Because it sure isn't a rational philosophy.
I think it is a religious cult, you can be disfellowshipped from it,it is dogmatic, it has a cult figure that is virtually worshiped like some sort of Messiah and it has it own End-of-the-World revenge fantasy like some other religions we all know and love. Everytime I deal with a Randroid it is like dealing with any other cult member and what is ad, these people like most cult member have no realization that their movement is a cult.
So opinions...is it a bona fide (Latin for good faith) religion and what exactly distinguishes it from a religion if it isn't?
Can you include a short bit on what it actually is? It might help start the discussion.
Quote from: "Plu"Can you include a short bit on what it actually is? It might help start the discussion.
It is like a pseudo-Nietzschean philosophy for people who really do not understand Nietzsche and have self-esteem issues. Their beliefs include selifishness is the highest virture. Ayn Rand is always right, Objectivism is the only valid philosophy and it is okay to be rude and indignant at those who dare question Ayn Rand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand))
QuoteObjectivism is a philosophy created by Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.[citation needed]
Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth", grounded in reality, and aimed at defining human nature and the nature of the world in which we live.[1]
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged[2]
The name "Objectivism" derives from the idea that human knowledge and values are objective: they exist and are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by one's mind, and are not created by the thoughts one has.[3] Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence—"existentialism"—had already been taken.[4]
Not going to bore you by referring you to Rand's tests, because they are overlong and bombastic to the max. Objectivism is the shit that Paul Ryan and others secretly practice while calling themselves Christians. Either way, Randian Bullshit.
I would call it a form of philosophy, not a religion; but that is debatable.
I completely agree with the OP, and smell an ex JW.
Ironically, there is very little objectivity in Objectivism.
I think as practiced by some, it's a religious construct. It need not be so. Its economic premises are unrealistic; I write that as a neo-libertarian, myself (one who, while preferring the smallest practical government, understands that it is not 1813, but 2013). But some of its claims are defensible.
I think imputing things like "self-esteem issues" or a misunderstanding of Nietzsche is a little silly, though.
It's almost exactly identical to the flavor of Satanism of Anton LaVey. However, there's a difference-- whereas the "Satanism" is down-and-dirty Machiavellian, it requires no justification other than desire.
Rand tries justify selfish action with self-judged superiority: great people are above regular scum; the social contract, being among peers, is irrelevant to those who don't need those peers. It's very much religious, and necessarily so-- its justification requires the deification of the self.
Irrationality alone does not a religion make. Objectivism has no rituals, no mythology, no spiritual aspect, no explanation of the meaning or origin of life. It's a political philosophy. If being ridiculous or irrational is all it takes to make a religion, then believing in Bigfoot or liking romantic comedies are religions as well.
Quote from: "Valigarmander"Irrationality alone does not a religion make. Objectivism has no rituals, no mythology, no spiritual aspect, no explanation of the meaning or origin of life. It's a political philosophy. If being ridiculous or irrational is all it takes to make a religion, then believing in Bigfoot or liking romantic comedies are religions as well.
This has merit. Perhaps "cult" would be a better term.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Ironically, there is very little objectivity in Objectivism.
That's the way it always seemed to me. I've pondered the reason for calling that philosophy "Objectivism." It seems like a poor choice of words. It sounds classy enough, but isn't accurately descriptive.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Plu"Can you include a short bit on what it actually is? It might help start the discussion.
It is like a pseudo-Nietzschean philosophy for people who really do not understand Nietzsche and have self-esteem issues. Their beliefs include selifishness is the highest virture. Ayn Rand is always right, Objectivism is the only valid philosophy and it is okay to be rude and indignant at those who dare question Ayn Rand.
In before the handful of regulars here who are Rand fans rudely and indignantly disagree with your critique of Ayn Rand.
Who's Anne Rand and why should we care?
Quote from: "Valigarmander"Irrationality alone does not a religion make. Objectivism has... no mythology
Here is where I disagree with you. Objectivism is a mythology, particularly a heroic mythology,it has sacred tomes, it has its saints and sinners with a Campellian struggle between the forces of good and evil. It even has a satanic figure (Kant) looming over the heroes quest for self-realization. So many aspects of this "philosophy" scream out a mythology including the revenge fantasy that is prevalent in many religions.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Who's Anne Rand and why should we care?
Because this cult like other cults and religions has made inroads in our political landscape.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "the_antithesis"Who's Anne Rand and why should we care?
Because this cult like other cults and religions has made inroads in our political landscape.
Yup. The recent douchebag Republican VP nominee, Paul Ryan, is a self-professed big fan of Ayn Rand.
Quote from: "stromboli"Objectivism is the shit that Paul Ryan and others secretly practice while calling themselves Christians. Either way, Randian Bullshit.
Paul Ryan practices Objectivism the way Anton LaVey practices Christianity.
Ayn Rand.... uggg.
Ayn Rand is dead. She can't disfellowship anyone anymore. No one is in charge of Objectivism.
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"Ayn Rand is dead. She can't disfellowship anyone anymore. No one is in charge of Objectivism.
There are several organizations dedicated to spreading the Gospel of Ayn Rand. Each one of those organizations claims to be the only true followers of Ayn Rand's philosophy and claim the other churches...I mean organizations dedicated to spreading the message of Ayn Rand are really posers or worst. There is backbiting and throwing out of members in each one of those organizations.
So quit the bullshit. Just because she is dead, doesn't mean she doesn't have any organized group of followers..there are several.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I am personally confused, because as far as I remember from general education, they are both after a 'certain goal' with human mind. So... I don't know. If anyone has made some special readings on the subject, they are welcome.
I read through a few of her non-fiction books as a youth who came to her through her denunciation of religion.
She identified altruism with socialism, and as a result of that false equivocation (which probably arose as a result of her personal experience, having seen her family's wealth expropriated by the Russian revolutionaries), she came to associate altruism as a synthetic human construct of intent, rather than a survival strategy which predates humanity in evolution (as can be seen not only in other primates, but in insects, fish, and many, many other animals.)
At any rate, she imputes an obligation, a duty, to altruism that is not always there -- which is why she calls people who've fallen on hard times and collect aid from the state "moochers" -- and as a result she sought its source, and (wrongly, in my opinion) fastened the blame upon Kant, probably because of his "moral imperative".
It might interest you to know that she also had an inordinately strong antipathy to Nieztsche, and regarded him as Dionysian to a fault.
In a final irony, she was destitute as she suffered from lung cancer, and forced to rely upon state assistance at the end of her days. Bitter medicine for a bitter woman.
There's a religiosity to her followers that is shitty, and those dumbasses deserve mockery. She had some good ideas, and certainly reading her helped me get my sealegs for topics of economics and morality, but at the end of the day, her philosophy strikes my as somewhat shallow, and at points it is a temper tantrum.
I have never been able to finish any of her "novels", due to turgid prose, one-dimensional characters, and her unfortunate penchant for hectoring the reader at every turn, rather than letting her stories breathe. Plus, her dialogue is perhaps the worst dialogue this side of Lovecraft, and must be read to be believed.
QuoteObjectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception
(//https://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1337/69/1337693883910.png)
Quotethat one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic
(//http://ragefaces.s3.amazonaws.com/503e3d84ae7c700dcb00006b/93f734abc818f70329d17cf58dd43eac.png)
Quotethat the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest)
(//http://rageface.ru/faces/face-why.png)
Quotethat the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.
(//http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/063/Picture_2_c.jpg)
win.
Quote from: "ThePilgrim101"Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception
Well thank you Capt. Obvious.
Quotethat one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic
I see.
Quotethat the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest)
Wait. Now here is where you go wrong. How does this premise fit with the first two? That is one humungous leap you too there. Notice people, that this premise in no way fits with the first two, how embarrassing for him.
And by the way this premise is wrong. We do not live in a one-size-fits-all moral universe. Moral purpose is subjective. My moral purpose might be radically different from yours or more rational like my moral purpose is based on survival and learning and not the pursuit of happiness. You cannot say that ultimately life's moral purpose is happiness because you have your nature and I have mine and they differ.
Quotethat the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.
[/quote]
How sad of you that you are so fricking stupid that you cannot tell the fucking difference between a social system and an economic system. Economic systems leave a moral void being that they are merely an exchange of goods and services, that is why we set up social systems to govern said exchanges, to make sure they are done on a moral basis.
And art is subjective, it has no expressed goal or purpose except that which the beholder gives it not for the propagation of certain metaphysical ideas that would be propaganda and propaganda is usually shit art like that book Atlas Shrugged for example, shit art...a big piece of didactic shit like Dianetics. Being a former art student I tend to stick that the purpose of art is aesthetics or the mere enjoyment of art. Art is foremost to please the senses not instruct them.
Like some old witch once said - "Check your premises"
QuoteWell thank you Capt. Obvious.
I see.
Wait. Now here is where you go wrong. How does this premise fit with the first two? That is one humungous leap you too there. Notice people, that this premise in no way fits with the first two, how embarrassing for him.
And by the way this premise is wrong. We do not live in a one-size-fits-all moral universe. Moral purpose is subjective. My moral purpose might be radically different from yours or more rational like my moral purpose is based on survival and learning and not the pursuit of happiness. You cannot say that ultimately life's moral purpose is happiness because you have your nature and I have mine and they differ.
How sad of you that you are so fricking stupid that you cannot tell the fucking difference between a social system and an economic system. Economic systems leave a moral void being that they are merely an exchange of goods and services, that is why we set up social systems to govern said exchanges, to make sure they are done on a moral basis.
And art is subjective, it has no expressed goal or purpose except that which the beholder gives it not for the propagation of certain metaphysical ideas that would be propaganda and propaganda is usually shit art like that book Atlas Shrugged for example, shit art...a big piece of didactic shit like Dianetics. Being a former art student I tend to stick that the purpose of art is aesthetics or the mere enjoyment of art. Art is foremost to please the senses not instruct them.
Like some old witch once said - "Check your premises"
(//http://www.medstudentsonline.com.au/attachments/f48/705d1348124483-umat-2012-thread-909263d6_2291482-not_sure_if_serious.jpeg)
Quote from: "ThePilgrim101"QuoteWell thank you Capt. Obvious.
I see.
Wait. Now here is where you go wrong. How does this premise fit with the first two? That is one humungous leap you too there. Notice people, that this premise in no way fits with the first two, how embarrassing for him.
And by the way this premise is wrong. We do not live in a one-size-fits-all moral universe. Moral purpose is subjective. My moral purpose might be radically different from yours or more rational like my moral purpose is based on survival and learning and not the pursuit of happiness. You cannot say that ultimately life's moral purpose is happiness because you have your nature and I have mine and they differ.
How sad of you that you are so fricking stupid that you cannot tell the fucking difference between a social system and an economic system. Economic systems leave a moral void being that they are merely an exchange of goods and services, that is why we set up social systems to govern said exchanges, to make sure they are done on a moral basis.
And art is subjective, it has no expressed goal or purpose except that which the beholder gives it not for the propagation of certain metaphysical ideas that would be propaganda and propaganda is usually shit art like that book Atlas Shrugged for example, shit art...a big piece of didactic shit like Dianetics. Being a former art student I tend to stick that the purpose of art is aesthetics or the mere enjoyment of art. Art is foremost to please the senses not instruct them.
Like some old witch once said - "Check your premises"
[ Image (//http://www.medstudentsonline.com.au/attachments/f48/705d1348124483-umat-2012-thread-909263d6_2291482-not_sure_if_serious.jpeg) ]
You're the one who gave us that nice explanation of Objectivism with the appropriate cartoons...sunshine.
Stromboli posted the definition found from wikipedia.
I just attached my meme reactions to each part.
So, no, I didn't give the explanation. But, uh, good try?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Thanks, Thumps.
Antipathy towards Nietzsche? Proceed. Aim. Ready...
It's been a good 25 years since I've cracked one of her works, so working off memory, she regarded Nietzsche as irredeemably subjective and in thrall to human whim, one who glorified the relativist valuation of the hedonist rather than accepted the absolutist morality implied by Objectivism's assertion that morality could be arrived at solely by reason.
I think the confusion here is between what Rand or her supporters SAY she believed (i.e. she disagreed with Nietzsche's subjectivism blah blah blah), and the way those ideas actually manifested in her novels. In the novels, it's clear that her characters are selfish pricks, and that they're using a weak and transparent restatement of "might makes right" to justify it. Here's the thing-- pricks who look down on others think they're being objective-- and in a sense, they are. But they're still contemptible pricks, and so's Ayn Rand.
Quote from: "bennyboy"I think the confusion here is between what Rand or her supporters SAY she believed (i.e. she disagreed with Nietzsche's subjectivism blah blah blah), and the way those ideas actually manifested in her novels. In the novels, it's clear that her characters are selfish pricks, and that they're using a weak and transparent restatement of "might makes right" to justify it. Here's the thing-- pricks who look down on others think they're being objective-- and in a sense, they are. But they're still contemptible pricks, and so's Ayn Rand.
Well, firstly, I couldn't finish her novels, because they are to literature what herpes is to romance. As a writer myself, that shit is not reading -- it's torture.
But like most other ideals, hers suffer when it comes into contact with reality. She doesn't really address the utility of the social contract, and that omission undercuts any practical application of her philosophy. You can be as rich as you want -- but when your house is burning down, you'll wish you hadn't viewed taxation as theft.
Ayn Rand.... -sigh- Her works are indeed torture to slog through. Just beats out the Twilight series.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a religion unless it involves belief in some kind of supernatural being.
May not be the strict definition but I think things like Buddhism and other non-deity "religions" should be considered philosophy.
Well, some strains of Buddhism include belief in deities/supernatural beings.
QuoteAyn Rand.... -sigh- Her works are indeed torture to slog through. Just beats out the Twilight series.
Actually, the books were pretty good. It's the movies that sucked.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Well, some strains of Buddhism include belief in deities/supernatural beings.
I didn't know that.
Interesting. :-k
Quote from: "Farroc"QuoteAyn Rand.... -sigh- Her works are indeed torture to slog through. Just beats out the Twilight series.
Actually, the books were pretty good. It's the movies that sucked.
Golly, you're the first person I've read who thinks her fiction was any good.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Ironically, there is very little objectivity in Objectivism.
(//http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/SabrinaTheInkWitch/laughing-1.gif)
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Farroc"QuoteAyn Rand.... -sigh- Her works are indeed torture to slog through. Just beats out the Twilight series.
Actually, the books were pretty good. It's the movies that sucked.
Golly, you're the first person I've read who thinks her fiction was any good.
People who like her books don't appear to be vanishingly rare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest)
Quote from: "Zatoichi"As far as I'm concerned, it's not a religion unless it involves belief in some kind of supernatural being.
May not be the strict definition but I think things like Buddhism and other non-deity "religions" should be considered philosophy.
I think belieft that any mythology represents a reality, and that it represents a way to improve one's interactions with the rest of reality, are enough to establish a system of thought as a religion.
Certainly, an "objectivist" is ascribing to the myth of the isolated self, set above the work and contributions of others in the society. This person believes that "accepting" this vision of the great-self will allow one to prosper.
The less flattering reality is that these people are cheaters: they depend on all the efforts of normal Joes in society, and give little back to them. They are parasites. Yes, a grand vision can lead to amazing changes in the world-- but the mechanism of that change is as much sweat as ingenuity: no genius ever build a grand building purely with his own hand, and tools of his own invention.
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Farroc"Actually, the books were pretty good. It's the movies that sucked.
Golly, you're the first person I've read who thinks her fiction was any good.
People who like her books don't appear to be vanishingly rare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest)
Selection bias. Her books are not likely to be popular in places like this, but that doesn't mean they aren't likely to be popular.
I liked the books, and the movies, and the non-fiction. I don't agree 100%, which means I'm as irrational as any of you from her point of view, but I enjoy it.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"But on the other hand Ayn Rand and most of the other philosophers with arbitrary rules and concepts set out for human, started from where they already stood. And filled in the blanks sitting on that comfortable point. They had a goal, not a search. pretty much what academic discourse forced them to do. They created concepts, when nothing adds up, re-wrote and re-wrote and re-wrote... But unfortunately reality is not something to resist. :lol: It's impossible. You can only catch up with it...if you can. And if you attempt to do that with filling in the blanks, eventually anything outside can be defined as 'subjectivism'. And attempting to define an objectivism?! Childish. If that is the 'correct' way to move on, then why don't we define main philosophical systems as 'normative' and get it over with. We can't. Nothing would be left.
I hope my post makes sense to you.
It does, mostly, and thanks for taking the time to compose it.
I can't really say much about Nietzsche, for the simple reason that I don't know too much about him, and haven't read his works.
I've quoted this passage in particular, though, because it highlights the primary reason why (although I agree with some of her points, even still) I never fully embraced Rand's philosophy: because at its core, the contradiction between her subjective values, ethics, and morality, and her failure to demonstrate their objectivity, reduced her in my eyes from a philosopher to an ideologue. Your point here, that her "reasoning" was not
a priori but rather
ex post cogito, is why I reject Objectivism.
Sorry it took so long to reply to your post -- I didn't realize it was here until tonight.
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"People who like her books don't appear to be vanishingly rare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest)
I guess I don't run in those circles.
I wonder how many books Rush sold for her? :)
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Mister Agenda"People who like her books don't appear to be vanishingly rare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest)
I guess I don't run in those circles.
I wonder how many books Rush sold for her? :)
Their music is rather good, I think they sold quite a bit for her.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Mister Agenda"People who like her books don't appear to be vanishingly rare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest)
I guess I don't run in those circles.
I wonder how many books Rush sold for her? :)
Their music is rather good, I think they sold quite a bit for her.
It was a joke. Their nod to her in the liner notes of
2112 was how I came to hear of, and eventually read, her works.
I'm a huge fan of theirs.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"Quote from: "Plu"Can you include a short bit on what it actually is? It might help start the discussion.
It is like a pseudo-Nietzschean philosophy for people who really do not understand Nietzsche and have self-esteem issues. Their beliefs include selifishness is the highest virture. Ayn Rand is always right, Objectivism is the only valid philosophy and it is okay to be rude and indignant at those who dare question Ayn Rand.
Meh, those behaviors are coming from a chunk of people who ascribe to Objectivism to some degree, but they are not indicative of the philosophy itself. I could say similar things about a few tardle atheists I know, but to suggest this makes atheism a religion would be absurd. Some atheists do indeed mystify to some degree atheism itself, or turn it into some sect through their behaviors in society... This makes the way THEY are TREATING atheism akin to a religion, but not atheism itself a religion.
Objectivism is a philosophical school of thought, what people do with it is up to them. Some turn it into their own pseudo-religion, others take it with a grain of salt and use it in a more proper context...
"Objectivism" was always sold by Ayn Rand as a philosophy, but it's pretty obvious to me that it's a religion.
It has all the features of a religion:
1. A founder (Ayn Rand)
2. A Dogma (Complete Unrestrained Free-market Capitalism)
3. A Scripture. The Fountainhead [Old Testament], Atlas Shrugged [New Testament]
4. A body of unthinking morons who follow the dogma.
There are many things that can be defined as religions by that standard.
I prefer to let theists water-down the definition of religion to the point where it would include a thousand things that aren't really religion. It doesn't have the same cache' when we do it.
Quote from: "Validus""Objectivism" was always sold by Ayn Rand as a philosophy, but it's pretty obvious to me that it's a religion.
It has all the features of a religion:
1. A founder (Ayn Rand)
2. A Dogma (Complete Unrestrained Free-market Capitalism)
3. A Scripture. The Fountainhead [Old Testament], Atlas Shrugged [New Testament]
4. A body of unthinking morons who follow the dogma.
By those criteria, Amway is a religion.
Amway is a religion, and so is Alcoholics Anonymous.
That rather dilutes the concept, I reckon.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"That rather dilutes the concept, I reckon.
Truly. Amway isn't pushing a supernatural agent or agenda. There is another component there....
I don't even think of it as a philosophy. Ayn Rand if anything was a poor proponent, because at the end of her life she lived on welfare. I read "Atlas Shrugged" and all I got out of it was a lot long winded bombast about people who were portrayed as super heroic, narrowly focused and overly strident. There was never any sense of charity or caring towards those who were diminished, not by their own actions but that of others.
I suppose Objectivism is as much a religion as Esperanto is.
Quote from: "jansnyder"Interesting article about how Ayn Rand influenced Anton LaVey:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/ ... f-satanism (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-fountainhead-of-satanism)
A religious conservative magazine warning other religious conservatives of the danger of libertarian and objectivist thinking by raising the satan boogeyman. And he confuses satanists and wiccans while he's at it. Good source.
There is more than one definition of religion. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. So Objectivism and Atheism are religions by that definition. This is the very reason philosophy and logic that uses words can be misconstrued like Nietzsche is. Solitary
If you apply atheism directly to society, nothing will happen... you're confusing common traits of atheists in your area with actual traits of atheism, of which there is only 1, and even that one is merely the denial of the existance of something, which won't exactly be a useful ideal to build a society around.
There is nothing unifying in atheists. You merely think differently because you're only familiar with atheists in the US, who share a number of traits mostly out of neccesity.
Quote from: "jansnyder"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "jansnyder"Interesting article about how Ayn Rand influenced Anton LaVey:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/ ... f-satanism (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-fountainhead-of-satanism)
A religious conservative magazine warning other religious conservatives of the danger of libertarian and objectivist thinking by raising the satan boogeyman. And he confuses satanists and wiccans while he's at it. Good source.
He didn't confuse Wiccanism with Satanism. It was a broad generalisation comparing various philosophies with each other. I am not a big fan of Libertarianism, Satanism, Objectivism, or Wicca.
QuoteYou can replace the pentagrams of LeVayian Satanism with the dollar sign of the Objectivists without changing much of the substance separating the two. The ideas are largely the same, though the movements' aesthetics are different. One appeals to, we might say, the Young Libertarians, and the other attracts the Future Wiccans of America.
Uh, yeah, he did confuse the two.
Quote from: "jansnyder"My idea is that if you apply Atheism directly to society, you will end up with something vaguely resembling socialism, where private charities have been removed and replaced with NHS type healthcare system, etc. So, to me all of these other philosophies are easily comparable without any threat to me, even if it is a conservative magazine that calls them out.
There is one idea of atheism - that there is no deity. The rest is baggage that you bring to it, where you replace worship of god with worship of government. And any philosophy that threatens the divine government is therefore something you would consider a "threat to you", or in other words a heresy.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"By those criteria, Amway is a religion.
I heard that Amway is actually listed as a cult. It depends on how you define cult, I suppose.
Quote from: "Solitary"There is more than one definition of religion. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. So Objectivism and Atheism are religions by that definition. This is the very reason philosophy and logic that uses words can be misconstrued like Nietzsche is. Solitary
In this context of this forum, that connotation isn't really relevant. But if you want to get down to brass tacks, that particular definition is so fuzzy as to be useless. A religion features something that simple beliefs don't have, namely, a dogmatism so entrenched that it results in deaths.
Also, you don't need to sign your every post. I know it was you who posted it by your user-name and avatar that the forum kindly displays for me, on the left-hand side of the screen.
Quote from: "Solitary"There is more than one definition of religion. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. So Objectivism and Atheism are religions by that definition.
So are Capitalism and tokenism (using tokens, like money, instead of direct barter). So, in fact, are most of the underpinnings of any civilization.
When a definition ends up defining almost everything under a single word, what you have is a useless definition.
Quote from: "jansnyder"My idea is that if you apply Atheism directly to society, you will end up with something vaguely resembling socialism, where private charities have been removed and replaced with NHS type healthcare system, etc.
Socialism is a socioeconomic system in which the government owns the means of production. I think you're confusing "socialism" and "Great Britain".
Quote from: "jansnyder"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "jansnyder"My idea is that if you apply Atheism directly to society, you will end up with something vaguely resembling socialism, where private charities have been removed and replaced with NHS type healthcare system, etc.
Socialism is a socioeconomic system in which the government owns the means of production. I think you're confusing "socialism" and "Great Britain".
I wrote "vaguely resembling socialism" in my original post.
Since socialism is SOLELY government ownership of production, "vaguely resembling socialism" is about the same as "the moral equivalency of pregnancy".
QuoteI want the government to monopolise a lot of commodities.
Well ... aside from the monopolizing part, and the commodities part, it's just like socialism - it involves the government.
QuoteFor instance, the Swedish government has a liquor monopoly called Systembolaget. It's operated in a socialist manner
Not unless the government owns the factory that produces the liquor.
QuoteI see many things which you call Socialism as being logical or useful and reasonable.
The only thing I call socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
QuoteWhy should a dangerous intoxicant be in private business hands? In the USA, private liquor resellers almost always sell it abusively in poor areas or Indian reservations.
Unless you're talking about those places in the US, and there are many, in which liquor is sold in government stores. But that's still not socialism.
And I still don't see how to "apply atheism (it's only capitalized if it's the first word in the sentence) directly to society". Unless you mean making belief illegal? Or brainwashing everyone into not believing? That's all atheism is - not believing in any god.
Quote from: "jansnyder"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "jansnyder"My idea is that if you apply Atheism directly to society, you will end up with something vaguely resembling socialism, where private charities have been removed and replaced with NHS type healthcare system, etc.
Socialism is a socioeconomic system in which the government owns the means of production. I think you're confusing "socialism" and "Great Britain".
I wrote "vaguely resembling socialism" in my original post. I want the government to monopolise a lot of commodities. For instance, the Swedish government has a liquor monopoly called Systembolaget. It's operated in a socialist manner, but no Swede I think would say that the origins of Systembolaget are socialist. It came from a need to control alcoholism in a small town in Sweden, the spread to the rest.
I see many things which you call Socialism as being logical or useful and reasonable. Why should a dangerous intoxicant be in private business hands? In the USA, private liquor resellers almost always sell it abusively in poor areas or Indian reservations.
But that has nothing to do with atheism.
One is a metaphysical position - God does not exist. The other is a political position - government ownership of the means of production. Nothing in the first implies the second, nothing in the second implies the first. There are many people who embrace both ideas, but there is no intrinsic connection between the two ideas.
No wonder you want to consider Objectivism to be a religion - you see an intrinsic connection between atheism and socialism in spite of there not being one, and since Objecitivism is anti-Socialism then it must be a religion in spite of it being very atheistic.
You've created quite a morass of contradictions that you have to work through, and as Ayn Rand wrote, if you encounter a contradiction then you should check your premises because one of them is false.
In your case the false premise is that there is some intrinsic connection between your metaphysical position with regards to the existence of God and your political position that makes Objectivism so offensive to you. That connection doesn't exist, and true hardcore Objectivists are atheists just as you are.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"But that has nothing to do with atheism.
One is a metaphysical position - God does not exist. The other is a political position - government ownership of the means of production. Nothing in the first implies the second, nothing in the second implies the first. There are many people who embrace both ideas, but there is no intrinsic connection between the two ideas.
No wonder you want to consider Objectivism to be a religion - you see an intrinsic connection between atheism and socialism in spite of there not being one, and since Objecitivism is anti-Socialism then it must be a religion in spite of it being very atheistic.
You've created quite a morass of contradictions that you have to work through, and as Ayn Rand wrote, if you encounter a contradiction then you should check your premises because one of them is false.
In your case the false premise is that there is some intrinsic connection between your metaphysical position with regards to the existence of God and your political position that makes Objectivism so offensive to you. That connection doesn't exist, and true hardcore Objectivists are atheists just as you are.
This is a good response. Whether you approve of socialism or not, the fact is that atheism has nothing to do with socialism. I was actually surprised at the claim that an atheistic government would look like socialism, and I wondered about the thought process that would come to that conclusion.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "jansnyder"My idea is that if you apply Atheism directly to society, you will end up with something vaguely resembling socialism, where private charities have been removed and replaced with NHS type healthcare system, etc. So, to me all of these other philosophies are easily comparable without any threat to me, even if it is a conservative magazine that calls them out.
There is one idea of atheism - that there is no deity. The rest is baggage that you bring to it, where you replace worship of god with worship of government. And any philosophy that threatens the divine government is therefore something you would consider a "threat to you", or in other words a heresy.
I was primed and ready with a similar response, but you beat me to it.
According to Oswald Spengler, all moral ideas derive from fundamentally religious ideas. If you cling to a moral idea or philosophy independent of explicitly spiritual ideas, it's because you want to cling to the sense of safety that religion brings but are too devoid of faith to have any spirituality. I actually agree with this. People make up morals the same way and for the same reason they make up religion.
And honestly, if real-life industrialists were like the good guys from Atlas Shrugged, the world would be an AWESOME place. Machines wouldn't break because the bosses were actually competent, classical music would still be a thing, there would be no more foreign wars that happen for "humanitarian" reasons, and the trains would fucking run on time. It would basically be the same as Technocracy, but with a different secular religion underpinning it.
Also, there'd be no cops, which would be an interesting thing to see.
People don't "make up morals". Societies that use morals that work succeed. Societies that use morals that don't work fail. That's why we don't see many societies that consider random murder to be moral - it wouldn't work.
Right, and religion is useful because it makes people more docile and receptive to authority while at the same time eager to kill the "right" people.
And to expound on the "Objectivism would actually be okay" idea, if we had a truly free market, the distribution of income would be a lot more equal. The main reason behind income inequality is massive corporate profits in a time of high unemployment, and the main reason behind THAT is the bailouts. Tens of trillions of dollars just given out, easily dwarfing all the money that has ever been given out as welfare to the lower classes by ALL the world's countries.
In an actual free market, you don't just automatically get to collect on debts that are owed to you. If you lend out too much money, you go out of business, and if you go out of business, the government doesn't rush in to save you and harden the system of obligation you have created and allowed to collapse. A free market has a natural balance of power that a system of blind, omnipresent authority (government) does not.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"According to Oswald Spengler, all moral ideas derive from fundamentally religious ideas. If you cling to a moral idea or philosophy independent of explicitly spiritual ideas, it's because you want to cling to the sense of safety that religion brings but are too devoid of faith to have any spirituality. I actually agree with this. People make up morals the same way and for the same reason they make up religion.
An atheistic society would still have to determine what is right (acceptable) and what is wrong (unacceptable). It has nothing to do with religion but survival of that society as any society needs some form of law and order. Otherwise it becomes self-destructive.
QuoteAlso,there'd be no cops, which would be an interesting thing to see.
Such a society would be quickly overtaken by thugs and gangs, who are going to be less civilized than your local cops.
If people would grow a pair and protect themselves from the thugs, then the thugs and gangs would starve without welfare or crime to support them.
You mean if they would form a sort of organized professional force of people who oppose the thugs?
Because I think we have one of those. Pretty sure we call them "the police".
It'd still be interesting to see what would happen if the middle/upper classes armed themselves and the cops disappeared a la Atlas Shrugged.
One has to merely look at some of the less pleasant african and middle eastern countries if one wants to know what would happen. But it's not pretty in the slightest.
The thugs just go after the less-well-able-to-protect-themselves. That's why burglar alarm stickers work - burglars look for homes that don't have them.
So you are saying it would look like current modern Detroit? I never knew the problem there was a lack of government.
Conviction rates have an effect on crime. It's anecdotal, but in one Middle Eastern country, the supposed penalty for drunk driving is being taken 25 miles out in the desert and having to walk back to the city - barefoot. No one has ever violated that law more than twice. (Some people are REALLY stupid.)
It's not lack of government, it's lack of effective enforcement. If every thug were convicted of every crime he committed, there would be a lot less crime. Five years for a $50 holdup will eventually seem useless even to the stupidest criminal. Knowing that only 10% of criminals are even charged (that's the rate in most US cities) makes crime pretty attractive.
"Religion" can be loosely defined so that it can be applied to Objectivism. It would be in poor taste, done so with the intent to insult.
If you loosely define Religion in this way can you differentiate it from Philosophy? If the answer is no then Objectivism can be considered a religion as long as religion is indistinguishable from philosophy.