Why has Objectivism not been more widely adopted?
This is an outgrowth of RMP's and Khalling's "I'm bored" posts, and subsequent debates I have had with Zenphamy and ewv. Zenphamy referred to a "lack of confidence in the philosophy and life applications of Objectivism by all but a handful of the Objectivists of the site". I challenged him to consider why that is.
ewv has reiterated AR's statement that Objectivism is a "philosophy for an individual to live on earth" and accused me of pragmatism. I do not deny the pragmatism charge.
Consider why Objectivism has not been accepted by a wider audience. It surely has had enough time and enough intelligent adherents telling its message to achieve a wider acceptance than it has.
ewv has reiterated AR's statement that Objectivism is a "philosophy for an individual to live on earth" and accused me of pragmatism. I do not deny the pragmatism charge.
Consider why Objectivism has not been accepted by a wider audience. It surely has had enough time and enough intelligent adherents telling its message to achieve a wider acceptance than it has.
Previous comments...
I think this is because objectivism asks people to accept too much change to what they have "known" to be true.
I agree with you, jb.
Objectivism offers no compromises, no concession to practical matters.
That is to be admired but, imo, that is a primary reason it has not and will not be accepted.
If Jefferson and Adams had insisted that slavery be abolished in the colonies in 1776, the American revolution would not have occurred and America may not have existed at all. Slavery was obviously wrong, but what was right was ignored at that time.
Objectivism has yet to make a successful strategic plan or to derive the tactics needed to practically overcome generations of learned "truth." People do not easily or quickly adapt to change until it is unavoidable.
Not something the x+y =Zero generation would appreciate much less understand.
i was referring to the insistence in several objectivist postings here that open borders are de rigueur Objectivism.
As a practical matter open borders are the fairy tale today.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
I agree with the party that borders should be defended and against more than just armed invasion.
http://www.objectivistparty.us/6401.h...
Thank you for reminding me about what I already knew about what Ms. Rand stood for.
I was quite simply pointing out that statement 4 on the above web site for the Objectivist Party has been the subject of considerable argument in Galt's Gulch Online over the past year, and in that point, I was completely accurate.
It's not something to cite as anything meaningful other than for a few people (who of course mean it). Ayn Rand used to fight these things claiming to speak for her, even legally when necessary, but she is gone and anyone can claim to somehow represent what she said. It's now up to those who know better to properly assess it. It's best to simply refer to what Ayn Rand wrote in analyzing things like immigration.
subjectivism on the other hand requires one to accept some one elses's opinion and that IS a fairy tale
I know there are a some on this site that think most people even in this gulch are not really Objectivists but I disagree. I believe most of the people on this site are thinking for themselves, making their own decisions based on their own beliefs which I believe is the first criteria in being objective. I don't agree with all of them but that doesn't make them less objective in my opinion. My 2 cents.
Good song choice!
Jan
and their "proofs" that I am not ... just make me laugh.
I live by objectivist principles and my philosophy is
that of Rand or one of her heroes, though my accomplishments
may not be those of Galt or Rearden or Roark --
I try, and that does count in horse shoes. -- j
.
view of life which says that no one who wears white
after labor day (or whatever that fashion thing is) can
be an objectivist. . there is value in honoring the
good people who express their philosophies in different
terms from you. . my wife, for example, uses the
phraseology of religion to advise people not to hurt
one another without cause. . Rand did the same thing
in different terms. . you can wear white at any time
and do good -- which is the proof of any philosophy. -- j
.
People will not change their ideas. People will not question what they believe. Etc. Etc., Kids do it all the time. That is why Ayn Rand's ideas are most easily accepted by teenagers. Look at the contests in the ARI website. Winners come from Catholic schools. Do you imagine that they are being taught Objectivism there?
As we passed in algebra classes coming in and going, a friend of mine handed me Anthem. I did not get it from a teacher.
As I said, I met a financial manager who just discovered Atlas Shrugged and was interested to hear about CUI and VOS. So, yes, adults find out about Objectivism, also. But, mostly, it is kids.
That is why the ideas continue to sell generation after generation. The next generation comes to them. It's gonna be like when Christianity absorbed the Roman empire that persecuted it.
Both my kids and I were required to read Anthem in high school. It may be like when Christianity absorbed the Roman Empire that persecuted it, but if that doesn't happen in my lifetime, was it worth my effort? It could easily be said that such an effort would be living my life for someone else.
Bought it at a book store.
If it had not been for the three AS movies and this board, I would not have even looked for any book by Ayn Rand.
I have an interest in studying Objectivism but do not consider myself as being a full-fledged disciple.
Maybe I should have wrote full-fledged Objectivinist.
Or maybe that is also an incorrect designation..
Some teenagers never grow up...😜