Is a quick spread for Objectivism possible?
Tdechaine made a very interesting comment that he thought that Objectivism could spread quite quickly if the differences between it and libertarianism became widely known. dbhalling made a comment listing some prominent Objectivists and some prominent libertarians (followers of Hume's philosophy). While both made excellent points, I have doubts as to whether Objectivism could ever spread quickly. AR was quite rigid about those who espoused her philosophy. She took an "all-or-nothing" approach. The notable disputes between Rand and Nathaniel Branden, and between David Kelley and the Ayn Rand Institute suggest that a quick spread of Objectivism would be challenging. For the record, I agree with most, but not all, of Objectivism, most notably some of Rand's definitions (particularly life (as opposed to conscious human life), as discussed in a recent thread). Is a quick spread for Objectivism possible, or would such a movement splinter? Would Rand even want Objectivism to "become popular"?
I am probably going to surprise some people with this next statement, but one argument against Christianity is its splintering into so many sects.
I am probably going to surprise some people with this next statement, but one argument against Christianity is its splintering into so many sects.
1) Show the connections between Locke, the founding of the US, the Enlightenment and Objectivism. I think Rand does herself a disservice when she detaches herself from the historical traditions from which objectivism is derived.
2) The idea of closed objectivism needs to die an immediate death.
From the Ayn Rand Letter Vol. III, No. 5 December 3, 1973, "America's Philosophic Origin", by Leonard Peikoff:
"[T]he United States is the nation of the Enlightenment. The progression of European thought from Aquinas through Locke and Newton, represents more than four hundred years of stumbling, tortuous, prodigious effort to secularize the Western mind, i.e., to liberate man from the medieval shackles. It was the build-up toward a climax: the eighteenth century, the Age of Enlightenment. For the first time in modern history, an authentic respect for reason became the mark of an entire culture; the trend that had been implicit in the centuries-long crusade of a handful of innovators, now swept the West explicitly, reaching and inspiring educated men in every field. Reason, for so long the wave of the future, had become the animating force of the present. For the first time since the high point of classical civilization, thinkers regarded the acceptance of reason as uncontroversial. They regarded the exercise of man's intellect not as a sin to be proscribed, or as a handmaiden to be tolerated, or even as a breath-taking discovery to be treated gingerly—but as virtue, as the norm, the to-be-expected ...."
"Aristotle provided the foundation, but he did not know how to implement it politically. In the modern world—under the influence of the pervasive new spirit—a succession of thinkers developed a new conception of the nature of government. The most important of these men, the one with the greatest direct influence on America, was John Locke. The political philosophy Locke bequeathed to the Founding Fathers was the social implementation of the regnant Aristotelianism; it became the base of the new nation's distinctive institutions."...
But -- "John Locke—widely regarded during the Enlightenment as Europe's leading philosopher, taken as the definitive spokesman for reason and the new science—is a representative case in point. The philosophy of this spokesman is a contradictory mixture, part Aristotelian, part Christian, part Cartesian, part skeptic—in short, an eclectic shambles all but openly inviting any Berkeley or Hume in the vicinity to rip it into shreds...."
For more on Ayn Rand's philosophy versus Locke's see her comments in the section on "Axiomatic Concepts" in the appendix on the epistemology workshops in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and Leonard Peikoff's lecture on Locke in his 1970s course on the History of Western Philosophy.
Rand's position was:
"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."
Ayn Rand Lexicon
Do you see a way around their divergent positions?
Enlightenment philosophy had its share of contradictions and unsolved philosophical problems, a major one being the lack of a moral philosophy challenging human sacrifice, leaving the American egoism of a moral right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of one's own happiness without adequate intellectual defense. Counter-Enlightenment philosophers like Compte and Kant cashed in on that in the name of "science".
The answer isn't to find a "way around a divergence" with Locke, but to identify what is correct. See Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels for a historical and philosophical explanation of the role of philosophical ideas influencing the founding of this country compared with their opposite in the rise of statism, and how the growth of the wrong ideas in America is undermining and destroying our individualism and freedom.
Compare that with Hume and the Austrian's position on property rights.
Ayn Rand's so-called "all or nothing approach" regarding her philosophy recognizes that it is an integrated, systematic approach that does not allow for contradictions with its basic principles. Understanding the content and methodology requires time and effort and has nothing to do with side shows of betrayals of personal integrity or malcontents engaging in feuds. To even ask the question, 'would Ayn Rand have wanted her philosophy to become popular?' reveals a lack of understanding of her goals and views on the necessity of changing the philosophy of a culture before it can be changed in practice, which can only be done by understanding the principles and how to apply them, one mind at a time without contradictions and misrepresentations.
What author would not want her books to sell, so that she can maximize profit and influence?
I agree completely on the necessity of changing the philosophy of a culture before it can be changed in practice. Thus, Objectivism cannot be "spread quickly". Your points are correct in every way. You need not have taken such umbrage.
As for the timing, there are many who don't understand why it can't spread quickly and that isn't new. Even Ayn Rand was disappointed when Atlas Shrugged didn't initially have more of an impact, but she did know what would be required.
Having read Atlas in 1963, and having quickly become a "true believer" along with most other young "Objectivists," it is my judgment, after 52 years of living my life with a reverence for Rand's ideas, that the seeming political impotence of Rand's philosophy - at least as it might have impacted politics, is self-evident. However, that is now significantly changing.
My advice to all is to stop "leading" with our mouths, and instead, lead with your life! An example is worth a million words.
Oh yeah, and get off politics and into morality - without the condescending moralizing. Politics, after all, is simply the manifestation of morality.
The Source of Economic Growth by Dale B. Halling.
I would recommend that you PM dbhalling for more details.
http://www.amazon.com/Dale-B.-Halling...
“ . . . we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.”
Libertarians support property rights, but some (myself included) disagree with Halling and others about what constitutes a valid property right.
There’s a big difference between “abandoning principles” and recognizing that there are legitimate differences of opinion regarding the proper application of such principles.
Yes, the social issues are popular and fit better into a PC world and draw some Anarchos and Liberals to the movement, but really don't have that much effect on liberty and getting government out of our lives. Does the party or the movement have any other interesting up and coming possibilities for next year's elections other than the maybe's about Rand Paul? If so, I haven't heard of them? Where do they see possibilities--states, cities, Congress?
On the other, a coherent and all-encompassing philosophy as Objectivism is, covers much wider scope, including everything that individuals encounter and experience throughout their adult life. The key is that one has to have cognitive ability to recognize self and learn to trust Reason as the ultimate arbiter of all identifications, conceptual relationships, evaluations and decisions. Observe that libertarianism has virtually nothing to say on metaphysics, epistemology or esthetics. I did not include ethics because one could argue that their ideas on private property, free markets and social liberty imply some ethical valuations.
A philosophy is a guide to good life, all of human life, as ancient Greeks explicitly stated and thoroughly explained. I would argue that ancient Egyptians started on that road a couple of thousands of years earlier.
Political ideology is a guide to good government. That is an enormously narrower field of focus.
Regardless of how self-identified libertarians believe, there is a philosophy behind the movement that was not just meant to be political. That it is only political is just a reality.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is understood or not, not 'accepted' as a competing dogma on a chinese menu. American culture is not predominantly Christian, it is the opposite of the ascetic and mystic sense of life of Christianity from its beginnings. Americans mostly pay lip serve to traditional, contradictory dogmas they don't understand. Those seeking understanding can understand Ayn Rand to the extent they try.
Where is the rest? ;-)
I don't know why there is white space before it.
Have fun! Some of the inputs here would benefit greatly from more careful thinking before flying out.
The size of the population that is Objectivist depends on the number of people who understand it, not a deterministic pronouncement that religion must always dominate. Christian dogma in particular has been on the decline in influence for centuries.
Ayn Rand's philosophy already has an "effect" on people who are not Objectivists.
Atheism is precisely science. Science can easily assert uncontested that any god's existence is unproven. Science can similarly clearly assert that a considerable portion of the bible was made up by men, long after the apostles, which wrote long after some guy supposedly known as Jesus died. Therefore, religion is at best a hypothesis, one of the few hypotheses people kill, die and seek to legislate for.
It is wholly unnecessary to demonstrate answers to all questions to question another's answers. The minute religion begins as a basis for an argument, action or legislation is the minute it must prove it is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. Atheism makes no such claim to direct behavior, except to question.
Not only are the axioms not mere "unprovable assumptions", she did not rationalistically deduce her philosophy from them as an arbitrary system of thought floating in the air.
Objectivism will never "prevail" among mentalities operating as verbal manipulation of floating abstractions, never realizing not to make pronouncements on ideas and principles they don't bother to try to understand. They don't think they have to as they proceed to "deduce" all they want from the floating abstractions and arbitrary assumptions in one big circular argument from ignorance.
In short, axiom is a self-evident truth. Careless use of the term has lead to much misunderstanding. There are other terms, such as "premise", "postulate" and "principle". But in my opinion, they contain subtle differences in meaning, which enables them to be useful and to serve similar functions in different contexts and logical structures. You added "assumptions" in your soup. In my opinion, there a vast difference in meaning between assumptions and axioms.
Without meticulous accuracy and precision (another pair of concepts widely misunderstood)of expression, a serious and fruitful discussion of subject such as philosophy and Objectivism becomes quickly futile.
To show off: quod erat demostrandum.
If you cannot understand these concepts, you do not belong here, I think. Can I ask you: what is your purpose in participating in the Gulch? Please, be honest in your answer.
http://barbarabranden.com/interview4....
Excommunication is something that popes do. Granted, Barbara Branden's excommunication was by Peikoff. It would not be a reach to say that Nathaniel Branden was excommunicated by AR.
I don't think we have met. Pleased to meet you, Tuner38.
I had read the interview and missed the Putinesque reference.
But this propaganda of connecting the word 'atheist' with 'Objectivist' entirely misses the point and sets off on a path of contradictions imposed by those of anti-reason and anti-life positions. All or even most Atheists are not Objectivists. Objectivists arrive at their atheism not as a belief or indoctrination, but through their own logical reasoning. They are pro-life, pro-reason, pro-logic, and pro-rational. Using the tools of their senses and mind, Objectivist arrive at the understanding that belief in a god or any supernatural or superstition derived explanation for the reality within which we live has no basis in fact. It's not real, therefor it can't possibly react with us and we can't interact with it and it can't give us immortality.
Next you use the words 'embrace' and 'accept'. Neither of those words are relevant to an Objectivist, they much more are religious concepts. We don't 'embrace' atheism, we reason to atheism as well as everything else we understand and know. We don't 'accept' Objectivism nor try to get others to 'accept' Objectivism. We learn to apply reason based on reality and logic to our lives and live with the answers derived.
A key question is will the looters become completely dominant before atheism takes root. Both are on the rise.
If Libertarians and Objectivists want to win young people over, freedom of thought and action need to be the call to action. Atheism is a great call to bring young people to fiscal responsibility and the ethical responsibility that comes from thought versus reliance on dogma.
One is the ivory tower philosophers wanting purity and acceptance of the philosophy as a confirmed Academic level topic, maybe even, the predominant subject of philosophy. I don't want to argue against that in any way. I support it, but that is a long way off.
But the second, of which I count myself, are livers of Objectivism that would wish for a broader dissemination of the essence, practicalities, morals, liberty, and rights -- a way of living and looking at the world around us that can be accepted and made useful, even without the levels of education I see in most of the members of The Gulch.
But we, both camps, certainly face a steep hill. Socialists, statists, progressives, and conservatives (both ultra-right religionists and the every day common) have erected significant barriers both in academia, psychology, sociology, education, politics, finances, just about every aspect of everyday human life. And right now, libertarians certainly are not helping us as they work to accept ever broader spectrums of political thought under their umbrella. Liberals are slavering at their gates and even gaining inroads in some areas. The anarchists and agonists are having their own degree of sway.
The Progressive favors pragmatism, in which philosophy is held to be unnecessary. The only criterion is "stuff that works." Hence any competing philosophy that comes along can be dismissed as unworkable or impractical. Even the study of philosophy is put forth as having no relation to reality.
Islam simply prescribes death for apostates and unbelievers. Unbelievers who are permitted to live are marginalized and are never part of the power structure.
Objectivists have difficulty selling against faith and force. The battle is fought one mind at a time, while the enemy ropes in whole populations. "You are in the XYZ group. Here is how you behave, vote and think." Or in earlier times, "The King of Norway has converted to Christianity. You are now all Christians."
One mind at a time. It does work. Proof: Why do we find Rand and her ideas so hated?
It is no coincidence that the rise of progressive (leftist, socialist, liberal - take you pick) ideology coincided with the installation of the most radical statist ideology ever, the Lenin's communism in Russia. The are ALL Marx's children. Is it not obvious? Do you know how many "intellectuals" in this country and elsewhere admired Stalin's regime all the way until well into the Cold War? When they could not admire it openly any more, they tweaked some wording changed the name of their dogma and continued worshiping on the same altars.
"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause." - Princess Padome from Star Wars III
http://www.ask.com/youtube?q=Padome+a...
The unfortunate aspect is while her books are popular, the novels her other books such as "Philosophy who needs it" do not sell near as well so those who have read AS or TFH do not expose themselves to the nuts and bolts of Objectivism. Or do they buy Leonard Peikoff's book "OBJECTIVISM; the philosophy of AR". But it does get worse and that is we have a dumb down population so quickly spreading Objectivism is just not in the cards.
In this I think Ayn Rand erred. I feel she thought the Libertarians co opted her movement, and therefore, derided them.
Both Objectivism and Libertarianism favor freedom and responsibility going hand in hand. this is such a simple concept, that should sell with young people, but it doesn't, because no one put freedom into the same thought as responsibility and vice versa.
How about we write a video game where success is offered by maximizing the use of freedoms, but one is fully responsible for failures?
With that bit of negativity out of the way. As a high school teacher I am doing everything in my power to spread Objectivism. I will say that I often feel like Sisyphus pushing against the giant rock that is the Entitlement mentality.
Just my ideas.
Makes me think of this old story: http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-cons...
Thing is I doubt that people will be so easily cut off from what they wrongly believe that they are entitled too.
I learned by painful experience in my entrepreneurial career that I will rarely succeed at selling something to somebody for the reasons the I think it is a good idea.
So far we have done a great job of selling Objectivism to ourselves and people already like us, but we have saturated that market. Spending more resources aiming the same sorts of activities at the same sorts of people and organizations is yielding rapidly diminishing returns, which in turn is yielding rapidly diminishing resources.
What if we were to use Objectivist concepts to create practical tools and methodologies in business improvement and personal development (two already massive and still exploding industries) that would enable people to better achieve what they currently already want - better happier more fulfilling lives and relationships and more productive, higher performing more profitable businesses and careers?
I call this "Stealth Objectivism", and I have been doing it for 15 years in my executive and enterprise coaching work. Minus the nomenclature, people remain open minded to concepts they might otherwise resist or reject (in the form of Objectivism), and in trying the tools and achieving the results they value, their thinking begins to evolve and their worldview begins to transform - without them realizing it except in retrospect.
The icing on the cake is that people and business would be actually paying us for the services and products we create (perhaps, quite lucratively)!
My talk at the Atlas Summit addresses this both directly and indirectly, as well as presents a tool such as ones of which I speak.
Rand and objectivism are more likely to add to the world positively
than those who are not. . whether they align with her views or stay
partly "stuck" in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, whatever -- her influence
is more likely to be good than bad, if sincerely and accurately presented.
soooooo, I work to present it accurately, often -- like giving away AS movies!!! -- j
.
Thus a self described "dependent" society. They don't believe the can survive in a rational world. They need help!
The problem, as I see it, is in the levels and depths of understanding among the individuals. Do not forget: the statists "hate" and "defame" Objectivists just as much as we return that favor to them.
I do not see much effort to organize Objectivist philosophy essential tenets into something that a below average IQ individual can begin to understand and adopt. In our culture, now, intellectuals are mostly denigrated.
I've become a diligent student of societal and organizational change, innovation, and marketing (after feeling too frustrated and stuck in my technical career). There are some great lessons from authors like Dan & Chip Heath, Malcolm Gladwell, and Seth Godin. One intro here: http://buildingabrandonline.com/engin...
One nugget I would leave is that each of us has the opportunity (responsibility?) to be an ambassador and champion for the cause. How many people are inspired and motivated to learn about or adopt Objectivism because they know and interact with you?
Load more comments...