff has become an authoritarian, and is thus the enemy.
LMWatBullRun - I agree that religion really has nothing to do with this mess.
Re-reading my post, I now regret my effort to gently chide Sean - particularly upon seeing that, as I was writing, Billy Beck had jumped in and said what I was really thinking. If I could re-do the post I'd end it with a more blunt statement of the fact that one can arrive at "thou shalt not steal" without religion, and merely tell Sean to pull his head out.
Somewhere in my boxes of books there's a copy of Hoffer's True Believer, but I read it years ago when I had far less understanding and I don't remember it well. It'll be faster at this point to pick up another copy at a used bookstore next time I'm in town, which I will. Thanks for the recommendation.
I dont think too many of these "Randians" are gonna be shooter types, for either side. Too paralyzed by debating the nature of Freedom and Liberty in theory to go out and get some in practice. To me, this has all the relevance of a Harry Potter Book Club falling apart. Who cares?
Wall of text. Too long, didn't read. MEGO, and etc, and so forth. Life is too short to do some silly things.
This first article is more scholarly, the second a leftist screed, but still contains information you ain't never seen yet. So don't get your panties in a wad, unless you already knew that...
Ayn Rand worshipped a serial murderer.
Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman by Michael Prescott
http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm
ATLAS SHRIEKED: AYN RAND’S FIRST LOVE AND MENTOR WAS A SADISTIC SERIAL KILLER WHO DISMEMBERED LITTLE GIRLS
http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manson-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/
Dear Anonymous @12:
The fact that you, together with the majority of our countrymen, made and continue to make such remarks means that collectivist authoritarianism has made huge strides in blindfolding you to the nature and extent of the conflict we find ourselves involved in.
Put another way; if freedom loving people abandon the battlefield of ideas to the totalitarians, you will be fighting this war on their terms. Fighting a more numerous prepared enemy on their preferred ground is NEVER a good idea.
These united States won our first revolution against the most powerful empire in the world because we won the war of ideas FIRST, because we stood for something better than our opposition. The American Revolution was fought and won in the minds of the colonists long before 1775.
If we lose this coming revolution, it will be because we lost the battle of ideas.
Oh, and by the way, your stereotype of 'Randians' is flawed. Lots of Objectivist and Libertarian intellectuals compete in highpower matches and attend Appleseeds to polish our skill at arms, in addition to polishing our skills with words. Both are important, and each has it's place. And WE know WHY that is so.
Or as another put it-
"For every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose"
As a former Objectivist I am saddened to see the state of Ms Rand's legacy. Not surprised, just saddened. Nothing is forever. Even protons decay (which a Physicist such as The Imminent Dr. Peikoff would admit). That Ms' Rand's "heir" should resort to such blatantly UN-objectivistic actions is entirely predictable. Clearly his position has gone to his head. He is now the "Pope" of Objectivism. His pronouncements are gospel and never to be questioned. The result is Objectivism is self destructing. Oh well, shit happens.
Ayn Rand's principles will survive. They do not depend on who promotes them. Besides the reason that I became a "former" objectivist is that I realized that absolute anything does not work in the real world.
Bad Cyborg X
Post a Comment