Is a quick spread for Objectivism possible?

Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
190 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Since he admits he has started with unprovable assumptions, including "non-science" God he refuses to call faith, all his conclusions are arbitrary and worthless. That includes his false assumptions about Ayn Rand's philosophy, about which he understands nothing as shown by his assertions, despite his claim that he can "accept most of it". He's still talking in terms of "accepting" as if it were no more than a competing religion with no relation to understanding in terms of facts. His claim that all philosophies are "integrated philosophies" shows he doesn't understand them either.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Is not Objectivism really the ultimate in pragmatism- that it is consistent with the fact of reality?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have to agree with Wiggys on this one. The trend amongst millenials toward using their cell phones to obtain information rather than thinking for themselves is quite overwhelming. You and Peikoff are correct in theory, but in reality, the lack of reasoning amongst the latest generation is disconcerting.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The perfect example of a person being successful in life basing their life on Objectivism in its entirety happens to be Ayn Rand. So it can be done.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is the approach I take as well in my classes. "Value for value" is something that resonates easily, for example.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Further, if a person does not accept a philosophy, he does not put it into practice. One has to "accept" a system of thought in order to put it into practice as anything other than an interesting intellectual exercise. Further, one can accept portions of a philosophy and reject others.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I understand a number of philosophies without accepting all that they contain. Most philosophies are internally consistent, but don't hold up if one questions their presuppositions. All philosophies, including Rand's, begin with presuppositions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is a quite hopeful outlook, one I used to share. I don't think that such programs will go bankrupt in my lifetime, and if that is the case, then I would not be able to reap the benefits.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The men behing successful ruling power have insulated their philosophies, religions, and political parties quite well. Part of my point in starting this thread was to develop a viable counterstrategy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    LIke me, a great number of people accept her philosophy with respect to economics and theory of government. However, what people are saying here is that they cannot be considered objectivists unless they accept ALL of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I don't accept all of anyone's philosophy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Objectivism has spread over the past few decades, but at a much slower rate than the spread of progressivism/statism or of Islam. At the rate that those ideologies are spreading compared to Objectivism, it is unrealistic to expect that there would be a world worth returning to after the collapse of those lesser ideologies. Elsewhere in this thread, I suggested that infiltration into academia might be necessary to permit Objectivism to get a sufficient audience.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    axiomatic concepts are unprovable assumptions within the philosophy that employs them. All philosophies start with such presuppositions. No philosophy has a starting place otherwise and cannot be characterized as a philosophy. I 9understand axiomatic concepts because I was a philosophy major.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks. Not finding a period and seeing the extra white space, I thought that there was more. It even crossed my mind that it might have been censored. The better part of me decided that such suspiciousness is preposterous here.

    Have fun! Some of the inputs here would benefit greatly from more careful thinking before flying out.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My point in asking the question regarding Ayn Rand wanting her philosophy to become popular was not based on a lack of understanding. Sometimes one asks the question to "stir the pot", to stimulate discussion. That was the case this time.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your point is accurate. However, Barbara Branden used the term "excommunicated" in an interview about her book that she had begun just prior to Ayn Rand's death.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think this is an intersting point. Ranter, consider posting this separately . It will make a great post
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ranter, you accept some of objectivist principles and you just ignore where your philosophical thinking is dissonant with Objectivism. You are free to do that, but 100s of thousands buy AS every year. I wonder how many more read her who are not buying her books? :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Objectivism itself "insists" that faith and the supernatural be rejected. You can't have it both ways.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand's philosophy is not "accepted", it is either understood or it isn't, and you don't.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo