Objectivist Dropouts

[Ifat Glassman 0]

I had a small discussion with a friend about Betsy's essay, and as a result I have some questions. He said that every single "type" of dropout (like the rebel, the lost lamb, etc') is immoral. I personally cannot pin down how these characters are immoral. To "pin it down", I need to see some instance in which they evade some knowledge, or just plain refusal to think. The "true believer" does not make an effort to think. But is it really his choice? those kind of people have automatized a certain way of dealing with ideas. I'm not at all sure it is a choice for them anymore to accept ideas on faith and stick to them. It is only when such person becomes aware of what he is, that he can make the choice to stick to it or change. So I was unable to determine if this kind of person is immoral or not.

The rebel - where is he making an immoral choice? As far as I can see, the picture of such guy in my head is of someone who treats human beings as more epistemologically important than ideas. He needs people's opinion to protect him from people's opinions, not ideas to protect him from ideas, because he doesn't think the ideas through, he doesn't want to. (For a thinking person the rebel attitude is great though). But even in this case, it's some way of being which the person is so used to, that it is essentially a part of him, and not exactly a daily conscious choice.

So my question is: how are these characters immoral, if they are? what do they do or choose that is immoral? (not just the two above but all 4 types).

[Alon Tsin 0]

...

Finally I believe that many people who have gained a good understanding of the philosophy and sincerely wish to learn more, are ultimately turned off by the fact that so many Objectivists advocate bombing Iran. This is probably a big factor in making people support the Cato Institute rather than the Ayn Rand Institute. Most people are inclined to lead by example, set a good standard, and only intervene in foreign affairs if "absolutely necessary". By their definition of "absolutely necessary" it may already be far too late however.

While I was, on occasion, very disappointed with some Objectivist's views (Most notably, I was very disappointed with Dr. Peikoff's words that whoever votes Republican does not understand Objectivism), the crux is - It doesn't matter!

It doesn't matter whether 95% of Objectivists want to bomb Iran, or whether only half of them do, or whether the Cato institute says differently than the Ayn Rand Institue. The only thing that matters is your judgment, and your judgment alone! If you have good, solid premises, and your view are logically constructed, then that's all that is important.

People who "sincerely want to learn more" about Objectivism , but don't do that because they don't like some disconnected ideas they hear about Iran , are on the wrong track. They should learn the basics of the philosophy and it's premises, and only then they can make a philosophical decision whether bombing Iran or supporting Israel or any other idea is moral.

In Dr. Akston's words: "Consider the reasons which make us certain that we are tight, but not the fact that we are certain. If you are not convinced, ignore our certainty. Don't be tempted to substitute our judgment for your own".

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I had a small discussion with a friend about Betsy's essay, and as a result I have some questions. He said that every single "type" of dropout (like the rebel, the lost lamb, etc') is immoral.

I disagree. Some are and some aren't.

Many Lost Lambs are lost because they do not know what they should do or why, but when they learn how, they find themselves. Their errors are errors of knowledge, not breaches of morality.

It is also common for many True Believers, especially the younger ones, to glom onto Objectivism because of something good: Ayn Rand's sense of life appeals to them because their own implicit philosophy is essentially rational. They desire to be moral people, but all the explicit values they have ever known have been based on faith. If they can learn how to ground their values in reality -- and Objectivism can show the way -- they have a chance to become fully rational people.

Almost all of the truly irrational dropouts are to be found among the Rebels and the Exploiters. The Rebels reject authority figures, not because they are wrong, but because Rebels are basically nihilists who cannot accept limits whether man-made or metaphysical. They reject authorities, not because the authorities are wrong, but because the authorities won't let them indulge their whims. That's why so many L/libertarians are so hostile to Ayn Rand.

The Exploiters tend to be the most irrational of all since they seek power over, and wish to control, others. As Ayn Rand observed, "To control the consciousness of others becomes his only passion; power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind." Exploiters not only have to deceive others, but they also spend a great deal of time and effort rationalizing in order to evade knowing what it is they are really after.

[Paul's Here 0]

In the four decades that I have been associated with Objectivism, I have seen 80-90% of the people I went to lectures and conferences with, and considered my best friends and teachers, drop out. I have watched and studied them so carefully that I now know what to look for and I can pretty accurately predict who will eventually drop out and why.

----------------

So what are the characteristics of those who you have found not to drop out and remain associated with Objectivism?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

So what are the characteristics of those who you have found not to drop out and remain associated with Objectivism?

They are the same two characteristics that make someone what I call Good Objectivist Material: (1) Solid, constant contact with reality and (2) active, passionate pursuit of personal values.

[Jim A. 0]

This is a great thread, one I will have to re-read a few times.

I have seen--or heard of--a number of "Objectivists" who drop out. And, as several of you have noted, there are different reasons they do, depending on the purpose for which they began their study of--or association with--Objectivism.

The thing I see most often, however, is people dropping out of Objectivism when they finally understand--or cannot stand--the fact that the philosophy of Objectivism is a system, and is completely consistent. These people can no longer get away with compartmentalizing, that is, not in their own consciousnesses. They can no longer have a "sanctuary of the indeterminate" somewhere in the areas of their knowledge. They have no wiggle room anymore, even if no one else knows what's going on their mind; they know, and that is all that matters. So--they drop Objectivism, even though they may pay occasional lip service paeans to it, such as: "What a great thinker Ayn Rand was. If only life could be as simple as she said it is", or: "That was quite a time when Atlas Shrugged was written" (as if principles were applicable to reality then but aren't now), or: "I loved The Fountainhead in my youth. It's a great book, but I've grown since then." They come to Objectivism because, probably on some subconcious level (maybe, since I'm psychologizing here), they realize that their split-up, compartmentalized view of the universe is only undercutting their inner development and existential progress in life.

And, of course, they often have the rationalization that if Ayn Rand "screwed-up" somewhere, especially morally (which I can't imagine her doing), that meant that the philosophy she built was, therefore, invalid (an "ad hominem" view of her and her philosophy). What they don't wish to face is the fact that if someone says something true, it's true, no matter what he or she has said or done elsewhere in their life. That means that the person has to judge the philosophy with their "own bad eye", and that is one responsibility such people do not want to accept. They are the kind of people who are terrified of facing the fact that A is A.

[Abaco 0]

Betsy - your initial comment makes me think. I don't think I'd call myself an Objectivist. I'm fairly new to it. I can say, with certainty, that Atlas Shrugged changed my life. Reading it opened my eyes and gave me clarity. It was like a veil was lifted off my eyes. It's hard to explain in a few words. As I learn more about Objectivism I find myself thinking that it makes sense to me.

I really appreciate the concept of evaluating the premise of any important, impactful position and was glad to see this in Atlas Shrugged. Anymore, sadly, it seems like a lost art in our society, giving way to blind altruism.

Anyway, sorry for blabbing. Your comment had my wheels turning.

[rtg24 0]

Eventually, he discovers that Objectivism is for something. Objectivism has standards. Objectivists expect him to actually be and do something specific. "Who does [Ayn Rand, Peikoff, Schwartz, etc.] think they are, telling me what to do?" he cries as he drops out and becomes a libertarian.

The rest of the post, and thread, is great, but that particular bit had me laugh out loud!

So often true. I've met many of those.

I became an Objectivist because I couldn't debate (rationally) against any Objectivists, they would always win. So eventually I picked up their books.

[inventor 0]

Although I would wish it we different, others have their own issues, it shows up in how they treat people, and there's usually very little I can do about it.

I suspect that most individuals operate according to just a few basic premises, and those premises determine the person's actions. For example, the person who accepts the Pragmatist ideas given to him in Progressive schools may think that Pragmatism is the same as practicality or reason. There they have been sold a bill of goods, and they need a good lecture on the ways that objective reality may be applied to the specific instances of life to create a practical way of life. However, good advice is very expensive and difficult to get, even in Objectivism.

Those who are unhappy with the world's events, and want Pragmatic social action combined with a rational political ethics will endorse Libertarianism, leraving the Republicans to be guided by the Evangeliststs by default, and will even place Libertarianism as the higher philosophy. Objectivism is, after all, to them impotent socially. They don't appreciate Objectivism as having the power of ideas, and that ideas cause the actions of people. The proof of Objectivism is that ideas work practically and that action without the right causal ideas results in goal-less political parties like the Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians.

Then there are the moral paranoids. They are insufferably right about everything, and they collect experts around them as if a shield.

Those are some more types, or sub-types, of the individuals who have issues with Objectivism.

My preference for those who stay with Objectivism is with the individuals who never cease to ask questions, and who collect and evaluate the answers offered by all vocal experts. Too often individuals have been conned into thinking that Objectivism has provided the last and best answers to every issue. Objectivism has been surprisingly right in its theories, however, there are many areas where it has not had a lot to say, for example, psychotherapy, life stages, hard sciences, architecture, music, dance, model political legislation, and the arts of persuasion. The individual who questions should be strongly supported. I don't mean the fence sitters who want a meld of the popular consensus ideas, and who claim the right of having rights. I mean that the person who seeks the fundamentals of theories and approaches, rigorously checks the premises and facts, and who, in some areas, constructs the right ideas, will often find himself farther advanced than Objectivism. Questions and answers are the primary means of gaining and creating knowledge, and the questioner needs the support of those who would interact in the quest for knowledge. Questioning is the primary method of validating theories and facts, and the questioner is at the front line of philosophy and science.

Inventor

[BrianB 0]

Decades ago I heard Dr. Alan Blumenthal expound on a reason why some people drop out of Objectivism. I mention Dr. Blumenthal to give him credit for the idea. However, the presentation of the idea, below, is mine, and the blame for any mistakes, or misinterpretations of what Dr. Blumenthal said, rests with me.

Suppose a young man, John, discovers Objectivism. The ideas hit him like a sledgehammer. They open up a whole new universe to him. He doesn't fully understand all the ideas yet and he certainly hasn't integrated them. But he searches out everything that Ayn Rand wrote and reads it.

In the course of his studies he finds out Ayn Rand's opinions on art.

On music she thinks that Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff are the best. Beethoven is a genius, but has a malevolent sense of life. She, explicitly, is not a fan of Elvis Presley. John extrapolates this last to conclude that she thinks all Rock 'n Roll is worthless.

So John gets rid of his music collection and buys music by composers that Ayn Rand favors. He listens to it diligently but apart from one or two snatches of melody that he can grasp, he doesn't like it. John finds the music that Ayn Rand likes to be boring and incomprehensible.

The same thing happens with books. When it comes to literature Ayn Rand places Victor Hugo and Fyodor Dostoevsky at the pinnacle. John gives away his comic book collection and buys "Crime and Punishment" and "Les Miserables". His judgment is that the first is evil and the second is depressing.

John follows a similar pattern about his career choice, friends, and other issues.

The upshot of all this is that John feels that he has to give up his values if he is to be an Objectivist. He has never experienced such unhappiness. He feels that he is losing his sense of self. In the end it becomes so unbearable that he gives up on Objectivism. He decides that trying to live by reason alone is not possible. The only way to be happy is to go with his emotions and restore his values. He becomes an Objectivist dropout.

The saddest part of this sequence is that it needn't have happened. If John had an Objectivist mentor, his mistake would have been identified and explained to him. There is no contradiction between being an Objectivist and liking, say, AC/DC.

It is my belief that many people give up on Objectivism because they don't understand it or they make a mistake in interpreting it. If there ever comes a day when Objectivism is pervasive in the culture, when people say of Objectivist ideas, "Oh, that's just common sense." then the problem of Objectivist dropouts will be no more.

[PhilO 0]

The (enormous) mistake that such a person would be making, would be substituting, in a concrete-bound way, Ayn Rand's personal values for his.

The primary intersection of action and thought, where one's philosophy is actually expressed in life, is in the pursuit of personal values. That is the core of individuality and individualism. Any person or system which attacks the personal pursuit of values (as long as those values are not objectively irrational, such as the pursuit of mugging people in the park) is a bad thing - the hallmark of all statism is that it represents an assault on the pursuit of personal values, by depriving time and resources from individuals, or by obstructing the pursuit of them, or both.

Objectivism is fundamentally about teaching individuals how to rational define and then pursue values. Thought is not an end in itself, action is not an end in itself - life is, and good life *is* about personal pursuit and enjoyment of rationally defined values.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Decades ago I heard Dr. Alan Blumenthal expound on a reason why some people drop out of Objectivism. I mention Dr. Blumenthal to give him credit for the idea. [...]

Very interesting. I wonder how much of what Alan said was autobiographical.

In the late 1970's Alan and his wife Joan moved to California and invited me and my late husband Stephen to their new home in Palm Springs. After dinner they announced that that they had totally broken with Ayn Rand and that, in Joan's words with Alan nodding assent, "Ayn Rand never had a right idea in her life except maybe in politics." Stephen and I sat there astonished and shocked as they went on and on in the same vein. When I asked them why they had stayed with Ayn Rand so long if they thought she was that wrong, Joan said, "We were brainwashed. Objectivism is a cult like Jonestown."

Based on what they have said and done, I think they are dropouts who are a combination of True Believers and Exploiters.

[ewv 0]

The (enormous) mistake that such a person would be making, would be substituting, in a concrete-bound way, Ayn Rand's personal values for his.

The primary intersection of action and thought, where one's philosophy is actually expressed in life, is in the pursuit of personal values. That is the core of individuality and individualism. Any person or system which attacks the personal pursuit of values (as long as those values are not objectively irrational, such as the pursuit of mugging people in the park) is a bad thing - the hallmark of all statism is that it represents an assault on the pursuit of personal values, by depriving time and resources from individuals, or by obstructing the pursuit of them, or both.

Objectivism is fundamentally about teaching individuals how to rational define and then pursue values. Thought is not an end in itself, action is not an end in itself - life is, and good life *is* about personal pursuit and enjoyment of rationally defined values.

Yes, but what it is for and what it is -- as an integrated system of philosophical principles covering all the branches of philosophy -- are two different things. Too many people have confused that in the sense of allowing the latter to become a substitute for the former -- It becomes a substitute for living their own lives (related to the "True Believers" category).

[PhilO 0]

Francisco's constant question "what for?" should always be kept in mind by anyone studying Objectivism. While it is an integrated philosophic system, the "what for" of understanding its principle is always tied to a central goal: the living of life proper to a rational being. In reality these can't ever be fully decoupled; trying to do so would be to treat the ideas a floating abstractions or as a rationalistic exercise. One grasps that nature is ruled by natural law, that non-contradictory identification and integration of the facts is necessary to arrive at truth, and so on, not because it's an academic exercise or a mathematical theorem or because all the cool kids are studying it, but because these principles are necessary for the pursuit of values in reality. Without a "what is it for", there really wouldn't be a "what it is".

[PhilO 0]

In the late 1970's Alan and his wife Joan moved to California and invited me and my late husband Stephen to their new home in Palm Springs. After dinner they announced that that they had totally broken with Ayn Rand and that, in Joan's words with Alan nodding assent, "Ayn Rand never had a right idea in her life except maybe in politics." Stephen and I sat there astonished and shocked as they went on and on in the same vein. When I asked them why they had stayed with Ayn Rand so long if they thought she was that wrong, Joan said, "We were brainwashed. Objectivism is a cult like Jonestown."

Wow. I guess if somebody thought Ayn Rand was so wrong about everything, I guess they should proceed to be wanton self-sacrificial altruists who reject logical thought and embrace communism. Oh, did they become Democrats?

[ewv 0]

Decades ago I heard Dr. Alan Blumenthal expound on a reason why some people drop out of Objectivism. I mention Dr. Blumenthal to give him credit for the idea. [...]

Very interesting. I wonder how much of what Alan said was autobiographical.

In the late 1970's Alan and his wife Joan moved to California and invited me and my late husband Stephen to their new home in Palm Springs. After dinner they announced that that they had totally broken with Ayn Rand and that, in Joan's words with Alan nodding assent, "Ayn Rand never had a right idea in her life except maybe in politics." Stephen and I sat there astonished and shocked as they went on and on in the same vein. When I asked them why they had stayed with Ayn Rand so long if they thought she was that wrong, Joan said, "We were brainwashed. Objectivism is a cult like Jonestown."

Based on what they have said and done, I think they are dropouts who are a combination of True Believers and Exploiters.

It may very well be autobiographical. Leonard Peikoff once said in answer to a question on his radio show that the reason why he inherited her estate was that she had no children and he was the only one left of her friends who had remained loyal to her. The whole "inner circle" had disintegrated by the 1970s.

Edith Efron, who had been one of them, once gave a talk in Cambridge in the 1970s and a small group of us from the area met with her for a lengthy breakfast meeting the next morning at MIT. She was very nice and very supportive of us, and spent some time telling us what she was doing and offering some good advice, but much of the discussion was about a whole string of bizarre-sounding histrionics that had accompanied various people recently breaking from Ayn Rand personally (if not with her ideas).

The impression we were left with from the description, though she didn't put it this way as a summary, was that a group of intelligent people who were of like mind with Ayn Rand in general could not cope with her strong personality and had allowed themselves to essentially pander to her by professing agreement on all kinds of not necessarily important things where there was none. It inevitably led to blow-ups and arguments over 'loyalty' and 'betrayals' when the truth came out.

Ayn Rand may not have been the easiest person to get along with at that level of intellectual closeness, but she seemed to have been carried along with what she took for granted as honest agreement, taken off guard, and was ultimately let down and felt a form of 'betrayal' when she found out the form of dishonesty of how they had essentially been pandering to her instead of the agreement she had taken at face value. She did have a strong personality and evidently could be "difficult", as Leonard Peikoff once put it at Ford Hall shortly after she died. But if there was the equivalent of a "Jonestown" mentality it was of their own making and not something that Ayn Rand ever wanted. She expected rational agreement, honestly reached when it was expressed, not submission. Joan Blumenthal was speaking for herself in a way she didn't realize.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Wow. I guess if somebody thought Ayn Rand was so wrong about everything, I guess they should proceed to be wanton self-sacrificial altruists who reject logical thought and embrace communism. Oh, did they become Democrats?

They became libertarians and friends of Barbara Branden.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Wow. I guess if somebody thought Ayn Rand was so wrong about everything, I guess they should proceed to be wanton self-sacrificial altruists who reject logical thought and embrace communism. Oh, did they become Democrats?

They became libertarians and friends of Barbara Branden.

Is there something wrong with advocating that government be of limited scope?

ruveyn

[ewv 0]

No but that isn't what Betsy said about them.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

No but that isn't what Betsy said about them.

That is what the small "l" libertarian stand is. A limitation on the power and scope of government.

The Tea Party started out as a libertarian action and was soon hijacked by the Right Wing Republical Jesus Phreaks.

ruveyn

[ewv 0]

"libertarian", even in contrast to the "Libertarian Party", means more than that, especially in the context of the 1970s libertarian movement and its contrast to Ayn Rand's political theory. In the vague sense of "limitation on power and scope of government" there was nothing for them to become from what they started with. Also that doesn't even begin to describe their collaboration with the Brandens.

The 'Tea Party' was a reaction to the openly aggressive statist, hate-America agenda of Obama and the Democrat Congress. It's not clear that in general they had anything positive to offer, as opposed to a negative reaction (which under the circumstances wasn't a bad thing to do, just too limited), other than some traditionalist slogans on behalf of the Constitution whose justification in terms of the rights of the individual they do not understand. It continues to be a very mixed movement, not hijacked by religionists, even though there have been some notorious examples of that -- like the embarrassing clown who is 'not a witch' in Delaware who didn't even know what the 1st Amendment said about separation of government from religion. (Remember her debate with her Democrat senate opponent where he had to tell her and she was laughing along with the audience, not realizing that they were laughing at her?)

[Carlos 0]

It may very well be autobiographical. Leonard Peikoff once said in answer to a question on his radio show that the reason why he inherited her estate was that she had no children and he was the only one left of her friends who had remained loyal to her. The whole "inner circle" had disintegrated by the 1970s.

Edith Efron, who had been one of them, once gave a talk in Cambridge in the 1970s and a small group of us from the area met with her for a lengthy breakfast meeting the next morning at MIT. She was very nice and very supportive of us, and spent some time telling us what she was doing and offering some good advice, but much of the discussion was about a whole string of bizarre-sounding histrionics that had accompanied various people recently breaking from Ayn Rand personally (if not with her ideas).

The impression we were left with from the description, though she didn't put it this way as a summary, was that a group of intelligent people who were of like mind with Ayn Rand in general could not cope with her strong personality and had allowed themselves to essentially pander to her by professing agreement on all kinds of not necessarily important things where there was none. It inevitably led to blow-ups and arguments over 'loyalty' and 'betrayals' when the truth came out.

Ayn Rand may not have been the easiest person to get along with at that level of intellectual closeness, but she seemed to have been carried along with what she took for granted as honest agreement, taken off guard, and was ultimately let down and felt a form of 'betrayal' when she found out the form of dishonesty of how they had essentially been pandering to her instead of the agreement she had taken at face value. She did have a strong personality and evidently could be "difficult", as Leonard Peikoff once put it at Ford Hall shortly after she died. But if there was the equivalent of a "Jonestown" mentality it was of their own making and not something that Ayn Rand ever wanted. She expected rational agreement, honestly reached when it was expressed, not submission. Joan Blumenthal was speaking for herself in a way she didn't realize.

Thanks for sharing this; it was very interesting to read.

I remember reading/hearing somewhere that Miss Rand could sometimes be innocently naive in her friendships, which resulted in nasty people like the Brandens ultimately exploiting and backstabbing her. I wonder if that was a factor in her not realizing that many in the circle were simply pandering to her rather than being genuine intellectual peers and companions. It's a shame that it had to end this way, because she certainly deserved better...

[Claire 0]

What about the countless people who back away from Objectivism because they are tired of the moralizing (one year, Peikoff claims that anyone not voting his way is 'immoral." Then - oops. My bad. This kind of moralizing is as smart a reason for leaving Objectivism as I can imagine.

[Joss Delage 0]

Peikoff isn't exactly a shining example, no question about it. I used to subscribe to his podcast and once he said it was perfectly ethical to buy a cheap seat at a concert and then move to a more expensive seat that had not sold.

[JohnRgt 0]

I don't see a problem with that, Joss. The only time it would be an issue for me is if someone did that in a venue they knew prohibited that sort of thing.