Objectivism begins and ends with objective reality. You do not have to practice its principles, but one does not "adopt" objective reality. No apology necessary. Obviously, people can disagree with some of the tenet of Objectivism. Or that it is a logical system vs a set of commandments. number of virtues, etc. I think the system has huge implications in science and economics. Much work is needed there.

Very well said.

I'm trying to find a description for Huxley's hierarchy. Do you have a source or link you could post?

Quite the active discussion, Dr. Brenner!

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.

Agreed. There are many aspects of Objectivism which have helped me to examine life, people, and the various philosophies being thrown about in a logical and ordered manner. I now can recognize and name many false arguments and see them for what they are. I view myself as being far better off for the exercise of my mind.

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.

People listen to negative ads (maybe because our instinctive sense of survival is tuned to danger alerts) more than positive ones, so I think your idea of "alarm" ads of the failures of socialism using the examples of national failures, past and present are a good start. The issue is funding for more than the internet, although starting a YouTube channel isn't expensive.

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.

Thanks, Jan!

Sorry, I chose the word adopted in the title to the thread instead of accepted for just that reason. When I said that I put myself into the latter category, I was saying that I admire Objectivism rather than adopt it.

If that is the definition of Objectivist, then I am one. By just about any other definition, I am not.

Jan

I am doing my best to capitalize on this. Objectivists may encourage their children toward my nanotech minor program advertised in the Marketplace as a means around Progressive indoctrination.

+1. This did not deserve a -1, because sometimes it is painful to be an Objectivist. Being self-consistent IS hard when it is tempting to not be self-consistent.

You can ignore Objectivism; you cannot ignore the results of ignoring Objectivism. (to paraphrase irreverently)

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 must be one or more good reasons why Objectivism has not become widely accepted.

Where are you deriving your definition of "alpha"? Doesn't it literally come from "pack leader," as exist in wild animal populations?

You advised a change from a 'push' of notices to your email to a 'pull' system where the user would log on to a forum and check to see if he had anything new. I have observed that changes from 'push email' to 'pull forum' structure often fail; I know that this change would fail with me, not for any deep philosophical reason but just because I would rarely remember to log on and check. If the emails are pushed to me, then they serve as their own reminder: I click on them and see what you are saying.

Jan

That is an incomplete definition of alpha personality. The alpha is one that takes command of his or her own life regardless of the opinion of others. The hero's and heroin's in Rand's novels are all alphas. Some alphas chose to be quiet and reserved and lead from behind the scenes. Being an alpha is about being in control. Being an objectivist means being in control of your own life by what ever means you choose.

Here is an article you might like:
http://www.dawn.com/news/722513/india...

Jan

I agree that it was mistake of Rand and her students to portray her philosophy as having almost no history. Clearly Rand did not think that because she loved the US. She clearly built on the ideas of Locke and many other enlightenment philosophers.

I remember reading (I forget who wrote it, but I think
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!

I disagree with this. Alpha personalities are usually understood to be loud and boisterous extroverts, people who dominate conversations and the people around them. Ayn Rand has been described as a private and reserved type of personality. I've met plenty of Objectivists who are introverted, and would rather quietly remain alone with their work than to have to deal with people.

Why not market objectivist ideas as ones that work better in practice relative to things like socialism (which fails stupendously all the time). Objectivist ideas vs Venezuelan ideas of socialism.

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.

Objectivism has not gained wide acceptance for one simple reason. Progressive government schools have destroyed nearly everybody's ability to think for themselves. People believe what they've been taught to believe, and they think how they've been trained to think. Ayn Rand's ideas are not merely the opposite of every Progressive value that people have been brainwashed to believe, her very approach to ideas is contrary to the way people are taught to think.

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.

You are presenting what I would call high dudgeon rhetoric about objectivism. Thats great, and I estimate it to be really accurate.

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.

LOL. got a nice ring to it

What are you trying to say?