I am not an Ideologue.

I am not an Ideologue.

I was an Objectivist. I adopted the entire lingo and studied the philosophy by reading all the literature and attended several OPAR study groups. I was an Objectivist for many years. But I no longer call myself an Objectivist?although I still largely agree with many of Rand's thoughts and one would be inclined to sum me up as being an Objectivist if they sufficiently knew Rand's thought and heard me speak on isuses she covered. Be that as it may, I depart with Rand on many salient points that I feel that I cannot properly designate myself as an Objectivist.

I have, these days, a profound distaste for ascribing any 'ism' to my thoughts. I have gone threw an intellectual overhaul. I have filtered Objectivism through my own intellectual prism having retained parts and aspects of it that strikes me as entirely reasonable and true while disagreeing with other aspects that does not strike me as true.

It is not only the designation of 'Objectivist' that I have distained. I am not an ideologue of any stripe. Why? Heres the problem: Ideology inevitably leads to fanaticism, and this includes, sadly, Objectivism. I don't care if we are talking about religious, political or philosophical ideologies--it all leads to the dead end of having to deal with unsavory adherents and loopy behavior. (God knows I have been over exposed to all of this since entering the Cyber world).

We can regard fanaticism as inherently irrational as it embraces a set of ideas regarded as so urgently important that it excludes all else---even one's humanity. It stifles the mind to other ideas, to intellectual growth. And in a contest between factual truths and the tenants of an ideology, (should the two ever clash) it is the facts that are sacrificed to that "body of thought". We see this in any religion. We see it in ideology and we see it in the ideology of Objectivism. "

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance", writes Eric Hofer, author of The True Believer and the same can be said for secular ideologies as well.

Ideology leads to hatred. You hate people who don't share your ideology. You regard them as evil, and therefore worthy to be crushed or else you regard them as "lost" and therefore they must be "saved"--even if it calls for crushing them. We see schisms, demigod wannabes, divisions, dogmatism. We see this in any "system of thought" and it is rampant in Objectivism. I now truly believe it is an inherent problem. And it is beyond me why a so-called "independent thinkers" would wish to ascribe to himself the term 'Objectivist' --a system of thought founded by someone else, namely Ayn Rand. Irony abounds.

Further more, I don't care how sweet or "wise" the dictums of any given ideology may sound in the abstract when read from the page or spoken from the pulpit, any creed that purports to hold 'the truth' in black and white terms, handed out like an Oscar style envelope promising "the Promised land" or a "brighter future" or "salvation" the "unknown ideal of capitalism" or any other crackpot utopia ideal---leads inevitably to bloodshed, to the division of mankind, to power struggles to dogmatism to corruption.

The face of power politics does not change when it comes to ideology---any ideology. I think the "empirical evidence" bears me out. All of history shows this social and intellectual corruption, the corruption of pledging intellectual allegiance to the tenants of the founders of philosophies and ideologies.

As Eric Hofer said, "The savior who wants to turn men into angels is as much a hater of human nature as the totalitarian despot who wants to turn them into puppets."

Consider what Bertrand Russell has to say in regards to this issue:

"There is nothing accidental about this difference between a church and its founder. As soon as absolute truth is supposed to be contained in the sayings of a certain man, there is a body of experts to interpret his sayings, and these experts infallibly acquire power, since they hold the key to truth. Like any other privileged caste, they use their power for their own advantage. They are, however, in one respect worse than any other privileged caste, since it is their business to expound an unchanging truth, revealed once for all in utter perfection, so that they become necessarily opponents of all intellectual and moral progress. "

Yes, I am indebted to Rand, but I am also indebted to other thinkers. I also have only myself to thank for my own "system of thought". I am not going to give all the credit to Rand by calling myself an "Objectivist." I'm not. Rand was an Objectivist. I'm me. I am a cult of one. I think it is pretty damn independent of me, but I am not going to give a name or some 'ism.'

***