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... You are currently on page 6.
I understand what you're saying but wonder who you'd include in the list of who she should have bridged to?
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.
Jan
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.
Some teenagers never grow up...😜
Unfortunately, political discussion is the most obvious opportunity to express the virtues of reason. Its a tough audience though.
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.'
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.
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',
Load more comments...