Why is Objectivism Not Spreading, While Ayn Rand is Wildly Popular?

[Rich Engle]

would say that the pack mentality is common in human nature, including in sports teams, nerds, Trekkies, etc,

That just struck me as funny.

You gotta wonder who the alpha Trekkie is, right? They guy with the biggest dual-core processor (A Mac, of course, of course!)? Well, actually, not necessarily a Mac. Could be a giant homemade running, of course, Linux! Deep into the Trekkie world, you go through the gates, get the keys, and maybe, just maybe get an audience with The Big Mainframe.

I love Star Trek but man have I met some strange folks. My nerds are much more balanced, and powerful.

sjw--character attacks? This has been looking to me like a pretty even-keeled conversation. Whatcha mean?

r

Edited August 31, 2011 by Rich Engle

[jriggenbach]

But without the final prohibition of these cults (including the Christian variants mentioned above) via 'imperatorial power', Christianity would never establised itself as the powerful religion it became.

Gibbon estimated that 1/20th of the population of the Roman Empire was Christian by the time of Constantine's conversion. This implies an outstanding rate of growth before it had the opportunity to resort to force. However one could argue, and I would agree, that to get to the next level force was needed. The alternative religions had to be suppressed, this because Christianity has no inherently better claim to truth. So, I'm on Xray's side here, but to answer Phil would require getting him to spell out how a factor is judged "basically responsible" for the rise of a religion.

Yes, there are periods when Christianity benefited from being 'enforced' by fire and the sword, but that has not been basically responsible for its 2000 years of expansion and success.

It would also be helpful if you could get Phil to acknowledge that his stated source, Paul Johnson, is notoriously pro-Christian throughout his writing. His History of the American People, for example, tries to show that American individualism and American inclinations toward free markets are all owed to its puritan heritage. He consistently and even, at times, ludicrously overestimates the importance of Christianity in whatever aspect of history he is writing about. I recall having a conversation with Phil years ago, at a time when he was reading (and seemed much enamored of) Vernon Louis Parrington's The Colonial Mind. I warned Phil that Parrington had been criticized for not taking the role of Christianity in the American colonies seriously enough and suggested that he might consider reading Johnson's book as a sort of corrective, since Johnson goes too far in the opposite direction. As I recall, Phil didn't seem to think back then that the prejudices and predispositions of historians made any difference. But it's quite obvious to me that if force played any important role in the early spread of Christianity (or its later spread, for that matter), Johnson could be relied upon to play that fact down and struggle to find other ways to account for the relevant historical events.

JR

Edited August 31, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Xray]

To continue, rather than spike, this discussion on this level--not the point of Phil's thread--we all go read Paul Johnson as Phil has already done.

Happy reading.

It would also be helpful if you could get Phil to acknowledge that his stated source, Paul Johnson, is notoriously pro-Christian throughout his writing.

I suspected that this was the case, but was curious to see in what direction the discussion would progress.

I originally wanted to reply to Phil: "I recommend Karl Deschner's "Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums" ('Criminal History of Christiniaty'), but then decided against it because I don't want to enter here on this thread into a polemic back-and-forth about the 'virtues and vices' of Christianity, during which the original question would get lost: "Why is Objectivism Not Spreading?".

So why is Objectivism not spreading? I'm very interested in your assessment on that, JR.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Xray

[jriggenbach]

To continue, rather than spike, this discussion on this level--not the point of Phil's thread--we all go read Paul Johnson as Phil has already done.

Happy reading.

It would also be helpful if you could get Phil to acknowledge that his stated source, Paul Johnson, is notoriously pro-Christian throughout his writing.

I suspected that this was the case, but was curious to see in what direction the discussion would progress.

I originally wanted to reply to Phil: "I recommend Karl Deschner's "Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums" ('Criminal History of Christiniaty'), but then decided against it because I don't want to enter here on this thread into a polemic bac-and-forth about the 'virtues and vices' of Christianity, during which the original question would get lost: "Why is Objectivism Not Spreading".

So why is Objectivism not spreading? I'm very interested in your assessment on that, JR.

No philosophical system "spreads." No philosophical system has ever "spread" or ever will. People are not philosophical. Reading and thinking about philosophy are activities engaged in by a vanishingly small segment of the population. This has always been true. I believe it always will be. Phil compares the spread of Objectivism to the spread of Christianity, but on one very important level, there is no comparison between them. The intellectual content of Christianity is minuscule; any dolt can comprehend it after ten minutes of exposure to it. Understanding Objectivism even as well as I do (and there are others who understand it far better than I) is a project that would take an intelligent person at least a few years. Most people would never be able to summon the interest even to attempt something like that. And a very large percentage of them, if they did try, would discover they were in over their heads: they simply lack the capacity to undertake such work.

That's the reality of the situation. The idea that Objectivism (or even the comparatively much simpler libertarianism) will sweep the culture is a pipe dream. It'll never happen in our lifetimes. It'll probably never happen at all. If you're involved in this stuff, make sure it's because being involved in it is an end in itself for you - because you can't imagine not being involved, knowing what you know. If you're in it to change the world, you're heading for disillusion and despair.

JR

[Xray]

So why is Objectivism not spreading? I'm very interested in your assessment on that, JR.

No philosophical system "spreads." No philosophical system has ever "spread" or ever will. People are not philosophical. Reading and thinking about philosophy are activities engaged in by a vanishingly small segment of the population. This has always been true. I believe it always will be.

Once can really rack one's brain in the [probably vain] search of a philosophical system that has spread as a whole (without coercion).

So it is probably only certain ideas or components of a philosophical system that people adopt because it fits into their weltanschauung.

Understanding Objectivism even as well as I do (and there are others who understand it far better than I) is a project that would take an intelligent person at least a few years. Most people would never be able to summon the interest even to attempt something like that. And a very large percentage of them, if they did try, would discover they were in over their heads: they simply lack the capacity to undertake such work.

What do you think is so difficult to understand about Objectivism?

Edited August 31, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

JR's theory isn't stupid. It echoes what Albert Jay Nock believed. But neither is Ayn Rand's "pyramid of ability" view stupid.

A true philosophy is a useful philosophy, and not just to a genius or a geek but also to an average person. The existence and popularity of "self help" books demonstrates that people will expend effort trying to change how they think if they think it will be productive. Religion is also an example showing that people will expend great efforts in shaping their own thinking and psychology in order to get somewhere they think is good.

When Isaac Newton demonstrated the power of reason, it led to the culture regarding human reason as a much more powerful force than was previously believed, and played a part in creating the philosophy leading up to the American Revolution. The only reason why this respect for reason didn't continue was because of all the dust thrown up in the air by philosophers like Kant.

But I agree with JR that it is a pipe dream that Objectivism or libertarianism will sweep the culture. They won't, because there is too much dogma and falsehood in them. But will a philosophy of reason? Will we ever see a second enlightenment based in an authentic respect for human reason? This can and should happen, and maybe even will happen.

Shayne

[sjw]

Once can really rack one's brain in the [probably vain] search of a philosophical system that has spread as a whole (without coercion).

So it is probably only certain ideas of a system that people adopt because it suits them for some reason.

Aristotle's Logic seems to have done quite well for itself.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

To continue, rather than spike, this discussion on this level--not the point of Phil's thread--we all go read Paul Johnson as Phil has already done.

Happy reading.

It would also be helpful if you could get Phil to acknowledge that his stated source, Paul Johnson, is notoriously pro-Christian throughout his writing.

I suspected that this was the case, but was curious to see in what direction the discussion would progress.

I originally wanted to reply to Phil: "I recommend Karl Deschner's "Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums" ('Criminal History of Christiniaty'), but then decided against it because I don't want to enter here on this thread into a polemic bac-and-forth about the 'virtues and vices' of Christianity, during which the original question would get lost: "Why is Objectivism Not Spreading".

So why is Objectivism not spreading? I'm very interested in your assessment on that, JR.

No philosophical system "spreads." No philosophical system has ever "spread" or ever will. People are not philosophical. Reading and thinking about philosophy are activities engaged in by a vanishingly small segment of the population. This has always been true. I believe it always will be. Phil compares the spread of Objectivism to the spread of Christianity, but on one very important level, there is no comparison between them. The intellectual content of Christianity is minuscule; any dolt can comprehend it after ten minutes of exposure to it. Understanding Objectivism even as well as I do (and there are others who understand it far better than I) is a project that would take an intelligent person at least a few years. Most people would never be able to summon the interest even to attempt something like that. And a very large percentage of them, if they did try, would discover they were in over their heads: they simply lack the capacity to undertake such work.

That's the reality of the situation. The idea that Objectivism (or even the comparatively much simpler libertarianism) will sweep the culture is a pipe dream. It'll never happen in our lifetimes. It'll probably never happen at all. If you're involved in this stuff, make sure it's because being involved in it is an end in itself for you - because you can't imagine not being involved, knowing what you know. If you're in it to change the world, you're heading for disillusion and despair.

JR

I don't think such efforts should be expended on Objectivism or even libertarianism save for addressing others so naturally minded. I'm sure millions have benefited from many facets of Objectivism without even knowing the name of the philosophy because they read Atlas Shrugged or even only knowing people who have. What is needed is to address important social issues by emphasizing individual rights philosophy as opposed to Objectivism's rational self interest. You can then say it's rational self interest--see Objectivism or not--and being rational means respecting and knowing reality as best we can by being rational, not just by bumping into things. I have just covered the essentials of Objectivism. Years of study is in the details.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Once can really rack one's brain in the [probably vain] search of a philosophical system that has spread as a whole (without coercion).

So it is probably only certain ideas of a system that people adopt because it suits them for some reason.

Aristotle's Logic seems to have done quite well for itself.

Shayne

Wasn't that spread by the presense of the Sword of Damocles (reality)?

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

No philosophical system "spreads." No philosophical system has ever "spread" or ever will.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the ideas of Locke and various enlightenment thinkers “spread” to the colonies and inspired the Revolution. Only a small percentage of colonists studied the books, but is that the standard?

Understanding Objectivism even as well as I do (and there are others who understand it far better than I) is a project that would take an intelligent person at least a few years.

I disagree. I think my understanding of Objectivism reached a kind of critical mass within a year of my first exposure at age 18. This was coming out of a Catholic school environment, so there had to be some self performed reprogramming. I’ve gone on to live and learn, but mostly life’s lessons, and would say that to the extent I’ve deepened my understanding of Objectivism itself, it’s been through the study of opposing philosophical positions. I don’t see what’s so difficult about it, and I don’t just mean the “standing on one foot” summary.

If you're in it to change the world, you're heading for disillusion and despair.

[Mark]

I’m a bit out of my depth on these subjects. The following is just thinking out loud.

This addresses just one or rather a pair of JR points: that the intellectual content of Christianity is minuscule, and that even a dolt can comprehend it after ten minutes of exposure.

Christianity might appear to be without much intellectual content but this might be only because we have grown up in a Western civilization. True, we could have an even better Western civilization, in a manner of speaking, without the Christians subverting it, but historically they did not altogether subvert it or merely hang on, they made some positive contributions to Greek culture, and we take them for granted, like the air.

Greek culture, benevolent though it was compared to other cultures up until then viewed a man as ultimately a creature of the state, Athens as well as Sparta and Rome. Christianity introduced a kind of individualism: man was a creature of God, in whose image he was and to whom alone he was responsible. Somewhere AR once quipped, quoting Scripture, that Christianity said “Love your neighbor as yourself.” OK, love yourself, we can argue about your neighbor.

It’s true the hazy ideas of Christianity, such as do unto others etc and a kind of equality that could grow into either justice or communism, mixed up with a perverse cult of Jesus, are simple ideas. But the Church later elaborated and justified them like manufacturing the lower 6/7 of an iceberg given the visible tip. Isn’t the history of Objectivism similar? It started with what had come to be common sense – to AR anyway, perhaps via Aristotle and the Declaration – and only years later did AR write An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Properly presented even a dolt – a higher grade dolt anyway – could understand the common sense part, the libertarian part we might say, even if it would take years to understand the justification.

Another point: Because only a tiny percent of the population has the capacity and inclination to study philosophy doesn’t mean that their cultural influence is proportionate. People do tend to take what’s given to them, and teachers, journalists, writers do the dishing out. Those are the only ones needing the full treatment.

I had an example of this docility in the music line some years ago at an office party. The radio was tuned to some rock music trash. I changed it to a better station and insisted it stay there, despite many hard and cold looks. But after a while everybody, it seemed, liked the change. (More flashy analogy than reasoned argument perhaps.)

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The Enormous Power of Ideas

> No philosophical system "spreads." No philosophical system has ever "spread" or ever will. [Jeff]

The simplest refutation is that it has already happened many times. Witness the impact of the rediscovery of Aristotle in 1200's. Witness the later impact of the Enlightenment philosophes. (Just as two positive examples - there are negative cases as well.)

> People are not philosophical.

Everyone has chosen a philosophy implicitly in terms of how they live and act.

> Reading and thinking about philosophy are activities engaged in by a vanishingly small segment of the population.

It's the intellectual minorities who move the world and shape the culture.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Rich Engle]

No philosophical system "spreads." No philosophical system has ever "spread" or ever will.

Prove it.

rde

This oughta be good.

[Brant Gaede]

No philosophical system "spreads." No philosophical system has ever "spread" or ever will.

Prove it.

rde

This oughta be good.

I think he meant on toast.

--Brant

[Xray]

Once can really rack one's brain in the [probably vain] search of a philosophical system that has spread as a whole (without coercion).

So it is probably only certain ideas of a system that people adopt because it suits them for some reason.

Aristotle's Logic seems to have done quite well for itself.

But even with the works of Aristotle, coercion was sometimes was involved on the part of his followers.

The uncritical adoption of his work as the gold standard made it very difficult for non-Aristotelians to get their foot on the ground in academic circles.

In his book "PI in the Sky", the physicist and mathematician John D. Barrow quotes an Oxford University statute of the 14th century where it says (I'm translating because I have Barrow's book in German):

"Baccalaurei and magistri who are no supporters of Aristotle's philosophy have to pay a fine of five shillings if they make statements contradicting the philosophy."

Edited September 1, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

No philosophical system "spreads." No philosophical system has ever "spread" or ever will.

Prove it.

rde

This oughta be good.

I think he meant on toast.

--Brant

One does not prove the negative, but the positive. So the burden of proof falls on the one who asserts that philosophical systems have spread.

It is about complete systems, not just about certain ideas taken from systems.

Spreading by coercion and dogma are excluded as well.

(As for the 'toast', let's save that for the one who will successfully have conducted the proof).

--Xray

not yet chilling the champagne.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

Once can really rack one's brain in the [probably vain] search of a philosophical system that has spread as a whole (without coercion).

So it is probably only certain ideas of a system that people adopt because it suits them for some reason.

Aristotle's Logic seems to have done quite well for itself.

But even with the works of Aristotle, coercion was sometimes was involved on the part of his followers.

The uncritical adoption of his work as the gold standard made it very difficult for non-Aristotelians to get their foot on the ground in academic circles.

In his book "PI in the Sky", the physicist and mathematician John D. Barrow quotes an Oxford University statute of the 14th century where it says (I'm translating because I have Barrow's book in German):

"Baccalaurei and magistri who are no supporters of Aristotle's philosophy have to pay a fine of five shillings if they make statements contradicting the philosophy."

That's a great racket, if you can pull it off.

rde

You now owe me five cents. Paypal is OK, I guess.

[Rich Engle]

No philosophical system "spreads." No philosophical system has ever "spread" or ever will.

Prove it.

rde

This oughta be good.

I think he meant on toast.

--Brant

One does not prove the negative, but the positive. So the burden of proof falls on the one who asserts that philosophical systems have spread.

It is about complete systems, not just about certain ideas taken from systems.

Spreading by coercion and dogma are excluded as well.

(As for the 'toast', let's save that for the one who will successfully have conducted the proof).

--Xray

not yet chilling the champagne.

What? Who says? Now, he said something, and I want the dang premises, that is all.

r

[Xray]

> [quoting JR]: People are not philosophical.

Everyone has chosen a philosophy implicitly in terms of how they live and act.

A philosophy is like a navel, so to speak: everybody has one. ;)

The term philosophy is indeed often used in everyday life to refer to the principles by which one lives, to life mottos, etc. Soccer coaches tell journalists about the "philosophy" of their team, there exist business philosophies ("The philosophy of our firm is ..."); one can read about about the philosophy of cooking, etc. - it's quite inflationary really.

But I don't think this is what JR had in mind. I assume he meant being "philosophical" to be understood as being truly hungry for insights transcending the mere user-oriented challenges of daily life. He meant the pondering and reflecting about existence as such, the deeper mental digging in the 'epistemological garden', the refelceting about metaphysics and ethics, the "reading and thinking about philosophy". (JR)

> [quoting JR]: Reading and thinking about philosophy are activities engaged in by a vanishingly small segment of the population.

It's the intellectual minorities who move the world and shape the culture.

I suppose you would agree with JR's statement that (as a rule) people are not philosophical.

Not that we don't have the homo philosophicus in us. We do. Who hasn't stood at night under the star-spangled sky and asked themseves basic philosophical questions like: "Why IS there something at all? Does there exist a deeper reason for our existence than we are able to grasp?"

To get back to the question why Objectivism is not spreading: but wasn't there a time when it had spread considerably: the time when the Nathaniel Branden institutes existed?

One gets the the impression that the Objectivist movement never really recovered from the break between Ayn Rand and N. Branden.

The second blow was the Peikoff-Kelley split.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

That's a great racket, if you can pull it off.

rde

You now owe me five cents. Paypal is OK, I guess.

You charge surprisingly little, Rich. Are you ... an "altruist"?

Edited September 2, 2011 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

To continue, rather than spike, this discussion on this level--not the point of Phil's thread--we all go read Paul Johnson as Phil has already done.

Happy reading.

It would also be helpful if you could get Phil to acknowledge that his stated source, Paul Johnson, is notoriously pro-Christian throughout his writing.

I suspected that this was the case, but was curious to see in what direction the discussion would progress.

I originally wanted to reply to Phil: "I recommend Karl Deschner's "Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums" ('Criminal History of Christiniaty'), but then decided against it because I don't want to enter here on this thread into a polemic bac-and-forth about the 'virtues and vices' of Christianity, during which the original question would get lost: "Why is Objectivism Not Spreading".

So why is Objectivism not spreading? I'm very interested in your assessment on that, JR.

No philosophical system "spreads." No philosophical system has ever "spread" or ever will. People are not philosophical. Reading and thinking about philosophy are activities engaged in by a vanishingly small segment of the population. This has always been true. I believe it always will be. Phil compares the spread of Objectivism to the spread of Christianity, but on one very important level, there is no comparison between them. The intellectual content of Christianity is minuscule; any dolt can comprehend it after ten minutes of exposure to it. Understanding Objectivism even as well as I do (and there are others who understand it far better than I) is a project that would take an intelligent person at least a few years. Most people would never be able to summon the interest even to attempt something like that. And a very large percentage of them, if they did try, would discover they were in over their heads: they simply lack the capacity to undertake such work.

That's the reality of the situation. The idea that Objectivism (or even the comparatively much simpler libertarianism) will sweep the culture is a pipe dream. It'll never happen in our lifetimes. It'll probably never happen at all. If you're involved in this stuff, make sure it's because being involved in it is an end in itself for you - because you can't imagine not being involved, knowing what you know. If you're in it to change the world, you're heading for disillusion and despair.

JR

I don't think such efforts should be expended on Objectivism or even libertarianism save for addressing others so naturally minded. I'm sure millions have benefited from many facets of Objectivism without even knowing the name of the philosophy because they read Atlas Shrugged or even only knowing people who have. What is needed is to address important social issues by emphasizing individual rights philosophy as opposed to Objectivism's rational self interest. You can then say it's rational self interest--see Objectivism or not--and being rational means respecting and knowing reality as best we can by being rational, not just by bumping into things. I have just covered the essentials of Objectivism. Years of study is in the details.

--Brant

So they do spread, don't they? Hardly ever entirely intact, but they do.

[Rich Engle]

That's a great racket, if you can pull it off.

rde

You now owe me five cents. Paypal is OK, I guess.

You charge surprisingly little, Rich. Are you ... an "altruist"?

Uh, no. Just a good entrepreneur. I'm not against some occasional sheep-shearing--I just try to not make too much of a habit out of it.

An "altruist?" Puh--leeze! How dare you bait me! Do I look like I need chummed-for? Fuck's Sake!

Why would you say that, Oh-Baiting-One? Are you checking my premises? Hey, by-the-way: got anything you want to get rid of? I'll be right over (assuming, of course, it is something I can make use of).

Edited September 2, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Xray]

Why would you say that, Oh-Baiting-One? Are you checking my premises? Hey, by-the-way: got anything you want to get rid of? I'll be right over (assuming, of course, it is something I can make use of).

Hmm, Oh-Asking-One: I actually am planning to get rid of stuff we have kept in our cellar for far too long, but - aside from the distance that is between that cellar and Florida - I doubt you'd be interested in anything that is in there, like e. g. rusty tools, cans containing dried-up paint, rickety bed frames, to name but a few.

Edited September 3, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

What is needed is to address important social issues by emphasizing individual rights philosophy as opposed to Objectivism's rational self interest.

If you would please demonstrate and explain via concrete examples where "individual rights philosophy" opposes "Objectivism's rational self interest". TIA.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

What is needed is to address important social issues by emphasizing individual rights philosophy as opposed to Objectivism's rational self interest.

If you would please demonstrate and explain via concrete examples where "individual rights philosophy" opposes "Objectivism's rational self interest". TIA.

No, no, no. I did not mean they were opposed as such. I meant for purposes of educating the great unwashed--for emphasizing one over the other.

--Brant

this is going to be harder than I thought