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.
Your life and work depend on objective observations and reasoning about the facts of reality, yet I venture to say that in any class you might teach, some 30 to 40% of your students may well believe in and would argue for Creation. And some percentage might even believe that Creation happened some 5,000 yr ago. I would almost bet that 50% or more believe in Human causes of climate change threatening all life on Earth. I'll further venture that if you ask if any would be interested in taking a course or studying philosophy along with their science and technical studies, that a majority would question 'why they should waste their time with that nonsense.'
During my life, I've been involved in discussions with people from every educational level and every career path I can think of, about the objective facts of reality, cause and effect, morality and the principle of morals, and etc., etc. ad infinitum. (on and on) There are a few responses or arguments that arise in those discussions that really 'piss me off'.
Perception is reality (No it isn't--reality is reality and perception is manipulated and based on beliefs),
Well, that's just not fair (Life and reality don't care about your perceptions and beliefs about fair),
We're just lucky to have been born here (No, if we'd been born somewhere else we wouldn't be we. We'd be someone else with some other parents),
We've progressed far enough that we don't need the 2nd Amendment for personal defense any more (There's no evidence that humans have evolved past what we were 100,000yrs and our history and daily news tells us that we still need weapons),
That instrument reading can't be right. Let's check the instrument before we shut down the system/equipment (That instrument is intended to protect the system/equipment/your life. If the instruments right, things are going to blow up while you're checking it)
That guns unloaded and safe (Let me aim it at your foot and pull the trigger just to check)
Those are a few, but they should get the point across.
Human beings aren't born inherently knowing how to logically reason and reach objectively rational conclusions. They are born with the equipment, including average intellect, to be able to, but only after they've been taught by others or learned through experience or developed exceptional observational skills based on unquenchable curiosity. So, I'm not that surprised (though disappointment is a constant) Objectivism is not readily accepted or understood by the majority and I've pretty much come to realize that it never will be, any more so than any other reality of a life that is.
I don't think AR's message implied that everyone must understand or accept Objectivism. I think it was that the producers of the race need to be taught or realize that achievement, acting in self interest, freedom, self confidence, and pride in self are essential elements of the life that is instead of the life that might or ought to be, and that can only happen through the efforts of self.
It is not so important that everyone or anyone else agree. It is important that I remain true to my principles and factual reality.
The influence of the counter Enlightenment, including entrenched remnants of religion, has been progressively destroying the country for over a century, beginning with a very small minority of intellectual leaders, especially the founders of Pragmatism under the influence of European philosophy. Today it pervades everything. This did not happen in a day and will not be reversed for generations.
Re-read Ayn Rand's essay "Don't Let it Go", in her anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It, on the difference between explicit philosophy versus sense of life, and why a sense of life cannot permanently sustain a good country against an explicit philosophical assault from within.
Ayn Rand's ideas are radically different than conventionally accepted premises in more ways than is apparent even from reading Atlas Shrugged until one knows more about the history of philosophy. Ayn Rand knew what she was up against: she used to say that she is "challenging 2000 years of philosophy" -- ingrained in both liberals and conservatives.
Yet even she was dismayed by the hysterical attacks misrepresenting Atlas Shrugged when it came out, restraining it to grow in popularity only by word of mouth against the assault of the intellectuals. Some of the worst were from the conservatives, which surprised her much less.
The problem is not the size of the group of intellectuals who must make a difference, or the size of a "market" for political ideas, but the bad ideas of the entrenched intellectuals across the board that must be overcome before there can be a major reform in the culture at large.
Ayn Rand was a very clear writer. There is no excuse for the misrepresentations of her ideas, yet that has been a major battle, beginning with the publication of Atlas Shrugged.
We see it repeatedly, even on this forum, from those influenced by conventionalism and who, in a rut without even realizing it, have not taken the initiative to understand what Ayn Rand's philosophy is and why. They equate it with libertarian politics, or think it means changing the culture by dropping out and "going galt", or dismiss it for clashing with their emotional clinging to religious presumptions inculcated in them long ago (or just as bad or worse, try to combine them). They have little or no idea of what Ayn Rand's philosophy actually is and why.
And then there are the pretentious, goofball pronouncements here on this forum pretending to be authoritative as they glibly denounce Ayn Rand for imagined major "flaws" while simultaneously claiming to be sympathetic, yet in complete ignorance of very basic ideas -- often attributing to Ayn Rand the opposite of what she said despite her explicit rejection and explanation of why. It's a microcosm of the misrepresentations and hostility from intellectuals in general, and a constant illustration of pretentious 'academic rationalism' deftly manipulating words without regard to objectivity and the meaning of concepts. Objectivism begins with small 'o' objectivity.
I am less concerned with the large numbers of antagonists in the culture at large than the smaller number who find themselves attracted to Atlas Shrugged, or say they are, but still don't know what it is. It is not whatever else readers of Atlas Shrugged bring with them from their past, "conservative" or otherwise: Liking some aspects of Atlas Shrugged or some other works of Ayn Rand does not mean that Objectivism is whatever else you happen to believe, or that some 'compromise' is possible by throwing out Ayn Rand when she clashes with unexamined conventionalism. Ayn Rand's philosophy is what she explained it to be, not an "open" mishmash of whatever someone wants it to be.
Understanding radically new ideas does not come overnight, and not everyone needs to scholarly explore the details of philosophy, but basic ideas and principles are being left unpursued and ignored. Ayn Rand's and Leonard Peikoff's superb non-fiction writing and lectures on the philosophy are just as clear and interesting as the novels, intended for any reasonably intelligent person. For those with a drive to understand, they are more than entertaining.
Almost anyone on this forum can understand it, beginning with such explanations as Philosophy: Who Needs It. "Philosophy" does not have to mean opaque German metaphysics or its equivalent in chains of mystical rationalization. Everyone has a philosophy, even if only implicit and absorbed without examination, held in the form of a 'sense of life', good or bad. But a valid philosophy is not random, and must be understood systematically and in relation to a long history of false but dominant ideas.
A serious discussion of why Ayn Rand's ideas are not spreading faster than they are, and what is needed, requires at a minimum understanding of what they are, not shallow speculation, including the goofball variety. Those inspired by Atlas Shrugged, its sense of life, and its observable similarities with events today should take the intellectual initiative to find out by reading first hand -- not through amateur rehash attempts at summaries or claimed reduction to 'common sense' -- what her philosophy is that makes it all possible -- and what that implies about conventional ideas and their entrenched resistance.
I've been asked way too many times, 'How could you believe that', only to have to answer that 'I don't',.
It''s tiring, but it's outright disheartening sometimes to constantly run into it here. All one can do is recognize the reality one lives and strives in and continue on stating 'I don't believe'.
But just as history and language is confounded naturally over time, we also have had a purposedful finger in the pie as well, just observe the "progressive" speak of the day.
So, should we really be surprised that something as valuable as Objectivism or even observationalism has yet to be on our daily menu? Most see it as cold or heartless when in fact it can be the ultimate expression of mutuality; maybe, perhaps, it's just that everything today is expressed emotionally...someone is alway yanking at our chain or heart strings.
BUT, this is not how most people in the world experience their lives. THIS is why objectivism hasnt caught on. Its taught in very philosophical terms, while people are living in very practical and down to earth situations. Think about it.
Objectivism IS a very practical set of ideas, and it needs to be promoted as something that actually will work better for people in real life.
Theres my 2 cent reply.
I agree that most live in what they believe is acceptable pragmatism, but in order to accomplish that they must limit their perceptions to their immediate environment, presence, and what they see or hear from their 'celebrity of the moment', rather than utilize their own reasoning.
I also agree that the challenge to Objectivists that desire to spread the message is very much having the ability to express or demonstrate in terms, understandable and relatable to the audience. But also, those Objectivists must also accept the limits of the vast majority to comprehend or even have an interest in the message being conveyed.
Much of this discussion reminds me of the Uncle Remus story of 'Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby',
I am one of those that see intelligent design as completely possible, I think more possible than chance due to my own course of logic. I +1 you because with that one exception I agree with the rest and appreciate your view point and the time put into the response.
Back in 1965 I took part in five LSD experiments with minimal doses of LSD. I found that percepts had to be reinterpreted and took time to decipher but that the senses were working, chemistry and physics continue to work regardless of what you change, but giving percepts that needed interpreting just as normal sense perceptions needed to be interpreted while developing a mind during growing up. I remained an atheist afterwords though some percepts would be seen by some as awesome and perhaps need some supernatural explanation.
So just check your basic premises and if they fit objective reality, keep questioning, especially whether existence depends on anything outside of it.
Not sure I stated that in a clear way, but in a nut shell on my view, you me and god have always existed, the only thing that changes is the state we are currently in. That is true of every chemical compound and every other thing in existence. There is no beginning and no end, simply changes in states.
I agree that as a concept, in the sense of XenokRoy during all of his life and all about him after death and decay, will be about him but the concept can not be reified as something that has and will always exist. In order to believe something, one need have some evidence to point to but where none is had, one does not believe the existence of that alleged something.
Most people don't want the discomfort of figuring out what the truth really is. They don't want to have to adjust their abstract beliefs and become consistent. Heck, most people don't want to rock the boat socially.
I have lot more thoughts on this question, here:
http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a...
Volumes could be written on why and how this is the case, but the bottom line is this: we must fight agains the government school system, or we will loose.
The content of reform is the philosophy, part of the means is more choice in education. Meanwhile as long as there is freedom of speech there are still many other means of communication to spread better ideas, including through the better teachers, but it is much harder.
The Dark Ages recovered from the dominance of the Christian Era, eventually after a millennium reaching a rebirth and then the Enlightenment. Don't expect the recovery here any time soon.
True, in the dark ages they were able to break free of the dogmas of Christianity. But that was under a system of classical education, in which the educated were still encouraged to learn Greek and Latin, and study the works of antiquity. They nowhere approached the comprehensive nihilism and wholesale intellectual destruction of modern pedagogy.
The anti-life on this earth mentality under religion was overwhelmingly nihilistic. Most of the Greeks, including Aristotle, was lost to everyone throughout the period. It kept them in that state for a thousand years in which almost nothing changed.
Humanity eventually pulled out of it, but it's not exactly the recommended approach.
Except for some in the universities today, most schools are simply regurgitating bad premises, including the political sophistry even though the events change. As the rot spreads, it becomes more extreme. But government did not cause the bad ideas, it locks them in by subsidizing them and monopolizing. Under today's dominant ideas, get rid of the education monopoly, if it could be done at all, and it would snap back into place. The battle is philosophical, while doing whatever can be done to maintain freedom of speech and getting around government control of education.
However, people like Dante and Thomas Aquinas didn't arise from a total vacuum. Illiteracy was common. But literacy was not unheard of. Peasants were often also educated by the monks, even if they did not intend to pursue a position in the Clergy. And Platonism, though mistaken, is still vastly superior to the anti-intellectual sophistry which has come to dominate contemporary philosophy.
Historically, it's true that bad philosophy led to the creation of the schools and not the other way around. But by the 1880's, once the schools were in place nationwide, and once Progressives such as John Dewey and his ilk were able to frame the narrative that went into them, there was a Progressive President in office within a generation (Teddy Roosevelt).
Now we have the task of teaching rational philosophical principles to people who can't read anything more challenging than Harry Potter novels, who probably couldn't understand the plot of a Shakespeare play, as illiterate peasants could in the Renaissance period, even if the language were somewhat modernized. Kids who, if they are intellectual at all, are worse than monks-- but instead they are democratic socialist, radical feminist, environmentalist militants. Maybe they don't believe in demons or original sin, but they do believe regular sexuality is patriarchical and mysoginistic, and the pursuit of wealth is exploitive and oppressive. So they end up being the same kind of superstitious Puritans that the religionists were, with nearly identical values in terms of the pleasures of This World being rooted in evil.
I agree the battle is ultimately philosophical, but it's not enough to simply publish the philosophy. We have to find a way to inject the ideas into the education system, as Progressives have been doing for 150 years. And that is going to be tough as long as the Marxist teachers unions dictate most every educational standard in the nation.
1. the "Closed" vs "Open" philosophical debate. It sours newcomers to the philosophy and confuses and frustrates them
2. I think Rand made some critical errors in not bridging her work with other philosophers who were highly influential to her thinking. I understand why she worked hard at distancing her work , but to not acknowledge key philosophers who played a role in shaping her thinking , makes it easier for critics to see her as a crackpot and those integrating her philosophy into their lives as a cult following. I , of course, know they are wrong, but it was a decision that was bad for PR, so to speak.
Sorry to poke at the person above wishing we wouldn't boil things down so far that some flavor is lost, but some of us depend on that "sense of life" to carry us through when rigorous examination has to take a back seat.
I understand what you're saying but wonder who you'd include in the list of who she should have bridged to?
Seriously though, I think people are more comfortable letting others think for them, and never try to come to their own conclusions. They don't think it has any effect on their life, and hence it makes them very indifferent towards it. They've been taught that Ethics and Philosophy are for "The Elite" (whoever that might be).
Also, most books on Obejctivism are rather largeand require you to question conventional notions, and people think it as a chore to read them. Most people I've met proudly state that they think Ayn Rand is "Stupid, for children, and if you like it you're an Idiot too". Most of them state that they never completed Atlas Shrugged, that they drifted while reading because it was so boring, and most give up when they see how large Galt's speech is.
I've heard people scrutinizing The Fountainhead , stating that it is too Idealistic, and the Roark is a fool.
They act in the exact fashion Ayn Rand said such people would, and the irony goes over their heads.
I first read Atlas in 1965.at the age of 19. As so many have remarked, "it changed my life."
Over the early subsequent years I had come to the realization that, owing to Rand herself, her relationship to her personal friends/associates, and my own immaturity, I grew to dislike most "Objectivists." I just did not enjoy being around them.
Neither did non-Objectivists. That has ever so slowly, as the judgmental moralizing has waned, since begun to change.
My recommendation to ALL Objectivists - real and imagined, is as follows:
Lead with your life, not with your mouth. If a picture is worth a thousand words then an example is worth ten-thousand.
If you ARE going to lead with your mouth, KNOW your audience! We live in a society that, in significant measure, is dominated by Judeo-Christian philosophy. Therefore there is a tendency for many of us to become pessimistic, caustic, and Judgmental. While I do at times lapse into pessimism, I try, though not always successfully, to never become caustic. Keep in mind, the virtue of pessimism is that most of your surprises will tend to be favorable. Always remain benevolently open to such surprises. Depending on YOUR virtue(s), favorable surprises come more often than you might imagine – as long as, through the exercise of rational virtue(s), you EARN THEM!
If reading Zenphamy's epistle at the beginning of this blog just about put me to sleep, imagine what it does to the great mass of people in the country. Thats not an insult. I am just saying that kind of analysis just doesnt resonate with people where THEY live every day. It should, but it sounds too much like the other intellectual BS thats around.
Look at Venezuela to see where socialism gets you. Look and see how government regulation almost universally fails. Those are things that we need to be talking about, and how free markets always work better than regulated ones- and here are examples. Our government always has gotten a free pass, and it shouldnt.
"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
You should read the non fiction to understand what that means. A political philosophy of freedom cannot be understood and justified just by looking at Venezuela as one example and without moral foundations rejecting a morality of altruistic self sacrifice.
After getting people's attention with the first compact history lesson on socialism, leverage the impact on the audience to promote objectivism. Tying objectivism to the motives of promoting individual freedom that birthed the United States isn't a bad tactic, either.
There are possible allies for a broader effort of promoting objectivist principles, even if they aren't aware they're being used. PBS (believe it or not) likes special shows of controversial historic figures, and could be induced to broadcast one on Ayn Rand. The History Channel likes historic figures with colorful stories, so a well-produced special on Alexis De Toqueville's observations of early America, with the natural ties to how those early Americans thrived in an atmosphere of individual initiative should appeal to them.
Direct attempts at educating the majority of American voters is DOA, as the principles may be simple, but the responses to all the collectivist one-liner counter-arguments can be laborious. There is an unfortunate intellectual necessity for the lengthy speeches in Rand's books, but they won't sell with today's attention span deficient audience. Dramatic, dare I say "Trumpesque" sensationalism may be necessary.
Are you being sarcastic, too?
If not, how do you expect to get a majority of con-gress to vote for it?
(I agree with the goal, but expecting con-gress to reduce their own power is like expecting gravity to stop.)
Ironically, I believe that Trump could be the most willing to use the Presidential "bully pulpit" for just the purpose of shaming Congress into acting on constitutionally justifiable actions like this. Cruz would also be aggressive on this particular action, but inconsistent with respect to favored exceptions.
Nagging our relative congresscritters about singular good ideas is something we should do. As you might guess, I'm like Dagny, not yet willing to shrug.
Most people just want to go to work, raise their families, and watch TV. They want there to be food to eat, no one shooting at them, and medical care. This is just fine. What Abaco and others have cited about the '15%' is probably accurate...but no more people are needed in order to make a difference.
You see, the best way for the other 85% to be able to go about their lives without caring is a political structure that resembles Objectivism. It will give 'them' the food in the fridge, car in the garage, their kid's HS graduation ceremony - the things they want out of life. They will just go to work and do their jobs of monitoring the QC of the production of bearings in a factory, oblivious to whether they are working for a Socialist gov or an Objectivist one: But the Socialist gov will not deliver the life they want and the Objectivist gov will. Because of this, this 85% need to vote in favor of work and freedom and minimal gov interference, and in order for this to happen the media needs to present Capitalism in a positive light, heroes in movies need to be freedom fighters, etc.
Everyday safety and affluence is what Objectivism means to most people, and this is all that it needs to mean to them. If most of the 15% who do care were Objectivists (I think they are currently Socialists) then we would have what we need to make a world that is like what we dreamed of as kids.
Jan
There is no "most people" in reference to Objectivism. Only a small number of people have heard of Ayn Rand and fewer of Objectivism. Those who read Rand's novels or other writings come in two opposite senses of life. I will call them the Ayn Rand and the Bernie Sanders senses of life types. I have found that those senses are distributed more in favor of the Bernie Sanders sense of life. So reading Rand's novels results in favoring the selfless characters who feel stepped on by society and feel that they are victims. I have two brothers of that type. One claims he did not ask to be born and thus society owes him a living. He has nothing good to say about Atlas Shrugged, for example. Another brother doesn't like her heroic characters because they think they are better than the rest of the people who are victims of the selfish ones taking advantage of them.
When Rand gave her Virtue of Selfishness lecture (I think that was the one) at the University of Wisconsin, Madison in the 1960s, I had never heard of her but did notice the hallway to the theater overflowing with students listening to load speakers. After reading Atlas Shrugged I found that it was best not to try to discuss it because of that Sanders type of sense of life where I would be dismissed as someone who was stupid for considering such stuff.
So you are right about most people but not about Objectivism having any influence due to a complete lack of them ever having heard the word 'Objectivism', let alone having ever decided to read or study about it.
If you imagine a Bell-curve, the furthest right ~15% is who we are talking about. Right now, I think that most of those 'people who care about philosophy' are Socialist; we need them to be Objectivist. And we need media to portray Objectivist type values in a positive light...which will sway the ~70% in the middle.
Jan
Metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics are totally ignored. We give some attention to ethics and the bulk of our thinking to current political events.
One point outlying from the curve was dhalling's recent discussion about Heisenberg. We have a lot of engineers here and, hey, who doesn't like science? Grant that ewv and dhalling held closest to the canon of Objectivism and you have like two out of twenty. I believe that I, too, am an Objectivist in the technical and formal sense. They would disagree. But it only makes three. Did I miss someone?
Perhaps we should have a poll. Find out how many people here actually consider themselves Objectivists, as opposed to "having been influenced by Ayn Rand."
An example that is widely accepted now is her view on gays. Others are equally false, and most are equally true.
Each person has to walk there own path to understand reality and accept it.
Each person has to walk there own path to understand reality and accept it.
Should read:
Each person has to walk there own path to understand reality and integrate it.
Khalling, amazed you did not call me out on that.
I like the idea of your poll. You can either start your own thread, or add it within this thread. Suit yourself. The poll ought to consist of at least two questions.
1) Do you consider yourself an Objectivist? 2) Would others in GGO consider you an Objectivist? Other questions might be merited as well.
I agree with Rand that productivity, not looting, should be the central aspect of society's laws.
I agree with Rand that rights are individual - not collective.
I agree with Rand that reality is .
I agree with Rand that coercion should never be tolerated.
I agree with Rand that the mind is the source of invention and that people have rights to the products of their own minds.
However, I will never be an Objectivist as presently defined because I can not agree with atheism as a fundamental tenet. Through both personal experience and logical investigation I know that atheism does not represent reality. Those wishing to know more can pm me. Others are welcome to their own opinions on the matter.
Blarman also substitutes conservativism for other aspects of Ayn Rand's ideas. For example, the basis of proper laws is protecting the rights of the individual, not attempting to foster economic productivity.
This constant complaint from the religious that 'atheism is a tenet or principle of Objectivism' is in reality an expression of the denial of reality, rationality, and reason as well as a denial of the primacy of life--not to mention an indication of the level of ignorance of the underlying principles of Objectivism. I can only assume that those individuals have entered into their attempts to understand Objectivism from the standpoint of 'I'll look/listen, but I won't change my mind/beliefs.'
I also downvote him when he engages in personal attacks. No one is forced to agree with what is said here on this forum. It is a place for open debate and individual consideration. But a real debater doesn't resort to logical fallacies and name-calling, they come up with a better argument. Vitriol and hate are the realm of emotion - not logic.
I do consider the atheistic aspect of Objectivism a fundamental tenet because such a belief (or disbelief as you are wont to assert) colors the way any other subject is approached. It is how I look at the matter and really isn't subject to your opinion - just like the rest of my post. If you wish to present your viewpoint, present it as your own or as a counter-argument, but don't pretend you have any authority to re-write or re-interpret my ideas. You wouldn't tolerate it if our positions were reversed and rightly so, as it constitutes coercion and flied in the face of an avowed belief in the freedom of the mind.
Am I an admire of it. Yes, many parts of it have had a great influence on my understanding of reality.
Reading everything I have form Objectivism has caused me to dive into other philosophies and to value philosophy far more as a whole. In most cases (with the exception of the fountainhead which was about my least favorite of Rand's) I have read them multiple times, even Lenard's publication of Objectivism is something I have read twice.
This may sound strange since Rand has Atheism as the religion of Objectivism, but the books have helped me better understand my own religion and better clarify my theories and understanding of application of those in my life.
I am a big fan, but wont ever accept it all.
Religion: re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
Philosophy: phi·los·o·phy
fəˈläsəfē/noun: philosophy
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
There is NO similarity between the two.
Dictionary.com:
Religion: something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
I choose to use a definition which covers all forms of religion and is not restrictive to specific subsets.
As we have discussed before, we cannot agree on the definition of the term so there is little point in arguing it.
I think it was AR that said (paraphrasing loosely), 'One may choose to deny/ignore reality. One cannot escape the consequences'. She also stated "Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration."
I only quote AR because as the originator of Objectivism, she is the authority of 'what it is', 'the concepts in it', and 'its meaning applied to life'.
Personally I don't see Objectivism as something that Ayn created. From my perspective, she took what already existed naturally and put it in words so anyone could read it and hopefully understand it. Of course she gave it the name. But maybe my belief is because I had many of these feelings long before I had ever heard of Ayn Rand or the word Objectivism. I simply see Objectivism as human nature, until someone teaches it out of them. Or maybe I just don't understand Objectivism as much as I think I do. :)
Whatever you have gotten out of the books you do not understand Ayn Rand's philosophy. You aren't supposed to "accept" it as if it were a competing religion. Understanding is an active process of rationality. That The Fountainhead, with its emphasis on the psychology of first handedness, is your least favorite, says a lot about your approach. That you focus on adherence to religion as a major clash with Ayn Rand shows that you are missing something very big.
As usually you ignore the reality that Atheism is a religion. It is belief in the non-existence of god or anything considered supernatural. That belief cannot be proven and must therefor be taken on faith. That is a religion by definition.
I agree that Atheism is secondary. That is the reason I can pull much of objectivism into my own religion and it works quite well.
The fountainhead being my least favorite has to do with one thing, The characters never clicked well with me. I liked the psychology of it very well, but see both the main character of the protagonist as weak characters. In Atlas I love the characters of Dagny, Hank and Francisco but really do not like John Galt that much. I like what he stands for, but he himself is shallow and under developed or utilized. It makes sense and fits, but if he were the only character to really click with, I would not like Atlas Shrugged either. Atlas also has the story of the world around them which adds more depth to the book.
I have loved her philosophy books and many articles on the Rand foundation sites. Some I do not agree with the essay's or articles but still enjoy the read and the thought process they cause me to go through.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is fundamentally contradicted by religion. It does not and cannot "work quite well with it". To the extent that a religious person finds Ayn Rand's philosophy valuable, and to the extent he understands it at all, it is in spite of the contrary religion and is undermined by it.
The are aspects to the scope and plots of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead that one can like to different degrees, but to regard Howard Roark and the others, and John Galt, as "weak characters" that "don't click" shows that you are missing a lot in what you think Ayn Rand's philosophy is. They can only "click" in a work of fiction to the extent that you share the sense of life.
You can reject the "supernatural" whatever that is as you see fit. I am not stopping you, nor do I want to.
On reddit (on which this site is based), whenever someone replies to your comment, you get a message in you account inbox (NOT your email address). I think this should be implemented, otherwise there's no way to know if someone replied to your comment. Opening hundreds of links manually everyday is tedious.
Also, the poll if you want it.
strawpoll.me
It might be an interesting idea to look into: limiting the number of posts per day/month for guest users.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Jan
Jan
Jan, needs the nudge
I meant the "inbox" is not the inbox for your email address, but for your website account.
The way I wrote it was weird, sorry.
Jan
Jan
The inability of most to differentiate between greed and selfishness/enlightened self interest (as Rand defined it). There are also a great many in places of power that must discredit any such philosophy in order to maintain their own power and delusions.
Regards,
O.A.
Biggest point in favor of objectivism is AR's novels.
Biggest point against - official objectivists.
Objectivism is a no-excuse-philosophy since almost everything can be traced to your own actions or inaction. This includes how you deal with adversity.So, in order to espouse the philosophy of Ayn Rand, you'll need to learn to think rationally, and take responsibility for what you do. That's too tough for a majority of humans.
Damn! You know, I never made that connection. It seems so obvious now. He was a shrink who was part of the shrink circle of Branden. So many things have been attributed to the arcane meanings of every word and situation in the 1st 6 Star Wars episodes that even the very practical attitude of getting it done successfully takes on mystical overtones.
You do realize that the midi-chlorians were invented for Episode I because people told Lucas he needed a less "religious" explanation for the Force. The original explanations in Episodes IV, V, and VI (and in VII as well) made zero mention of them.
Nah... :D
If you read criticisms of Objectivism, you can find an untrue statement putting down every tenet. Some are very obvious that the critic hasn't read the fiction, let alone the polemics. Others are pretty clear that it contradicts their agenda(s). And still others are Ellsworth Tooheys. There are some valid criticisms, that had she lived she might have sanded off some rough edges, or written about newly discovered scientific theories. I would love to read her take on ISIS. She would probably link it to our stupid foreign policy while letting it drip with a venom based on the way she was able to cut through the crap and remove the jugular.
That being said, it's pretty hard not to turn to the Dark Side when that is all you are surrounded by. The Fed certainly is no Jedi temple. ;)
Either that, or its the Senate chambers on Coruscant. ;)
Though to be nitpicky, it's Padme ;)
Most people think being an objectivist is about being a person concern with only being rich or getting rich. I often hear objectivist say Greed is good but it comes across very poorly to general population.
Greed is only bad when you are willing to take the efforts of others and claim the results of those efforts as your own to get what you are greedy to get.
I think that in line with, and likely a much more wordy way to say rational self-interest is moral and therefor good, as the kind of greed that motivates a person to achieve the thing they have greed to get is rational self-interest.
We have to take into account the fact that many are like Paul Ryan: they like "some ideas" but are not consistent. I met two others this week: one an investment counselor who just discovered the book; the other a retail clerk in college who found it "interesting even though I don't agree with all of the ideas."
The best of all worlds might be one wherein billions of Leonard Peikoffs refuse to speak to billions of David Kelleys. ... or it might not be... What makes capitalism, freedom, and individualism possible is the very existence of all those differences that define us as individuals.
Not everyone in Athens was a philosopher. Not everyone in Florence was l'uomo universale. Not everyone... or even "most"... Cultures are not defined by masses of people, who in reality are pretty much the same. In the 300s CE, Christian writers berated people for wearing coins of Alexander the Great as good luck charms, as they had been doing for 600 years. They still do today.
But the latest Pew polls show that about 20% of Americans an non-religious, irreligious, or anti-religious. In other words, compared the mid-1950s, not only have we stopped going to church, we don't mind admitting it.
Silicon Valley was a direct result of the widespread awareness of the ideas of Objectivism by millions of people who did not accept it as their literal-to-the-book philosophy, but, rather - and more consequentially, I say - as their sense of life. These (we) are technically competent people who refuse to apologize for their ability. It is an axiom in computering that you cannot bullshit the computer: the bit is on or the bit is off. Either-or: A or non-A, as some would say.
My daughter never read an Ayn Rand book, sad to say. Not that I did not try, since the day she was born. ("Hey diddle diddle, the excluded middle means that A is not non-A. It's either-or and neither-nor and A is always A.") I tried... but for some reason, she watched the movie of Atlas Part I and I was not surprised that she identified with Dagny. ("I would never force a man to do anything, but the train is going across the bridge if I have to drive the damned thing myself.") Is she an Objectivist? No. Has she been "influenced" by Ayn Rand? Apparently so, and it shows in how she arranges her place of work, and how she deals with city inspectors, and all the rest.
And I submit that her narrative is echoed 40 million times every day, mostly in America, buy globally as well.
A really good Post that reflects my thinking on the subject is SLL's latest at: : http://straightlinelogic.com/2016/02/...
edit: Added link
Unfortunately, political discussion is the most obvious opportunity to express the virtues of reason. Its a tough audience though.
A hopeless 'whistle in the wind' indeed.
Jan
http://www.dawn.com/news/722513/india...
Jan
You contend that Objectivism is widely accepted. In a way, you are correct, but most Objectivists do not recognize agreement with some of Objectivism's conclusions and even many of its foundational ideas as being sufficient to be an Objectivist. AR certainly was quite ready to reject people who were not consistent with Objectivism exactly as she defined it.
However, I have to ask what you mean by "but most Objectivists do not recognize agreement with some of Objectivism's conclusions and even many of its foundational ideas as being sufficient to be an Objectivist." Can you be more explicit in Step 2? How can someone not accept a foundational idea of Objectivism and still be an Objectivist?
As for the "conclusions" I point out that while Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook disagree on immigration, they agree on metaphysics and much else. Moreover, their disagreement is always for both them founded on basic principles of Objectivism. Not everyone on either side of that discussion is so consistent.
In that discussion (as in most others, I assert), people have a belief first and argue it second. Few people - few adults - begin with basic principles and reason to a conclusion. Kids do it because they are, indeed, seeking truth. Adults just want validation for what they already believe.
And that can be OK. You hear it often: "When I read the book, it said exactly what I have always believed all these years." So, that's fine. But when Objectivism has some fact that is contrary to their lifelong beliefs, then they take what they want and leave the rest. And that is better than nothing, but, as you must admit, they cannot be "Objectivist, except for where..."
Finally, as for The Great Schism, it had nothing to do with ideas and mostly to do with personalities. Proof of that is Ayn Rand's lifelong friendships with Bennett Serf and Ludwig von Mises. They did not accept her philosophy. (Mises accepted laissez-faire, of course, but was a Kantian. Rand called Kant, not Marx, her greatest enemy. Yet, she was friends with von Mises.) So, whether and to what extent some Objectivists refuse to speak to other Objectivists is mostly a matter of personality. It has nothing to do with the subject matter.
I agree with many, but not all, of both Objectivism's foundational ideas and conclusions, but I disagree with a few of them as well. This means that I do not consider myself an Objectivist. Most people in this forum, most notably ewv yesterday, definitely would say I am not an Objectivist.
Let us say for sake of argument that based on a first principles approach to developing my own philosophy, I arrive at a philosophy in which I agree with 90% of Objectivism's tenets and conclusions. Does this mean that I am an Objectivist? No, not really. On the other hand, does it mean that I cannot have very high respect for Rand's work? No, once again. I have very high respect for Rand's work. What comes out most frequently during these sorts of debates is the 10% that I disagree with.
Some may debate this, but I think the most important element in any philosophy is that it not contradict itself. A philosophy for life on earth must allow me to live a life of non-contradiction and be happily self-satisfied when I am consistent with my own principles of production and virtue. I have achieved that. Rand's novels have helped me refine what some of the contradictions I did not know I had, but now I have achieved the happiness from production and virtue that should be the just reward for my effort and intelligence.
Some people in this forum may think that I just want validation for what I already believed, but I have spent my entire life (mostly as a kid as you correctly point out) deriving a philosophy from basic principles and reasoning to a conclusion. Mostly now, I am checking my premises. Every couple of years I do a thorough re-examination from first principles. Last summer was such a time.
As for The Great Schism, your points are well taken, but I see evidence of why it occurred here in Galt's Gulch Online (GGO). According to some Gulchers, if you do not follow Objectivism to the finest dotting of i's and crossing of t's, then you are a heretic and should be expelled. The ideologically impure in GGO have grown tired of defending philosophies that they themselves have derived from first principles. This is the most important reason why the Gulch has become boring. With the exception of the last few days, it has become an echo echo echo echo echo chamber.
You wrote in your post: "According to some Gulchers, if you do not follow Objectivism to the finest dotting of i's and crossing of t's, then you are a heretic and should be expelled. The ideologically impure in GGO have grown tired of defending philosophies that they themselves have derived from first principles. This is the most important reason why the Gulch has become boring. With the exception of the last few days, it has become an echo echo echo echo echo chamber."
That is not true. It is misrepresentation.
Ayn Rand said that you need a philosophy of life in order to live correctly.
Few people hold to consistent thoughts and values.
Often those who do are codependent or altruistic, so their philosophy is self-destructive.
Our youngsters are being taught from an early age to think in terms of the group instead of the individual.
It took a great deal of courage for me to question my original philosophy of group acceptance and altruism (from growing up Methodist) and embrace individualism.
Most people don't have the courage to break from the group so Objectivism will have a chance to rise to become widely accepted only when the individual becomes the valued building block of society.
it was Peikoff), that a movement starts in one cen-
tury, and becomes more widespread or powerful in
the next; that Totalitarianism arose in the 19th cen-
tury, and became widespread in the 20th. If that's how it works, Objectivism began in the
20th century, and the 21st century should be-
come the century of Objectivism.--Of course,
people live longer now, and that might affect the
pattern a little bit.
But the thing is, Objectivism is set in oppo-
sition to an "inverted morality" (see Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged); altruism, as a be-
lief, has lasted much longer than Totalitarianism,
Marxism, or Fascism; it is more deeply rooted,
and therefore has been much more embedded in
the lives of people than any one explicit philosophy. False and evil though it is, it has been
intertwined in (or made part of) many great myths, great works of art, and beloved (and well-
written) stories. Therefore, uprooting it will re-
quire more effort and thought. Also, Ayn Rand
(and Peikoff) have put the blame for today's ir-
rationality on Kant. Many more people have been affected by this. And also, the enshrine-
ment of public "education" in this country (and
others), make it less likely that we can convince
a person simply by common-sense arguments.
(By the way, the phrase "common sense" is al-
so being trespassed upon, if not outright stolen,
by gun-control advocates). Before so many peo-
ple were formally educated, it might have been
easier to convince them rationally by appealing
to (implicit) Arisotelian logic. Now so many have
been to college, where (I am told; I'm not a col-
lege graduate myself), they have been taught
Kantian philosophy. And worse, look at what has
been done (and is being done) in public, elemen-
tary education.(See "The Comprachicos" in
Ayn Rand's The New Left: the Anti-Industrial
Revolution). One antidote to that is perhaps the
homeschool movement in this country (religious
though it often is).
But it is far too early to despair yet; what do
you want?! The century is as yet only about 16
years old!
Sorry, I suppose more paragraph breaks would
be better. Sometimes when I start out, I don't real-
ize how long my writing is going to be.
Atheism is a religion that cannot be proven any more or less so than any other religion. Anyone want to attempt to prove a creator does not exist go for it.
Atheism is also a largely unpopular religion, and as long as it is part of the overall objectivism philosophy it will be a roadblock to wide acceptance, or understanding.
The second reason is people would have to face that the are accountable for there own life, or death.
People do not want to be accountable, and want to follow. At any given time in my teams I have seen about 10%-30% that will stick there neck out and take a risk. Its not always the same people but its always a small number of the overall team. Those who want safety in there jobs and just do the same thing every day will never accept or even investigate objectivism. They will likely never even question whatever there perception is of reality, or integrate new things into there understanding as they encounter them. For this reason Objectivism will never be accepted or seen as truth in whole or in part by the majority of people. If they want someone else to think and do robotic things with themselves they do not want an objective reality, they want a perceptive reality in the world like the one in there head and objectiivsm, in whole or part has no place there.
These people will never even expose themselves to other religions or philosophies. They will believe what they believe no matter what they face, and I think through all human history these people are a majority.
Rejecting faith in the supernatural does not require disproving creationism. Rational people understand the world in terms of what is proven, not by running around trying to disprove arbitrary claims of mysticism.
What people believe depends on what they discover or are taught, or indoctrinated with, and on what they verify or accept uncritically. Rationality is a virtue that must be exercised by choice. It is not automatic and neither is the irrationalism of faith. To the degree people learn and choose to be rational they succeed in spite of the rest.
"Unpopularity" of atheism is largely from moral intimidation of social pressure, on a foundation of bad philosophical thinking, not an inherent state of any society. Likewise, acceptance of individual accountability depends on one's philosophy, however attained. Lack of responsibility for one's own life is not an innate character requiring that "Objectivism will never be accepted". People decide on their own what to "accept" as true based on their own understanding or uncritical absorption with lack of effort.
The dominant character, sense of life, and degree of rationality across cultures has varied greatly through history and across cultures at the same time, just it varies between individuals. This country in particular came from the Enlightenment with its emphasis on reason and individualism. The country based on the right of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of one's own happiness on earth was a marked contrast with everything else. There was no inherent lack of accountability for one's own life, quite the opposite. It has changed because of the influence of bad philosophy. See Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/...
Here's one excerpt:
“We tend to see atheism as an idea that has only recently emerged in secular Western societies.”
He suggests that atheism was not just common in ancient Greek or Roman societies, but rather it flourished more back then than it does now.
The "Age of Atheism" only he ended, he suggests, when the generally tolerant societies were replaced by imperial forces that demanded the acceptance of one true God.
He added: “The idea of a priest telling you what to do was alien to the Greek world.”
claim that atheism itself is a religion. And also the
demand that a negative be proven. If that were
necessary, what would become of "innocent until
proven guilty" in a criminal charge?
The post is some nice spin on a stawman to say why you do not need to prove there is no god in order to say there is no god.
Constant harping based on subjective beliefs and feelings of wanting to believe in 'something', and argument based on asking others to prove a negative is juvenile and is not information that is useful to the life of men. Are you next going to ask an Objectivist to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, or that a butterfly's wing flapping in the Amazon doesn't cause hurricanes in the US, or that the Universe doesn't have 7 more dimensions that man can't experience or detect?
Get serious, or hush and let the adults in the room talk.
That all depends on whether or not one has already made up one's mind and convinced themselves that such proof can not exist and as a result deny anyone and anything that claims the contrary. If you want to pm me, I can tell you exactly how it may be done, but it isn't the subject for a forum. I will say only that I know for myself the truth of the matter.
I would also add that people want someone or something to believe in. They want hope in something better. Hope requires faith that things can get better because of some outlook on the future. Religion and philosophy are all about the constitution of that source of hope. Objectivism tries to point to the individual as that source of hope and many are not willing to put faith in themselves - especially in a culture that has been adamant that government should be the source of hope.
If one chooses some other purpose to live for, then he's denying the reality of life or is accepting slavery offered or imposed by someone or something outside of himself.
Its not a difficult concept to understand.
I agree that for us it is not a difficult concept, but I will give you an insight into a factor you may or may not have considered - duration. Most of a "religious" persuasion believe that death is not a termination of existence, but a doorway into the next phase of existence. Thus the meaning of happiness may be significantly different from one person to the next depending on the duration in which they are considering the question.
It is not an infrequent criticism of many progressive economic policies that they fail for the very same reason: they consider only the short-term benefits (and usually only those attributed to a small population) rather than the long-term benefits and broader implications. For those who believe in a consciousness which persists past this life, they postulate an existence of degrees dependent on certain actions and choices here which in turn afford privileges and opportunities there. Does that mean that all such postulations are logically coherent? Perish the thought. There can only be one reality. So the challenge is to determine what characteristics would lead to a future beyond the grave resulting in the most happiness. I have no doubt that Rand hit upon several of these. But in invoking atheism, one effectively walls themselves off from exploration of such a concept. In my opinion, that is a mistake.
Through some magical transformation, god will pull some part of one out of his physical body and transport it to a magical kingdom of god's where his family and angels awaits him, and he can continue on for ever and ever with no more pain and suffering, even with perfect restoration of any defects suffered or incurred in earthly life. Just reject life and trust god to take care of one after death.
What utter delusional nonsense.
One question, however: why the downvote?
Too much energy has been wasted on talmudic dissections especially of one another.
BHO and Ron Paul, say -- emotion versus rationality;;;
objectivism is cerebral and the rest are emotional, in
the common parlance -- it's heart versus brain, in
another way of looking at it. . we need to find a way
to hook the heart and emotions into it -- loving freedom
is my amateurish answer. -- j
.
1. They want the loot.
2. They know someone who "needs" the loot. (And of course they themselves are too lazy to "provide" said "needs" by themselves.)
3. Objectivism doesn't cover everything.
In "Brave New World" Huxley describes his "fictional" caste system in detail. In his novel the system is created artificially by the "Director of Hatcheries" where all of an individuals life is predetermined. The system includes the classifications of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. Each of these are further divided into sub categories such as Alpha Plus and Epsilon Minus and the predestinators engineer each fetus by the proper application of various chemicals during gestation in synthetic wombs.
I chose this analogy when viewing the "real world" because this caste system exists and occurs naturally as a function of human genetics and natural selection. The point of his story is that for a civilization to be stable there must be leaders and there must be followers every citizen no matter where they are on the culture ladder is happy to be where he is. In the Brave New World it is a mental illness to be unhappy and if found to be such the individual is treated and reconditioned accordingly. The parallels to the liberal-progressive view of the ideal society are painfully obvious.
The "lesser lights" among the human population are those often equally demonized as herd animals. Some of these are quite intellectual, recognizing their own lack of leadership ability, but smart enough to recognize and promote the alphas among them. Some are depressed personalities, so beat down by reality they feel helpless. Others are irrationally unable to accept their lot is the result of their own bad choices, eager to blame others. Finally, there are the survivors, simply existing without the burden of thinking.
It is possible to control oneself and one's environment without bothering to dominate other people. But that type of person is not an Alpha. I am somewhat skeptical that the concept of Alpha can even be applied to humans at all. We are not pack or herd animals. Our social hierarchies are more sophisticated than simply being the biggest ape who can beat down the most rivals into submission. It seems to me-- in certain circumstances this can be a helpful analogy, but it has its limitations.
I agree that any effort to try to box humans into descriptive boxes should be viewed with skepticism, as each of us is as unique as our fingerprints. However, like most scientific constructs, I recognize the necessity to engage in such characterizations.
Among the primates, humans do share some of the violent hierarchical motivations of the chimpanzee and baboon. We also share some of the more subtle, nonviolent methods of the bonobo, and the introvert obsession with privacy of the orangutan. We are the most complex primate.
Load more comments...