6.) "Financial and/or Sexual Exploitation: Recruits and followers are persuaded to invest in the group, and the leader may develop sexual relations with one or more of the followers." This is also unfair. Rand did have an affair with Nathaniel Branden. There was no attempt to receive financial aid or sexual favours from anyone else who admired Rand. There was, in fact, no "group" for this to happen within. Now various thinkers, throughout history, had sexual relations with individuals who were close to them and could be called "followers" but these thinkers aren't accused of being cult leaders. Did Oscar Wilde lead a cult because he had an affair with Lord Alfred Douglas? If Rand had had an affair with a plumber who had no interest in her ideas then Shermer wouldn't be using this to prove cultism. In fact what Shermer is implying is that one sexual affair creates a cult. And it implies that if Rand did not want to be accused of cultism she would have to have been monogamous or, at the very least, only have a sexual relationship with someone who disagreed with her ideas or was mindless. And if she had, then what would that say about her?
So Rand is accused of abusing 'power and sex' because she had an affair with one of her 'followers'?
..is that it?
NOTE: I'm not saying that you believe it is a cult. I'm asking if this is why the accusation is made in the first place...? Is there more to it than that...? Is there some other stuff I'm missing?
Oh I'm sorry I even replied---I try not to get dragged into these things and its so stupid to drag oneself into them!
I think "cult of personality" means something different than "cult." To me its an accurate description of the slavish devotion some of her first followers regarded her with. That's all.
The whole thing strikes me as such a shallow and arrogant (an odd combo, but since its rooted in the mystique of personal charisma) apologia for capitalism that I can't take it seriously. I'm always surprised to see it resurface now and again because it seems so rooted in a particular historical moment---postwar European realignment in which anti-Stalinism was co-opted by the trans-Atlantic right.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Blixa wrote:I think "cult of personality" means something different than "cult." To me its an accurate description of the slavish devotion some of her first followers regarded her with. That's all.
Oh - I see. Yeah - I get ya. I think...
Although I suppose - on that specific point - it's relevant whether this 'slavish devotion' was something Rand 'engineered', or whether it just 'happened'.
Otherwise, I agree with your overall assessment of the philosophy - from what I've read thus far...
Last edited by Guest on Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Blixa wrote:There are few things as silly as Ayn Rand's "philosophy." I think "cult of personality" an accurate description of some aspects of "Objectivism."
I think cult of personality is fitting in some sense, for some. Yet, that doesn't make it a cult -- no more than Britney Spears fans. Silly, yes? Cult? No.
Just thought it would be an okay off-topic to pass the time -- and give Ren and I something to do. ;)
Last edited by Guest on Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Blixa wrote:Oh I'm sorry I even replied---I try not to get dragged into these things and its so stupid to drag oneself into them!
I think "cult of personality" means something different than "cult." To me its an accurate description of the slavish devotion some of her first followers regarded her with. That's all.
The whole thing strikes me as such a shallow and arrogant (an odd combo, but since its rooted in the mystique of personal charisma) apologia for capitalism that I can't take it seriously. I'm always surprised to see it resurface now and again because it seems so rooted in a particular historical moment---postwar European realignment in which anti-Stalinism was co-opted by the trans-Atlantic right.
I know that I was anything but arrogant and actually thought that the best way for all was through the individual. For me, it truly was that all rights derived from the individual and within an optimistic framework that all else would fall into place. This does not work in "reality" -- that's why I dismissed it. For me, I didn't care much about Rand -- this was before the internet -- before "meetings" -- before I went to a university. For me, it was literature that struck a chord in a young girl that was attempting to sort out how the individual worked in relation to the "whole". It suited my purpose at that time.
I find that it is co-opted by the right and used to perpetuate a mentality of social darwinism which I reject. As a matter of fact, Rand herself rejected social darwinism. Yet, so many of those that latch onto her only embrace the bits that suit them -- look to some such as Coggies for this.
Oh I'm sorry I even replied---I try not to get dragged into these things and its so stupid to drag oneself into them!
I think "cult of personality" means something different than "cult." To me its an accurate description of the slavish devotion some of her first followers regarded her with. That's all.
The whole thing strikes me as such a shallow and arrogant (an odd combo, but since its rooted in the mystique of personal charisma) apologia for capitalism that I can't take it seriously. I'm always surprised to see it resurface now and again because it seems so rooted in a particular historical moment---postwar European realignment in which anti-Stalinism was co-opted by the trans-Atlantic right.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Blixa wrote:I think "cult of personality" means something different than "cult." To me its an accurate description of the slavish devotion some of her first followers regarded her with. That's all.
Oh - I see. Yeah - I get ya. I think... Although I suppose - on that specific point - it's relevant whether this 'slavish devotion' was something Rand 'engineered', or whether it just 'happened'.
Otherwise, I agree with your overall assessment of the philosophy - from what I've read thus far...
Are you just like Buckley? Read her works before you make an assessment. That irritates me toooooo.......... ;)