I've noticed lately, that some have mentioned Ayn Rand, fact is I'm always quoting from her literature also.

I discovered Ayn Rand in my earliest twenties, by the time I was reading her books was a time in my life were I was going under major changes in my life, I had become doubtufull of religious dogma, and got more into philosophy, psychology than ever before in my life. I was never a college student, drug addict "pot, coke, booze" however I always loved to read, and read I did. Through reading George H. Smith's (THE CASE AGAISNT GOD) He quoted Ayn Rand, therefore the next time on a library I picked up on her, and thus began my infatuation, with her literature.

I've moved on however, I've also read Bertrand Russel, Plato, Aristotle, Frank R. Wallace's (Neo-Tech) and numerous others too many to mention. I've often read critics of Ayn Rand, and this post is one of them.

THE UNLIKELIEST CULT IN HISTORY

How, then, could such a philosophy become the basis of a cult, which is the antithesis of reason and individualism? A cult, however it is defined, depends on faith and deindividuation--that is, remove the power of reason in followers and make them dependent upon the group and/or the leader. The last thing a cult leader wants is for followers to think for themselves and become individuals apart from the group.

The cultic flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is not in the use of reason, or in the emphasis on individuality, or in the belief that humans are self motivated, or in the conviction that capitalism is the ideal system. The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you remain flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final step for such unreformed heretics.

This was just a taste of the essay as it is way too long to post here;

But if you would like to read it in full go
here (http://www.skeptic.com/02.2.shermer-unlikely-cult.html)

Let this thread be a study of Ayn Rand's work, and the philosophy of Objectivisim. All commers are welcomed ofcourse.

Godless.

I see I've had a few lookers no takers. How sad. for this would be a most enlightning critic of her work. However I've found this, from Nathaniel Branden;

The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand

link (http://www.nathanielbranden.com/ayn/ayn03.html)

Sad that the essay is quite long to paste here, however if you got the time this a good read.

Godless.

If your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you remain flawed and do not belong in the group.

This smacks of collectivism. ;)

What "group"?

Ayn Rand is like Sigmund Freud. Her writings started a great movement. For Freud it was the idea that the human mind and spirit can be studied like anything else in the natural world, with the hope of understanding it and using that understanding for good. For her it was the idea that a viable civilization could be based upon the fundamental principles of personal liberty and responsibility that got America started.

Freud got a lot of the details wrong. Jung followed him, repaired a lot of the holes in his theories, and built a much sounder philosophy.

Ayn Rand got a lot of the details wrong. The libertarian community followed her and... well we haven't made as much progress as Jung but we haven't had as much time either. And we have no single scholar to follow. The libertarian community probably wouldn't follow a leader the way the psychological community has anyway (all except for the M.D.s, most of whom are still out-of-it retro-Freudians), because individuality is such a strong principle of the movement.

If you read the libertarian press there's still plenty of print wasted on dissecting Ayn Rand's writings and her life. But it doesn't represent the movement. The majority of us have just as much, or more, respect for Hayek, Szasz, and a dozen other writers, and don't regard Rand as anything more than a modestly talented writer who had a good idea that deserves more examination.

There is no libertarian "cult." All we want to do is get the American government to stop spitting on the Constitution, and to wake up the American people to the fact that they've given away about 99% of their constitutional rights without even complaining. Thomas Jefferson would weep if he saw the crap we let the government get away with today. It's arguably worse than the British crown against whom we rebelled.

As for the Ayn Rand "cult," it's about as important as Hare Krishna.

Ayn Rand got a lot of the details wrong.

Err her ideas were sound, and logical. She brought forth reason from the birth of the mind of Aristotle, It was her followers who interpreted Ayn's work with mysticism, they could not think for themselves thus elevating AynRand the persona, to such a high status.

I.E.:

IDEAS ALONE ARE NOT ENOUGH

Even the best or soundest ideas alone are not worth much without the integrated thought and hard effort needed to elevate those ideas to higher value levels. Thus, ideas alone cannot provide competence and self-esteem. In fact, certain "intellectuals" use their focus on ideas as rationalizations to avoid the constant, hard efforts needed to live competently, successfully, happily.

That focus on ideas alone is why certain intellectuals with valid idea systems behave immaturely and self-destructively. And that is why they often attack one another with pettiness and unfairness. For such "idea" people base self-worth not on competence achieved but on ideas held.

Indeed, many self-appointed intellectual leaders try to live on ideas alone. They fail to exert the constant hard work needed to build competitive success and business competence. As a result, such "idea" people often appear immature and resentful next to successful business people.

Consider the "leaders" of valid libertarian and objectivist idea systems: For example, consider the publishers of the nonprofit libertarian magazine "Reason" and the now defunct objectivist newsletter "The Objectivist Forum". Both noncommercial publishers tried to "protect" their subscribers from commercially successful Neotech.

The lives and self-esteems of such "leaders" orient around presenting ideas and gaining followers. Now, their work is a valid, important activity for which they can be proud. But, those "leaders" fail to put forth the disciplined, mystic-free thinking and hard-effort integrations needed for elevating ideas to commercial levels -- to levels beyond preaching to the choir. And, without the discipline of Neotech, they and their followers drift into various low-effort mystical modes of idea churning, group therapies, silver speculating, and John-Galt role playing. Such mystical-mode activities retard life, happiness, and productive accomplishment. ...Midst those undisciplined noncommercial approaches, mysticism flourishes. source (http://www.neo-tech.com/neotech/discovery/appendixd.html)

Godless.