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.
Previous comments...
The Ayn Rand Institute has been focusing largely on applications of Objectivism. This may be an okay strategy for helping people who are already sympathetic to Rand through her novels, but just need a little boost to take the ideas seriously. But I don't think it's a good strategy for advocacy more generally.
This is part of the reason I started my blog, Objectivism for Intellectuals: https://objectivismforintellectuals.w... I think it does something to fill the gap I see. (Ayn Rand wrote wonderful essays on Objectivism, but she leaves many things unexplained that I think need to be spelled out and explained in today's culture.)
I think ARI is moving in the right direction with ARI Campus, but I still think even more free, accessible argument for the principles is needed.
ARI's writing and speaking on "applications" is necessary to show how Ayn Rand's ideas are related to current events and controversies. Few people are inclined to look into a philosophy without that.
What did you find that Ayn Rand left unexplained? There is always more to explore and learn, but she formulated a comprehensive philosophy, recently discussed here along with the published sources at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
It was an enormous breakthrough when Leonard Peikoff allowed, beginning several years ago, his several lecture series to be sold very inexpensively at the ARI e-store https://estore.aynrand.org/ along with many books, including his own OPAR -- in addition to the more recent no-cost ARI Campus http://campus.aynrand.org/. The comprehensive, radical new ideas, including an entire way of thinking, is crucial for more people to understand.
Ergo: we need a block-buster novel with mass appeal (sex, as we know, has quite an appeal) interwoven with a carefully described reasons why the heroes are heroes because they are Objectivists. The movies, unfortunately, did not achieve that. "Atlas Shrugged" is a novel. I feel sorrow for anyone that tried to make a screenplay from it.
One-day-at-a-time (or one-step-at-a-time) is how growth and change happen.
Ayn (bless her heart) was SO advanced of a human being that she couldn't wait for the populace to catch up with her ideas.
She thought of people as being ...well... A-1 or A-0.
In many ways she was (and is) truly remarkable in her ability to cut between soul and spirit. She had no apparent patience to abide evolution of thought for us who are mere mortals.
The mere fact that 30+ years after her death there are those of us who are catching up to her thoughts is a testimony to the mind of mere mortal man.
Rand's philosophy, I think I disagree with her on
some minor points; so I cannot swear that she
would consider me a true Objectivist. If the movie
of "Atlas Shrugged" had been more competently
done, it might inspire more people to read the
book, and that might help to spread it.
I think a time might come when most people
in the country will call themselves Objectivists,
and the quarrels and snobbery will be between
and among people who dispute about who and
who are not "true" Objectivists.
The other thing is that whenever you are trying to win "converts" you are selling something, so you have to be able to identify what exactly it is you are selling and how it is better than the alternatives. You also have to have people who are willing to do the selling and identify what will motivate them to proselyte the message. And I use the word proselyte intentionally. There are only a few philosophies who use a reasoned approach to spread the word of their sects without force and in enough volume to matter: the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. There are plenty who are willing to coerce, including socialists, fascists, Islam, and others, but I would look to the Mormons and the JW's if you want to find out how to effectively proselyte, as those are two of the fastest-growing philosophical movements in the world.
The other thing you are going to have to do is engage people at least weekly in thought discussions to keep them learning and interested. If this sounds a lot like setting up a "church", it probably is because that's been effective.
PS - I agree with you about the splintering of Christianity being its own worst enemy.
Are the Mormons and JW's really growing fast? That's surprising news to me.
Objectivism is a complex system of ideas and principles. Thus it has to spread as a movement, not a fad. To answer Jim's question, I think we need to ask, can a movement spread quickly? If so, how?
There's many excellent books and researchers on this topic. And we have historical examples to learn from ourselves. I gave a few authors below and we can identify more.
At this time, based on what I know, the movements I'm aware of that spread quickly did so because they riled up people with fear, hysteria, and hatred. So perhaps we don't want it to spread fast. As you said, we don't want sheeple.
I believe what we need to spread fast (and can achieve) is for those of us who share our values to connect, trade, and encourage each other as much as possible so that we can succeed and thrive as much as possible, as fast as possible, before the sheeple push us all over the cliff. That's why I'm here. :-) Who's with me?!
Leonard Peikoff's lecture courses in the 1970s on Objectivism and the way he related Objectivism to the history of Western philosophy are much better. These are still available, now for free packaged on the web or as inexpensive downloads, from ARI. This was the basis of Leonard Peikoff's more extensive book on Objectivism. They are very interesting and informative. This is the detailed non-fiction basis of any intellectual movement following Ayn Rand.
When he set up NBI, he hat the advantage of the newly published soft cover edition of Atlas into which he put a flyer advertising NBI. That format, was pretty much what I outlined and it was very successful. It only fell apart when the Rand/Branden relationship fell apart. Had that not happened, I think Objectivism might well be a national movement.+
I don't know anything about the speculations of bitterness, lap dogs and addictions, or the kinds of groups you were in, and I never knew the Brandens or attended their lectures. They were gone by the time I discovered any of this. I didn't have any reason or desire to try to befriend the people around Ayn Rand and had no reason to believe they would want to, especially since I was just starting out.
One problem was the insistence that people who knew nothing about the Brandens' problems take a stand against them and have nothing to do with their work, which was very puzzling. Eventually the Brandens provided the reasons themselves through their own actions, as was later documented by Valient's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.
There isn't anything in this that indicates Branden could have otherwise made Ayn Rand's ideas into a dominant national intellectual movement.
I don't know what your personal experiences were and wouldn't try to describe them, but I see no reason to think Branden could have ever made Ayn
Rand's ideas into a dominant national movement no matter what he might have done.
Branden has been associated with Ayn Rand for a long time and had started NBI on his own despite her reservations. Aside from his pompous style he had done a lot of good in explaining non-fiction elementary elements of her philosophy to a core group of people interested, lasting for several years. But there is no sign that he even if he hadn't cracked up that he could have taken it beyond the level of those with a particular interest in her ideas to become a dominant, nation-wide movement. If he had tried he would have become a kind of 'guru' that is antithetical to the kind of independent thought and understanding Ayn Rand sought and without which the influence of her ideas cannot spread.