Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[Philip Coates]

I'm in complete agreement with all of the points in George's Post #114. I think it's one of the most insightful posts on this thread so far.

GHS:

> "One way to obtain leverage is to focus on a specific issue, as the abolitionists did."

> "I have been told many times over the years that readers of ATCAG went on to become admirers of Rand."

i) Often it's best to persuade one piece or one element or one aspect or one topic at a time and then allow the prospect to fully digest that part. It's easier to sell someone a cheese sandwich than an entire dairy. One small sale can get people to buy more from you the next time. And even if they don't, you move them that much closer to Objectivism, libertarianism or whatever the 'total package' is. Plus pretty much no one ever buys the total package at once. There are lots of people who swallow Atlas whole but, if they are thoughtful, it actually takes time to digest a myriad of components.

ii) Also, if you focus on one issue first, you can get really good at selling that, at explaining it. And you can get more people to listen to you. You can get more people to listen to you if you start by explaining how government should not do x than by trying to explain government should do almost nothing.

iii) Once you get them questioning "hey, why did I ever think government should do X", they can begin to question - even all by themselves sometimes, "well, I always accepted government doing Y, should I rethink -that- for many of the same reasons as X?"

> "drug laws. We are here dealing with millions of Americans whose lives have been ruined"

In addition to all the reasons you give why Objectivists and libertarians should make a point of attacking the drug laws: Unlike the impact of a five percent change in your tax bill, people whose lives are affected by this are -really- affected by it. They go to jail. They have a record. They can't get hired for any decent job. And not only the hundreds of thousands? (I don't know the numbers) on whom the cell door slams are affected, but all the people who know them, care about them. Loved ones, children.

So you can potentially get an even larger group of people -really- energized about something like this. It may target a minority, but it's a big, big deal for those it affects. And passionate minorities are what changes the world. (Aside: What's with ARI and TAS, are they too freaking dumb to see this?)

Plus, among people who are not directly affected but care about issues, those who want to allow themselves to can -clearly understand- the injustice of this and other victimless crimes. That's not always true with more complex economic issues - who will own the roads? will the big shots takeover under freedom? There is more -legitimate- basis for confusion given what people hear everywhere on the free economy aspects.

> "the abolitionists chose one of the most unpopular causes imaginable at the time -- a crusade then enabled them to focus on the principle of self-ownership. "

While I'm going to argue later in this thread that a good strategy (very often) is to build on agreement on something and then widen the foothold, sometimes if you go RIGHT IN THE TEETH of something everyone thinks they oppose but you actually can make major inroads on, then: when you do make people change their thinking you will gain enormous 'street cred', gain in being listened to with respect on the -next- issue you campaign on or have something thoughtful to say on.

> "The right to control your own body"

And again, this is easy to see compared to complex issues that require some knowledge of economics. A middle schooler could potentially understand it. Good luck explaining even to most economically uneducated college graduates why the banking and health insurance systems would function ideally without the regulatory agencies.

> "A campaign against drug laws would have the added advantage of distinguishing ourselves from conservatives"

Especially today: The last few years one wonders if some Objectivist intellectuals [forgetting that Rand wrote extensively on civil liberties] are jones-ing to become wholly-owned subsidiaries of the nearest Tea Party . . . or the Republican party. It's nice that they have belatedly discovered Rand in many cases and that the Tea Party leans more libertarian than traditional conservative, but they are still basically Republicans, and does anyone think the Republicans will still be Rand enthusiasts once the "great recession" is over, Obama is out of office and its business as usual under Romney or Newt?

[Xray]

Many religions have turned out to be fundamentally wrong about objective facts. Which is not surprising, since at the time they were founded, these facts could not be known.

Therefore many religions are fundamantally wrong on points a), b), and c).

They aren't fundamentally wrong if there is a deeper premise of correcting for new knowledge and truth. Usually there is no such thing. When there is it usually is a scientific endeavor.

--Brant

The key problem of religion is that the root premise on which the whole thing rests is totally irrational in that there exists no scintilla of evidence to support it.

While it is true that every thought system will arrive, at one point, at an irreducible primary in the form of an axiom that cannot be ultimately proven; but it is a big difference whether it is posited as an irreducible primary that we exist, or whether it is posited as an irreducible primary that a God exists, that "original sin" exists, or that "reincarnation" exists.

(The religions may not speak of their root premises as irreducible primaries, but they they certainly act on them as if they were).

The unmasking of religion as irrational in its basis has dramatic consequence for ethics because it has become possible to finally free (at last, long overdue!) ethical issues from the shackles of religion.

The process has been accelerated in recent years through the rise of the atheist movement.

It will also make it more and more difficult for politicians who are firm believers to present religious premises in their political programs.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: "Liberal" issues, please. Not just "Conservative" ones

I would go wider than George's Post 141, broaden his point from drug laws to include abortion laws and other civil liberties issues as a strategic choice for Objectivists and libertarians (I haven't read Cato or Reason lately, but perhaps libertarians tend to already do this more than the Oist spokespeople.)

One point to add about why Objectivists should talk more about drug laws and other "ACLU" issues and not so heavily concentrate on "Chamber of Commerce" issues:

Rand always understood the importance of saying over and over "We are -not- conservatives." But today we see again the media once again refering to Rand as 'on the right'. So she was wise to understand the likelihood of pigeonholing, of oversimplifying. This simplistic labelling is compounded when Yaron Brook has a column in Forbes, when he chooses as his 'outreach' speaking venue the Tea Parties, the choice of capitalism and economic issues as a predominant focus of ARI writing. And when TAS's prominent new high profile undertaking is a "Business Rights Center".

But if TAS or ARI became known for fighting for civil liberties -- for example for abortion rights, for the abolition of the drug laws -- it wouldn't overnight result in large financial donations from many liberals [i suspect one reason for the choice of a business-oriented project as their new direction is an appeal to businessmen to fund TAS, which is probably hurting for funds?]

The barrier for wide public awareness of new and radical ideas is how the media paints them. Right now, they tend to see Objectivists (less so libertarians) as exclusively defenders of the rich and powerful. And hence their seething and unjustified hostility to Rand and her system. If TAS or ARI were to have a prominent new division or program promoting and writing op eds about civil libertarian causes commonly associated with liberals or the left, what would change is the press coverage.

And the majority of intellectuals in America who do have an impact on what ideas get heard are disgusted with anti-abortion laws, with drug laws, with the repressiveness of social or religious conservatives.

One or two respectful articles about TAS in the Washington Post and they would become less dependent on pleasing their businessmen funders and board members. They would have more appeal to the young - who are the future - than mostly to cranky old farts. TAS has been bleeding young people and college students for years. (I can't speak as confidently about ARI, since I haven't been attending their events.) But they also would be less likely to be pigeonholed and dismissed as being some variant of conservatism.

"We are not conservatives!" -- Ayn Rand. So, and I'm talking to you, Yaron Brook, David Kelley, Will Thomas, Ed Hudgins, you need to act accordingly:

It's not only the -right- thing to do, the one consistent with Objectivism. Tactically, it's the -smart- thing to do.

[Brant Gaede]

Many religions have turned out to be fundamentally wrong about objective facts. Which is not surprising, since at the time they were founded, these facts could not be known.

Therefore many religions are fundamantally wrong on points a), b), and c).

They aren't fundamentally wrong if there is a deeper premise of correcting for new knowledge and truth. Usually there is no such thing. When there is it usually is a scientific endeavor.

--Brant

The key problem of religion is that the root premise on which the whole thing rests is totally irrational in that there exists no scintilla of evidence to support it.

While it is true that every thought system will arrive, at one point at, an irreducible primary in the form of an axiom that cannot be ultimately proven; but it is a big difference whether it is posited as an irreducible primary that we exist, or whether it is posited as an irreducible primary that a God exists, that "original sin" exists, or that "reincarnation" exists.

(The religions may not speak of their root premises as irreducible primaries, but they they certainly act on them as if they were).

The unmasking of religion as irrational in its basis has dramatic consequence for ethics because it has become possible to finally free (at last, long overdue!) ethical issues from the shackles of religion.

The process has been accelerated in recent years through the rise of the atheist movement.

It will also make it more and more difficult for politicians who are firm believers to present religious premises in their political programs.

The churches of Europe are empty, I've heard. The root premise of any religion is you give yourself to it and it gives you something in return. I'd guess that trade has broken down for sundry reasons in many places. The problem is a vacuous secularism doesn't make up for that. God exists of course. God is reality in all its permutations. God is to be respected, however, not worshipped. God is in everything and everybody thus basic human moral equivalence (which needs maintenance).

--Brant

master of the run-around

[BaalChatzaf]

God exists of course. God is reality in all its permutations. God is to be respected, however, not worshipped. God is in everything and everybody thus basic human moral equivalence (which needs maintenance).

--Brant

master of the run-around

God and the Devil are in the Details. Maybe God is the Devil when He is in a bad mood.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Subject: "Liberal" issues, please. Not just "Conservative"... But they also would be less likely to be pigeonholed and dismissed as being some variant of conservatism. "We are not conservatives!" -- Ayn Rand. So, and I'm talking to you, Yaron Brook, David Kelley, Will Thomas, Ed Hudgins, you need to act accordingly: It's not only the -right- thing to do, the one consistent with Objectivism. Tactically, it's the -smart- thing to do.

Phil, I am sure you have something here.

Not merely for the 'marketing' aspect (which does have 'Unique Selling Propostion' merits) but for the honest portrayal of Objectivism, it - or the 'powers that be' - should consider withdrawing from conservative circles.

I realise that I am contradicting earlier thoughts I've had.

That conservatives and O'ists - and even liberals and O'ists! - occasionally correspond ideologically on various issues, is of more value to them, than it is to Objectivism.

We know that civil liberties (the ACLU) would simply fall under individual rights - but people out there don't know this.

They know the issues, alone.

It could be over-facile, or self-evident, to state that individual rights begin at the level of our bodies: whether its abortion or ingestion of drugs, the same principle holds - "who's body is it, anyway?" I don't recall Rand on this.

The strength of Objectivism lies with its radicalism: Is 'extremism' too strong? I don't think so.

The perception at large of O'ism being absorbed into libertarianism or conservatism is a compromise that may kill Objectivism.

Going its own way as a brand-new movement "for the new intellectual", may not bring in huge numbers, but it would preserve its integrity - and ensure steady growth from individualists.

If I've over-simplified due to shortage of knowledge about the USA, ARI, or TAS - and I notice you haven't addressed this from a global perspective, understandably - I invite your correction.

Tony

[Selene]

"who's body is it, anyway?"

Shouldn't it be:

"Whose body is it anyway?"

Adam

just a drive by grammarian

[Philip Coates]

> Going its own way as a brand-new movement "for the new intellectual", may not bring in huge numbers, but it would preserve its integrity - and ensure steady growth from individualists....I notice you haven't addressed this from a global perspective, understandably - I invite your correction.

Tony, I think the "global perspective" has been under-discussed and under-embraced by Objectivists and one of my original purposes in starting this thread was to see how Paul and missionaries have such a perspective and to extrapolate one for Objectivism. But there have been so many interesting directions taken by this thread to respond to, that completing my series of posts on this is dribbling out in spurts [don't go there].

My last post in this series was on 'inertia'. I have more to say on Paul and the early Christians. And I'll have a lot more to say on the issue of going global.

[Xray]

God exists of course. God is reality in all its permutations. God is to be respected, however, not worshipped. God is in everything and everybody thus basic human moral equivalence (which needs maintenance).

--Brant

master of the run-around

Brant - a pantheist! Who would have thought that?

--Xray

truly confused now

[Jonathan]

So, and I'm talking to you, Yaron Brook, David Kelley, Will Thomas, Ed Hudgins...

Schoolmarm Coates

241 Dunning-Kruger Way

State of Denial, 00000

November 20, 2011

The Honorable Leon Panetta

Secretary of Defense

1300 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1300

Dear Mr. Secretary,

Yes, I'm talking to you! I've been playing with toy soldiers for over four decades, and I've used them to systematically study military strategies that I've read about on Wikipedia and seen at local Reenactments. I've kept a running journal of detailed notes which I frequently analyze, update and then reanalyze, which now consists of thousands and thousands of pages of sheer genius bound in several volumes.

My credentials thus having been firmly established, the following is what you must do in your role of Secretary of Defense if you wish to succeed...

[9thdoctor]

I've been playing with toy soldiers for over four decades, and I've used them to systematically study military strategies that I've read about on Wikipedia and seen at local Reenactments. I've kept a running journal of detailed notes which I frequently analyze, update and then reanalyze, which now consists of thousands and thousands of pages of sheer genius bound in several volumes.

My credentials thus having been firmly established, the following is what you must do in your role of Secretary of Defense if you wish to succeed...

I think you've got Phil mixed up with somebody else:

[Brant Gaede]

If you want to "terrify the terrorists" show them photos of the virgins they'll actually meet in paradise. They're virgins for a reason.

--Brant

it's one thing to over-reach your competency if you let others who know more and better draw you back--the other is the embarrassment in the video

[9thdoctor]

If you want to "terrify the terrorists" show them photos of the virgins they'll actually meet in paradise. They're virgins for a reason.

[PDS]

So, and I'm talking to you, Yaron Brook, David Kelley, Will Thomas, Ed Hudgins...

Schoolmarm Coates

241 Dunning-Kruger Way

State of Denial, 00000

November 20, 2011

The Honorable Leon Panetta

Secretary of Defense

1300 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1300

Dear Mr. Secretary,

Yes, I'm talking to you! I've been playing with toy soldiers for over four decades, and I've used them to systematically study military strategies that I've read about on Wikipedia and seen at local Reenactments. I've kept a running journal of detailed notes which I frequently analyze, update and then reanalyze, which now consists of thousands and thousands of pages of sheer genius bound in several volumes.

My credentials thus having been firmly established, the following is what you must do in your role of Secretary of Defense if you wish to succeed...

I almost feel guilty getting this entertainment for free...

[Brant Gaede]

So, and I'm talking to you, Yaron Brook, David Kelley, Will Thomas, Ed Hudgins...

Schoolmarm Coates

241 Dunning-Kruger Way

State of Denial, 00000

November 20, 2011

The Honorable Leon Panetta

Secretary of Defense

1300 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1300

Dear Mr. Secretary,

Yes, I'm talking to you! I've been playing with toy soldiers for over four decades, and I've used them to systematically study military strategies that I've read about on Wikipedia and seen at local Reenactments. I've kept a running journal of detailed notes which I frequently analyze, update and then reanalyze, which now consists of thousands and thousands of pages of sheer genius bound in several volumes.

My credentials thus having been firmly established, the following is what you must do in your role of Secretary of Defense if you wish to succeed...

Probably the most brilliant piece of satire on OL ever.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Thanks, guys, for your detailed engagement with all the many points which have been made.

Makes me and others really eager to continue throwing good long posts after dismissive one-liners.

[Philip Coates]

Also helps explain why Roger Bissell, Jim Heaps-Nelson, Robert Campbell, Barbara Branden, Ted Keer and others who like to explore issues in depth and used to post quite often very seldom post here any more.

(Go ahead and make a snarky and stupid joke or post a video or a cartoon about that.)

[caroljane]

Probably the most brilliant piece of satire on OL ever.

--Brant

But personal vitriol dims the lustre.

[PDS]

Probably the most brilliant piece of satire on OL ever.

--Brant

But personal vitriol dims the lustre.

Daunce: I happen to agree, for the most part.

But then again, and as merely one example, I have managed go the entirety of my OL (and online and real-life) existence without calling someone a "cunt", so let's just say our friend Phil (sometimes) gives as well as he (sometimes) gets.

Yes, Jonathan likes to slap Phil to sleep and then slap him for sleeping, it is true, but those episodes are mostly well-deserved comedic asides to the main thrust of Phil-dominated threads. Our generous host MSK has subtly diagnosed what is "really" going on with Phil-dominated threads and has dissected their entirely predictable arc. MSK's analysis is, as they say in the business, "dead nuts."

For the connoisseur, following the MSK-diagnosed predictive arc is the true joy of reading a Phil-dominated thread anyway.

Being a sensitive, hockey-loving soul like yourself, I have felt the occasional pang of sympathy for Phil in such situations, but the feeling passes away soon enough, sort of like a case of mild heartburn. I am afraid you have to just ride it out.

[Brant Gaede]

George Smith will engage Phil if he says anything substantially worthwhile and interesting. That's about the only way I even read Phil any more.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Probably the most brilliant piece of satire on OL ever.

--Brant

But personal vitriol dims the lustre.

Daunce: I happen to agree, for the most part.

But then again, and as merely one example, I have managed go the entirety of my OL (and online and real-life) existence without calling someone a "cunt", so let's just say our friend Phil (sometimes) gives as well as he (sometimes) gets.

Yes, Jonathan likes to slap Phil to sleep and then slap him for sleeping, it is true, but those episodes are mostly well-deserved comedic asides to the main thrust of Phil-dominated threads. Our generous host MSK has subtly diagnosed what is "really" going on with Phil-dominated threads and has dissected their entirely predictable arc. MSK's analysis is, as they say in the business, "dead nuts."

For the connoisseur, following the MSK-diagnosed predictive arc is the true joy of reading a Phil-dominated thread anyway.

Being a sensitive, hockey-loving soul like yourself, I have felt the occasional pang of sympathy for Phil in such situations, but the feeling passes away soon enough, sort of like a case of mild heartburn. I am afraid you have to just ride it out.

If you are subject to occasional bouts of sympathy I hope you have read my Toronto SOS. We are under attack from our Mayor, our local tab the Sun which has declared war against all public art,and the rest of Canada like usual.Please send warm blankets and a goaltender.

[9thdoctor]

(Go ahead and make a snarky and stupid joke or post a video or a cartoon about that.)

Écrasez Schoolmarm!

[Philip Coates]

> "Crucial to the possibility of substantial intellectual change is the issue of inertia... What it takes to overcome inertia - either to get something moving in the first place or to alter an already existing course - is a big enough impulse, a strong enough force. Proportional in magnitude to that of the mass that needs to be moved...the inertia of philosophical or religious worldviews [is] quite great. To change them is akin to changing a deep-seated habit. An alcoholic or a drug addict had reasons for adopting that pattern, it allowed him to cope with certain things. And, over time, it became a part of who he was...Doesn't [Alcoholics Anonymous] talk about needing to hit rock bottom and having nowhere else to go, before one has..motivation to change?... Most minds and behavior patterns have a lot of inertia with regard to..worldview [and philosophy or religion]...they are not acquired all at once, but accrete slowly over time and thus require time to unravel or replace ...they are integrated and "embedded" in all sorts of ways...they are often not consciously identified and it can be hard to uncover, challenge, replace such things....

...For [the first Christians] to change the religious views of one man or a culture, for Objectivists to change the philosophy of one man or a culture, even for classical liberals to change the economic and 'individual rights' views of one man or a culture --- [one needs] to not underestimate the task...[when] resources are limited, [one] may need to attack some targets but not others...that's what the first Christians did so cleverly..and what Objectivists -- and perhaps classical liberals..have not always done with enough systematic thought." [from Post #52 on "Inertia"]

(Continuing with this topic)

Subject: Equilibrium, Maintenance, and Change

What are some causes of 'human inertia'? 'Institutional inertia'? 'Cultural inertia'? How does one -ever- overcome it?

Related to the psychological resistance to change of premises or direction of human beings is the biological concept of homeostasis. Our bodies constantly strive to maintain certain static conditions - a body temperature of 98.6 degrees, a certain pH level, a constant level of glucose in the blood, etc. This enables all the chemical reactions life depends on to function smoothly and effectively. (As a fourth example, if the level of calcium in your blood goes outside of certain very narrow parameters, you will die.)

Similarly, if less strongly, we tend to resist major changes in our most fundamental attitudes and convictions. That would be stressful, require the expenditure of a great deal of energy, and would require a lot of other things to be changed as a consequence. It throws our equilibrium off in many, many ways.

One reason those who are young are the ones who first whole-heartedly embrace, seldom the middle-aged or older is the young are still forming mental and emotional habits and attitudes and a personality and character arising from them. Psychological homeostasis still exists but it has fewer things it needs to try to maintain unchanged or unquestioned.

Now apply this to an entire culture. Once a culture is fully formed, entrenched, is it not likely to resist change compared to, say, a "frontier"?

How does this relate to Paul's trying to reach out to "the diaspora"?

How might it apply to finding the most receptive audiences, finding what might be the most "fertile ground" for the victory of libertarianism or for the spread of Objectivism?

[Philip Coates]

Subject: "I'm too Selfish to Fight for Objectivism; Movements of Groups are a Bad Idea"

The above are frequent arguments by those who find discussions of 'spreading objectivism' to be amusing or boring or irrelevant. Both are false.

1. "I'm too Selfish to Fight for Objectivism"

I suffered through four years of college surrounded by a hostile intellectual and cultural environment. But finally, my senior year, in the Ayn Rand Club (which I had started), I was finally taking action to further my beliefs. And that made an enormous psychological difference. I was no longer just sitting there having to take it. It's tremendously motivating to fight for your values, to assert and argue for your views.

It's not even relevant whether you win, or win in your lifetime. It's not being a passive victim that changes the universe you live in. You don't feel helpless or alienated or a bystander at great injustice or irrationality any more.

Rand said, "Those who fight for the future live in it today." Very true emotionally and psychologically.

In fact, in today's hostile culture, to ***never lift a finger across your whole lifespan*** to fight for what are the things you most deeply believe should be different about the world ((assuming you don't work from 8 am to midnight or have some other kind of extreme case or condition, or you are so consumed in your career or life goals that you can't spare any time...and can't afford to contribute any moral support or money to others to carry on the battle)) I would say is itself not being true to yourself, not affirming your view of life in a very fundamental area.

At some point and in some way you really do have to speak out and not suffer what is deeply wrong in silence. Or at least support others who do. For your own selfish needs.

2. "Movements of Groups are a Bad Idea"

I'm finding this one so implausible -- why can't groups be organized to not be authoritarian, squelch individual ideas, etc.? haven't they changed the world, historically? don't you have the option to act alone and not in a group? -- that I would need someone to flesh out the "anti-group" idea a bit more before I'd know what to respond to...

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Are spreading a new philosophy or the founding of christianity topics of little interest?

I'm curious why this thread seems to be dying, to be of very little real posting interest. By comparison to recent threads -- on politics and current events (Ron Paul, climategate), recipes, movies, peikoff, the atlas movie, atheism & philosophy & arguments.

I've brought up a lot of points about how movements succeed, raised a lot of historical issues about religion for example. Are those issues of little interest to agree, disagree, expand upon? Are -my- posts poorly written or not thoughtful?