[Rinku]

It just strikes me that any form of 'mass worship' is collectivist. This includes not only churches but also things like sports gatherings, and those teenage night club things where everyone pushes into eachother. The Objectivist equivalent of a church would have to be the polar opposite of what most churches are like in many respects. The Stoddard Temple was kind of a start -- the very building would need to be different, to make people seem larger and not humble. In Ancient Greece, they had temples for specific gods, where that god alone was worshiped. Could we not do the same thing, for very creative people -- temples where particular historical heroes are honored? We already have something like that with the Abraham Lincoln memorial, that giant statue of him sitting in a chair. Anyway, I think a better idea would be for each person to construct a temple for themselves -- a room where they have all their greatest achievements and creations, etc., a place where they could dwell on and worship themselves. If collectivist religions requires worship of one god, wouldn't it make sense that an 'individualist religion' would require worship of one god per person?

[AutoJC]

GreedyCapitalist, on Aug 6 2003, 11:17 PM, said:

[*]This need must be fulfilled in some way, and I think inevitably, there will be some sort of a Church, where groups of individuals will regularly congregate to reaffirm their values, and receive regular lectures on abstract issues and their application to their life.

[/LIST]
So here’s what I mean by a “church”: “A formally organized body of individuals who share some creed and meet on a regular basis to re-affirm their values and concretize abstract principles into practical guidance for their lives.”


........So that’s my idea.  I think even Objectivists today would benefit from – and in fact need a forum whether they interact with like-minded individuals for social, spiritual, and practical reasons.  You don’t have to call it a church – it could be called a temple or a lyceum, but the function of the institution is needed in any society.

I think such a forum can be more easily handled by "clubs" or "societies".

Churches and temples are too "spiritual."

[Areactor]

Eh, I say we all put some money in a pot, buy a couple of lots and move into it. Call the town Objectiva.

On a serious note, I wouldn't mind an Objectivist center where we could all commune daily for learning and expressing ourselves. I honestly believe that the Objectivist community and it's impact on the rest of society could be stronger if such places existed.

I'm just disturbed by the thought that it could be recieved by the public as a religion or worse, it becomes this Quasi-Objectivist Dogmatic "church" in the future.

[Richard_Halley]

What you are discussing already exists in some places--universities as well as some major urban areas--they call them Objectivsit Clubs. Ok, so they don't meet daily, but they don't really need to.

[Areactor]

Richard_Halley, on Apr 3 2004, 05:17 PM, said:

What you are discussing already exists in some places--universities as well as some major urban areas--they call them Objectivsit Clubs.  Ok, so they don't meet daily, but they don't really need to.

Do they need to? Nope. But whats wrong with wanting to? Social contact has great positive impact unless your Mr. Roark.

[GreedyCapitalist]

After some further thought, I’ve changed my mind on the matter. In a rational society, the notion of a “church” as a place to study philosophy is useless – one would be exposed to philosophy on a daily basis, and have a chance to study it from traditional sources like schools and books. What everyone does need however, is a means to “recharge” his soul by reaffirming his values. (Analyzing this idea is why I started this thread.) The means by which he does this may be different for every individual. It also varies in how explicit it is -- from discussing philosophy, to looking at heroic art, to listening to music. The only essential ingredient is a break from routine that provides an opportunity to take a long-range perspective on one's life and values.

I don’t think any Objectivist communities or centers are necessary (at the local level in a free society, at least) because the philosophy we hold in common does not imply a particular lifestyle (that is, particular vocations, and interests) or require much infrastructure to support the interaction (with the exception of schools.) Furthermore, “Objectivist clubs” in a rational society would be equally superfluous for much the same reasons.

[y_feldblum]

"Objectivist clubs/church" in an Objectivist society does indeed resemble the notion of "classes" in a university society.

[Young]

Which is a much more pleasing concept than what many churches typically amount to- being harangued for 45 minutes by a man who spouts unanswered questions in a rhetorical manner from a pulpit.

"Church" seems like it would indeed stain the name of a place of rational discourse.

[BlackSabbath]

I'd call it an Objectivist club or an Objectivist conference.

I'd avoid all possible confusion with religion.

[AutoJC]

BlackSabbath, on Apr 4 2004, 01:14 PM, said:

I'd call it an Objectivist club or an Objectivist conference.

I'd avoid all possible confusion with religion.

Agreed.

[Young]

This is all hypothetical and not strictly necessary, within an ideal society the rational discussion could not possibly be restricted to a single location, rather you would have a hard time deciding places where rational discussion should not continue, say the bathroom, because of the unwritten rule that no speech goes on between men at urinals.

[Selfish]

My .02 cents- If Roark's temple had really existed, i'd go there as often as life allowed. What a wonderful idea, a place to worship the glory of man.

[AshRyan]

Selfish, on Aug 8 2004, 07:46 PM, said:

My .02 cents- If Roark's temple had really existed, i'd go there as often as life allowed. What a wonderful idea, a place to worship the glory of man.

Amen!

[AwakeAndFree]

David, some questions about your "Objectivist Church":

1. For the purpose of concretizing ideas, counseling on specific issues, or expanding the knowledge of the abstract principles - we can have art, psychologists and councilors, and night classes/college courses/taped lectures/online courses. Why does this have to be a collective meeting like a church?

2. Why does an intimate gathering of people who share the same premises have to be run by an organization, and not, say, by some private host - like the Salons of the Enlightenment?

3. What does marriage, and other functions have to do with it? Today an Objectivist can get a license to marry couples, and arrange a ceremony - but why does it have to be in a church, with strangers?


I think every human need that the church provided for is also dealt with, more efficiently and honestly, in secular culture: we have art, we have many educational facilities, we have coaches, councilors, psychologists, there are many "inspiration seminars" which are not religious in nature. In a culture ruled by reason and Objectivism, these institutions would perform like they are supposed to - and churches will be obsolete.

[Charles]

Quote

GreedyCapitalist "Let me first make a distinction about the nature of studying philosophy to explain my view. There are two ways to study philosophy, which I will call “philosophy qua philosophy” and “philosophy qua life”."

Quote

RationalEgoistSG: "David, I have to disagree with your conclusions about education in the future. Assuming that we would live in a society in which the education system was completely private, I believe that the average person's education would be GREATLY increased. "

One thing seems certain: The role of such a church (I prefer lyceum) would differ if the education system was private as compared to state.

The posts so far have talked hypothetically of what such an institutions function would be in a rational/privatized society. I propose it be considered in terms of state education; society as it is today.

Moving on from David's initially use of the word Church, which, as he indicated, served only to stir some discussion on the boards, and replacing it with lyceum, I see several possibilities for such a body:

1) It could presumably take on a more educational role; introducing, in many cases, new sets of values to people. This role seems to be filled by ARI, only this expansion would include actual resource/educational centers.

2) It could act as a forum for the application of the values, and a place of sanctuary, both aesthetically and intellectually, for people of reason.

3) Same as 2), only the forum also devises campaigns for spreading its philosophy and...

4) possibly acts as an opportunity for like minded people to start business ventures/socialize.

I personally like the idea of the sanctuary, a stoddart temple with works and lectuers of great philosohers, great works of art (Tamara De Lempicka anyone?)
and music.

Asa vestige of the old I dont think marriage/funerals would be suited: the idea of the formal ceremony in the xtian sense seems too archaic to me: and more to the point the type of individual making use of such a facility would presumably have the friends/imagination to celebrate any partnerships/passings in a sufficient manner.

Given a purpose, a whole other topic for consideration is the architectire/format for such a place.

Incidently, David, good poster.

[fifi]

My experience with the few objectivists clubs I've been to has been mixed. There are a few people whom I have "hit it off" with. Then, there are many who are walking around with "philosophical radars". They hang about quietly until they hear something evil.

The only way I have maintained the freindships that were started in such clubs was to grow those friendships outside the club.

[Prae]

Quote

Do they need to? Nope. But whats wrong with wanting to? Social contact has great positive impact unless your Mr. Roark.

that was always what i liked about Roark

[BreathofLife]

GreedyCapitalist, on Aug 7 2003, 12:56 AM, said:

Daniel,


The question then is -- where DO they get their philosophy? 

I think this is part of what a proper parent should be teaching their child. The necessary philosophical premises and use of reason condusive to living their lives and why.

In response to the original idea: I think in a rational society it wouldn't really be necessary nor really serve any purpose that isn't fulfilled by someone else other than that of a social function of rational people.

[WorthyLoverOfExistence]

I came across a little book written by George Santayana in the early 1900's called _Reason in Religion_. After reading that book, I'm convinced that religion can and ought to be an objective value in man's life. The problem is that today, supernaturalism and mysticism have permeated religion so completely, that those who seek to remove it are viciously attacked (for example: retired Bishop Jack Spong, who partially advocates this kind of improvement, has received 16 death threats - all from fundamentalist religionists; none, he notes, from atheists, agnostics, or humanists).

Santayana presents religion as practiced by the ancient Greeks as an example of it's rational use. The Greeks used "God" and "the Gods" as allegorical, poetic devices to refer to various aspects of reality in a way that can both bring greater efficiency of language, and also a sense of beauty and art to what would otherwise be dry, abstract discourse.

I think there are actually many church-goers who realize that religious teaching is essentially symbolic and representational and is most valuable when not taken literally. These are usually the older ones, who live quiet, happy lives, and who derive real personal value from their religion. I'd call them the rational religionists. I think they realize at some level that the true value religion provides is what Rand identifies as the epistemological value of art: the concretization of wide metaphysical abstractions that we need to have immediately available for day-to-day life, but are too broad to be effectively captured and contained in manageable prose. The rational religionist gets from his image of Jesus what an Objectivist gets from his image of John Galt.

The problem is, if any of these church-goers were to say "but it doesn't matter whether Jesus actually rose from the dead; in fact, it's absurd to think that He did. What matters is that the story inspires us to keep struggling through life's difficulties, and to maintain a measure of hope for the future", that church-goer would be viciously denounced as a blasphemer and un-believer. A couple experiences like this, and the rational religionist learns to keep his views to himself.

I don't think Objectivists need a new church. I think Objectivists (who have any inclination to do so) should infiltrate the churches they abandonded and, strengthened by their knowledge of Objectivism, help provide a voice for the rational religionists. Its taken centuries to develop some of these great and beautiful traditions, and it's a crime to leave them in the hands of irrationalists who demand the surrender of one's intellectual sovereignty as payment for admission.

I think it's time we took them back.

Quote

"A little philosophy inclineth men's minds to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Francis Bacon