Could you imagine if Hank Rearden was converted into some kind of "Civil Religion", or even worshiped some "money god", instead of embracing Galt's ideas?

Those who you claim to be incapable of embracing Objectivism are not any serious threat to Objectivists; The James Taggarts of the world. It is only the productive individuals who have any capacity to be a threat, or to fuel individuals who otherwise would pose no threat.

By directing your effort into creating a civil (or not so civil) religion, you are helping to destroy the minds of non-productive and productive individuals. In other words: you would do equal damage to the numerically superior enemy as to your self.

If your enemy was truly that beyond any reason, then what threat would they truly pose without those otherwise rational individuals who aid them? Why would you direct any effort into helping them by creating a religion that would only feed them more minds to consume?

There are several systemic treatments of Objectivism.

David Kelley and I have drafted a textbook called "The Logical Structure of Objectivism." http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a... .

I have written a set of short, linked essays surveying the key ideas of the philosophy: start here: http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a... .

Other notable surveys include Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" and Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics."

I hope this information is helpful.

But perhaps you meant a book that begins with summarizing the ideas and intellectual context of the Enlightenment, then discusses and dispatches with its critics. I don't have one of those handy as such.

I would like to read such a systematic defense sometime. One as thorough as my favorite, Mises' Human Action.

I didn't call it "The Church of Rand," and for good reason.

Your points are well taken. The "Life Workshop" or whatever you call it would need many intellectual heroes other than Rand.

"Religion is man's attempt to live in the light of what he holds to be ultimately true and good."
"To be religious is to is to effect in some way and in some measure a vital adjustment (however tentative and incomplete) to whatever is reacted to or regarded implicitly or explicitly as worthy of serious and ulterior concern."

From The Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Vergilious Ferm, Ph. D., copyright 1945 by
Philosophilical Library, Inc., Published by Popular Books, Secaucus, N.J., ISBN 0-89009-746-1

Because of the hundreds of years of implied belief and packaged ideas associated with "church", "temple", or "shrine"!

There are plenty of secular venues for conventions, lectures, courses, and discussions of Objectivism and its rational, life-focused application without the contradictory implications of it being another place to accept beliefs. Of the many misconceptions 'out there' already is that Objectivism is just another faith of parroting followers with Ayn Rand as its deity. I think your suggestion runs counter to the principles you want to teach.

Let's go back to the past. Imagine that Atlantis actually existed, and they were surrounded by primitive barbarian tribes (like in Asimov's story), with technology equivalent to what we have today. How would the Atlanteans have done technology transfer, especially if they needed for those tribes to advance? Given that the entire globe has a religious tradition, did that actually happen in our own history?

@conscious1978, why would creating a "Church of Life" be contradictory to Objectivism? Would it be due to the use of the word "Church?"

If so, I'm happy to use "Temple," or "Shrine," or "Fellowship."

The point would be to have a secular chain of meeting houses where a rational, life-focused philosophy would be celebrated and taught. Contrast that with the academic, abstract lecture style of typical Objectivist conventions like Rand's Ford Hall Forum lectures or the conference I run, The Atlas Summit. http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a...

This would be very "Stranger in a Strange Land" - Robert Heinlein

No, I haven't read the "prequels" because I looked at them and after reading a bit I thought he had just moved on so far that he seemed to have forgotten what "Foundation" was really about.

That's what I remember, anyway.

Hi William,

Have you read the "prequels" to Foundation? In Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation, psychohistory is portrayed much more in terms of probabilities and percentages, and compares somewhat to quantum physics. In Quantum physics, you can't tell what a specific atom is going to do, but given the mass as a whole, the results are predictable.

When I first read the two prequel books (a long time ago) I remember thinking that a better name than "psychohistory" might be "quantum humanics".

Philosophercat thanks for your clarification. It sounds objective rather than superior. Trying to "convert" or "manipulate" others is a waste of time. If you are inclined to be a leader, lead by example. Otherwise subscribe to Albert Camus..."Do not follow me I may not lead. Do not walk in front of me, I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend."

Objectivism, like any systematic philosophy, is like a religion in that it provides answers to big questions of metaphysics and ethics.

Like any system of thought, it can be parroted dogmatically.

But I'm curious at the implication that there are essential ideas of Objectivism that it is irrational to hold. Please enlighten me.

Another way of looking at Objectivism: it's the basic ideas of the Enlightenment (reason, pursuit of happiness, liberty), but taken seriously and defended against Hume, Kant, Rousseau, and the post-Enlightenment critics.

Objectivism is an integrated system of hierarchical ideas based on how he world is which applies equally to all people and holds all individuals equal in principle as free to act for their benefit. Some people will be better at acting than others and will be more successful: run faster, think quicker, better taste salt etc. But individual sovereignty makes all equal in principle in ethics and politics so there are no classes of superior ones in principle. Some as Aristotle said will earn by their hard work honors and other by shirking reason and work will deserve scorn. Each person observes each other person and judges them as equal in sovereignty and different in performance and rewards them accordingly.

Right on. Free will means when you find out you are being manipulated you change your behavior to eliminate the manipulator or accept being a puppet. The philosopher Joshua Green claims to have shown that all men are puppets except of course himself.

Objectivism is a logically complete system of thought which has as one of its political principles "individual sovereignty". Now what part of a logical system and what part of your sovereignty are you willing to give up to make an alliance with craziea? The only answer is none, but you can trade with people whose values you don't know or make political alliances for short term conflicts recognizing that you will turn on each other on doctrinal issues when the event is over. Christians and communists cannot be reasoned with. They have abandoned reason. They should be allowed to die out naturally in ignorance while principle wins out by being successful in making individuals lives better. As a two time reader of the Foundation series I can tell you the secret is no matter what the plan, there is a mule, but its the connection between observation and philosophy that drives the system forward.

There is nothing inherently wrong in deceiving or even using force against the irrational - but it has to be proportional to their irrationality and their evil. Thus it is fine to lie to the Nazis about the Jews hiding in your attic. But you are speaking of a wholesale deception of people who, while many are irrational, are of a more innocent type. In that case I think you are crossing the line into deceit to gain an unearned value, and as others have said, that can only undermine what you are trying to achieve.

Sounds like what the New World Order hopes to do to us...except their aim is not objective, it's subjective and it is not for Our benefit or survival.
That aside, I could not embrace anything that is not based in profound honesty. After all, aren't we all looking and reaching for 'Ethics' across the board? I do think that our intentions should match the means to our ends. That would be my hope anyway.

Perhaps someone can clarify to me how it is that being an Objectivist puts one in a superior position to other human beings? I am not clear on the labeling. By labeling yourself as reasonable or rational and those who do not share your observations as unreasonable or irrational aren't you in essence indicating that those people are inferior? How does that make you any different than the people to whom you object that consider you inferior for not sharing their point of view?

Yes, good analogy.

I see Objectivism as a religion. It doesn't have a God, but then, neither does Taoism, and like Taoism it does promote a "Way" which is supposed to be the only correct way to view things, if you believe.

And some of the beliefs in that "Way" are certainly not required by rationality, and may arguably be irrational to hold.

Farther than that I will avoid going, lest it hurt someone's feelings. (Though I snicker at the thought that anyone adult enough to belong to something called the Gulch would want to have anything to do with the current fad-ideas of "triggering" and "safe spaces"!)

Well said. This whole 'exercise' is heading toward Floyd Ferris et al. pulling the knobs and levers to maintain control.

You're attempting to edge me towards a cliff of compromise and I won't go there. You're arguing that Objectivist either accept good religionist or formulate some other mystical explanation for believers to feel comfortable in, and I won't go there either. You're arguing for pragmatism and relativism. Those just don't fit with Objectivism and any Objectivist that accepts that, isn't an Objectivist.

Mystical thinking is why we have the enemies you're describing. Had we as a country maintained the ideas and principles of the majority of the Framers, we would have stayed out of the rest of the world's problems, traded fairly with all as individuals and businesses, and left our religions where they belong, in the churches, in the homes, and out of the public discourse and squares, we wouldn't now be having to deal with such people as you're describing and I seriously doubt that they would be attempting to draw us into an all out World War. Particularly had we maintained a solid defense against invasion only as intended.

So for myself, I'm an Objectivist and I intend to live the rest of my life as I've managed for several decades now, with reason and rational thought and I'll end my life with my principles in tact. The next time someone asks me if I'm a god, I'll simply walk away and leave them to their nonsense. And if the US get's too dangerous because of the idiocy, I'll simply go Galt. I owe nothing to the irrational man.

Welcome and farewell all at once, hammondmotorscolorado.

it is time to start building White Triangle's of protection around your____ gulch, pirate ship and your-------- mine.....see ya soon
going GALT