Passing the torch!

[galtgulch]

I recall thinking when I discovered that there were about twenty thousand subscribers to The Objectivist in 1968 that if each of them managed to enlighten one more person in the course of one year who in turn did the same that there would be a doubling each year in the number of us. Five million in eight years and twenty million in ten years In just a couple of years further there would be enough of us to win the election for president.

Evidently that is not the rate of growth of adherents of our philosophy.

Obviously we each have our own lives to live and no unchosen obligation to spread the word for anyone else's good. But certainly it is in our own interest as individuals to live in such a society and I would have thought that many of us would and probably do pass the torch to some extent as the opportunities arise.

So how come there aren't more of us than there are? I am sure there are more of us than there were!

After all the society is hurting and we are holding the key or the antidote.

Perhaps the Atlas Shrugged movie will lead to more people rediscovering the Ayn Rand books and essays.

Meanwhile I am sure that many of us do indeed at least recommend Rand's books. Hard to make a living as a torch passer.

galt

Edited April 12, 2007 by galtgulch

[BaalChatzaf]

I recall thinking when I discovered that there were about twenty thousand subscribers to The Objectivist in 1968 that if each of them managed to enlighten one more person in the course of one year who in turn did the same that there would be a doubling each year in the number of us. Five million in eight years and twenty million in ten years In just a couple of years further there would be enough of us to win the election for president.

Evidently that is not the rate of growth of adherents of our philosophy.

Obviously we each have our own lives to live and no unchosen obligation to spread the word for anyone else's good. But certainly it is in our own interest as individuals to live in such a society and I would have thought that many of us would and probably do pass the torch to some extent as the opportunities arise.

So how come there aren't more of us than there are? I am sure there are more of us than there were!

After all the society is hurting and we are holding the key or the antidote.

Perhaps the Atlas Shrugged movie will lead to more people rediscovering the Ayn Rand books and essays.

Meanwhile I am sure that many of us do indeed at least recommend Rand's books. Hard to make a living as a torch passer.

galt

With all due respect. An -Atlas Shrugged- movie will disappoint you. Why? The novel is too big a story to fit into a motion picture of reasonable length. Even a trilogy a la Peter Jackson's movification of -Lord of the Rings- failed to do the novel justice.

Yodah says: Do not your breath hold, Young GaltGulch, until made is movie of -Atlas Shrugged- else blue turn you will.

BaalChatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Baal; With all due respect my hope is the movie will increase sales of the book. There has been some very interesting discussion of The Fountainhead on this site. The Fountainhead movie did put the book back on the best seller list in 1949.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[galtgulch]

<<<"Yodah says: Do not your breath hold, Young GaltGulch, until made is movie of -Atlas Shrugged- else blue turn you will.">>>

Hi! BaalChatzaf,

I am certain that I will be thrilled to see not just the actual movie version of Atlas Shrugged but the advertising for it everywhere including bigger than life billboards in Times Square in New York City!

Even if we as Objectivists do find things to criticize about aspects of the film or the performances of the actors and actresses the net effect will be positive. By that I concur that sales of the book and perhaps Rand's essays will rise. It is to be expected that some grouches in the media will have their distorted nonsense to disgorge to discourage anyone from seeing the movie or reading the books.

I hope someone gifted in such matters is contemplating a sequel. I sometimes wonder what Victor Hugo would be writing today if he lived in these times.

galt

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I sometimes wonder what Victor Hugo would be writing today if he lived in these times.

galtgulch,

Oh Lord! Don't say that too loud.

The next thing you know, some nobody contracted by Hollywood will come up with The Son of the Hunchback of Notre Dame or Les Miserables II. Of course they would have to be updated and there would have to be some car chases and wrecked vehicles that burst into flames, one or more steamy love scenes, a cop meeting someone in a strip club, and at least one person thrown through a large glass pane.

Actually, this idea's starting to show some promise...

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; I hope you're joking with the idea of sequel. The way to do it is the original idea. Do it in three parts. The movie and the advertising will spark interest in Rand and her ideas. All that's to the good.

[galtgulch]

Michael

Actually I believe the technology exists to clone old Victor Hugo if we could just dig him up to get a cell from whatever might be left like a hair or a bone.

He would be hard to 'copy' or simulate as far as his writing goes. Do you know anyone who writes in the style of Victor Hugo? Even Rand who admired him as the best novelist of all time but didn't agree with his philosophy, did not write in his style. I wish she had. I love the atmosphere he creates and his descriptions, not to mention his plots.

I am not interested in sequels to his works. I just wonder what new story he would create about our world. What heroes, what conflicts, what struggles, what plot themes?

galt

[Adrian]

Galt; I hope you're joking with the idea of sequel. The way to do it is the original idea. Do it in three parts. The movie and the advertising will spark interest in Rand and her ideas. All that's to the good.

I'm certainly not advocating a sequel, but it does seem reasonable to say that the question of how the world gets itself back together after the debacle at the end of AS remains, er, somewhat unresolved.

[galtgulch]

<<<" I'm certainly not advocating a sequel, but it does seem reasonable to say that the question of how the world gets itself back together after the debacle at the end of AS remains, er, somewhat unresolved.">>>

Well what comes to mind is that Ragnar disgorges the gold bars he has been keeping to return to those individuals from whom it had been confiscated through taxation. WIth that capital back in the hands of those who know how to create and with a government reduced to protecting the rights of individuals and a gold standard to boot, prosperity logically follows.

I oversimplify but whether it would make a good sequel is moot.

galt (no relation!)

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; I think the east and Colorado would come back very quickly. I suspect there would be no labor unrest because people would be more than willing to work.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[galtgulch]

I started this thread wondering how come the numbers of Objectivists has not grown into the tens of millions.

After all, our philosophy is rational, provides a moral standard by which one can guide one's actions to achieve one's own goals in a rather irrational society, provides a perspective by which to judge whatever one has to contend with in one's own life, and enables one to be confident that one is right especially when one takes positions which are contrary to establishment beliefs.

It should be spreading like wildfire.

The thread got off on tangents about the effect of the movie and what would happen after the fictional collapse of society in Atlas the book!

Others are moved to comment on the inspiration of 300 where men go down fighting for their freedom knowing they are in a losing battle.

I believe that the numbers should have doubled each year since the late sixties. The fact that hasn't happened means that those twenty thousand in 1968 did not embark on a venture to enlighten at least one other each year who would go on and do the same. It is sad because we are armed with a rational alternative to the prevailing theology and there are young people thirsting for a rational alternative.

Instead they are succumbing to accepting the nonsense which passes for wisdom, longing for eternal life after death as their reward for shutting off their mind by not allowing themselves to wonder, to doubt and to question their parents beliefs. I generalize.

I remember once as a youngster allowing myself to consider the possibility of accepting traditional beliefs, with full realization that I did not and never had. I knew that it might be impossible to find a girl who shared my non traditional beliefs, in a society filled with church going, temple going, mosque going familiies. It was just a momentary exercize. i knew I couldn't and wouldn't go against my judgment just to fit in.

I do think there are growing numbers of rational, scientifically oriented young people, just as there continue to be legions of those who go to religious colleges and universities and accept the prevailing theology. One of them sits in the White House and believes that God talks to him daily!

It remains a race against time. I think each of us should be more thoughtful in finding ways to spread Objectivism. Even if it just means writintg letters to the editor espressing rational views without mentioning Objectivism explicitly. Instead we talk to each other which is fine. Maybe more is happening than I am aware of. i certainly hope so.

I recall that when I mentioned the idea of writing a book to the fellow who made me aware of Objectivism his response was that Ayn Rand's books and journal were already written.

BTW I googled "ayn rand" evolution. I have always been intrigued by the question although I always knew that the answer was natural processes and never supernatural. I wonder why Rand was so agnostic on the subject. Perhaps it was just her lack of education in biology and chemistry and geology and astronomy and science in general. That is strange because she had wanted to become an engineer.

here is the first link at that google page: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parill...Evolution.shtml

I am tempted to go to the Marathon course tomorrow and proselytize among the spectators. There are two torches I pass these days. Atlas Shrugged and the Ojo.

galt (no relation)

Edited April 15, 2007 by galtgulch

[Kat]

After trying to get an Objectivist club off the ground and giving away lots of books, I felt like I was just spinning my wheels and wasting my time and money. Not everyone is cut out for outreach. I'm not, and so I decided to dedicate my energies to this site instead. I am much more comfortable backstage running an internet site than being out there trying to lead meetings and recruit new members. I feel that Objectivist Living is making a much greater impact.

Kat

[galtgulch]

" I feel that Objectivist Living is making a much greater impact."

Hi! Kat,

No doubt about it. I am very happy to have found this site and do mention it and recommend it to others. You must be pleased with the growth in members which appears to keep growing. Do you have any numbers you would be willing to share?

I never had a desire to start a club. I just recommend Rand's books or engage in conversations and try to find a hook to justify recommending Atlas. I recently encountered a fellow who loves to read books on physics and i suggested there is a book where the hero of the novel is a physicist! Its fun. I saw my wife off at an Amtrak station and recommended Atlas to the conductor assuming he loved trains and he said it is just a job.

It is a great icebreaker and has helped me overcome my shyness.

galt (no relation)

[Philip Coates]

> I recall thinking when I discovered that there were about twenty thousand subscribers to The Objectivist in 1968 that if each of them managed to enlighten one more person in the course of one year who in turn did the same that there would be a doubling each year in the number of us. Five million in eight years and twenty million in ten years In just a couple of years further there would be enough of us to win the election for president. Evidently that is not the rate of growth of adherents of our philosophy. [ggulch]

Since it didn't all happen at once and the process wasn't focused on, most people underestimate the magnitude of the change in one's values, concepts, sense of life, knowledge involved in thoroughly accepting and understanding Objectivism. First a series of novels, then non-fiction essays, then a series of lecture courses, and so on.

This has two implications which slow the spread of the ideas:

1. For Objectivists: Most people who are attracted don't go through all these steps. Or the next, "application" phase: Learning how to improve their personal and social skills, persuasion skills. Learning how to integrate and supplement philosophy with other areas of the humanities or social sciences (history, psychology, etc.) Without going through these steps, they are not going to be very good salesmen or very convincing. Or very good role models or attractive examples of Objectivism (think of the insult-monger, the long-winded gasbag, the pedant, the oversimplifier, the obnoxious or malevolent person).

2. For "prospects". Very few of them as well will go through the steps and the process descibed in #1 and thus they will be easily dissuaded or not be able to see through "problems" for Objectivism. They are not philosophically minded or don't see the need for this sustained an effort if their lives are basically going along ok. So there is heavy attrition among those with an initial interest or enjoyment of the novels.

The old NBI seems to have been very close to being a "training program" and a community-building process for those who enrolled and went through the courses in sequence. And that is why the numbers grew and grew for an entire decade. (The conservatives have something similar with their internships, leadership institutes, and educational programs at the Reagan Ranch and elsewhere. The libertarian think tanks with IHS, AERI, etc. have done similar things.)

What is incredibly short-sighted (to put it politely) is that neither of the two existing institutions, ARI or TOC, have fully grasped the need to build a benevolent community long enough to keep people together so they will master the 'curriculum' of foundational courses. And that the latter is vital.

ARI is ahead of TOC in that, with their Objectivist Academic Center, they at least grasp the vital necessity for an FTP... a Fundamental Training Program that people need to systematically go through if they are to actually understand the philosophy. Even though ARI understands the need for systematic training better than TOC, their problem is that the number of students they have taking it is in the dozens as opposed to NBI days where there were courses given all over the world to thousands. (Also the content of the OAC courses needs to broaden.)

And then there is the issue of irrational, short-range, "whatever the traffic will bear" pricing policies: Most unfortunate of all is that the excellent and foundational Peikoff courses can no longer be leased by groups, but must be bought by *each individual* at a cost of hundreds of dollars for *each* course.

You think ten thousand people are going to do that, you need to stop smoking those funny looking cigarettes.

[[ TOC, if I read David Kelley's reasoning behind this correctly, seems to think that a (systematic) training program is too much like "indoctrination" and not "Socratic" enough. And people should go thru the steps on their own, the way Rand herself did who was a world-historical genius...or from their friends or chatrooms, which is the one-eyed and rationalistic leading the blind. Or solely by deciphering the terse non-fiction essays. What I watched this result in in the nineties is young intellectuals or grad students attending one or two TOC events or advanced seminars or getting scholarships to attend and emerging baffled and confused and ultimately either abandoning Objectivism entirely (Bryan Register, Will Wilkinson, Damian Moskowitz, and many others) or trying to fuse it into some sort of academic hybrid (Carolyn Ray, Tom Whatsisname, et al) or into orthodox intrinsicism and rationalism (Diana Hsieh). The reason is they never understood Objectivism in the first place and were getting no help. And this process was actually DESTRUCTIVE to the spread of Objectivism, graduating enemies and intellectual opponents who could claim to have studied it and knew just enough Objectivism to be dangerous, confusing, and demoralizing. ]]

SIMPLE SUMMARY:

1. No highly complex or radical system of ideas can spread or even be thoroughly understood without formal, systematic training. (That's how the Jesuits saved Catholicism.)

2. Objectivism has shrunk because the formal training has shrunk. Or been made needlessly erratic, difficult, or costly.

[Brant Gaede]

The reason 20,000 readers of "The Objectivist" in 1968 don't equal 10s of millions today is the essential reason direct marketing peters out: the further you are from the base the weaker you are.

Maybe Objectivism needs a different formulation.

Objectivism, btw, is battling cultural inertia. A much more powerful force, short term.

I prefer Edith Efron's formulation of "The [my friend] Petr [beckmann] Principle: Connect your expertise to the problems of the day and it is your expertise that'll give gravitas to your positions, not your philosophy as such.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

A couple of quick comments. Since I attend a lot of Cato events Cato has done a great job with their intern program of turning out people with degrees to be listened to on the issues Cato addresses. Brian Doherty who has been discussed in other posts was a Cato intern. Chris Preble was also an intern. TOC brings an intern every year but it needs to be a longer program. I suspect that Ed Hudgins would agree with me but say he needs more money which he does.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Philip Coates]

Anything else substantive? or responding to the level of detail of my last post?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

[[ TOC, if I read David Kelley's reasoning behind this correctly, seems to think that a (systematic) training program is too much like "indoctrination" and not "Socratic" enough. And people should go thru the steps on their own, the way Rand herself did who was a world-historical genius...or from their friends or chatrooms, which is the one-eyed and rationalistic leading the blind. Or solely by deciphering the terse non-fiction essays. What I watched this result in in the nineties is young intellectuals or grad students attending one or two TOC events or advanced seminars or getting scholarships to attend and emerging baffled and confused and ultimately either abandoning Objectivism entirely (Bryan Register, Will Wilkinson, Damian Moskowitz, and many others) or trying to fuse it into some sort of academic hybrid (Carolyn Ray, Tom Whatsisname, et al) or into orthodox intrinsicism and rationalism (Diana Hsieh). The reason is they never understood Objectivism in the first place and were getting no help. And this process was actually DESTRUCTIVE to the spread of Objectivism, graduating enemies and intellectual opponents who could claim to have studied it and knew just enough Objectivism to be dangerous, confusing, and demoralizing. ]]

Phil,

I wasn't going to comment on this thread because, although I do want to spread interest in Rand's ideas and I call myself an Objectivist, I want nothing to do with the so-called Objectivist movement. The purpose of OL is create works, test Rand's principles to the limit against the best there is to filter out the dogma, create some historical reference, simply have a good time doing all this and a few other things.

I found this reference of yours very interesting, but I am still chewing on it. Those are some fine minds you mentioned.

One idea might be interesting: a basic Objectivism course could be put together based only on the writings of Rand, Nathaniel Branden and the others in canonical Objectivism (a non-ARI affiliated course, of course). The purpose would not to be to challenge the philosophy, but to teach it as it was created, warts and all. Alongside the standard topics, the points of contention could be given, but without discussing anything in depth, merely the essentials.

A typical point would be the Objectivist theory of emotions. Where Rand claimed that all of them could be programed by reason or that man is emotionally tabula rasa at birth, this could be given with quotes and then with a disclaimer that science does not bear this out (however, also stating that many emotions do result from conscious thinking). Then move on.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

GaltGulch, you're wondering why Objectivism doesn't spread?

[the]philosophy is rational

Well there's your problem.

As for myself, I've lent my Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged book to three people in the last few months. Once I'm also lending it to my friend again this summer who is going away to camp.

Oh, and I got somewhere in the area of 15-20 of my classmates to read We the Living and give a presentation on it.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; I think you are doing what should be done. btw You've been missed. I hope baseball been good.

[Robert Campbell]

Michael's suggestion

One idea might be interesting: a basic Objectivism course could be put together based only on the writings of Rand, Nathaniel Branden and the others in canonical Objectivism (a non-ARI affiliated course, of course). The purpose would not to be to challenge the philosophy, but to teach it as it was created, warts and all. Alongside the standard topics, the points of contention could be given, but without discussing anything in depth, merely the essentials.

A typical point would be the Objectivist theory of emotions. Where Rand claimed that all of them could be programed by reason or that man is emotionally tabula rasa at birth, this could be given with quotes and then with a disclaimer that science does not bear this out (however, also stating that many emotions do result from conscious thinking). Then move on.

reminds me that, back in the SOLOHQ days, I started a thread on Objectivist education. What do students need to know, to adequately understand Objectivism? What should they read? In what order should the material be presented?

Hardly anyone was interested.

An organization like TAS could educate a fair number of people in Objectivism without indoctrinating them. But there is a lot of skittishness at TAS, about trying to indoctrinate on the one hand, about openly disagreeing with Rand about some philosophical matter on the other.

Meanwhile, to judge from what its students say or write in public, OAC just is devoted to indoctrination. The system it teaches is more accurately described as Peikovian than Randian, and it cannot prepare its students to respond to advances in biology or psychology or other sciences that will inevitably encroach on the territory that they insist is philosophical.

Unlike Phil, I don't count the mere fact that someone used to be a Randian and is now a non-Randian as proof of a failure of Objectivist education. Will Wilkinson is doing valuable work even though he no longer counts himself a Randian. I don't think that he ended up disagreeing with Rand because he was improperly taught; he rejected Objectivism for a variety of reasons, some of which I agree with him on and others on which I emphatically do not.

Overall, I have no problem with critics of Rand who have gone to the trouble to adequately inform themselves about Rand. I think everyone would benefit from having such critics around.

Some of the others Phil mentioned have not remained productive intellectually--that's unfortunate, but it isn't necessarily a consequence of inadequate grounding in Rand.

I must say, too, that I never bought Diana Hsieh's protestations of inadequate education in Objectivism. I've read much of what she wrote before her noisy conversion to the Orthodoxy, and I see no evidence that she was ill-educated before, or that she has become a better philosopher after she began receiving "proper" instruction. I suspect that TAS was never going to offer her enough career opportunities or enough religious certainty; the claims of inadequate education are best understood as an act of penance. And the root problem is that some passages in Rand's own writings are fully capable of inspiring intrinsicism and dogmatism, even if there were no institutions seeking to encourage such tendencies. The kind of education that minimizes intrinsicism and dogmatism is one that notes those tendencies in Rand's own writings and provides correctives to them, not one that pretends that they aren't there.

Robert Campbell

[Dodger]

Haven't read the full thread--only skimmed. Ill be sure to read it all later. Anyways..

Few key points:

1) An -Atlas Shrugged- movie can do justice to the novel. However, it should be treated is if it were written as a Shakespearean play and not a fictional book. When directors approach fiction they tend to add their own innovations and cut things out to make it fit in in Hollywood. If this movie were to be filmed the director MUST have a FULL understanding of the book, the philosophy, and the small but significant pieces of the book must NOT be cut out. I say film it as close to the book as possible.

2) The best way to start a movement is to do exactly what the word itself implies: move. If you want something to happen, then you will work for it. But sitting in a forum, wondering why things dont happen and why growth isnt occuring does no justice to the matter at hand. If you want to do something about it, its very simple--Just do it. How? Use your imagination. As an objectivist you should be able to use your mind and innovate. The smallest growth is significant.

I'd also like to add that it is difficult to inspire productivity in a society where socialism and looting is encouraged. Education in America has been standardized. Even worse, it seems we are at a pivotal phase in our society's progress. Think Bill Gates. Think Hank Rearden. Connection? Its there.

I like to consider myself a man of action. I think the best way to do anything is to first gain power, then use that power wisely. So this is precisely what I will do. I will use my skills and talents to climb the ladder, and once I reach certain points, I will take certain actions. Maybe I should lay all my plans out. Eh, I'll wait until I am more familiar with those here.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Dodger

[Chris Grieb]

Dodger; Smart post. I like your line about movement and move. I have observed that a lot of people complain no one is doing anything and the only thing they are doing is complaining.

[Danneskjold]

I'd have a hard time seeing Objectivism accepted from the top down. It's a bottom-up philosophy to the core. It has to start with people adhering to it just like every other philosophy in a democracy in order to gain power. Rand said you can't educate people while running a campaign and she was right. There's too much criticism and intentional misdirection on the part of opponents. People only react to the first thing, not the explanation. So a top-down education of Objectivist ideals would end up getting misconstrued by its opponents. Let's face it, there's plenty to misconstrue. Also, there's not much room the educate about Objectivism between campaigns, seeing as politicians are always campaigning for their next run.

[Dodger]

Jeff, can you be more specific on your perspective? Do you mean 'bottom up' figuratively or literally?