CAVEAT: This is not aimed at you personally, Terry. If Linz says you are a fine chap, I believe him, and I hope you go on to have a great career as an Objectivist, doing great things. But for now, try to see outside of yourself, and see Terry from the point of view of others. What I am referring to is your compulsive moralizing which I see controlling you, rather than the other way around. Many years ago, I was in the grips of this behavior. It can be extremely destructive because one tends to see people incorrectly, without a true understanding of what people are and can be.
------
Terry, in the grips of an obsessive-compulsive need to destroy evil, illustrates the negative of Objectivist morality for everyone to see, and as I said before, it is the chokehold on life that is helping to destroy a great philosophy. He thinks he has to “speak out” and “condemn” Doug’s behavior, and never tries to understand him. Perhaps in his mind, he is being loyal to the great Ayn Rand, protecting her sense of life against a questionable mode of behavior. Yet in the process, as Michael points out, Terry stretched the severity of what Doug was doing and made him out to be close to a criminal, and for what? Trying to pick up girls on the street using some type of steroid induced dominance theory that any intelligent female can see through in a couple of minutes?
If Doug was giving these gals date-rape drugs, or plying them with alcohol the whole dynamic would be different.
Rosie never supported his “gaming” nor did Lindsay, nor did I. When I quizzed Doug about his behavior having to do with Objectivism and striving for the “highest type of women” he told us of being in some deep doldrums in the past.
The point here is as a group, or as a philosophy, do you condemn to hell someone who is off the path, or do you try to understand him, and get him back on the path of healthy behavior?
Nathaniel Branden in “The Benefits and Hazards” spoke about this many years ago. The moralism and emotional repression that encourages self-alienation and guilt amongst Objectivists is at the forefront of destroying a great philosophy.
Doug is intelligent, well read, able to make a good argument in many areas, and I thought, he was someone who had a lot to offer along with some negatives. And he did have some big negatives, the alias being a big disappointment for Lindsay and perhaps others.
So then what is the answer?
Branden again: “To look on the dark side, however, part of her (Rand’s) vision of justice is urging you to instant contempt for anyone who deviates from reason or morality or what is defined as reason or morality. Errors of knowledge may be forgiven, she says, but not errors of morality. Even if what people are doing is wrong, even if errors of morality are involved, even if what people are doing is irrational, you do not lead people to virtue by contempt. You do not make people better by telling them they are despicable. It just doesn't work. It doesn't work when religion tries it and it doesn't work when objectivism tries it.”
So what has been gained in this situation by Terry’s contempt and condemnation, and to a lesser extent by Olivia’s Doggie comments? Doug has been kicked to the curb and SOLO is absent an intelligent but flawed human being who had a lot of good things to say about our culture. As a group, do we gain or do we lose?
In the past, Objectivism has been notable for condemning people and excommunicating them instead of offering them a way out of the darkness. The truth is Objectivism has no answer for people “on the rocks” because it has no workable psychology. Check your premises and act rational is not getting the job done. Perhaps this is why so many followers leave Objectivism after years of applying it in their lives.
Evangelical Christianity offers people a way out of the darkness, and mega-churches throughout the U.S. are filled with people looking to improve their lives. While I am not defending Christianity, I am pointing out that Objectivism is lacking in many areas, and this is the biggest. It has no answer for the spiritual: for the loneliness, alienation or darkness many people experience in their lives. Mostly, Objectivism is a mind driven experience that leaves the individual, many times, without an answer for their inner psychological and spiritual needs.
In the end, contempt and condemnation for voluntary behavior accomplishes nothing, and has made Objectivism a very unappetizing product on the open market. Yes, Ayn Rand’s books and her great vision continue to capture the imagination of young people, but the problem develops when people try to integrate the philosophy into their lives.
On the Internet, I found someone offering up a good analysis of what is happening for many Objectivists. He said that young people adopt Objectivism in their lives thinking they will become Galt or Dagny if they follow the directions. They read all the books, establish the right premises, begin to battle the world and dream about becoming an Objectivist hero, powerful and all-knowing. After two, three or four years, or whatever time it takes them, they become disillusioned when they discover they are not all-knowing and all-powerful. Rather than advancing in the world, many find they are not doing well. In the end, many become angry, leave the philosophy and some even become devoted enemies.