When I chose to call my end of things "Randism" which I explained elsewhere, colloquially, for lack of something more concise and with limited apporval by David Odden since I made my case that it infringes on the technical term "objectism" with which it does overlap, and as part of the general harrassment I recieved as (so-called) OBJECTIVISM ONLINE. The issue of "cults"was brought up and I made my explanations. David Odden, one of the few honorable persons there gave me a thorough going over and his decision was to do as I wished on my site and that we might use "Randian Objectism", which, while a bit clumsy,, is quite all right with me. The big bogeyman with many of these folks, especially the younger ones is the fear of my use of "Randism" inviting charges of "cultism". They were powerful scared of it. My feeling is "Bring it on". If ever there was a pitch I could and would hit out of the park, that is it. In fact, I usually try to inveigle my adversary to go there: It is a killing field for me. I have a Master's in Psychology, a minor in history and 19 credits in Philosophy and philosophy-related matters (Logic, Cosmology, Ethics, American Philosphy, Church in the Modern World, Basic Theology and twice in History and Philosophy of Science). Now, while it is not the degree, but the PEDIgree, that still gives me home field advantage.
First, let us make no mistake, this is a battle and a serious one since one side is trying to depersonalize and dehumanize the other and whichever side loses is depersonalized and dehumanized since this is about the deepest levels of personal and human identity. That means put up your nukes.
Second and most important since it desccribes what is already being done: The opposition will start this fight anyway, especially if they know you are afraid of just that. William F. Buckley did it in 1967. Folks; it's already here so grow up or go sit down with the rest of the children!
Third: Unlike most debates where the debate is about impersonal matters, this is all about person. Therefore the individual identties of the combatants are part of the issue. It can be a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. Who is qualified to make that charge. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", also "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". If you are going to throw anround charges of being in the mind control or obliteration field, you better be a psychologically independent person yourself; or else... . Buckley belonged to a system that attributeds supernatural powers and even divinity to a specific person: Yashua bar Yussef; aka Jesus Christ, much as all cult leaders are invested by their followers with such and they are held exampt from normal scrutiny, and infallibility to the Pope (to be truthful, this doctrine, when understood entails discussion via councils and limits this to Catholic doctrine so it is not as malevolent as one might think since, acting as a spokesman for th Church with the participation and under the aegis of that institution via due process, he is entitled to absolute credibility in Church matters. But that is only for now). Catholics, to be Catholics, believe that bread and wine are , in fact, transformed to both flesh and blood despite the fact that they in no way resemble either down to the atomic level (or they are liars). Christianity is riddled with claims that, if made on behalf of other things would be met with gales of laughter, derisions and admonitions to "grow up". Aside from that, and tell your conservative friends this, it is more compatible with Socialism than Capitalism: Something about "Give us this day our daily bread [substitute health care, education, right Gingrich?, minimum wage, housing or any percieved or real necessity]" and "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven". Do you wonder why the churches are drifting inexorably leftward? Not under their own power but as though being helplessly drawn in as if by the gravity of a black hole. Why are the bulk of religious utopias of one socialist stripe or other? What about "It is more blassed to give than to recieve"? Logic and integrity would lead one to believe it is most blessed to give everything and recieve nothing. Does any of this sound like Capitalism to you? Yet the concervatives complain about "confiscatory taxes: and violation of "rights" as though one had any moral claim to anything. Show me a Chrstian declaration of property rights. All I hear about from the preachers is "surrender" and "obedience". What need have (surrender) monkeys and slaves for a "right" to life, liberty (especially) and the pursuit of happiness (most especially)? So just how "inaliable" can such rights be in that system? Who even needs or merits a mind in that system?! But back to the topic: Consider the following. Rush Limbaugh is an avowed Christian. For years he, rightly, trashed the libs for "emotion trumps reason", more correctly, "feeling trumps reason". Then one day, out of the blue, referring to his beliefs, whihc he freely admits "can't be proved [throwing away the works of sholars for a thousand years]", he says "The libs laugh at believing what can't be proved" WTF!!?! He would be liable to charges of gross hypocrisy right there save that it was apparent in his tone of voice that he did not realizing the Death Star sized breach that he had just revealed. I said to myself "Well, somebody ought to!". How can Rush condemn Romney for buying into the climate change/gobal warming hoax which Romney says himself that he can't prove? How can he crdibly attack "fiat" money if he accepts the unprovable on a much higher level? In this battle, the man of faith (believing what can't be demonstrated or proved) is automatically disqualified for speaking out of both sides of his mouth: End of story! As a factual sidelight, noticed that most cults are leftist and religion based and strong religious attributes tend to go with being a cutlbot. There is a sad element to this. Ayn Rand observed. "Soren Kierkagaard was better than the Existentialists. He was a religious man" If she explained further it was not given, From what I can see, she held this to be so since, as such, Kierkagaard was not a Nihilist, which is a charge that has been laid at the feet of the Existentialists. Whether that is so or just the result of the belief that all the then existing systems were no antidote for the horrors of WWI, the rise of Fascism and the economic turmoil of the Depression, I cannot say but in 1957 I became aware of the rise of Nihilism among the academic "elite": The "search for answers" becoming "there are no answers and no way to find any so whatever gets you through the night is all right"
Next victim!
The left is forever caught up in the adulation of the person du jour. Chrissie Matthiews has legasms over Barack Obama. Listen to MSNBC to see how hate campaigns are done by the self-annointed apostles of love, brotherhood and peace. The Left's wholesale consumption of the fashionable kool-aid of the hour is comical in its overtness and shallowness.
So what makes these persons qualified to talk about anything to do with the real world? So these persons and groups referring to Objectivism in any of its manifastations as a cult is like Tinkerbell calling Rambo a fairy. Their intellectual behavior disqualifies them as knowledgeable, rational or honest judges on the matter. To see the way those who railed against Nixon or Bush in the name of "freedom" always lining up at the trough of government handoout...er...grants like the greediest of pigs and asking for thrice more is to observe hypocrisy on the comical order and intergalactic level of "I could not make this up and keep my credibility as well as from laughing myself silly". Matthiews is sooo much Obama's bitch that "he"'s starting to be called "Chrissie"
However, that will not stop them both from trying either from dumbness or dishonesty, sensing weakness in their target (You have no idea how hard it is for me to feign that kind of weakness while my trigger finger feels like it has poison ivy). Buckley already has.
At a deeper level, there is an issue to discuss. By discrediting an attacker you deflect the thrust. A good fencer likes to "parry and riposte" this last is to deflect (parry) the opponent's blade in such a way that yours in in position to go on the attack, and is always good form. Another, more suble move is to blunt the attack in such a way that your sword is pointed right at your opponents gullet plainly and clearly for all to see, but not deliver the blow. Done that, too. It is one of the worst forms of intellectual humiliation and often suffices because everyone knows I could have but let the person off easy thus dismissing them, like a child or other inferior. That has to really suck
"Cult" has several meanings two of which are a propos here: 1. a devoted, hardcore fan base or following. and 2. an irrational, fanatical following that is mindlessly devoted.
The first casual category of "cult" is harmless and may even be good. In that sense I am a member of at least two cults. Dr. Who and the 1950's "space cadet" TV shows; specifically Sapce Patrol, but for which,I would not be a Randite. This term could fit a passionate devotee of anything. You can add to that list of my cult credentials cats, double-string plucked musical instrumetns, the "combo organs" of the 1960's, synthesizers and arms and armor
The second tends to involve doctrines and strong personalities. Implicit in it is "mind numbed robot" irrationality and self-destructiveness. Attributes are shallowness, depersonalization, alienation and demands by the cult leader for "faith".
The problem here is the image of Ayn Rand. She was a writer, celebrity and philosopher. The first two mean that she could and did attract the usual writer's cult of the first definition and she did involve herself in matters of knowledge, belief, good/evil and political doctrine. So there could easily be an Ayn Rand cult whom I have come to call "Randies" who take a few of her quotes and ideas out of context and have no understadning of the roots of those quotes and ideas. But does "cult" apply to Objectivism?
The same is true of Barack Obama: The man is Johnny Cool and would probably be a great guy to hang out with. But his ideas are what you would expect from a Harvard Law School grad and make him unprepared for the Presidency and totally ignorant of basic US political doctrines, such as Separation of Powers and the underpinnings of American capitalism. Obama as a celebrity may be well worthy of a cult, but if that infringes on his status as President or implicit American leader, that could be and has been disastrous.
To decide if something could be some other thing as well, meaning a specific item in a larger category, we must look at the attributes of both the item in question and the category and check for compatibility or incompatibility: If Tabby does not bark then we know he is not a dog and if he meows then he's either a cat or something else. If he purrs than it's a good bet that he's a cat, which locks in not being a dog. The same goes for ideas, doctrines and systems. Libertarianism sure's hell isn't going to include Naziism or Marxism. This is done in two ways: 1) similarity to a significant degree, 2) complementarity: do the recommended "virtues" fit the doctrines or psychology of the system? Now we know that fecal material is not chocolate pudding and in no significant way resembles chocolate pudding yet both are organic, brown and squishy. If you want to argue that, stop now, you do not belong here, you belong in the Home for the Terminally Discombobulated. It must also be realized that anything philosophical applies to grownups. This last applies to what was told to me by a Physics prof about a couple of students he ran into in the middle 1960's from whom he deduced that Objectivism is a cult
DESCRIPTION: "Mine isa philosophy for living on earth with happiness as Man's proper goal and Reason as his sole guide to knowledge"-Ayn Rnad; 1959
DEFINITION: The philosophy, propounded by Ayn Rand, which holds that the world exists apart from and before anyone's knowledge, data, ideas, thoughts, wishes or feelings and the ONLY means to know this world is by the faculty of Reason via the process of logic, meaning that factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions. This is What 40+ years has led me to conclude. The only definition given by the main line of Objectivists is "The philosophy of Ayn Rand". I find it insufficient by reason of being an "ostensive" or "pointing" (or operational) definition. telling me where to look. However that identifies no salient characteristics of the philosophy at the level beyond a 9 year old's mentality.
FAMILY: Aristotelian
CONTENT: What I take to be the basic tenets of Randite philosophy based on Rand's specific statements
OTHER: Atheistic; Absolutist principles based; Individualistic with persons being held responsible for their actions within the context of mental health and freedon of action (the absence of force, coercion or fraud, and bounded by reasonable expectations).
The two major cult phenomena that stand out. Jonestown and Heaven's Gete both had religious connotations. and both Biblical in origin: Specifically that the "soul" can be separated from the body and still survive, which is a belief of all Biblical and "Judeo-xxx" religions. Both were communal in nautre wiht Jonestown being overtly leftist. MOst clearly identified cults tend to be communal with the individual made subordinate to the group. Until the psycnologically damaging and sometimes fatal aspects of this were made clear. This was a part of the "hippie commune". One thing that has been noted is that those with a strong religious background are easy prey to cult leaders.
Another property of cutls is that the general cult member tends to be young; late teens to mid-twneties.
Another characteristic of cults is the us vs the world dichotomy, in the sense that "we're all right, the world's all wrong". This is a belief that the world per se is evil, which is a tenet of religion. The result is that the cultist is isolated, having been turned against family, friends and normal human associations.
All of these interact. The ideals of cultism come right out of mainstream religion, The unfinised development and inexperience of youth put them at risk for a morality versus reality conflict, the individual versus group conflict with an interesting twist: While proclaiming personal sovereignyy they fall socially and politically into the worst forms of collectivism and while claiming to advocate the development of the human mind and soul, they indulge in some of the most souless and mindless types of behaviors imaginable: The road from faith to nihilism is short and there is no speed limit. The Psychedelic credo of developing the mind to its highest potential, in the course of two years, degenerated to "If it feels good do it!", "Tune in [to drugs], Turn on [like a gerbal or other small animal], drop out [of the world]". What was supposed to be the final stage of the development of mentality collapsed into a drugged, drunken orgy with the IQ of a gnat and not as much good sense. The call for "free love" was soon followed by the call for free VD clinics and "heads" became "tails". Where would the philosophical and psychological descendent of the Rush Limbaugh who says that what he believes as a central tenet of his life cannot be supported by reason be able to go but to a Jim JOnes or Hale-Bop commune? Or to Marijuana and Marxism?
What appears to be the case is that cults are the post-1960's descendants of hippies and their communes. Note the adoption by the hippies of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, under the aegis of the Beatles, The Hare Krishna and the semi-Hindu cults/communes of the post 1975 timeframe. Note also that the oh-so-secular left has it's favorite preachers: Jackson, Sharpton, Farakhan and Wright: All of wome are race hustlers, liars, or collectivists and as strident as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson
There are questions that may come up, mostly designed to trap the unaware or to get around the above. Here are some, and the proper answer
Was not Ayn Rand the Leader of your movement?
At one time she said that "Objectivism is not an orgainzed movement". However in an issue of The Objectivist Newsletter was written "...we are the theoreticians [since that was the only authorized journal about Randite philosophy at that time]" This does contradict the first stament since it implies a division of labor and a hierarchical organization. By 1980 she had recognized at least two independent Objectivist journals. One being The Objectivist Forum and in c1978 she officially "retired" in her address at the Ford Hall Forum titled "For the Record". I can attribute the first two statements as "buck fever" which were voided by actions later on. Beyond that, all systems have leaders. Plato, Airistotle et al. Miss Rnad did not claim to be infallible or even highly intelligent; issuing several disclaimers to both. Also she acquired the position of leadership by virtue of her accomplishments elsewhere and things formed around her
Does not the official definition of your philosphy reference a person rather than an actual philosophy?
Unfortunately, that is true. I had been concerned with this since about 1978 when I became aware that the main body issued the statement that "Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand". This is what is called an "ostensive" definition. It points to where to find it. However, It lists no defining characteristics. Ostensive definitions are identified in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology as pre-conceptual, pointing definitions used mostly by children. As I said in a letter to someone around then "By 2500 If a thing is called into question. it will be valideated by tracing it back to Peikoff then to Rand rahter than by how it relates to the objective world". That is one of the reason I am independent. I do use the term Randism but I've explained that earlier and it is well within accepted practice of naming a doctrine for its founder e.g. Platonism, Aristotelianism, Thomism, Cartesian,ism. Marxism and Freudianism.
Just as with cults, and indeed as with the defining aspect of cults, Objectivism is "mind contorl" and "programming".
we do hold to "mind control" but that control is to be done by the indivdual with the goal of using his faculty of Reason as the sole tool of knowledge. Which gets back to my phrase "I do not ask to be believed. I ask to be understood, from that, belief will follow". This kind of "mind control"; of being in command of one's faculties has always been regarded as the medical minimum for sanity and the hallmark of the person of depth and a necessity to go beyond the shallow, superficial and mental teenybopper "airhead". In terms of "programming" Miss Rand raised the issue of making the process of thinking "semi-automatic" but not the content. Cults seek to make belief in the specific doctrine(S) fully automatic. That she knew what she was talking about is made clear when we talk about "habits of mind" in philosophy and psychology.
both cults and Objectivism support moral absolutes. Also; Both cults adn Objectivism are doctrinnaire
That does not refute or prove the value of moral or any absolutes. Both normal persons and cult members eat, sleep and breathe. Conclsion: to eat, sleep and breathe is to be a cult member. The cult member, like the religionist accepts his moral absolutes as givens, for the Randite, the moral abslutes are validated by Reason in the area of ethics. In fact, Objectivism is more about ethicks than morality; that is, how do I discern good from evil and implement that knowledge into behvior. As far as "doctrinaire" All systems have doctrines. The specific doctrines are part of a system's identity. But what you are really afraid of is being "labelled". Lebels, to the extent that they are correct, identify a person or thing. Would you eat the contents of an unabelled box? It is not labels that you are afraid of, but of being correctly labelled as a jerk or evil. As proof of that, the left tries to stick mor negative labels on their opponents than Heinz 57. One would be tempted to call them hypocrites if they knew what they were doing and give the lecture about glass houses and stones if one thought they had the mentality to understand or the honesty to admit openly what they are up to.
I've met some Objectivists and they act like they are reciting from memory
They probably are. This comes from a number of things
In actuality, then, if you wanted to set a numerical value to the claim that Objectivism is a "mind control cult" it would be the usual 5% from random drift plus another 5% that this flaw will have an effect. Since this is tiny in terms of probabilities then the claim is false and rediculous and that's all she wrote.
If we can't spank this one right out of the park and into the middle of next week. we ought to just hang it up and go home.