The Peikoff Endorsement Options

[Rational Ryan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFjYBLkvND8

Here, Here.

[bborg]

I haven't listened to the item in quesiton, but one can't expect in-depth philosophical analysis in a brief podcast. It would be a mistake either to accept or to dismiss what he says there as if he meant it to be as authoritative as OPAR.

My impression is that he only made this announcement to satisfy requests he's received. That reluctance is hard to miss, especially given that he says he will not talk about the subject again or answer questions. So I don't know if he even intended the podcast to convince anyone of his views, much less accept them as authoritative.

[Thales]

One of the things that strikes me about Peikoff's analysis, i.e. that religion is the biggest threat, is that I don't remember Ayn Rand ever making an equivalent point. Her idea, I thought, was that religion isn't that big a threat, because intellectually it is primitive. Kantian philosophy was the biggest threat, because of the strong arguments he made against reason and science, while pretending to be a champion of them.

Now, to be sure, Peikoff has much more extensive knowledge of Objectivism than I do, and I understand the trust of Peikoff's argument, but how is religion going to stand up to Objectivism?

[Betsy Speicher]

The vast majority of Christian Republicans don't want anybody--the government, other religions, other Christians--sticking their nose into their lives; they want to be left the hell alone to live life as they please, and they certainly don't want to meddle in the lives of others.

So they don't want to ban gay marriage or abortion? Teach intelligent design as a reasonable alternative theory to evolution? Ban Harry Potter?

A few of them do, but observe these are all legal powers religion used to have and lost (laws against abortion and teaching evolution, censorship) or currently have and are in danger of losing (ban on gay marriage). The fact is, the historical trend is away from religious influence.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about socialism and environmentalism.

I see very serious threats to freedom on both sides of the aisle at present.

I don't see a serious threat from religion at all. There is no chance that Harry Potter would be banned unless some left-winger decides it is racist hate speech or it falls under the Fairness Doctrine that the Left wants to re-introduce.

In the long run, the religious are worse, because mysticism will trump consistent skepticism and apparent moral authority will trump relativism.

If this is true, how did skepticism ever come to overcome religion in Europe and among the Left? Also, how can either stop the rise of Objectivism without the kind of censorship the Left wants to impose?

[Carlos]

So they don't want to ban gay marriage or abortion? Teach intelligent design as a reasonable alternative theory to evolution? Ban Harry Potter?

Yes, a very small percentage that is over-represented and blown out of proportion does.

[Carlos]

So they don't want to ban gay marriage or abortion? Teach intelligent design as a reasonable alternative theory to evolution? Ban Harry Potter?

Yes, a very small percentage that is over-represented and blown out of proportion does.

Also, keep in mind that--unlike the Leftists--these Christian Republicans would only want to change a few specific things in America that "anger up the blood" (abortion, gay marriage), but there would never be a movement to broadly restructure and redefine the purpose and power of our government.

[Carlos]

So they don't want to ban gay marriage or abortion? Teach intelligent design as a reasonable alternative theory to evolution? Ban Harry Potter?

Yes, a very small percentage that is over-represented and blown out of proportion does.

And they are probably over-represented and blown out of proportion because every time some southern politician says "homosexuality makes Jesus cry" it gives the snobbish, elitist, pretentious Leftist media a chance to giggle at their "backwoods", "redneck", southern Republican neighbors.

[Carlos]

...but how is religion going to stand up to Objectivism?

Out of all the people I've ever met, religious individuals have been the most sympathetic towards Objectivism and if not that at least respectful of it, whereas secular non-Oists just hate it.

[Paul's Here]

--------------------
I don't see a serious threat from religion at all.

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

Many Objectivists who assert the threat of religion appear to reside in Colorado where there is a significant attempt to impose religious doctrine, such as the ballot initiative for a state contitutional amendment to define a human as a fertilized egg. While I agree that religion as a political movement today is not a significant threat in the country, I'm curious as to what your evaluation of the situation in Colorado is.

[PhilO]

I was not speaking in reference to you, Betsy, but ewv seems very aggressive and negative towards anything Peikoff has to say. I did not mean to insinuate anyone voting in this election is anti-Peikoff.

Dr. Peikoff has done a great deal for Objectivism, to his eternal credit. It's a matter of history and that can't change.

He has also treated a lot of people injustly (and I am not talking about the Kelley crowd).

He also directly states on his own website http://www.peikoff.com/:

Q: I am writing to inquire about your sentiments on the current state of America and the world.
A: I now read only the front page of the New York Times, dropping each story when it is necessary to turn the page. That way, what is happening does not become too real to me.

which really speaks for itself.

He is also *not* using his control of Ayn Rand's intellectual property to maximum benefit in the electronic age, which is *the* key resource to making a difference in the culture if there is a difference to be made. He was always openly indifferent to the CD-ROM, and does not seem to understand the full potential of the internet. He is *not* taking translations into other languages, especially Chinese, seriously. (They were licensed without any regard for quality control and completely ignoring concerns by Chinese speaking Objectivists.) I know what I'm talking about on these issues (if you read Japanese, you'll see an acknowledgment to me for my assistance to the translator of Atlas Shrugged, after she was persistent in getting such help after being ignored and rebuffed by LP's literary agency.)

If he's given up the fight, he should at least place all of Ayn Rand's works into the public domain so that they can be freely copied, quoted, translated, wiki-fied, analyzed, argued about, stored on millions of electronic devices, transcribed onto etched superalloy sheets (one of my ideas) that would last millions of years, and searched all around the internet.

[PhilO]

The question that several members might want to start asking themselves is if they are ready to deal with reality and the truth.

With all due respect, what the blazes are you talking about?

I agree. If Rick has a systematic thesis he should write up an essay on it and post it in its entirety all at once, and stop being coy and overly Socratic.

[JohnRgt]

...but how is religion going to stand up to Objectivism?

Out of all the people I've ever met, religious individuals have been the most sympathetic towards Objectivism and if not that at least respectful of it, whereas secular non-Oists just hate it.

Same here in NY Metro. Staggering, isn't it?

[Rational Ryan]

Rational Ryan, I was born and raised in the Bible Belt and can find absolutely zero evidence to support Peikoff's fear of Christian Republicans. The sweeping, dramatic arguments he makes fall flat on their face when you actually live with the people he is deducting claims from ignorance about. The vast majority of Christian Republicans don't want anybody--the government, other religions, other Christians--sticking their nose into their lives; they want to be left the hell alone to live life as they please, and they certainly don't want to meddle in the lives of others.

When Environmentalism and Socialism are poised right now to completely conquer America, it is absolutely preposterous to claim that Christianity is some kind of a dominant threat.

I am not saying those 2 things are not a threat, but that the threat of religion is substantial in ever-present.

The Religious Right is a billion dollar racket to this day.

[Betsy Speicher]

Many Objectivists who assert the threat of religion appear to reside in Colorado where there is a significant attempt to impose religious doctrine, such as the ballot initiative for a state contitutional amendment to define a human as a fertilized egg. While I agree that religion as a political movement today is not a significant threat in the country, I'm curious as to what your evaluation of the situation in Colorado is.

If I were in Colorado, I would fight against that constitutional amendment.

The issue is not the source of the idea, but that it is wrong idea backed up with a government gun. (For those concerned about the source of immoral laws, observe that almost all of them actually implemented recently have been promoted and justified on secular grounds.)

[Paul's Here]

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

I am not saying those 2 things are not a threat, but that the threat of religion is substantial in ever-present.

The Religious Right is a billion dollar racket to this day.

Is this more or less than has been spent in the past? Do you have a citation for this figure? What percent of that money goes to affecting political candidates? How does it compare to what other pressure groups spend? What laws have been enacted on a national level that have been pushed by the Religious Right? How does "ever-present" relate to effectiveness in achieving results? The party of the religious right, the Republicans, is about to be kicked out of power across the national level.

[Betsy Speicher]

...but how is religion going to stand up to Objectivism?

Out of all the people I've ever met, religious individuals have been the most sympathetic towards Objectivism and if not that at least respectful of it, whereas secular non-Oists just hate it.

Same here in NY Metro. Staggering, isn't it?

Actually, it is quite predictable. The better religious people reject nihilism and skepticism and want to defend virtue and values. They cling to religion because it is the only value system they know -- but they are eager to learn more and open to argument. As several formerly-religious Objectivists will attest, many are Good Objectivist Material ™.

[Thales]

...but how is religion going to stand up to Objectivism?

Out of all the people I've ever met, religious individuals have been the most sympathetic towards Objectivism and if not that at least respectful of it, whereas secular non-Oists just hate it.

I too have met many religious people who are sympathetic to Objectivism. But, I also know people who have had miserable childhoods because religion was foisted on them dogmatically. I know a few Objectivists have said as much and I believe you'll find they have a much dimmer view of religious people as a rule. Religion unleashed is dangerous, after all.

[Scott A.]

Many Objectivists who assert the threat of religion appear to reside in Colorado where there is a significant attempt to impose religious doctrine, such as the ballot initiative for a state contitutional amendment to define a human as a fertilized egg. While I agree that religion as a political movement today is not a significant threat in the country, I'm curious as to what your evaluation of the situation in Colorado is.

Betsy responded already, but here's a couple cents from one who lives in Colorado. First, like most states, the urban-rural political breakdown goes Democrat-Republican, respectively. The primary exception is Colorado Springs, which is the headquarters of Focus on the Family. There is also the large military presence, which leans Republican.

The state has swung to the left, with polls showing that Obama has a strong lead. We have a left-leaning Governor (particularly on "green" issues) and an even more leftist mayor in Denver. I believe both the state senate and house have Democrat majorities, as well. Given how things are at present, I would be very surprised if the anti-abortion amendment passes. Of course, it will depend on voter turnout, but it certainly looks like the Dems have enough emotional investment this election season to turn out. I'd guess the majority will vote "no" to that amendment (and that would also include some moderate Republicans and independents).

[Paul's Here]

Many Objectivists who assert the threat of religion appear to reside in Colorado where there is a significant attempt to impose religious doctrine, such as the ballot initiative for a state contitutional amendment to define a human as a fertilized egg. While I agree that religion as a political movement today is not a significant threat in the country, I'm curious as to what your evaluation of the situation in Colorado is.

If I were in Colorado, I would fight against that constitutional amendment.

The issue is not the source of the idea, but that it is wrong idea backed up with a government gun. (For those concerned about the source of immoral laws, observe that almost all of them actually implemented recently have been promoted and justified on secular grounds.)

But wouldn't one important tactic be to point out that the source of the ideas is religious and, therefore, a violation of the 1st Amendment?

[ruveyn ben yosef]

But wouldn't one important tactic be to point out that the source of the ideas is religious and, therefore, a violation of the 1st Amendment?

That would work only if the effect of the legislation is to establish a religion by government power. That runs smack into the First Amendment. If a law is inspired by some religious belief but is effectively secular there is no First Amendment case.

ruveyn

[Paul's Here]

But wouldn't one important tactic be to point out that the source of the ideas is religious and, therefore, a violation of the 1st Amendment?

That would work only if the effect of the legislation is to establish a religion by government power. That runs smack into the First Amendment. If a law is inspired by some religious belief but is effectively secular there is no First Amendment case.

ruveyn

No. The legislation does not concern establishing a religion. The first amendment concerns any legislation that has its origin in religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

What is secular about a considering a fertilized egg a human being with the right to life? Is there any non-religious organization that upholds such a position?