Richard Salsman - Is Objectivism a Religion?

Speaker 0 00:00:00 Absolutely. Uh, thank you everyone for joining us today. Uh, I'm Scott Schiff, uh, infer Jennifer Grossman, Atlas society CEO. I've been looking forward to this session. We have senior scholar, Dr. Richard Salzman discussing his objectivism or religion, which a, there's probably at least a three ways that even take that question. Uh, we encourage audience participation. So after Richard gives his opening, we'll take questions. If you're new to clubhouse, you can join by raising your hand, uh, with the hand icon, this is being recorded for educational purposes. Uh, Richard, thank you for doing this session today. Um, you know, even in promoting it, uh, you know, I, I had some, Objectivists say what kind of question is that? So, uh, I, I really look forward to your answer and even in what sense, Speaker 1 00:00:55 Well, thank you very much. I'm glad there are some Objectivists out there willing to entertain questions and not be fearful of them. Um, I am curious also, Scott, what your three takes on that might be so we can get to that. Okay. Here's what I'm going to try to do and less than a half an hour, and then open it up, maybe even less than 25 minutes and then open it up for comments, criticisms questions. Um, first off answering the question, but also distinguishing between religion and objectivism. I'm going to have some interesting quotes you might not be aware of from mine, ran herself about religion. It turns out she was not a militant atheist as she called it. She was an atheist, but not a militant one that that's interesting and some nice things she said about religion, but why, why, why would she say nice things about it that it turns out to be very philosophically interesting, I think, and, and then I'm going to shift. Speaker 1 00:01:49 So making that first, making that distinction I'm going to move into, well, why would the outside world think of objectivism as a religion or sometimes they'll call it a cult and why would some even self-described objective as possibly a misuse the philosophy and treat it like a religion and that'll, uh, lead us into the third section, which is what is the difference between open and closed objectivism. And, um, I think professor Kelly, professor Kelly, and I have talked about this at great length, and of course he's originated this, um, aspect of it years ago. So he's very good on that. So, um, he's very, very kindly agreed to chime in on that as well, but also on the religious aspects of it. If I get any of this wrong, all of you feel free to chime in now not to, uh, keep anyone in suspense. Speaker 1 00:02:40 My answer to the question is no, no objectivism is not a religion, but this is a really important question because it is seen as such by so many people and among the conservatives actually they'll say, um, well, it doesn't have enough religion. How do I handle that? Now, let me tell you a kind of a cute story that prompted that my thinking of this years ago, a professor and I were talking about objectivism and I was explaining it, defending it. And this person was a Catholic. It was a very good professor actually. And this Catholic professor said to me, but isn't objectivism or religion. And I said, well, before I answer that question, isn't that a compliment by your own standards? If you're, if you're religious, then apparently you're complimenting this thing called objectivism because it's a religion and you're not irreligious. And that kind of silence the person. Speaker 1 00:03:38 I don't think they know what to go with that afterwards. Maybe, maybe a false religion, something like that. But, but you'd hear that a lot by religious people saying other things are religious and they're criticizing it, not realizing they're religious. Uh, here's let me start this way. What is religion? Um, now this again, could be oversimplified. I would put it as a set of, I don't know if I want to say system, but maybe a system of notions of beliefs, of surmises. I love that word. If you look up surmise, believing things without evidence, fables parables, um, now that sounds kind of a bad connotation, but let me add to that proport to explain the universe in its origins, that purports to guidelines, choices, which sounds like ethics, uh, psychologically, you could say that intends to mollify, anxiety, saving a fear of death, or what will happen on judgment day, uh, explaining good and evil. Speaker 1 00:04:38 Uh, now it obviously believes in the supernatural role. So it is not, uh, this earth really this worldly, it believes in God or gods plural. Uh, most of them have prophets who are, um, you know, testifying to their link, to their either representatives of, or interpreters of the God. You know? So for example, the Judeo, uh, Moses is the prophet Judaism. They got a text, the Talmud, the Jesus is the prophet and the Christianity of God. They have the Bible, the new Testament, uh, Mohammed Islam, they got the text Koran. So the idea of God's profits, sacred texts, uh, interpreters, qualified interpreters, meaning some are disqualified scholastics. If you want to call them that keepers of the flame, uh, what other aspects means of either acceptance or excommunication excommunication might be a specifically Christian concept. So don't hold me to that. But the, but the idea of who's in or out of the club whose inner out of the tribe, uh, are there sex and, um, S C, C T S sex schisms. Speaker 1 00:05:56 Yes, there are multiple, as you know, multiple with the Protestant reformation, uh, the breaking up of Christianity and to various sex Catholicism and all that. And so the key though, uh, how do you know all this stuff? The Vista logically, you've got to go by faith by revelation, by feeling by intuition, however you want to refer to it. Um, I think that's a fair reading of what religions are both, uh, the good and the bad, but the, the Goodyear being, it does provide an overarching kind of view of the world. And I'm going to quote iron Rand on this in a few moments, which is very interesting now what his objective is and putting it up against what I just described religions to be, um, well, capital O objectivism, uh, system of philosophy discovered. And explicated by Iran. I mean, that would be one definition. Speaker 1 00:06:54 It doesn't say much other than the author, but this is an author of the specifically says, uh, we don't go by appeal to authority, even though I'm the author, I'm not authoritarian about this. You must use reason. You must reject faith as a means of knowing, uh, anything, including objectivism. But now what's interesting about objective, okay, it's a philosophy. It has something to say in the five key branches, uh, but what's distinctive about it now, interestingly, um, she's not the first atheist, there were atheists before, uh, iron ran. There were what we may call today's secularists. Uh, what about individualism? Individualism predates Iran. She even said one time that Christianity, um, ensconced individualism in the world. And she said, thankfully, uh, what about the concept of rights? I think she is distinctive here, but it's not as if no one thought of rights. The rights of man were a big part of the enlightenment argument, including by the way, the proper role of government in protecting those rights. Speaker 1 00:07:59 I not even egoism, I would say, although she has a very distinctive conception of egoism that member, the subtitle of the virtue of selfishness was a new concept of egoism. But most of the egoist or advocates of equalism previously were psychological egoism, meaning you are inherently egoistic. You don't have to choose to be, so it's not ethical egoism. So she is very distinctive first, I would say in being systematic, that's the most important thing, uh, you know, besides obviously the, um, the admonition always go by reason, but the systematic nature of it, the consistency of it, the interconnectedness of the, the hierarchical structure of the five branches is distinctly ran. There are very few philosophers who have something to say on all the five branches and not just something to say, but a lot to say, and a lot of interrelation and integration between. So branch has actually maybe to, uh, inaccurate a term for it. Speaker 1 00:09:00 We got trunks, we have roots, we have foundations, we have branches, leaves, implications on things like that. So that definitely distinctive on a theory of concepts, which lead to a theory of principles and propositions and induction and all that. And how do we verify our knowledge? How do we confirm our knowledge? I think her conception of what objectivity consists of one of the reasons she named her philosophy of objectivism going there to the real central issue at hand, how are we to be objective? I mentioned egoism before, definitely rational. Self-interest rational egoism, uh, what's today called ethical egoism. The idea that you're advocating egoism, you're not saying people are naturally egoistic. They might not be well. They are not naturally egoistic. They must learn how to be egoists. They must learn how to be long range. They list must learn how to be contextual. So that is, I think, distinctive, if you know, the history of how egoism has been treated, I would say objectivism is also quite distinctive on its treatment of capitalism as a system, as a socio-political system. Speaker 1 00:10:13 She said, it's more than just economics. I mean, capitalism, the unknown ideal to her was a moral ideal, but you know, that book is full of history, full of economics, but also moral arguments. And that is distinctively iron ran. The idea that capitalism is to be seen, not just as an economic system, but as a moral one. And then further that morality means rational. Self-interest um, I think the last thing I would name it is absolutely not the only things that should be on this list is, uh, in aesthetics, romantic realism. So on every, I would say on every score, you see, if you put up those two against each other, you cannot say that objectivism is a religion. Why? Because it's not supernatural. It doesn't rely on faith. And, and it has a, uh, a positive view of human nature. If you will. None of this original sin stuff, none of this, uh, on really unjust annunciations of humans and human nature. Speaker 1 00:11:15 Um, and so the question before I turn to the question of, well, why would someone think it's a religion or why was someone who gets into it start treating it that way? Well, before I'd quote on ran, let me just offer two suggestions to think about the two things they sh the thing they share in common, which the outsiders so to speak would see is absolutism absolutism. So versus say, relativism versus those out there who say, not just in ethics that you know, anything goes, but epistemologically that no certainty as possible. They're going look at objectivism and religion together as absolutest systems. So, so I think, and to the extent they denounce absolutes, they're going to denounce both and say, wow, that's a religion. Cause you guys are absolute as to see how that can happen. But the absolutism I see in religion is dogmatic dogmatic and the absolutism. Speaker 1 00:12:13 I see an objective as it has to do with contextual certainty. That's, that's a big issue. That's a huge issue. But I just wanted to put that out there as a plausible reason, why someone would think, especially a relativist that objective isn't a religion share this thing called absolutism. I think another phenomenon is, well, most people are raised religious. And so if they become Objectivists or if they get into objectivist material, it's very easy, especially in the early going to totally misconstrue what the heck is being said. So let me give you an example. I was raised as a Catholic, so I saw this happen among Catholics, but Christians generally maybe experiences you get the admonition when you're a kid don't judge last year, be judged. Don't judge other people. And now you get into objective is an objective set. Objectivism says, judge, everything, absolutely everything. Speaker 1 00:13:10 Judge, judge, judge. And of course, if you read deeply, it's judged objectively judge, uh, contextually judge fairly, but in this interregnum between leaving a system that says don't judge at all, meaning they equip you with no power to judge no techniques. It's very easy for objectivist to get into. What's called moralizing where they're judging arbitrarily and they're just learning and badly. And they might even leave the, uh, studying objectivism because it feels uncomfortable to them. And, and they're losing a lot of friends and potential allies by judging arbitrarily. But see that to me, that's not objectivism is fault. That's the problem of making this transition from religion to objectivism and objectivism is a corrective, but it can't necessarily root out everything. That's an embedded embedded in the religious person. I got to give you this quote now that you'll love this on iron Rand, on religion from the Tom Snyder interview on TV 1979, because she comments on religion and objectivism. Speaker 1 00:14:22 And I, and I think this is worth quoting. This will take about three minutes. Maybe for me, Tom Snyder. How does objectivism differ from the philosophies that many of us have been exposed to in our youth philosophies based on religions theologians. Dogmatists a great question. And I, and Rand's answer the very first difference. Objectivism tells you that it is not right, that it's not proper demand to take anything on faith. Religion is a matter of faith. You accept a religion emotionally, or because you were born into it. You have not chosen it rationally. What objectivism tells you is that man's reason is his basic means of survival. That's the most important faculty he has. And he has to guide his life and make his choices by means of his rational faculty. He has to make his own choices, but he has to know how to make them unquote. Speaker 1 00:15:20 Now a follow-up question. Another really great question, Tom Snyder. Why do you think religions have attracted so many more people to their philosophies then than objectivism has attracted people to its philosophy and Iran actually giggled when she got this one, she said, well, first of all, they had a much longer time. Remember I'm quoting here. Religion is older than objectivism. I don't think I'd want to attract as many people as religions do, but the real and serious answer is this religion is a primitive form of philosophy. What religion and philosophy have in common is that their systems of background premises, they give you a frame of reference, a context in fundamental terms. Then you live the concretes of your life. Accordingly religion is primitive, canned philosophy. It gives canned answers and says, here, you can rely on this and you don't need to think it will tell you what to do in practically every situation just obey us, take us on faith. Speaker 1 00:16:28 Why do people accept it? Because nobody can live without philosophy. Even the most primitive on thinking, man needs something to tie all of his actions together, his ideas in life. He needs integration. Religion provides to him. Ready-made this integration, but philosophy properly does the same thing, but offers a context to his mind and demands of him that he judged it, that he used his own intelligence to understand and accept the kind of basic premises that will guide his life rationally. I think that's very interesting because, um, she's seeing the relationship between religion and philosophy broadly, but then objectivism as a philosophy, she's basically saying this is enlightened way of going out philosophy, using reason, rationality objectivity a focus on reality, but notice it isn't a, it's not a condemnation really of religion. It's, it's a description of religion that, uh, that, that is, is basically saying this is something that's helpful, you know, as opposed to saying nihilism, but is it preferable? Speaker 1 00:17:40 No, you want a rational, uh, reason based, uh, philosophy, but I thought that, and by the way, this is not just in the Tom Snyder interview. I have scoured, uh, not just the region, not just the non-fiction of brand, but some of the more interesting things on religion and relationship to objective as is in her letters. So the letters of Iran, if you go to the index, there are entries on Aquinas. You know, she liked Thomas Aquinas is very much a Catholic philosopher. Why? Because he used reason to try to, uh, prove the existence of God. And of course you knows that's not possible, but Rusty's got the primacy of reasons there, but also entries on God, on Christianity, on Catholicism. There's a couple of letters to ministers, which is interesting. There's a very interesting letter to Goldwater just before the 1960 election, where she's telling him that conservatives ought to be very careful about not mixing the case for capitalism, with religion there, by the way, she says, quote, the film. Speaker 1 00:18:42 This is on 5 67 of the letters of brand. The philosophic to fall to the conservatives will become final. If capitalism, the one and only rational way of life is reduced to the status of a mystic doctrine. I am not suggesting that you should take a stand against religion. I'm saying that capitalism and religion are two separate issues, which should not be United into one package deal or one common cause that does not mean that religious persons cannot crusade for capitalism. I love for use of the word crusade there, but it does mean that non-religious persons like myself cannot crusade for religion. She goes on to remind him that the constitution requires a separation of church and state. So to sum up where I am so far, religion is one thing. Objectivism is another, they're very different, but the thing they do share is they are philosophies. Speaker 1 00:19:39 There's no doubt about it. They are a unified, uh, comprehensive, uh, attempt to guide people and help them interpret the world. One medieval. The other, I would say enlightened. Now, a couple of suggestions on why might this go wrong? I already indicated why some people might come to objectivism and with a religious background and not quite be able to know how to do the conversion. So to speak. It's a lot of work. I mean, this is not out of philosophy is not automatic. And it's, so it's not a fatalistic account of this, but it's, it's not easy. If someone is raised in a religious setting and then comes to objectivism, but you can see the appeal, they would say, wow, here's another comprehensive philosophic view of the world. I wonder if I should adopt this one. People do convert from one religion to another after all. Speaker 1 00:20:29 So it's still this interest in the comprehensive view, the idea of, I want to do the right thing. So let me get the right ethic. Um, here's another way, however, to go out objectivism, philosophically. So this is a Mount Stewart misusing objectives. Um, you, you come into it and, uh, you like the fact that it might be conceived of as a self-contained limited system, put forth by an authoritative figure with a bunch of texts, which can be closely examined, and then you become a specialist in it. And then since it's a very small group to begin with, you become famous within that circle for interpreting the great works and, uh, for lack of a better description, it goes to your head. Um, it's people who now, while I am expert in this thing, and now this thing has to really be circumscribed. Why? Because if it grows and it's bigger, if literally the shelf grows of this work on objectivism, um, you either have to specialize or you have to be able to hold it all. Speaker 1 00:21:40 You can't hold it all. You can't read it all. You might've been able to in 1960, when there were three or four books and as yet, no, non-fiction work really being written, but you see how this might go, uh, that someone might get into it and start treating it religiously. And they may not even be aware that they're doing it, but that's what they're doing. Now. This leads me to, to, and so this is something like, um, I dunno, you look at steak knives, what's the purpose of steak knives to cut steak. Uh, but they can also be misused, uh, you know, as weapons. Speaker 1 00:22:15 Yeah. Well technology generally nuclear energy. So that is just as a suggestion. I don't want to go too far with this, but this will lead me. Now I got 22 minutes into this. Let me finish with how this might relate to the issue of open versus closed objectivism in a very restrictive and Putin, possibly unfair, but, but I've heard it a restrictive definition of closed objectivism would be something like this objectivism since Iran gave that name in about 1959 or so, by the way, if you look at the Mike Wallace interview, he refers to her as a Ram dist and he refers to Rand ism and she strangled Lucy objects on national television and says, no, I call my philosophy objectivism, a very interesting choice because she's basically not wanting to make it idiosyncratic. And I think she used a joke or someone did about marks saying one time, I am no longer a Marxist having seen what all the subsequent Marcus did to mangle his views. Speaker 1 00:23:18 But that's a very interesting, uh, conception by ran to say, I need to give it a proper name, but a name that's not my name. However, the closed objectivism view and its strict his form basically says objectivism is and only is what Iran wrote and said, that's it. Since she named the philosophy and created it and devised it now by that reading, everything stops in March of 1982, that's it? That's when she died. You can't by this weird definition, classify anything that came afterward as objective is, but think of what this includes such stupendous works as the evidence of the senses. That's 1986, uh, old par by Peikoff that's 1991. And I won't go on, there are other books, articles, lectures, appearances, interviews, debates for good or ill in quality. So subsequent to that and, and, and in cases like evidence of the senses or old par, just the two early entries, no one could say that that is not objectivism. Speaker 1 00:24:25 And yet it's not what Iran wrote. It's not what Iran said. So really what's happening here is, um, anyone who endorses those, uh, as objectivism is moving out of the argument, that it's only what Iran said and only what Iran wrote. They're willing to concede. In other words, that as long as subsequent work either builds upon rammed, uh, interprets Rand applies Rand to new areas that she hadn't thought of, or her followers had not thought of when she was, um, alive. Um, our Objectivists, if they follow now, here's the big debate. If they follow and build upon the core precepts of objectives of the absolutely indispensable elements of objectivism, without which it wouldn't be objectivism. Uh, but there are so many things that she said and wrote, which could be construed as somewhat extraneous and optional. I would include by the way, whether women can be presidents or not. Speaker 1 00:25:26 Um, you know, Margaret Thatcher was a fabulous prime minister in Britain who actually took off as, before I ran died, I have a hard time believing, uh, that wouldn't be a better political leader, uh, than the others we got in Britain up until them. So, uh, and maybe others could name others. But I think as David Kelly put at once as in court, you want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Absolutely. That's an objective kind of criteria checklists. And, um, the question is, has everything Iran rotor said, is that all of it? Is that the whole truth? Well, the argument is no it isn't, but that doesn't mean we can adulterate what she left us and change it for our own wins, which some people refer to as open objectivism. I interpret, but I'll leave this. Mostly the David Kelly open objectivism to me is the idea that objectivism has given to us by iron Rand as the foundation. Speaker 1 00:26:24 And it has definite core principles that can be objectively identified by the way, but much more has to be done much more. It has to be learned much more, has to be applied. Uh, I'm I'm quoting from something David wrote, iron ran. This is from the Atlas society 2010. What the Atlas society stands for. One excerpt says Iran laid the foundation of objectivism. It's now the responsibility of those who grasp the brilliance over achievement to build on that foundation, addressing the many philosophic questions she left on answer from the nature of certainty, to the ethics of families, to the requirements of objective law. Further objectivism is not a religion. That's still quoting Kelly here with teachings defined by a sacred texts like the Bible or the Qur'an. Our loyalty is not to rans words, but to the truth of her fundamental insights, a commitment to truth and respect for independent thought must lead onward to new questions, new answers. We reject any use of loyalty tests in giving thinkers there. Do we acknowledge respect and sight, good work by all Objectivists and reject the close dogmatic style that has retarded the objectivist movement for 50 years. So, uh, as a lot there, uh, in a short time, and I hope it's not too much to take in. I hope there's a left to chew on. Um, those are my, that's my thinking on this. I think it's an important question and, um, I'll leave it there, Scott, for you to, uh, adjudicate. Great. Speaker 0 00:28:06 Thank you. That's a great stuff. It is a very wide scope. I just wanted to say one thing before throwing it to Atlas society, founder, uh, Dr. Kelly, because, uh, you quoted what makes objectivism unique and, and I don't think you'd read it, but he writes about that in the contested legacy of vine ran. I know you weren't reading from it, but there was a lot of overlap, not in a religious way, but just to people understanding the ideas. Um, and, uh, Dr. Kelly, go ahead. I, uh, I wanted to get your take on this. Speaker 2 00:28:41 Okay. Uh, thank you, Scott. And thank you, Richard. That was great. Um, I just want to add a couple of things, first of all, I think your, your point about, uh, that people from the outside look at an objectivism, uh, and religion, and, and think they're both absolute is they both think they have the objective proof and an objective moral standard. And so people say, well, only religion has that. So objective as must be a religion. I know in my own experience, um, when I got to know people, um, you know, in my youth, like in graduate school, I began getting to know somebody, other registrations people would ask me, are you a Catholic? You know, whether they didn't know anything more, they just assumed, you know, I, I had standards only Catholics have standards, so I had to explain no, no. Um, the other thing I would make a couple of other things, one is I highly recommend the book that we produced years and years ago, decades ago by George Walsh, who is my co-founder, um, for the Atlas, all the role of religion in history. Speaker 2 00:29:51 And here's the definition of religion in there that I think is consistent with, but, um, uh, with what you said, Richard, um, but interesting in these prior to condense it to, uh, you know, the formal definition and then it goes into the book covers all the major world religions. Um, and in that regard, you know, religion is interesting philosophically because, um, by contrast with fundamentalists in, in, in every, um, form of religion, there are also people who have tried to apply reason to interpreting the doctrines of the sacred text. This is proof in Judaism, the Tomba, um, uh, Christianity, um, with it mostly inside the Catholic church people, uh, uh, trying to, um, make a philosophical system out of it, uh, culminating in Thomas Aquinas and in Islam. Um, some of the great and the word, great philosophers in Islam in the early years, um, trying to, um, rationalize the, uh, uh, interpretation of the Qur'an and actually the, the Islamic thinkers, um, were clear about the difference between the practice of religion, the theory of religion, theology and philosophy, and the difference between theology and philosophy was theology is committed to, uh, making sense and making a consistent whole out of, uh, from the starting point of a sacred text. Speaker 2 00:31:39 And, uh, whereas philosophy didn't make that assumption. It just was looking at the world and trying to figure out what is the world like now most of the early philosophers in both fields were in both Christianity and Islam. And I expect this is true also in Judaism, which I know less about, uh, we're, we're deep philosophical thinkers like Aquinas. And I think that that's what I ranted my origin religion, that there was an intellectual history here of people who, you know, we're not just the latest, you know, Zen fat-ass in California. They were actually deep thinkers who were trying to make sense out of, um, granted a canonical text. Um, but also, um, trying to elaborate that into a, uh, a coherent, logically consistent system, which is the act of reason, um, and in that respect, um, but th th it was always, the theology was always tied to, we gotta, we can't come out against the sacred texts. Speaker 2 00:32:57 And just in one more little, um, incident, um, back in 2007, there was, um, the, at the society, they, Iran institutes, um, intellectual support, wing, uh, approach that, um, uh, a college in Texas to set, uh, Texas state San Marcos, and, um, offered them a, you know, money to fund a new position that would teach you activism. And there was a debate on it and people wanted the money, they, and they were okay with someone teaching objectivism, but then one, one of the members of the department, it was the department of religion and philosophy. Um, did some research and found out that the only people that, that the, uh, may, maybe the Anthem foundation were, um, willing to support were blue drained at, at, at the rain Institute. And she said, what, wait a minute, there's a whole nother organization here. And so it was a brouhaha. Speaker 2 00:34:07 It made the pages of the Chronicle of higher education and a reporter talked to me. And, but I talked to this woman, Rebecca, your last name and, well, what interested me most was that her doctoral thesis at the university of Chicago had been on how sacred texts become the foundations of philosophies. I thought, oh my God. So there is in the, uh, in some of the back and forth debates about open versus closed objectivism, a lot of religious language, um, you know, Richard, you got on a phone call earlier today. You mentioned the idea of preaching to the choir that is speaking only to those who already wait. There's also the concepts of excommunication, um, apostasy, um, and, um, and so forth that are, uh, heresy invoked heresy. So, Speaker 1 00:35:15 Yeah. And you, and you alluded David to the, uh, something I neglected to add this issue of open versus closed. One of it has to do with the text, the authoritarian nature of it. When the system closes, if it's closed, it closes at some point March 82, we have, but also, uh, you quite agreed from your own experience, a theory of our outreach, who to talk to, who to deal with closest to talk to. Yeah. So the closed system, you know, originally David trying to, uh, in, was it 88, 89, David telling, being asked by libertarians to speak and David's talk was why you guys need objectivism. And now why that would be a sacrilege is, uh, crazy to this day, but it still goes on, there were still denunciations of Objectivists who, who get interviewed by conservatives like Dennis Prager or who go on stage with, I think the other side is basically doing open objectivism. Speaker 1 00:36:17 They just don't admit it. And I think, and won't, you know, apologize to someone who figured this out 30 years ago, um, and paid a price for it, for doing it, David. But I think also of, I hear it sometimes put the open objectivism approach adult rates, or, or allows for the adulteration of what I ran with the minute you say there's more to be said, um, there's more to be elaborated. This is the foundation. And we're building on the foundation. We're not rejecting the found anyone who builds on our foundation. Isn't a eroding the foundation as they go there. The foundation is there, it's solid, you're building on it, but the idea of not building, yes, I think you could say that could retard it for decades on end if that's the, if that's the approach and if the approach amounts to not may the best argument win, but rather let's tear down competing organizations that are, that are trying to promote objectivism, but, but it also strikes me as, you know, once you venture on to this openness, David, there is the possibility of getting it wrong. And it's almost as if someone's saying since it's possible for you to adulterate, I'm assuming you're going to. And so there's kind of like a presumption of guilt built into anyone who tries to build on the philosophy. And instead of just waiting for note one, just wait until you think I've made a major error and then let's discuss it, uh, uh, you know, in a, in a humane and tolerant and benevolent way without acrimony, without canceling, without banishing, without all that kind of stuff. Does that make sense? Speaker 2 00:37:59 No, it does make total sense. And I mean, this idea that we're opened it, every flaky idea is just not consistent with what I said at the outset. You know, the original, my original statement was nine, nine out of 10 ideas will be wrong, but the 10th will, the 10th we'll let in the light. And, and, you know, when I said that, you know, I began, it's like the country chills and everything we lose rolled toward. It keeps you where the Senator was located back then. Um, and so we didn't publish the Thomas stuff because it didn't pass normal philosophical publishing standards. Um, and you know, and that's, I try to wear my infamy infamy lightly, but, um, the, uh, you know, we were as harsh as I think anyone, uh, on the more closed venues for philosophy were about demanding quality, demanding reason. And when we had people come, uh, on a venture to speak our summer seminars, we had a really smart audience. Um, like the ones we're gathering around these talks love that stocks who, um, you know, raise objections and I'm much more confident in that marketplace of ideas and the open discussion. And they, um, Speaker 2 00:39:45 Yeah. So anyway, I don't want to take up too much time here. Um, cause you know, I'm sure there are a lot of questions, so I'm I'm thank you, Richard and Scott, uh, I'm gonna sign up for now. I'll be back when relevant. Speaker 3 00:40:01 Thanks, David. Yes. Thank you, Roger. Thank you for your patience. Do you have a question for Richard? Uh, yeah, kind of, first of all, I just really appreciate these rooms. So I'm glad that you guys are doing a more frequently and, uh, uh, bringing together the scholars from the Atlas society. I always learn a lot when I come to these rooms. Um, for those of you that know me, I am definitely a huge fan of Rand. Um, and many of the pillars of objectivism are things that, uh, I also unapologetically, uh, defend, uh, but I've always been hesitant to refer to myself as an objectivist, uh, because there's, there is this question, uh, um, around, uh, atheism. And, uh, I, I don't identify myself as a theist. I'm more of a deist and, but I I've, I've, I've always had this, um, this idea of objectivism as a closed philosophy and it, at least in my study of it and what the Atlas society has done is allowed for me to, to think about objectivism in a new way, and to think about how do I apply, uh, you know, the principles that ran, throws out to new world problems, where something comes up where I could scour information and, and try to ask, okay, well, what does Ron say about this? Speaker 3 00:41:38 And to now have scholars that are picking up the ball and, and, and, and moving it forward. I think that's really important. And again, I don't know if, if, if I'm ever going to get to the point of being able to call myself an objectivist, just because there is that, that question, uh, uh, around, uh, whether or not you can, uh, you know, you, you can believe that there is a creator of the universe, uh, and, and be compatible in this, uh, you know, objectivist framework. But I, I guess my question for Richard would be, what do you say to folks like myself that believe that, that there's, uh, in a rational way we've gotten to this idea that it makes sense that there's a creator, an architect without believing necessarily in some, uh, biblical origin story. Uh, how, how does somebody, you know, with that worldview play in the objectivist playground? Speaker 1 00:42:41 I think it's a lot easier for the deist to be in objectivism obviously than the theist and, uh, the objectivist, uh, view is atheism. But the key here is free will I think. And if you have deism where God is invoked as a being that starts the universe, but then retires and doesn't have any other further active role to play. Uh, Iran said in one of her letters to administer, I would endorse a religion that really is for free will and sees man as endowed by some creator with reason, because now you're on my terms. Now you've got reason and you have to exercise it. Then the question becomes how you exercise it. But I think in that regard, deism is just putting aside the question of how did this all start. Uh, but if you say having started, we have this thing called man with this faculty, and here's how we should operate. Speaker 1 00:43:39 Um, I think that's a, that's an easier sandbox to play in. Would you say Roger? So, so the D S uh, many of the founders were deists, um, and have this same kind of view. If you don't have God actively involved in your quote fate or anything else, then you're on your own. And that's what Iran wanted, you're on your own. But by the way, I wanted to say something in case this interests people when ran objected to Wallace, calling her a Randian, if you think about it, the closed view that says objectivism is only what ran, wrote and said, that's Randy aneurysm. I think that is the better description of when mostly critics of objectivism want to dismiss it as just something not of crazy Iran's idea had. And so they idiosyncra, you know, a lot of libertarians we'll call them Randians or Rand droids. Speaker 1 00:44:33 But when you think about it, the conception that says only what she said and wrote that is making it more personally her, and, and she resisted that publicly. And she went out of her way to find a word. And apparently this was debated behind the scenes. Should it be existentialism? No, that was already taken primacy of existence. Uh, so that alone, I think is interesting to think of closed versus open as, uh, the open view is actually her view, her view of objectivism. It's not unique to her. It doesn't die when she dies, but the close view is quote, unquote, Randian and wrong for that on the conception of how to spread it. And how to, Speaker 0 00:45:16 What do you think of the idea that some people like a, you know, maybe like a Joel Olsteen their, their view of God is almost like the, the law of identity without being explicit about it, but just that thing in the universe, that's, you know, the more you give, the more you get type of ad. Speaker 1 00:45:34 Yeah. Again, this is on metaphysics and I don't think that's really what ran thought religion was ruining it. Wasn't ruining it. Wasn't ruining the world because we didn't have a perfect conception of the beginnings. It's it's that if God has an active, uh, element than, uh, you only know that by faith, and then everything falls apart, because you're not using your faculty, your one faculty that connects you to reality. Speaker 0 00:46:01 Great. Speaker 1 00:46:01 That's all. That's how I would interpret it. Speaker 0 00:46:04 Richard, thank you for waiting. Do you have a question, Richard? Are you there? Why don't we go to William while we're waiting for Richard to Speaker 4 00:46:23 Thank you, Scott, and thank you, Richard, for your presentation. Um, I wanted to ask about the concept of objectivism being a cult, cause that's normally how I encounter the smear. Um, don't really tell me it's a religion. They say, oh, I heard it's a cult. And the cult in my view can be something that's not really supernatural. Doesn't rely on supernaturalism it relies more on like a personality who has a strong, um, dictator type style, or he's just saying he knows everything, or he he's received revelations from something. So it's more of a cult, a personality. And, and I guess there's some comparison to the way Iran treated her quote unquote collective. And you hear that often objectivism as another coat. Um, so I was wondering what you think about that. Speaker 1 00:47:30 Yeah. I agree with you that this is the personality aspect of the smear, but, but even within religion, uh, and they are reluctant as, as, you know, calling themselves cults. But, uh, in his time I believe the Jesus cult, I mean, the cult might've been used to describe even Jesus, it definitely has that part of it. We talked about religions, have a profit, uh, uh, text and all that. Right? So the analogy they're looking for here is while Iran is this very strong personality, she definitely was. She created this philosophy. She definitely did. She has followers followers notice that it sounds like now you beginning with the dependence argument, uh, as some people said, you can't call yourself an objectivist. You have to call your status student of objectivism. That kind of stuff went on for quite a while, right? Suggesting there are tutors and tutored and you get into all the kinds of things about loyalty yachts. Speaker 1 00:48:27 And so, yeah, I think that's where the cult part comes from. I, um, I don't believe objectivism ever became a cult. Although some people argue that I don't want to name names, but those in the inner circle, trying to make her into a cult figure and then hide behind her and, and push their agendas. But I also know they're kind of stories about her resisting creating groups to promote objectivism. There are stories of resistance in the beginning to forming NBI. I remember Leonard Peikoff had, uh, S uh, hesitation about forming the Iran Institute, precisely because these groups can tend to create, you know, turf battles and hierarchies and authoritative figures and things like that. So I do think the cult aspect of what you're talking about has less to do with the sacredness alleged of the textbook, who the personality is, Speaker 5 00:49:21 Uh, JP. Hi, um, something that Roger said, um, just now resonated a lot with me because I come from a different, uh, very, very similar struggle personally, in the sense that I was born and raised Catholic. And, um, I, um, I resigned my religion way before I ever even knew objectivism. And, um, I delved into a lot of philosophies, uh, including Buddhism and I was sort of settled into it. And then I, I learned about the political musings of the dialogue trauma and things like that. And it, it, uh, I, I got the solution with organized religion and, um, then I stumbled into iron Grande and, um, this finally gave me the comfort to call my safe and agnostic atheist, uh, much the same as sine ran. And I think that, uh, I always, it's a running joke that I always pull sometimes when we're discussing these seizures with, uh, Objectivists that, um, I think that this lady was so smart that, uh, she left open the, she left this Cuckoo's egg, uh, in, in, in very much the limiting, the, the scope of objectivism to earth, to earth, to this, this, this thing that forms our ethos. Speaker 5 00:50:53 And, uh, she, I felt that she was open to anything, uh, any evidence that would change her worldview in a dime. And, um, I think that one of the responsibilities of finding one that calls themselves and Objectivists has to be, to rely on one's own reason and use of objectivism as a stepping point to where your own research and your own senses will take you. And, um, that's what I want to leave it at. Uh, but, uh, I think that, um, uh, one would be doing a dishonor to, to claiming, to have chosen objectivist and myself as a, my philosophy and not continue to, uh, trust new evidence as it, as it becomes available. I, I, I can only imagine what I in Grande would think of the new psychedelic, uh, research, uh, that is, is popping up, uh, into giving very real, uh, scientific, uh, notions of in the realm of metaphysics. So, uh, it's, it's exciting time and it's objective as need to be objective. And, and that's, that's the only thing that there's no, no allegiance to one person. So Speaker 0 00:52:22 Thank you, JP gray and Richard, it looks like you're back. Okay. Give you a all right, then we'll go to Roger. Speaker 5 00:52:36 Roger, are you there? Speaker 6 00:52:37 Yep. Um, I am here. Um, I want to put a little bit on the, I like how you talked about the open, open system. Um, I I've always felt uncomfortable, um, when ran talks about reality. And so I'm much more comfortable when she's talking about, um, what should we do is as, as individuals, as I, I'm wondering if we can, if you think it's possible to talk about, um, that sort of philosophy of value or, or action that she talks about, um, very compellingly I think, and extract it from the epistemology, or if you are, if you think, uh, we absolutely need the epistemology in order to anything out of the rest. I'm curious what you think of, think of that I'm and, you know, I mean, we might disagree with this totally fine, but I'm wondering, you think it's possible to extract some of those good elements, but I'm calling good elements from what I'm calling that elements. Um, somehow can we extract some elements from other, from other, Speaker 1 00:53:46 Yeah, I think, uh, I would say Roger, I think a piston analogy absolutely fundamental. And the values, if you, if by that you mean the, the, the ethical arguments, political arguments that flow from it absolutely have to be based on an epistemology of reason. So no, she would not. And I don't think we should vacillate on that point. You know, mixing faith, say mixing faith with reason or a little bit of illogic with logic. No. Um, but w w while we're on the topic of epistemology, by the way, notice she did write something called the introduction to objectivist epistemology. The word introduction is interesting. It suggests the beginning. And so even, even by her own, uh, title, uh, the suggestion that that's all that needed to be done on a pistol biology that shoot, she wrote an introduction introduction to a book as the beginning of a long book. So a and, and there are hints throughout that essay where she says the problem of universals, uh, in concept can be solved, but so much more has to be done. She even suggest on many occasions in there more has to be done. So if it's not done by her, I mean, she's certainly not suggesting she's the only one who could work on that, uh, because everyone has the capacity for re Speaker 6 00:54:58 Who does she give us? This should give you enough to work from, or at that point, are you just developing your own, your own epistemology? I, I feel like there's not enough to really work with from, Speaker 1 00:55:07 Um, no, I think the foundational stuff in that introduction of objectivist systemologies is absolutely critical. So if you ground concepts properly, which she did in person, and then go from there to what do we use concepts for too, to make sentences and propositions and propositions to principles. So now there's absolutely a solid foundation there, and she made quite an advance, you know, later Peikoff and Harriman and others did, uh, or books on, um, induction induction, and a way more on induction that she had done. And, you know, again for good or real, it can be criticized, but, um, there's some, some, some additional insight there, by the way, by the way, those, those on the re I'm hearing a theme here, those coming at it religiously and concerned about the origins of the universe for, and then from a DSP perspective, I've always found it helpful to ask someone like that. Speaker 1 00:56:02 What would it make? What difference would it make, uh, to the, her argument for epistemology ethics and capitalism, if you, uh, you know, we're a DST or an atheist, if you can find a substantial difference in how you come to interpret and or believe, you know what she's saying, and the subsequent branches, then I would really not worry about, if you think it's B it'd be like a technic earth shattering difference, namely, oh my gosh. If I go from deism to atheism, I'll lose the whole connection, then, then that's a problem. Yeah, that's a bigger problem. But I think the origin of the universe thing is too way too much is made of it. Um, as an issue of whether to accept objectivism or not. I remember, I remember I was raised Catholic too, and I, when I first thought about this, I remember listening to Peikoff and it seemed completely convincing to me. He said, well, if you need God to start the universe, and there's no evidence for that, why not just say it's eternal that the universe is not in time. Namely it needs a starting point and a starter, a prime mover, but it's always existed because that's what set of God, God always existed. And so he just removes the step that doesn't have any evidence, but both come down to saying eternity, God's always been here. Why can't just say the universe has always been here. So David last quick point with three minutes. Speaker 2 00:57:29 Okay. Quick point. Um, I th you know, uh, uh, responding to Roger's point about ethics, if I had been following correctly, um, a lot of people who have a religious background actually, and especially in America are actually live in accordance with what I would call the objectives, ethics, the value production. They use reason, um, in their, in their work. Um, they embrace honesty and integrity as values and so forth, but the big difference, and this is where this MALDI comes in. They based that on God's command, um, as opposed to the objectivist philosophy, which says, no, there's a rational argument based in human nature about why these are virtues. And this is a secular case. Um, it's laid out in, uh, a work that will Thomas and I at the outlet society did call the logical structure of objectivism. We, we outlined what, what the order of virtues are and why they have the prominence that they do based on inductive observations about human nature, and it can be done. Speaker 2 00:58:43 And if you do it, it is, um, you're on a fully rational basis, not a religious basis that says, well, you know, yeah. Maybe working in a I tech companies and doing my best and using my reason, the best I can and being responsible for everything I do. But that's all from God, how bad, if it were from human nature, that's a secular grounding, the same grounding that high-tech high-tech has in the first place. So this is why Objectivists did backup. Richard said, this is why Objectivists insist on, um, the role of reason and the, and not separating this, that, okay, Speaker 6 00:59:36 David, I'm going to turn Richard's thing on his head just a little bit. We can get that what I'm calling the good stuff from so many other places. So in so many other ways. And so is it okay to, you know, try to get it from other places if we, if we feel the need to build that up anyways, and then go from there, Speaker 0 01:00:01 Richard Glass quick thought, and I'll pass on that. I'll pass on that. That's fair. We'll again. Uh, Richard, everyone. Thank you for participating today. This was a great topic. We could do another hour on it, uh, on behalf of the Atlas society. Thanks, uh, again to everyone. And we'll see you again next time. Thank you, Scott. Speaker 2 01:00:30 Great job, Scott. Thanks.