Customer Reviews

Fellowship of Reason: A Moral Community for the 21st Century

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The hijacking of reason

"We believe each individual's purpose and success in life are derived from, and ultimately determined by, the individual - not a supernatural authority."
--M. Cowen
M.
Reason is the faculty that enables us to draw conclusions from premises or assumptions. The motor of this process is called `explanation'. To be reasonable, then, is to justify one's beliefs by laying out the how's and why's of their arrival.

For example, if I assume that the Biblical description of creation is accurate, I can reasonably declare that the Grand Canyon was formed only during the three-thousand year time frame of Biblical narrative. If affluent individuals see themselves as the ethical center of their own world, one might reasonably expect them to invent an ideology of individualism.

This belief system coheres to the premise that an educated, linguistically sophisticated subject exists independently of the society that educated him/her into a lucrative trade. Moreover, it would seem irrelevant to these `individualists' that he/she were instructed through twelve years of schooling to become proficient in the national language.

So contrary to the water-fountain sarcasms of geologists, sociologists and philosophers, Creationists and Objectivists are just as `reasonable as the rest of us. Indeed, Randism is philosophy -gone- retarded, but what's lacking is something different--a reality check.

This is because the art of thinking is just as much about content as the formal properties of reason. What we consider as either `facts' or `meaningful assumptions' dictate what is reasoned out. People who do not wade in the same factual pool, or who do not share common assumptions, will as violently disagree as those who correct each other by remarks such as, "You're not being logical, therefore you're unreasonable". In other words, being totally ignorant of Real World things and events does not preclude one's impeccable reasoning out of flufferies that exist only in their own minds,

I also strongly disagree with Mr Cowen's citation, as quoted as an introduction to my text. He states his belief is that one's purpose and success is an individual event. But as no serious philosophy would totally discount social forces and birth status when describing life's chances and opportunities, no one should look to Mr Cowen for self-help advice.

Moreover, his textual counter-positioning of "individual" with "supernatural" wrongly suggests that those who choose to remain believers are somehow less an individual than he. In this particular, too, our author simply chooses to ignore the fact that are we not only socialized into religion from childhood, but also out of it as well, as adults.
So, thematically speaking, we see a tendency here, yes? The heroic, self-described `individualist' stands proudly, atheistically, above the cowering, believing sheep. John Galt is me!

That he--as well as I-- became atheist is not to say that we chose that path as `individuals'. Social forces to a great extent determine both the content of religion and the availability of choices we make to enhance our personal lives. Therefore, this rejection of the social makes any advice that he might offer others to be utterly useless.

Yet, in principle, to speak of a `fellowship of reason' isn't a bad idea. Whatever is discussed must follow the dictates of logic when offering up a conclusion. Bunkering down is not permitted. One must justify one's beliefs by explanation.

On alternate days, then, perhaps FOR might discuss Creationism and Natural Selection, or Objectivism and Bergson. The rules of reason would be the only guideline to discursive permissiveness, and FOR is a value- neutral referee of logic and good manners.

But this clearly isn't the case. Despite it's felicitous name (who can resist `fellowship' and `reason'!) Mr Cowen's group is nothing more than Randism with a human face; his book advertises accordingly. The same might, of course, be said of his presumed antagonist-critic, Mr Seltzer, in having reversed the moniker into "Reason's Fellowship".

Here, I must admit that Mr Seltzer has a point in his rather stinging rebuke of FOR. Even as despicable as it might be, the genre of Objectivism that Mr Seltzer espouses is open, clear, and honest. There is no bait and switch. Somewhat akin to Marx's Manifesto, Seltzer hides nothing.

On his own site, anti-objectivists are not permitted. Those unfortunate few who claim adherence in ways unbecoming are accordingly treated like chickens (are clucking sounds somehow a Germanic insult?). Seltzer seems all about the purification of the new master race...

Now all of these measures are clearly important in order to maintain group cohesion. Otherwise, the young and the restless might pollute the minds of older members with interesting facts and concepts taken from college courses such as Philosophy, Sociology, and Economics. As well, those exposed to The Virus of Knowledge might have also accidentally caught a word or two spoken at the aforementioned water-fountain or -perish the thought!--have been told in a more direct way that Objectivism just isn't college-level material.

Now it's been revealed to me that, as of late, Mr Cowen has turned from Objectivism into a garden variety Libertarian. This, in turn, seems to have caused a split within the ranks of FOR. I'm amused. Yet the citation remains on the FOR masthead as a statement of purpose, and what was once a thriving chat-room at the time of publication has been closed down. So will Mr Cowen repudiate his citation, or rather, are we simply dealing with a new level of deceit in order to attract membership that would otherwise be turned off by full-monty Randism?

In any case, it would seem that Mr Cowen has learned a valuable lesson from Mr Seltzer that open debate on a chat room is a very bad idea. Members have non-member friends that would want to speak their minds, and perhaps even challenge a dogma or two.

In this sense, heterodoxy can be labeled `abusive' for only so long before members start to talk, and to think for themselves. This ostensibly includes the use of simple words, such as, for example, `racism'.

Moreover, speech which challenges received wisdom is somewhat akin to playing rhetorical football, while the assumed rules are those of basketball.
What's considered foul play is more or less circumscribed by the working assumptions of the group, and the comparative status of members therein.

So let's not forget the double standard which would permit Seltzer's hen-clucking and Cowen's demeaning of `Liberals', or even a rather dim-witted acolyte's employ of psychobabble to demean an outsider. Such is the nature of cultism; perhaps the former is simply jealous of the latter's success.

Lastly, it's obvious that Mr Cowen's use of `Reason' implies that only his particular beliefs are `reasonable'. As a peculiarity of the southern dialect, the term is employed as a cheep cover-up for one's inability to defend an indefensible idea or belief. Just say it's `reasonable.'..or else we have a failure to communicate.

Readers or Orwell will likewise recognize this linguistic inversion as the essence of fascism. Reason means discussing, debating, and accepting disagreement--not uttering declarations from a position of power. Sir Martin refuses dialogue because he can't openly compete in the marketplace of ideas. Cool Aide, anyone?

Bill Harris

This book is an eye-opener. It's okay to want the affirming aspects of "church culture" by consciously celebrating the good things about life from a rational point of view. The Fellowship of Reason will inspire you to live a "pro" life; i.e. pro-happiness, pro-success, pro-friends, pro-excellence; and to drop the "anti" obsession that taints so many atheist groups; i.e. anti-God, anti-religion, anti-believer. The Fellowship of Reason doesn't have time to be "anti".

I don't ordinarily like self-help books: this one is different.
Most self-help books amount to little more than a simple series of thematically related formulas designed to address such human problems as how to get more confidence, how to find a better job, how to marry the right person, how to bring up successful children...Cowen offers advice in these areas and more, but the main focus of his work is to reach, for the reader, the often unvoiced philosophical angst that hovers behind the seeming inability to put it all together and then do something about it!

In a clear, well-plotted ten chapters, Cowen divides the psyche into its public and its private spheres. He talks about what it is "to be" and how to develop a public self that is consistent with the private self. He suggests exercises to discover the authentic self and more exercises to help the authentic self emerge.

The theme of the book is to 1)know who you are and 2)become who you are. Cowen demonstrates that the willingness to introspect truthfully coupled with the confidence to act on the self's unmistakeable clues about what it yearns to be, leads to a life of fulfilled contentment. In case the reader is already derailed, there are exercises to get back on track by acknowledging previous mistakes and correcting them in order to get " past the past ".

Since 1988, I have studied and practiced Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. This book's author draws heavily on that philosophy to advance a modern version of Eudaimonism, an ancient Greek philosophy of human flourishing. I read this book years ago and found it intriguing enough to pursue opening a local chapter of the Fellowship of Reason® (FOR®) in my area. To my dismay, I learned that most of the Executive Board of FOR® did not subscribe to Objectivism and in fact several showed outright hostility to it.

I judge ideas based not just on whether they "sound good" on paper, but also on the "good" or "bad" results they produce. The core ethics of Objectivism -- reason, purpose, self-esteem -- remain sound and fully life enhancing in theory and practice based on my observations. The attempt in this book to graft moral tolerance, mythology, and other foggy notions outside the tightly integrated, reality oriented ideas of Objectivism has produced the messy, life diminishing kludge known as FOR®.

I quit my long distance membership in FOR® after learning of these shortcomings. To their credit, the FOR® leaders have decided to do an intensive study via surveys of current and former members to improve the organization. Do a Google search for my online article "Learning Lessons from the Fellowship of Reason" to read my complete, detailed responses to that survey.

For the real deal, get OBJECTIVISM: THE PHILOSOPHY OF AYN RAND by Leonard Peikoff.

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (The Ayn Rand Library, Volume 6)

I borrowed this book from a friend who belongs to the Fellowship of Reason Club. I like it so much I am going to buy a copy for myself. The author stresses the importance of friendship in becoming a happy person. You learn how to find the kind of friends and how to be the kind of friend you want to have for yourself.

I won't join the Fellowship of Reason Club because I practice my religion and am happy in my own church group. For people who don't belong to a church, this book tells you how get people involved with each other except there is no creed to sign on to.
Members are encouraged to talk about any subject and express even outrageous opinions as part of the testing process to see
how well the ideas stack up under the criticism of friends the members trust.

This book takes up where other moral communities leave off, ethics based upon common sense. Teach your children how to think for themselves and decide for themselves, as they become adults that a life based upon ethics is the decision that best serves their own purposes. Brilliant job Martin!

This truly is a great starting point. The next step is to apply these practices, and that takes support and a deeper level of trust than previously experienced. Trust for ones own ability to choose and trust for those that you choose to spend your valuable time with. Just as the Wedding ceremony is designed to ask your friends and family to support the union and help keep it thriving.

Forming a F.O.R. chapter in your area delivers just such a product. Beware! Forming relationships that are based on self-introspection can be harmful to ones own pretenses! To ask your chosen friends to be honest with you about how you act and live is quite uncomfortable, but requires the true adult to step up to the plate with compassion and a deliberate focus on the desired goals, which in this case is living consciously and morally, by ones own ability to know what that really means. Not just blindly and coercively accepting and teaching other peoples premises about reality. This I believe to be the true fault of current moral teachings. And the root cause of blind followers who kill for the leaders personal agendas. Also on a smaller level, but just as important; deciding for ones self not to fall back into old habits that cause things like the seemingly secure act of judging others as a priority over the uncomfortable act of judging oneself, this is quite the heroic adventure!

Martin Cowen III has put together a great recipe book and is actually walking the talk here in Atlanta. Not without his share of pushing his own and each of our own comfort zones! Nothing could come of this except new experiences and the collective evolution of our thinking as human beings. I can't wait to hopefully read his next evolved work, based on his real adventures in ethics and this vitreous art form in which he has decided to practice and as a gift, put into print for our contemplation.