HELP
Posted by coaldigger 8 years, 1 month ago to Culture
Men of the mind need to rescue humanity by phases. A philosophy that provides a morality and a society based on reason cannot be individually adopted by a large enough mass to make a difference. The nth degree of intellectual inspection of the philosophy will never be embraced except by the very few. All of the “isms” have a narrative that can be grasped by those with little time or desire for complete understanding. Elementary Objectivism needs to be spoon fed to the common man. Intermediate Objectivism needs to be made available for professionals and producers in other fields that are immersed it other things. Advanced Objectivism needs to be the realm of the philosophers and those that have retired from endeavors that require a large portion of their time. It is important not to practice intellectual snobbery with concepts that can have so much benefit to mankind.
I’m not advocating Bible stories or the sloganeering of Marxists and Fascists but I don’t think the musings of Peikoff, Kelly, Brook, et. al. will ever gain the attention that even a Trump or Sanders get on the popular stage. I don’t think the world has ever been so out of control morally. Christianity has waned. Islam has been hijacked by terrorists. Jews, Hindus and Buddhists don’t have much influence on the world stage. So, without a morality based on religious principles, we have no compass and drift along on whims and fads. All social philosophies have their scholars but those that have impact, make a case with the least common denominator. True, they use fear, shunning, violence and other means of coercion to create and control their converts but education, mass communication and understanding of how people think and behave has improved over the last 2-3 thousand years.
It is hard to know if Ayn Rand’s books changed the thinking of people or mostly provided elegant supporting illustration of the truths they were coming to on their own. In any case, it is not good enough to grow Objectivism by the incremental discoverers of Atlas Shrugged. It is not enough to have a forum for intellectual discussion that attracts a select group of would be philosophers. America, in particular, needs a simple approach to an Objectivist moral code, a Ten Commandments and rural, common preachers of rationality.
This election campaign makes it pretty clear that people just want to be led with as little thought on their part as possible. When interviewing Sanders’ supporters, few have any concept of the definition of Socialism. Trump has no ideology and his people don’t care. Cruz is pandering to the ignorant while showing as little of his intelligence as possible. Rubio is a pretty face that is good at memorizing talking points (except when his needle hits a scratch on the record and keeps repeating). If this clown show is what people will accept, it should be easy for a truly smart group to create a front man to disguise an agenda based on Objectivist principles. It seems to me that this has been done on behalf of contrasting principles with some success.
I’m not advocating Bible stories or the sloganeering of Marxists and Fascists but I don’t think the musings of Peikoff, Kelly, Brook, et. al. will ever gain the attention that even a Trump or Sanders get on the popular stage. I don’t think the world has ever been so out of control morally. Christianity has waned. Islam has been hijacked by terrorists. Jews, Hindus and Buddhists don’t have much influence on the world stage. So, without a morality based on religious principles, we have no compass and drift along on whims and fads. All social philosophies have their scholars but those that have impact, make a case with the least common denominator. True, they use fear, shunning, violence and other means of coercion to create and control their converts but education, mass communication and understanding of how people think and behave has improved over the last 2-3 thousand years.
It is hard to know if Ayn Rand’s books changed the thinking of people or mostly provided elegant supporting illustration of the truths they were coming to on their own. In any case, it is not good enough to grow Objectivism by the incremental discoverers of Atlas Shrugged. It is not enough to have a forum for intellectual discussion that attracts a select group of would be philosophers. America, in particular, needs a simple approach to an Objectivist moral code, a Ten Commandments and rural, common preachers of rationality.
This election campaign makes it pretty clear that people just want to be led with as little thought on their part as possible. When interviewing Sanders’ supporters, few have any concept of the definition of Socialism. Trump has no ideology and his people don’t care. Cruz is pandering to the ignorant while showing as little of his intelligence as possible. Rubio is a pretty face that is good at memorizing talking points (except when his needle hits a scratch on the record and keeps repeating). If this clown show is what people will accept, it should be easy for a truly smart group to create a front man to disguise an agenda based on Objectivist principles. It seems to me that this has been done on behalf of contrasting principles with some success.
Inspiration for Objectivists:
"Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swaps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not at all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists. It is real. It is possible. It is yours". Ayn Rand
I don't believe I can agree with the premise in the original post, eg " Men of the mind need to rescue humanity". Maybe I am misreading it, but when I first saw it I equated that the LMS (Looter/Moocher/Socialist, eg "sheeple") class are in a way demanding we producers are required and mandated to help them... and I reject that out of hand, for the same reason I reject someone trying to help an addict break his or her addiction by forcing them to stay away from whatever their addiction is, rather than leaving the choice (and responsibility) to the afflicted.
WE can show the LMS class a better way, but they and they alone are responsible for their rescue, much as someone who is drowning has the responsibility to grab a lifering or put on a floatation device. I'll throw them the ring, I'll show them where the vests are stored, hell, I'll even teach them how to swim... but if they do not want to save themselves, it is not MY responsibility to save them for themselves.
I did do that for a living - talked jumpers down from bridges - for a number of years, but you soon realize in that business if someone's gonna jump, they're gonna jump, and it's THEIR responsibility (and consequence) for their actions, not mine, whether they decide to go down the slow way or the fast way... I can only give them options. When I first started they taught us to take "proactive steps" to haul a jumper down, and every time (until I realized how stupid it was!) I ended up getting injured, or damned near getting pulled off the structure (TG for the belts we had then).
My main point is that if I insist on only speaking to them in the most elegant French imaginable, they are not going to get it.
Some will only get to that point until they have fallen to the bottom.
I do have a profound appreciation and admiration of Mankind and I have always feared our demise. I don't know why, and I've pushed it aside for most of my life, it wasn't fashionable. I can no longer ignore it, I have before me the slightest of chances to make a difference.
That is the only reason I try my best to articulate the Big Picture view I see and objectivism is part of the force that holds these big picture puzzle pieces together.
How to tell if someone wants to and has the ability, with a hand up, to succeed in creating or producing value for self is difficult to tell.
I have to laugh at the left or the social Justus freaks pointing fingers at the rest of us when many times it's the community that has already identified those that want a hand up or those that just want a hand out.
If we want to educate these people to more fundamental questions, its necessary (in my opinion) to reach them where they live.
I say that defesting socialism will depend on showing how it DOESNT WORK. Shortages of goods, inferior goods, high prices, etc. We have to show how capitalism has produced more of what people want. Today, socialist programs arent required to be accountable- they need clear goals and then accountability in achieving those goals with the money provided. Failure of them is just chalked up to "not enough money". That excuse has to be just discounted as a way to excuse failure.
High dudgeon speeches from Galt just wont cut it, I think. We have to show what really happens- like in Venezuela.
Most people are not interested in philosophy. What we need from them is their ability to support the fabric of our society...and their general good attitude towards capitalism and individual freedom. They have been taught in school that business is evil, that the environment is god, that altruism is the mark of the high quality, trustworthy, person. This is what we have to 'undo'. We need positive images to communicate with people who do not live (want to live or even need to live) an intellectual life.
Since we are the outliers, we are the ones who have to extend ourselves to communicate. This is why we have come together on a site that originated to talk about some movies.
Jan
In coaldiggers original post he unwittingly acknowledges such things with his comment "So, without a morality based on religious principles, we have no compass and drift along on whims and fads."
That is the premise that must be riveted upon by those who wish to reverse our decline into the abyss. The idea that morality can only be found through religious principles. I would argue that they must only be found through the application of reason to Existence and man's relation to it and as a part of it.
Toward that end, Objectivist philosophy and Judeo-Christian philosophy do share at least two important moral tenets. First, both point out that Man, through his power of choice, maintains moral culpability. Second, it is also jointly acknowledged that an objective code of morality is possible and Man must strive to identify it.
Of course of incalculably profound significance, that is where agreement ceases and Judeo-Christian "ABC's" arise.
Conversely, it is where the unimpeachable right to one's own life that Objectivist philosophy teaches, with its highest moral virtue to live it as one determines, rises to challenge such religious-based moral tenets.
Many tend to "worship" many things that are not intrinsic with how nature and creation were designed or intended.
That's all that is meant by the first commandment and it has more to do with your priorities of appreciation than the pagan concept of worshiping some entity in fear of consequence.
I believe every word you say is true. Over the years I have experienced the frustration of enthusiastic groups getting together, discussing, and the dissolving away like matzo ball in chicken soup. But I still believe in that spark that glows within people of the mind who are devoted to reason. All fires start with a spark. Sometimes it takes decades, for the fire to ignite to a blaze, but we owe it to ourselves, if not humanity to keep the spark alive so that it gets to be the "idea whose time has come."
"Ten Commandments"? So they will repeat by rote
a catechism, with simple stories? And what will
they learn then? To use their minds independently,
and be rational?!
---Oh, please.
The answer is not to return to the late
Middle Ages, or Protestant Reformation.
It will be good if people influenced by Objec-
tivism (I think Ayn Rand called them "profes-
sional intellectuals") would make movies, or
write works that were consonant with Objectiv-
ism, and point to it as their philosophical base, while giving her credit for any quotes. As
to simple people and children, it would be good
simply to teach them rationality, and wait until
later (that is, until a child were adolescent, or at
least pre-adolescent) to get explicit about a
philosophy.
As I said, the home school movement could
help, if it were infiltrated by Objectivists.
And if it were possible to start an Objectivist
college or university--maybe people could be
persuaded to contribute to its foundation. (It
would be necessary to be careful about who got
the money, and not be taken in by "schleppers").
As to the spread of Objectivism, you are correct. It cannot be taught by catechism without becoming something other than Objectivism. Even the name "Objectivism" isn't sexy enough to attract the great unwashed. It is a philosophy that is practical in application, but requires thought and effort to espouse. To sloganize it by giving out ten second squibs or other devices for unthinking popularizing would be to defeat it at the outset. Those inspired by Rand must rise to Objectivism rather than Objectivism lowering itself to them. This is not snobbery. It is integrity.
Hillsdale College promotes religion.
Metaphysical change is a change in your view of reality. Usually an epistemological sea change follows thereafter.
Teaching people to reason will be a real challenge. Giving them parameters or guidelines might help but are no substitute for teaching them how to think things through.
Everyone has a trigger that produces a "wake up call", assuming one is not genetically incapable, and there are creatures like that in this world. Problem is, there is no algorithm to identify all the different triggers.
If we were to concentrate on the obstinate, those stuck in a meme or level of awareness...we might have better luck with obvious articulated or physical examples over time.
Question is...do we have enough time on our side to make a difference before we become trans-humanized humanoids without a mind.
The latter is why "I" find John Galts speech so profound.
What makes me skeptical that Objectivism will register with the last couple of generations is that they have a distorted view of rational thought and facts. When I use the term "rational thinking," I mean a reliance on traditional logical processes, but today it's been distorted to imply "rationalization," a foul word that misuses the idea of rational thinking to distort facts to fit a compartmentalized justification for whatever position you care to promote.
I have heard "but those are YOUR facts" far too frequently in recent years. Academia has force fed the idea of relativistic morality and the superiority of emotion over logic and facts for about fifty years, polluting the mental engines of the past several generations. Even though I'm over 70, I can find members of my senior crowd who espouse this kind of dysfunctional thinking.
Don't try to save the world. Just help the willing to find their way. The cream will naturally rise to the top. My experience is that talent and drive has been crippled by a society that discourages individuals from overcoming challenge. If you can show even a few that they aren't dangerous, despite what society has told them, we all will benefit.
Rand is hard to sell because she's attacked by derision. Those who have heard of her (but not read anything) have heard, "Anyone who would believe that junk is naive and stupid. Get real!"
I sell Aristotle. Right now my favorite part is in the first few pages of the Politics where he almost predicts that machinery will replace slaves. I keep a copy of selections from his works in my Throne Room to read when seated on the Euphemistic Throne.
It would be difficult, but I have envisioned it being possible.