13

Why has Objectivism not been more widely adopted?

Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years ago to Ask the Gulch
278 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years ago
    Objectivism is not understood by a majority of people anywhere, and many who understand do not agree.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago
      Objectivism offers no compromises but is all about practical matters it doesn't allow compromising on whims and fairy tales but on applied facts and reason. It's not popular because it requires thinking. and a few skills like 2+2=4

      Not something the x+y =Zero generation would appreciate much less understand.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 10 years ago
        Are immigration controls a whim or a fairy tale?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago
          What immigration controls?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 10 years ago
            Yes, good point ;^)
            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 10 years ago
              The Objectivist Party platform recognizes a nation's right to defend its own borders as a corollary to the right of an individual to defend oneself.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 10 years ago
                There is no such thing as "The Objectivist Party platform". Ayn Rand did recognize the right and necessity of people to defend their nation. She did not support prohibitions on immigration, especially for economic motives, but also did not endorse invasion of a country and taking it over for collectivism and statism through a mass migration in the name of "immigration".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 10 years ago
                  With all due respect, there is an Objectivist Party, and it does have a platform.

                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago
                    Thanks for the link. Maybe all five of them (or whatever) support it! Very small fringe groups have been talking about an "Objectivist" political party since at least the 1970s, but no such "political party" has been serious in real politics or ever represented Ayn Rand or the vast majority of those interested in Objectivism.

                    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.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 10 years ago
                      To be fair to the Objectivist Party, the number of contributors in this forum isn't exactly all that high either. There are many members, but the majority of them have under 200 points.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years ago
      Again, I must ask: Which people do not accept change? You are speaking only of adults. In point of fact, Objectivism was, is, and will remain a philosophy for the young. They have no vested interest in preformed judgements. They are looking for truth. Adults want - and indeed deserve - validation for their hard work. But adults come with baggage. Kids are unencumbered. And they change quickly. How quickly? My daughter has a mole on her hand and when she was growing, she would show me how it moved as her hand changed. You don't get that with adults -- or if you do, you see an oncologist... Kids are all about change. Revolution is for the young.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years ago
      Interesting opinion, freedom. Objectivism asks people to accept too much change to what they have "known" to be true. I'll have to ponder that one.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago
        Sounds like the exact opposite of objectivism.

        subjectivism on the other hand requires one to accept some one elses's opinion and that IS a fairy tale
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 10 years ago
          For the record, Objectivism asking people to accept too much change is not why I have not embraced Objectivism. That is freedomforall's opinions why the general populace has not embraced Objectivism. This is a type of subjectivism, as MichaelAarethun calls it. What both of you say is reasonable. This is certainly part of the answer.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years ago
    To clarify, are you asking this based on people participating on this site or of all people everywhere?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years ago
      I am asking this regarding the population at large. This is a not a criticism of Gulchers.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by edweaver 10 years ago
        Thanks for the clarification. In that case, personally I don't believe the vast majority of people even think about philosophy in general. To many people life is all about having fun and philosophy requires serious thinking. If they did consider philosophy, I cannot help but believe more people would consider themselves Objectivists.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 10 years ago
          Thinking for yourself is a requirement for Objectivism, but it is insufficient. I would agree that people on this site think for themselves. BTW "Think for Yourself" by the Beatles is in my top ten songs. I just played the song from my complete Beatles CD set.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago
          If that is the definition of Objectivist, then I am one. By just about any other definition, I am not.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by johnpe1 10 years ago
            despite ewv and Zenphamy, I declare that I am an objectivist,
            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
            .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 10 years ago
              I rarely refer to anyone as personally an "Objectivist" or not. Objectivism is the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy, as she presented and explained it. Conflicting ideas are not. Whatever someone wants to call himself, if he's promoting things like religion it's not Objectivism and that requires no further proof. However admirably or not and to whatever decree someone lives his own life, If someone thinks his contradictions are being "Objectivist", he can laugh all he wants but it's not.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 10 years ago
                You are correct in saying that you rarely refer to anyone as an Objectivist, but you do, as johnpe1 stated, routinely point out those who are not Objectivists. I do not claim to be an Objectivist, and never will. Nonetheless, I find it to be closer to my own self-derived philosophy than any philosophy that others can read about, and consequently I have respect for Ms. Rand.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by johnpe1 10 years ago
                my laughing is not at you, but at the closed-mind
                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
                .
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bassboat 10 years ago
    Objectivists are like the far right and far left in that if you don't agree 100% with their way of thinking you are wrong forever. My main sticking point is with their being a Supreme Being. It takes more faith by an objectivist to believe in nothing than for me to believe in something. That is a plain watered down version but you get my drift.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 years ago
      Objectivism is not "belief in nothing", Following a rational philosophy is not faith. If someone is wrong about something then it is wrong. "100%" is a redundancy. Whether or not it is forever is up to the person to correct or not.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years ago
    Which people are we talking about?

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo