• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Chapter 15 Summary and Conclusion By now, I think that I have brought up to date my 1968 book, Is Objectivism a Religion?, and established with much evidence that objectivism, as well as libertarianism and capitalism, are indeed religions. I have examined the main philosophies of Ayn Rand and her close collaborator, Nathaniel Branden, as well as Alan Greenspan, and have indicated that, until the time of Rand’s death in 1982, their views were fascistic, absolutistic, and fanatically religious. I shall now, in this final chapter, summarize Rand’s main rigidities and show how Rand embodied absolutism in her own life, and encouraged Branden, Greenspan, and thousands of other devout Randians to do the same. Let me say once again that, although I have been a firm atheist and anti­mystic since the age of 12, I am not completely opposed to religion, nor think that it is without virtue, nor am I fanatically and completely anti­religious. I believe that no gods or supernatural entities exist nor will exist. As I have noted for years, if I held such absolutistic views about religion, I would be an inflexible dogmatist­­as are, of course, many religionists. I figured out a firm but still probabilistic position on religion when I was 12­­which I call probabilistic atheism. As a probabilistic atheist, I hold that it is highly unlikely that we can ever empirically show (a) that absolutely nothing supernatural exists, nor will exist. But according to the usual laws of probability and the observed nature of humans who live in this world, it appears to be highly probable that no gods, gnomes, fairies, or angels exist and directly or indirectly control human thoughts, feelings, and actions. They could, of course, exist yesterday, today, or tomorrow. But since there seems to be no empirical evidence that supernatural entities exist, I shall probabilistically assume that they don’t. Consequently, I am not merely an agnostic (who believes that he doesn’t really know whether there are any supernatural entities, and will probably never know about their existence). I say, “Yes, I do not know if Gods or angels exist but I am probabilistically sure that they don’t.” If I (or anyone) later proves that they do exist, I shall accept that. But there is so little evidence to support this hypothesis, that I’ll still firmly hold that they do not exist­­nor do fairies, demons, or Santa Claus.” So I quite probabilistically view that there are no gods or angels­ ­and most probably never will be. I also once believed that religion itself was largely harmful to humans, because it has many dangers and limitations (Ellis, 1969). But I later realized that there are many different kinds of religion and that some were partly beneficial, and some were rarely so. I therefore published a paper showing that religiosity rather than religion was dangerous to mental health and happy living, (Ellis, 1983). By religiosity, I meant devout, absolutistic, fanatical religion. I still mostly hold these beliefs, but have come around to view that, although it is difficult for devout religionists to give themselves unconditional self­acceptance (USA), unconditional other­acceptance (UOA), and unconditional life­acceptance (ULA)­­which are prime goals of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT)­­they still can do so. Unusual religionists ­­such as Jesus, Martin Luther King, Martin Buber, and Paul Tillich­­have done so; and many others can. Acknowledging this, I have collaborated with a Mormon priest and a Christian psychologist to write a book, REBT for Religious Persons. (Mielsen and Ellis, 2000). I am still, however, a probabilistic atheist and would like to see many more open­minded atheists and religionists. Ayn Rand, unfortunately, was a fanatical, devout, absolutistic atheist. Although she was brilliant, at times individualistic, anti­ authoritarian, and supported some humanistic views, her extreme absolutist and fanatical ways in which she upheld them often turned her into a devout religionist. She then helped create more harm than good­­as fanatical religionists often (though not always) do. Many of Rand’s absolutistic religious views were integrally integrated with her other one­sided rigidities. I shall now try to define some of the main elements of her fanatical religiosity, show how they were almost constantly apparent in her main philosophies, in her personal life, and the kind of lives she practically prescribed for Nathaniel Branden and other hard­core objectivists. Some of the following material I derived from Jeff Walker’s beautifully researched book, The Cult of Ayn Rand, which I advise all my readers to rush to get copies, (1999). Other books that were valuable were Jerome Tuccille’s It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand (1999), John W. Robbins’ With Charity Toward None: Hard Analysis of Ayn Rand’s Philosophy (1971), and John W. Robbins’ Answer to Ayn Rand. These are somewhat prejudiced in that they favor libertarianism and Christianity, but they make some good points against Rand. Barbara Branden’s The Person of Ayn Rand (1983) to some degree whitewashes Rand and overlooks her failings; and so does Nathaniel Branden’s Judgement Day. But they also give first­hand accounts of some of Rand’s personal problems and make valuable observations of Rand as a woman. All the above books were published after the first version of this book, entitled, Is Objectivism a Religion? Although they barely mention me, they fascinatingly confirm many of my views of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and personhood. On to Rand’s fanatical religiosity, which I shall now describe under several major overlapping headings. Rand’s rigid absolutism. The Illustrated Oxford Dictionary defines absolutism as “the acceptance of or belief in absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or religious matters.” Absolute is defined as “1. complete; utter; 2. unconditional; unlimited; 3. ruling arbitrarily or with unrestricted power; 4. universally valid; not relative or comparative.” That was Ayn Rand to a T! Witness: “Rand presented her thought to the world as rigorously worked out by relentless logic from indisputable premises,” (Walker, 1999). “Ayn Rand originated an objectivist tradition of proudly refusing to read books and articles she knew to be evil,” (B. Branden, 1986). “The absolutism of reason with its corollary, the rejection of faith, was, and remained, the philosophic issue most important to Ayn” She adds, “In Ayn Rand’s presence, one felt the command to function at one’s best, to be the utmost that one could be.” (B. Branden, 1986). To Ayn Rand, “objectivism is an inflexible package deal,” (Tuccille, 1999). “Ayn Rand’s division of the world into white of good and black of bad, with no shades of gray in between them was not lessening...but increasing,” (B. Branden, 1986). Rand adds, “There is only one reality and therefore one truth;” (O’Neill, 1977). “All reason is ultimately based on the crucible of self­ evident truth.” (O’Neill, 1977). “Branden’s only proof for his contention that the absolute knowability of reality is his own absolute infallibility as a source of knowledge,” (O’Neill, 1977). According to Rand, the Right of Liberty, Right of Life, and Right to Pursue Happiness“ are inalienable, in the sense that they are totally unconditional;” (O’Neill, 1977). Rage and Damnation against those who disagree with Randians. Oxford Dictionary: Damnation. Eternal punishment in hell. Cursing. Fanatically religious people are very likely to completely excoriate the dissenting views of other people but also to damn the people themselves­­wholly and completely. They condemn dissenters to eternal punishment and, if they believe in hell­­which they frequently do­­condemn them to eternal punishment in hell. Rand, of course, did not believe in any afterlife or hell. But she killed anti­objectivists and “false” capitalists in her novels, and her rage and damnation against personal and theoretical objectors to objectivism were sometimes unbelievable. Here are some examples: Barbara Branden: “Regrettably, Nathaniel’s anger against Ayn and his former friends appears not to have diminished but rather to have escalated during the years since 1968,” (1986). George Berger, a lawyer in Louis Nizer’s office, when asked if Nathaniel and Barbara Branden should bother to sue Ayn Rand for libel: “Hell hath no fury!” (B. Branden, 1986). Nathaniel Branden said, “Rand gave her unconditional acceptance to no one;” and also stated that “[Ayn] was impatient, irritable, quick to condemn­­Frank, me, Barbara, Leonard, and anyone,” (N. Branden, 1984). Ayn Rand to Nathaniel Branden after their breakup: “You’ll have nothing! I’ll stop the publication of The Psychology of Self­Esteem!” (N. Branden, 1989). Allen Blumenthal, the main objectivist psychiatrist, described Rand’s “contempt for people with psychological problems” (Walker, 1999). Leonard Peikoff damned Barbara Branden and thought she had invented Rand’s affair with Branden. (Walker, 1999). Leonard Peikoff excommunicated Alan Greenspan from objectivism. (Walker, 1999). “Damned or damnation appears in Atlas Shrugged 211 times.” (Walker, 1999). “Ayn Rand was enraged against her sister, Nora, when Nora raved about Solzhenitsyn’s writings.” (B. Branden, 1986). Ayn Rand in regard to her main objectivist friends: “I did not see that a great explosive rage was building within each one of them,” (N. Branden, 1989). Nathaniel Branden: “To destroy me, Barbara later told me, had become Ayn’s obsession. Barbara was stunned by Ayn’s vindictiveness” (N. Branden, 1989). Barbara Branden to Nathaniel Branden: “You’ve got to understand that Ayn wants you dead!” (N. Branden, 1989). “Thugs, hoodlums, savages, and degenerates­­those who question the teachings of Ayn Rand and Nathan Ben Rand,” (Walker, 1999). Ayn Rand dealt with dissenters at her lectures “as if Atilla the Hun had just got up,” (Walker, 1999). “According to Nathaniel Branden’s later recollection: being friendly with anyone critical of Rand...would generate her instant denunciation,” (Walker, 1999).

Load more

  49

Copy Link