The Problem With Objectivism is That it's Not Sexy Enough

[Roger Bissell]

Last time I read Atlas Shrugged, John Galt didn't allow hostile individuals into the Valley.

[Brant Gaede]

Roger, you have no qualifications to be a moderator on OL but you are. You come and go too much and while that's the least of it it's enough. Please ask Michael to take you off "The Moderating Team" for "All Forums." Thank you.

Brant,

Roger was extremely helpful when OL started and we were under attack from several places in O-Land. Extremely. He's drifted, sure, but he's not destructive toward OL. So it's a legacy thing, an OL history thing, where a warm space is in my heart.

I had not revised his moderating capacity before out of pure lethargy. Now I just did. Now he moderates his own forum (which is as it should be) and a couple of others he set up and mostly did all the posting to (Veatch and Hospers).

I seek wisdom at times like this. Let's see if I have been wise.

Michael

That's that and that's great! For everybody!

--Brant

Now you can give me the ~power~ and you and I can rule the galaxy OL as The Reasonable and The Unreasonable

[Jonathan]

Last time I read Atlas Shrugged, John Galt didn't allow hostile individuals into the Valley.

Yeah, so you wouldn't have been allowed into the valley.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Last time I read Atlas Shrugged, John Galt didn't allow hostile individuals into the Valley.

Yeah, so you wouldn't have been allowed into the valley.

J

But if Roger had been in an airplane . . . ?

Midas: What do we do with him?

John: He's my responsibility.

Midas: Need to use my gun?

John: No. I'm going to use that old metal chair of mine and run some wires.

--anon.

[Jonathan]

Last time I read Atlas Shrugged, John Galt didn't allow hostile individuals into the Valley.

Yeah, so you wouldn't have been allowed into the valley.

J

But if Roger had been in an airplane . . . ?

Midas: What do we do with him?

John: He's my responsibility.

Midas: Need to use my gun?

John: No. I'm going to use that old metal chair of mine and run some wires.

--anon.

Roger at the gates of Galt's Gulch:

Roger: Hello. I'm THE Roger Bissell. Carry my bags and show me to my suite.

Galt: Um, who? Anyway, you're not welcome here. This is private property. We don't need any retired Disneyland trombone players or philosophy hobbyists. This place is for high achievers who are the motors of the world. Having never heard of you, I would guess that the world would do just fine without you.

Roger: Perhaps you didn't hear, but I am THE Roger Bissell! The one who has been published in JARS. Published, I say! Have YOU been published in JARS? I'm credentialed. I out-credential most of the people in this valley.

Galt: What is JARS? Regardless, this valley isn't about having credentials. It's about merit.

Roger: Your garbage-talk has grown tiresome, you looney! Now show me to my suite and draw my bath!

Galt: Leave. Now!

Roger: How dare you personally insult and attack me and order me about! I demand respect!

Galt: Demand it elsewhere.

J

[Jonathan]

The "missing" threads have just been hidden/disappeared, not deleted.

And that's an important distinction? Deleting vs disappearing? Heh.

They will be restored once I am satisfied that they will not be subjected to vandalism by those whose comments are unwanted and abusive. (Translation: don't hold your breath.)

"Vandalism" = criticism of Roger's views which he can't answer.

As for other Corners (other than John Hospers's Corner, which Michael let me set up), I no longer have any power over them, so the paranoid whiners will have to find something else to complain about.

No one was "complaining," but simply noting that you delete (or "disappear") others' posts in your safe space, and wondering if you might have still had the power to do the same in others' safe spaces.

Quit with frantic overreactions, you emotion-driven princess.

J

[Roger Bissell]

Jonathan wrote: "Quit with frantic overreactions, you emotion-driven princess."

[Wolf DeVoon]

Last time I read Atlas Shrugged, John Galt didn't allow hostile individuals into the Valley.

IIRC Midas Mulligan was the property owner. Nor do I recall Galt turning away hostile individuals.

Maybe I read a different version.

[Marcus]

Can you guys (you know who you are), um, take your little quarrel to another thread? This thread is about the problems of objectivist outreach efforts, lets keep it on topic folks. Thanks.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Okay, the gist of post #1 was:

Objectivism would be better off hiring a TV pitchman at this point. Really anyone with half-decent sales skills

But wait! That's not all you get! If you order right now we'll double the rationality!

[Brant Gaede]

Okay, the gist of post #1 was:

Objectivism would be better off hiring a TV pitchman at this point. Really anyone with half-decent sales skills

But wait! That's not all you get! If you order right now we'll double the rationality!

Just pay separate shipping and handling

[Ellen Stuttle]

The "missing" threads have just been hidden/disappeared, not deleted.

ThreadS? Plural?

What else has been disappeared besides the one called "How to Improve Objectivism (2002)"?

Ellen

[Roger Bissell]

Ellen -

Most of the content on my Corner has been "hidden" (none deleted), until I can get some clarity from the site owner about how to (i.e., whether there is a way to) prevent vandals from posting there. If it turns out that I have to lock virtually everything, I will - but I don't want to have to.

In any case, regardless of what I hear back from Michael, everything not currently visible will reappear in about a week, whether locked or unlocked.

This decision is not negotiable, nor is it a violation of OL policy. Michael has empowered and encouraged me to manage posts and threads in my Corner as I see fit, and that is what I am doing.

REB

[Marcus]

Okay, the gist of post #1 was:

Objectivism would be better off hiring a TV pitchman at this point. Really anyone with half-decent sales skills

But wait! That's not all you get! If you order right now we'll double the rationality!

Nice try. But not quite. In a free society, people must be persuaded. Even ideas have to be sold. As "dumb" as it sounds you basically have to sell people on the idea of being consistently rational and how it makes their life better. Or people will usually adopt some form of pragmatism (subjectivism) or religiosity (intrinsicism).

[turkeyfoot]

Mostly though I figure people embrace philosophically heady ideas for the basis of their survival or for academic success. There are ample ways to survive without an articulated philosophy. Who really needs philosophy?? ;)

Who needs philosophy? Good question. Philosophy, as I understand it, maximizes your chances of success because it (good philosophy) is fully consistent with reality. This is not insignificant and should not be ignored by Objectivism.

I read Anthem at 14. My college bound brother discarded it and Virtue of Selfishness to the bottom of a closet.

In retrospect I was more interested in my brothers possessions. But I recall loving its message as I was trying to escape a physical/psychological prison. I read in Mimi Gladstones book, young people were the primary audience attracted to it. Alas, a story is but a story. I had no way, in my experience to capitalize on its meaning and VOS was simply out of my grasp. So I went on to Dune, then Heinlein, Edgar R Burroughs, and then Howard.

Later, some 10 yrs, I read AS and Fountainhead. Those books also didnt pique my curiosity enough to take a snap shot of the culture and draw meaningful insights. They were all simply stories to me, irrelevant to me forming a much needed philosophical detection mechanism.

Much of what Ive heard in re to reading ARs books, stems from recommendations to read her fiction first. My assumption about that was it introduces you to the author as interesting, rather than the tie in to headier themes as "sanction of the victim". You had said a similar thing occurred, in that you loved AR and that its taken you a long time to understand headier concepts.

If it was any one thing about what AR wrote its the listing of virtues as a guide for living. I had a strong sense of morality already. It read something like a higher level boy scout credo and I was hooked. The other subject she touched on in Capitalism...., were the ethical arguments contrasted with history and what happened to Jewish people in WW2. What she wrote sparked an interest in history more than anything presented in school.

I doubt there are any real take home messages about what Im saying in re to introducing people to AR material or making it sexier. I dont think sexier works unless you mean simpler and or more interesting. Take "sanction of the victim". Arghhhhhhh Hell, Im the epitamy of the non philosophical detective, I have to see a hand on a knife in a bloodied dead person before I realize a "crime" has occurred. And even then, in my younger yrs, couldnt have been sure the dead person wasnt deserving of death. )

What may work best is simple. To tie simple in with the electoral process think Trump. Hes crushing it with a mantra that is working, even if its temporary. So , yeah, sorry to inform you, the way right now is through Trump. He has the repeated consistent messaging that touches on, however slight, AR's material AND he has the platform/gravitas that allows for permeation through a pig headed culture. In other words, there is very little chance of not hearing the incessant chatter. Its less to do with him being president than the simple connections to what virtually everyone is dimly aware of and feeling.

I really hate to say it but for 4 yrs Ive been speaking my mind to a bunch of motorcycling independently spirited yokels in what we lovingly refer to as the Dumping Ground, a space separate from the main forum that requires a request to join. Its a large audience of lookie lous, whos company I enjoy, but simply dont connect for no lack of tryin. Very rarely do I mention AR's material as it can be a turn off. Although every thread is laden with its messages. Its only accomplishment that I know of, was to me, learning to articulate my understanding and to write more clearly, which is two different kinds of things. Its been valuable. The real goal has been to distill a thoughtful commentary into something my son will hear.

The best current vehicle for pushing an admittedly severely limited version of o into the mainstream is through Trump exercising his businessmans mindset and prerogative in running for the presidency. ) Its an entirely different proposition, and one I think youll realize if you really think about it, getting heads to turn towards the ethics underlying AR's material. In another thread Trump is what turns you off. )

[turkeyfoot]

Okay, the gist of post #1 was:

Objectivism would be better off hiring a TV pitchman at this point. Really anyone with half-decent sales skills

But wait! That's not all you get! If you order right now we'll double the rationality!

. In a free society,

Wolfe is on to it. Free.... just another word for nothing left to lose. Free is certainly not unmitigated laissez faire freedom that we dont see today, not by a mile. Heres a suggestion, Marcus, parse the word in the full context of what living in todays society means today. Freedom was a corrupted concept even when AR published AS. Read about the reception her critics had to the book. She was throughly depressed by it.

Heres a spokesman par excellance. ) Notice the not so subtle use of props.

[Jonathan]

Can you guys (you know who you are), um, take your little quarrel to another thread? This thread is about the problems of objectivist outreach efforts, lets keep it on topic folks. Thanks.

The "little quarrel" is precisely on topic. Fragile poseurs demanding respect, banning informed, potent dissent, squealing about criticism, and retreating to their safe spaces is one of the primary reasons that Objectivism has "problems" (which is putting it mildly) with outreach efforts.

J

[Selene]

Just what we need, a pompous condescending critic!!

Competition for OL scold arises...

A...

[turkeyfoot]

Can you guys (you know who you are), um, take your little quarrel to another thread? This thread is about the problems of objectivist outreach efforts, lets keep it on topic folks. Thanks.

The "little quarrel" is precisely on topic. Fragile poseurs demanding respect, banning informed, potent dissent, squealing about criticism, and retreating to their safe spaces is one of the primary reasons that Objectivism has "problems" (which is putting it mildly) with outreach efforts.

J

I agree with the sentiment expressed above. O isnt suffering, cant its a thought process. Its people and an ability/inability to express their ideas. O is channeled through a persons moral views, views that were in some way adopted or arrived at and not always or almost through direct sensory experience from the ground up.

The single most evocative event within O known for its moral suasion and impact was in '68. It was about picking sides. Whos side do you want to be on and how much effort does one feel they have to expend on behalf of their convictions. To paraphase its the "simplest thing in the world" however it is also the most difficult.

You have to pull without pushing (hapkido) you have to exert far more mental/physical effort than the "force" before you because you may possess the ability to do more harm (if you are a master or a spastic). By absorbing deflecting an argument/blow and pivoting or aligning with the person(s) arrayed before you. In a situation where a person is unable to defend their argument/force thats brought to bear you must stand your ground thereby allowing the person to view you as an unassialable person you are..with the strength of your convictions or physicality to defend a position.

Take the last post ^. Man up! Please? The method used was an attempt to stiff arm altogether different from persuasion, which Marcus so rightly pointed out is the only way to reach a rational mind. Of course I care whether that verbal attempt was meant to challenge my views or sensibilities but not because the comment challenged my moral convictions. I dont have a dog in that kind of fight. Personal attributes, whether pompous, pious, or patronizing arent going to persuade me of anything other than the attempt in undermining my own effort.

My background consisted of physical domination and psychological torture by the person whos moral obligation was to provide safety and security. I lived with an ominous black cloud of oppression and subjugation backed up by physical force. At an early age.

If the desire is to stuff something down the throat without regard for your aim in assisting someones views to turn towards your own then good luck. In that example theres urgency. If on the other hand you are willing to wait for the voluntary impact from the strength and persuasion that your arguments possess then you have a life time. For if the person wont come willingly of their own accord you have nothing and little choice but to move on to something worthy of your time and effort.

One of the most difficult things Ive attempted is to introduce my views to my son. I want him to be unhampered by strong armed or salesman technique so I expend effort in not alienating myself from him. I adopt a process that is arduous, slow and painful for me but for which I think will prove the most worthy of my efforts. His bs detector is on high alert when I burrow into him and we both feel the push and pull.

Tolstoy: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.”

What I see as the most likely approach to elicit interest in o is in asking questions, not stating an idea as an immutable subject. And not unlike the one posed by Marcus. You get more bees with proper care and syrup, if the bees can make honey without feeling threatened ....then the chances are that you too will benefit and the bees thrive. Ah, sayeth the wise man, what is it that causeth a colony collapse disorder. )

[Brant Gaede]

Thx for the Tolstoy quote!

[turkeyfoot]

Im glad.

In fairness, it came from the book, The Big Short.

In fairness to the Russian author I dont really know what he said.

I saw the movie. Columbia Pictures credited Mark Twain with essentially the same message.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Take it for what its worth, leave the rest. No attribution to Mark Twain aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens, could be found.

Are you going to hang it? Sticky note? )

Staying with the op's op, Im gifting it to the thread. <insert saaaoag emoticon>

[RobinReborn]

Can you guys (you know who you are), um, take your little quarrel to another thread? This thread is about the problems of objectivist outreach efforts, lets keep it on topic folks. Thanks.

The "little quarrel" is precisely on topic. Fragile poseurs demanding respect, banning informed, potent dissent, squealing about criticism, and retreating to their safe spaces is one of the primary reasons that Objectivism has "problems" (which is putting it mildly) with outreach efforts.

J

Well put.

[Peter]

If youse guys want to see sexy look up the old video of Marilyn Monroe singing "I want to be loved by you." It is in black and white and it may be from the movie, "Some like It Hot," I think. Wow! Is that her nipples or is that her dress? Have you ever seen anybody do an air kiss better?

[Peter]

A recommendation. We have started to binge watch, “House of Cards,” and we usually watch zero to three episodes a night on Netflix. I think there are 73 episodes.

It is a personal story about politics and they make very clear at the beginning of the show, it is not about the Republicans but it is about the Democrats from around 2012? until 2016? The Democrats are portrayed fairly according to the writers, who obviously are political insiders. One episode we saw was directed by Jodie Foster.

We are near the end of season two.  So if you watch it, think Schumer and Pelosi and not President Donald John Trump. The show is disturbing.  The show is riveting.  Damn, but Kevin Spacey is good.  The intro to the show is spectacular too. What have you got to lose during the corona virus? Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter.

Michael