Is Objectivism a Religion?

Anytime I've gotten into conversations with people that adhere to Rand's Objectivism philosophy, it seem that I'm talking to someone devoutly religious. I was wondering if others have had this experience? OR - if you are an Objectivist (uh hum, jthegreat), then what are your thoughts? I don't know any Objectivists personally, so I don't know their background. But, it seems to me to be very "religious", in the sense that the followers seem very devout, and almost brainwashed. I don't mean to offend... it's just my perception based on a few online conversations I've had.

(PS: I have read a bit about Objectivism, and to me, it seems valid on the surface, but the deeper you go, the more weird it becomes.)

[jthegreat]

I'm not an Objectivist, really, though I'm very familiar with it.

Most people don't study it thoroughly and they fail to understand it properly. That's why you get such "devoutness". That's also why so much of what those people say is bullshit. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Rand did some great work in philosophy, especially IMO in the field of ethics.

[HDPM]

No, it isn't a religion. While Rand had a bizarre cult following and had some unusual relationships, etc.... the philosophy itself is by no means religious. It does not ask anybody to believe anything on faith, just the opposite. It also rejects any supernatural concepts. So if you find irrational or "devout" behavior by somebody caught up in the philosophy, it doesn't mean the philosophy is in any way religious. Rand was an outspoken athiest and I think even said her husband was a stronger athiest. The philosophy itself is not compatible with religious belief.

[Rushmore]

Obviously, it is the opposite, in that it requires no leap of faith whatsoever. The entire point of religion is faith, and the entire point of Objectivism is that your "faith" is unimportant, that the point is to observe and act relative to the OBJECT (-ive world) rather than to act as the SUBJECT (emotionally, etc.).

The reason some folks seem "religious" in their proclamations of membership (read: TESTIFY!!!) is because they misunderstand that there is a stoic element to it (which would, by definition, preclude all of the histrionically strenuous claims), and also because, quite frankly, all religion (the subject of which is perpetually in an individual's face) will seem abject to anyone with an even cursory adherence to Objectivism.

Me, I couldn't care less what you believe. I only care what you do.

[deepdowntruth]

[ QUOTE ]
Anytime I've gotten into conversations with people that adhere to Rand's Objectivism philosophy, it seem that I'm talking to someone devoutly religious. I was wondering if others have had this experience? OR - if you are an Objectivist (uh hum, jthegreat), then what are your thoughts? I don't know any Objectivists personally, so I don't know their background. But, it seems to me to be very "religious", in the sense that the followers seem very devout, and almost brainwashed. I don't mean to offend... it's just my perception based on a few online conversations I've had.

(PS: I have read a bit about Objectivism, and to me, it seems valid on the surface, but the deeper you go, the more weird it becomes.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been studying Ayn Rand's philosophy for over 10 years, consider myself an Objectivist, and majored in philosophy at a large, reputable university.

I agree that some of those who call themselves Objectivists can remind me of religious people. I've thought about this phenomenon a lot myself, trying to identify exactly what it is that I am seeing in these people.

To an observer, many Objectivsts, exhibit behavior that is strikingly similar to that of a religious nut, namely, passionate certainty about claims they are unable to explain.

What is actually operating here is something like the following: 1.) People tend read Ayn Rand when they are very young (16-22), thus the fervor or passion that a certain segment of young people bring to abstract philosophical questions. 2.) While they have read Ayn Rand and agree with what they are reading while they are reading it , they haven't internalized the content and logic of it to a degree that allows them to properly explain it while they aren't reading it. So they are often certain of what they are saying, but when it comes time to explaining their reasoning, they forget what it is--but at the time they are reading and thinking about it, it makes absolute perfect sense.

What you are observing are people relatively new to Ayn Rand's ideas who are stirred by them. This is not a particularly good sample to draw your generalizations from, though there's no way you could know that.

(Incidentally, the phenomenon above is not restricted to Objectivism. Almost any new intellectual movement will attract or engender such people. The pragmatism of Peirce, James, and Dewey; the existentialism of Heidegger and Sartre; the mathematical and logical approach to poker a la Sklansky and Malmuth, etc. All of these movements, when they were new, attracted followers both thinking and unthinking as any new intellectual movement is sure to do.)

Of course, there is another factor that could be operating here. Some people think that certainty and secularism are incompatible, and therefore anyone making claims they are certain about most be making a "leap of faith", i.e. akin to religion. Obviously I'm going to reject this claim, but I haven't the slightest idea why (just kidding, but I can elaborate if you wish).

You'll find three kinds of older Objectivists: 1.) Those who never get beyond that first stage and slowly drift away (usually becoming Libertarians); 2.) Those who never get behond that first stage and become more fervent with each passing year (usually because of some pre-existing psychological pre-disposition to such behavior, too smart to fall for religion, but applying its logic and methodology to a secular content); and, 3.) Those who continue to study the philosophy, make it their own, and calm down. (Hopefully, I fall into the third category.)

[chezlaw]

anyone care to summarize Objectivism?

I get the general feeling in the uk that Rand is perceived as a bit of a right wing loon. Don't actually know anyone who knows what she actually says.

chez

[deepdowntruth]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone care to summarize Objectivism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not go right to the source rather than judge it based on six or seven probably inaccurate sentences on a gambling forum? Read one or two of her non-fiction books. They typically contain easily read 3 or 4 page topical articles.

A terse summary from Leonard Peikoff, her long-time friend and student, is available online: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...jectivism_pobs. It is about 4 pages long and hits all the main points.

(Incidentally, AR wrote that the conservatives were much more dangerous than the liberals, so she didn't really align herself with the right. She was fervently against the military draft, in favor of legalized abortion, and was a very loud critic of conservatives. Take a look through her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, to see if she thought conservatives were her allies.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyone care to summarize Objectivism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not go right to the source rather than judge it based on six or seven probably inaccurate sentences on a gambling forum? Read one or two of her non-fiction books. They typically contain easily read 3 or 4 page topical articles.

A terse summary from Leonard Peikoff, her long-time friend and student, is available online: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...jectivism_pobs. It is about 4 pages long and hits all the main points.

(Incidentally, AR wrote that the conservatives were much more dangerous than the liberals, so she didn't really align herself with the right. She was fervently against the military draft, in favor of legalized abortion, and was a very loud critic of conservatives. Take a look through her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, to see if she thought conservatives were her allies.)

[/ QUOTE ]

but I get all my important knowledge from this site [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Thanks, I'll read the link. Trouble with the books is I've got this long reading list to get through and already don't expect to live long enough.

chez

Thanks, deepdowntruth. I'm going to read that website, as well as try to find the articles you listed in the Objectivist Morality thread. I definitely appreciate the way you've responded thus far. I hope you will be available to answer questions after I read those things? Give me a few days, I'll try to respond this coming week. Thanks!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyone care to summarize Objectivism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not go right to the source rather than judge it based on six or seven probably inaccurate sentences on a gambling forum? Read one or two of her non-fiction books. They typically contain easily read 3 or 4 page topical articles.

A terse summary from Leonard Peikoff, her long-time friend and student, is available online: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...jectivism_pobs. It is about 4 pages long and hits all the main points.

(Incidentally, AR wrote that the conservatives were much more dangerous than the liberals, so she didn't really align herself with the right. She was fervently against the military draft, in favor of legalized abortion, and was a very loud critic of conservatives. Take a look through her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, to see if she thought conservatives were her allies.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on a verfy quick read, Objectivism looks indistinguishable from skeptical Realism, none the worse for that, but

[ QUOTE ]
The answer lies in man's nature as a living organism. A living organism has to act in the face of a constant alternative: life or death. Life is conditional; it can be sustained only by a specific course of action performed by the living organism, such as the actions of obtaining food. In this regard plants and animals have no choice: within the limits of their powers, they take automatically the actions their life requires. Man does have a choice. He does not know automatically what actions will sustain him; if he is to survive he must discover, then practice by choice, a code of values and virtues, the specific code which human life requires. The purpose of ethics is to define such a code.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there any justification for this? Why is my ethic a code for my own survival. My survival is important to me but its not the only thing, I see no reason to believe its even the most important thing. Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?

chez