Passing the torch!

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Right--there is no need either to indoctrinate anyone in Objectivism, or to perfect the philosophy prior to teaching it.

Those who want to perfect it are of course welcome to try--and to publish in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies --but they are working on advanced research, not basic pedagogy.

Those who want to indoctrinate aren't doing anyone any good at all.

It's interesting that two of the fairly high-level claims that I objected to have thought-control functions. The doctrine of the arbitrary assertion is so diffuse and so poorly argued that non-Objectivists will never be swayed by it; only followers of Leonard Peikoff could be deterred by the prospect of being charged with giving credence to an arbitrary assertion. The doctrine of the premoral choice to live is a response to a genuine question of interpretation, but for Peikoff it has taken on a set role in a sermon about sinners in the hands of an angry Reality.

Teaching Rand the way one would teach Aristotle goes against the express wishes of the late Ronald Merrill, who thought that Objectivism must remain a "fighting creed."

But we live in 2007, not 1917 or 1945. Western civilization faces a number of enemies--maybe it always will. None of them presents the kind of danger that Hitler and Stalin and Mao did. There is plenty of work to be done, but the future of our species is not hanging in the balance. There is a lot in Rand's writings that is worth carrying forward. But we are well rid of the conceit that our planet will keep plunging head-on toward doom, unless some specially trained Rand squad can rush in to rescue it at five minutes to midnight.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Words have power and can be unjust or can wound. A real good way to alienate a potential friend or ally is to be unfair to someone's arguments in this significant a way.

Phil,

Sorry if this bothered you. I was not trying to offend you, but instead give an honest reflection of the message I often get from your words. I'm serious. I am saying this without any intention other than communicating my impression. I have only the highest respect for you and you know that.

If I were you, I would be interested in how my message appears to others. I am certainly interested in whether my own words are communicating my intention.

For the record, the thought control and religion comments are my evaluations of the respective approaches in general, not of you as a person. I honestly do think that strategic omissions, when they are serious problems and not hierarchal knowledge, do smack of thought control. This goes for any field where morality and/or politics are presented. Thus I see no reason to omit select criticisms during teaching. And I do believe constantly highlighting Objectivism as different from all other human knowledge that has ever existed does smack of religion—as some kind of esoteric secret that is only available to disciples or The Chosen Few. I don't mean that you hold these views, but that when you use certain forms of expression, these are the messages that come with them, at least for me. (I suspect this is so for many others, too.)

Can we set this personal stuff aside? You are a highly intelligent and interesting person of honor (as am I) and OL is a wonderful website with marvelous people on it. We can certainly interact to mutual value if we want to.

You wanted comments on your posts. I gave them. Your turn. Do you have any comments on my pedagogical ideas?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is a lot in Rand's writings that is worth carrying forward. But we are well rid of the conceit that our planet will keep plunging head-on toward doom, unless some specially trained Rand squad can rush in to rescue it at five minutes to midnight.

Robert,

LOLOLOLOLOL...

Precisely.

What an image!

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: no offense, but I'm taking it elsewhere

I'm not finding this to be a productive thread.

I had thoughts of offering some details of what my program of education would actually consist of, but what I'm getting is strong preemptive resistance to *the very idea* of a systematic, hierarchical program even before I get to propose it. Or equating my . . . not even clearly fleshed out yet ideas! . . . to what ARI is doing. Or misstatement equating the very concept of a systematic program to: not allowing criticisms to be presented, "omit[ting] criticisms during teaching", thought control. Especially when I've already indicated -- if one reads carefully the posts I've already made -- that that is not what I'm advocating.

I have worked out a curriculum in some detail (not just courses on Objectivism but history, economics, literature, communication skills, social skills, leadership and organization....), but I'm having to work -way too hard- to repeat myself to be understood on even simple matters. And, rereading the posts I've made on this thread, I don't think they have been unclear or on trivial matters.

So I think I'll take my thoughts on this, my more detailed plan, to another venue.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

You are free to do as you please, but I have to disagree with your following statement:

I had thoughts of offering some details of what my program of education would actually consist of, but what I'm getting is strong resistance to *the very idea* of a systematic, hierarchical program even before I get to propose it.

If you read my posts and can allege that I am against a hierarchical approach to education when I stated very clearly several times that I was not only for one, I was interested in developing the idea, then I am speechless.

We are not communicating.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Phil had a good point in this thread. In a thriving Objectivist movement you need both experts and innovators. As far as I can see, ARI has lots of experts, but few innovators. TOC has a surfeit of innovators, but few experts in Objectivism. In order to spread the philosophy you need both. This was why the development of philosophy graduate students was crucially important to TOC. ARI needs more innovators that come from fields other than philosophy.

Jim

[Jonathan]

Phil,

I'd be very interested in hearing some of the specifics you have in mind about spreading Objectivist ideas and developing training programs, but I find myself wondering what training and experience you've had in regard to the issues about which you're offering advice and pondering potential solutions.

What's your background? Are you a teacher? Have you run any businesses or large organizations? Have you any experience in media production, marketing or fundraising? Have you formally studied and professionally implemented public relations strategies and tracked and measured results? Have you organized any political rallies or other similar events?

I'd like to hear about your previous successes, and why they should be considered successes rather than good tries or failed best efforts.

Best,

J

Edited April 23, 2007 by Jonathan

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Wasting My Time Responding to Silly Issues. And Getting More and More Disgusted.

1. Jonathan, have you asked for this list of qualifications of anyone else who posts ideas on the movement in these discussion lists?

The way you word your questions in your last post and the steep bar you seem to have in terms of qualifications (and that you only want to hear of successes, as if one wouldn't learn from mistakes and those wouldn't be valuable, on top of which you ask for documentation of why they are actual successes as opposed to "good tries") make you seem to be afflicted with "credentialitis".

A better approach is to assess the *merits of the ideas themselves* and the *arguments offered* for them. Not who has them or whether someone is sufficiently 'qualified' to have a good idea which he has just proposed before you will listen. And yes, I -do- have many of the credentials you list but my point is that it is inappropriate to be asking for such a long list of impressive professional qualifications in lieu of or prior to being willing to read or listen. It comes across more with the flavor of trying to find a reason to be able to shoot someone down preemptively . . . and not to have to listen if someone doesn't meet all or most of the items on your checklist.

> allege that I am against a hierarchical approach...I am speechless

2. Michael, when I criticize a number of things happening on a thread whiich has many posters besides yourself, it's illogical to assume that -each criticism- applies to you unless I identify you by name with that issue. [[Also when you shorten the exact wording I used, a "systematic, hierarchical approach", you removed my other adjective 'systematic' and what it means when you join the two of them together...it's the particular kind of approach I summarized in my longer posts, not merely the single adjective 'hierarchy', or that anyone here would be opposed to hierarchy as such....]]

(Nor was it necessary or appropriate for me to identify each individual or each post by name. "If the shoe fits" is often a better approach, rather than each person criticized by name immediately becoming defensive and mounting a bitter defense.)

We are not communicating if you don't read my posts *literally as they are written*, not adding your own extrapolation. That's exactly the problem that got us to this point as far as you and I are concerned: your adding new assumptions or "reading into" the actual sentences I posted.

[Dodger]

Where is Victor when you need him

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Whatever it is you got to get out of your system, please be quick. I am really interested in the ideas and not "I said you said."

If I wanted, I could go back and show at least 5 examples (off the top of my head) where you completely mischaracterized my own posts. I already mentioned a few and you ignore it all. I could harp on this, but I would not gain anything. Do you gain anything?

For the record, I don't like competitive debating so I have no interest in winning any argument. I am highly interested in the educational aspects of Objectivism. I have stated up front that I think it should be taught just like any other subject involving human knowledge is taught and that the error I have seen so far at the major places where I have had contact or familiarity is that it is treated either esoterically or solely as an advanced system of thought needing improvement.

Do you agree?

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Phil,

I think that the solution to a large part of the educational problems that you mention is that philosophy students need to have the experience of not only the right way to handle concepts, but also the right way to handle empirical data. One of ARI's areas of success is teaching philosophy conceptually with an emphasis on cognitive economy and integration. Effective teachers in math and science also teach this way. You need that conceptual scaffolding to start hanging more and more empirical data on.

However, you also need to have tools to handle empirical data: logic, a thorough grounding in statistical methods and the experience of getting your hands dirty with messy datasets. My experience with TOC is that it is short on cognitive economy and integration. My experience with ARI affiliated people is that they are somewhat uncomfortable with messy data, statistics and empirical arguments.

If I were to design an educational program for Objectivists, it would include a survey of the humanities, logic, philosophy (with as much cognitive economy and integration as possible), biology, psychology and as much math and science as the student can bear.

Jim

Edited April 24, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Jonathan]

1. Jonathan, have you asked for this list of qualifications of anyone else who posts ideas on the movement in these discussion lists?

Yes, I have. When people are very serious about their ideas and seem to expect that others, especially large organizations, should heed their advice, I sometimes ask them about their training, experience and expertise.

The way you word your questions in your last post and the steep bar you seem to have in terms of qualifications (and that you only want to hear of successes, as if one wouldn't learn from mistakes and those wouldn't be valuable, on top of which you ask for documentation of why they are actual successes as opposed to "good tries") make you seem to be afflicted with "credentialitis".

I agree that learning from mistakes is valuable. I'd like to hear how you've learned from your mistakes and turned them into successes, and how those successes have informed your theories.

A better approach is to assess the *merits of the ideas themselves* and the *arguments offered* for them. Not who has them or whether someone is sufficiently 'qualified' to have a good idea which he has just proposed before you will listen.

I didn't say that my willingness to listen to your ideas depends on your credentials.

And yes, I -do- have many of the credentials you list but my point is that it is inappropriate to be asking for such a long list of impressive professional qualifications in lieu of or prior to being willing to read or listen. It comes across more with the flavor of trying to find a reason to be able to shoot someone down preemptively . . . and not to have to listen if someone doesn't meet all or most of the items on your checklist.

That's not how my questions were intended.

Look, if you were to join an online discussion about, say, how Yo-Yo Ma might increase his name recognition, improve sales and have more of an impact on the world of music, all on a limited budget, and you had something of a history of trying to discuss your ideas with Yo-Yo Ma and his people, and you had what seemed to be a serious expectation that they should follow your advice, I'd hope that you'd have had at least some experience in the music industry, advertising, promotion, etc., and preferably some major successes. If I were on that discussion list with you, I'd ask you about your background. I'd ask if you've dealt with the complexities and unforeseen difficulties that a novice (or even a low-ranking veteran) couldn't begin to imagine.

Best,

J

Edited April 24, 2007 by Jonathan

[Philip Coates]

> at least 5 examples (off the top of my head) where you completely mischaracterized my own posts. I already mentioned a few and you ignore it all. I could harp on this, but I would not gain anything. [Michael]

If this were accurate, you would indeed gain something. When someone mischaracterizes as repeatedly as you allege, objectivity requires that you specify -exactly how- so that people (including the careless person) learn from it.

.......

Jonathan, thanks for clarifying and responding point by point in so focused a manner. Sorry for the misunderstanding -- I apologize if I took your post in too negative a way. (I've been taking a lot of flak on this thread and was in a foul mood when I read it. And that may have caused me to read it in a non-benevolent way.)

1. Just to give you a partial list of my background for discussing how to spread Objectivism and develop training programs or teaching:

Yes, I am a teacher and have worked with ages from middle school and high school through college and graduate school and with teaching some of the subjects that I would advocate be in an Oist training program - including history, literature, economics, "skills" (including thinking and movement-related skills), and Objectivism itself. I've been a paid lecturer, not just at TOC summer conferences, but to conservative, libertarian, and business groups. I've also taught two of Rand's novels and lectured on her non-fiction in classrooms in three different states. In the various academic subjects I've taught, I've both developed my own curriculum and implemented professionally done "packaged" curriculums. I've been a corporate trainer (at Hewlett-Packard) and have other training (and tutoring) experience, both inside and outside of a classroom setting and including "hands on" and interactive teaching...workshops are a very good way to teach for an appropriate subject matter. I've worked at non-profits before whose purpose is to spread ideas. I've worked on campuses spreading Objectivism, starting and leading clubs in a number of different states. Same for community clubs. I've also franchised the leasing of tapes of Peikoff's courses in a several county area. I've had -mediocre- results in starting Objectivist organizations in Northern California and -excellent- results in Southern California...and, in some respects, I've learned more from what -didn't- work in the former case.

2. I often post at rebirthofreason.com (Joe Rowlands' Objectivist discussion site which is the old Solo - but without Lindsay Perigo) and will present my more detailed "Objectivsit Training Program" ideas (and perhaps more of my critique or both ARI and TOC?) there later this month (and maybe cross post to SoloP where there are a handful of people who I think may be willing to explore this..and who -do- believe that Objectivism needs to be spread to save the world). As I said, I've not been getting much enthusiasm or interest here in an OTP or in my ideas . . . and I have zero interest in continuing a pissing contest with MSK . . . so it certainly seems reasonable to port it somewhere else.

.....

> My experience with TOC is that it is short on cognitive economy and integration. My experience with ARI affiliated people is that they are somewhat uncomfortable with messy data, statistics and empirical arguments. [jim h-n]

Yes.

When the former errs it usually *under-essentializes* and slobbers all over the place (e.g., the fuzzy and phony false-alternative debate over "survival" vs. "flourishing"), while the latter *over-essentializes* and treats the details and context with contempt (e.g., the presumption that they are military strategists who know when or if to nuke Tehran).

ARI=Intrinsicist-dogmatic-reductionist tendencies vs. TOC=subjectivist-"straddling"-conceptual fuzziness tendencies.

[Dodger]

Sigh.

Why do I feel that you people are resorting to juvenile tactics?

There is a thing called cooperation, and open mindedness.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

> at least 5 examples (off the top of my head) where you completely mischaracterized my own posts. I already mentioned a few and you ignore it all. I could harp on this, but I would not gain anything. [Michael]

If this were accurate, you would indeed gain something. When someone mischaracterizes as repeatedly as you allege, objectivity requires that you specify -exactly how- so that people (including the careless person) learn from it.

.......

... and I have zero interest in continuing a pissing contest with MSK . . . so it certainly seems reasonable to port it somewhere else.

Phil,

It is accurate and your hostility puzzles me. If you want to see some of the accuracy you can look at this post where I mentioned several cases of you misrepresenting what I wrote. You ignored it. I figured that's your right.

But I will mention the first time you did it on this thread (with quotes) just to show to you that you actually do this. I am going on the premise that you do not perceive it. Not only did you get something completely wrong, you asked the people on this forum to change their behavior based on your own misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Look here:

I think arguing about or trying to identify whether or not one is an "orthodox Objectivist" is to use an ambiguous term. It could either mean

i) accepting the anti-tolerance judgmentalism of "Fact and Value" [not my position]

-or- ii) it can mean fully, fundamentally being in agreement with the philosophy of Objectivism [my view].

Please do not mush the two together in using floating concepts like "orthodox" or the equivalent. Do not substitute negative and 'loaded' adjectives like this or the equivalent for detailed, specific, and precise debate.

I decided to provide the standard definition for the term as used on OL and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Phil,

If there were agreement over what Objectivism is, I would agree that there needs to be no differentiation. However there is no such agreement and the orthodox Objectivists are very loud in making that point.

When I use "orthodox," I am specifically referring to ARI sanctioned/promoted literature and lectures and events. I believe Robert is also.

Just in case you were mentioning Robert in your complaint, Robert confirmed this definition also.

When I use "orthodox," I am specifically referring to ARI sanctioned/promoted literature and lectures and events. I believe Robert is also.

Exactly.

When I refer to "orthodox Objectivism" or "the Orthodoxy," I mean the point of view put forth by the Ayn Rand Institute.

I woudn't call fundamental agreement with Objectivism "orthodox," for two reasons:

(1) ARI, following Rand in some of her moods, insists on acceptance of an entire system, in exhaustive detail, not "mere" agreement with fundamentals.

(2) There is some room for debate as to what the fundamentals are.

Did you acknowledge that you misunderstood both of us?

No.

I could go on with other examples (and they exist), but like I said, I gain nothing with this unless you really are interested in correcting your misunderstanding of what I have been talking about. You have not shown such interest so far. So what do I gain by insisting on it?

If you are in a pissing match with me, you are the only one competing. I am not in a pissing match with you. I am developing my own ideas and this will continue with or without you (or anybody, for that matter). Your presence makes very little difference to what I plan on doing. The ideas are the important part to me. We could exchange intellectual value and this is the area where your presence could have very good value. But this is the only area.

The point I am making is that I get no value from winning arguments and engaging in put downs. Objectivist forums are infested with this mentality and I am sick of it. I do get great value in discussion for learning and creating and sharing knowledge and sharing doubts. Chris Sciabarra calls this "dialectical" and that is precisely where my head is at. Through discussion it is easier to see an issue from different vantage points and contexts and thus arrive at a more complete knowledge of the facts (more profound truths).

As far as you advertising here on OL that you want to develop some of your own ideas on other forums (RoR and SoloP) and making a point of saying "but not on OL," if you think that is good for Phil, I think that is good for Phil. I find it strange you advertise this here and not at those places. But since this will not hurt OL in any manner, I have no fundamental objection. Make yourself at home. Anyway, in the last 3 years I have grown more than used to strange in the Objectivist environment.

Be happy. I wish you well.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> you can look at this post [you link to your long post] where I mentioned several cases of you misrepresenting what I wrote. You ignored it. [MSK]

Where would that be? Why did you fail to provide a quote, hard evidence of missrepresentation? Am I and others supposed to hunt thru the entire very long post dealing with a whole host of numbered points fishing for some misstatement somewhere?

And you claim that I am making a "misrepresentation" when I point out that the term orthodox can be used in more than one way, and then you and Robert clarify that you mean it to refer to ARI (rather than to, for example Rand's statements)?

If I were to continue to accuse you of using the other meaning, willfully ignoring what you said then that might be a misrepresentation. But I didn't.

And then you claim that I have "missrepresented you" MANY MORE TIMES??!!

--Gotta be a little more careful about what you call a "missrepresentation", dude--

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And you claim that I am making a "misrepresentation" when I point out that the term orthodox can be used in more than one way, and then you and Robert clarify that you mean it to refer to ARI (rather than to, for example Rand's statements)?

Phil,

If you had merely stated that "orthodox" has more than one meaning, I would have no problem with that. However you did not stop there. You stated two alternatives that are not used on OL (nor most anywhere in Objectivism-land where I have read) as "either-or," insinuating that your alternatives were the only two meanings. Then you told OL posters to "Please do not mush the two together in using floating concepts like "orthodox" or the equivalent."

So yes, you did misrepresent.

You even used the term "orthodox" in the manner we do here in your first post on this thread:

... or into orthodox intrinsicism and rationalism (Diana Hsieh).

I can see where you could mean one of your alternatives, "accepting the anti-tolerance judgmentalism of 'Fact and Value,'" but the concept as used here on OL ("ARI-related" and we can throw in "dogma-leaning" for good measure) is a larger concept that includes yours, so it works just as well. Anti-tolerance judgmentalism is part of the image ARI has cultivated on purpose. The only difference between the two versions is that the OL version is not limited to a specific essay (or author) as yours is, but instead to a general view of observed behavior evidenced by the various excommunications and other intolerant acts over years and years of ARI activity. Differences of a dogmatic nature were often present during hostilities. Frankly, I understood your own meaning in this sense. And I do not see you limiting your criticism of Hsieh only to her acceptance of "Fact and Value."

The only other person who used the word "orthodox" on this thread besides Robert Campbell and me before your complaint was Dragonfly. And I have no doubt at all he meant "ARI-related" and "dogma-leaning" (see his post here where he even mentions Peikoff by name). And I have no doubt at all that the readers of this thread understood our meaning quite well. I have not had a single complaint or question so far in months and months of using this term with this meaning. So there was not any "floating abstraction" at all in any of our statements (me, Robert Campbell or Dragonfly) as you both accused and misrepresented.

Instead of you and I having to go to this intellectually small little place and doing all this unproductive hairsplitting, wouldn't it be much easier to ask, "Is this what you mean?" Simply ask for clarification before handing out judgments of floating abstractions and requests to stop using them?

Michael

[Philip Coates]

I see no point in continuing this.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

You just proved my point.

As you have shown no interest whatsoever in correcting where you get the meaning wrong of what someone says (at least on this thread), but use the wrong meanings you arrive at as your basis for criticisms and accusations, and you continue to show such lack of interest, very little is gained by me insisting on precision. This is why I normally let such misrepresentations stand.

When I have detected this attitude in the past with others, I have had very little gain in cutting through it to get to the ideas. Sometimes there has been a fruitful exchange of values, but in the majority of cases, there has not been, whether the attitude has been challenged or not.

I decided to ride this one out to the end because of your sarcasm and finger-pointing on this thread. I have no problem with sarcasm as rhetoric and finger-pointing when it is based on correct facts, but I have yet to see the merit here.

If I manage to see it, I will change my views. I am open to correction. I am not open to substituting opinions for facts and I will challenge such as it arises.

You can call this a pissing match if you want. I call it checking premises.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

2. I often post at rebirthofreason.com (Joe Rowlands' Objectivist discussion site which is the old Solo - but without Lindsay Perigo) and will present my more detailed "Objectivsit Training Program" ideas (and perhaps more of my critique or both ARI and TOC?) there later this month (and maybe cross post to SoloP where there are a handful of people who I think may be willing to explore this..and who -do- believe that Objectivism needs to be spread to save the world). As I said, I've not been getting much enthusiasm or interest here in an OTP or in my ideas . . . and I have zero interest in continuing a pissing contest with MSK . . . so it certainly seems reasonable to port it somewhere else.

I think that Phil's description -- "people who [...] -do- believe that Objectivism needs to be spread to save the world" -- targets the key substantive difference between Phil's views and those of possibly most of the regulars here. Possibly most of the OL regulars do not believe either that the world is in need of "saving" or that Objectivism would represent "salvation" if the world were in dire straits of doom. This isn't to say that we don't see problems, threats, causes for worry, even potentials for major catastrophes; but we don't have the sense that Armageddon is upon us, or that Objectivism represents just what the world needs to save the day. A number of us don't even consider ourselves Objectivists.

So I expect that Phil would find a more receptive audience elsewhere for his programs and recommendations than he finds here.

--

A personal comment, Phil (if you're still reading the thread): I hope you'll look in every now and then and offer historical information and other remarks pertaining to the Objectivist scene (and for instance comments about movies, books, etc.). I hope that you won't feel an attitude of distaste toward posting on this list. But I also hope that if you do contribute, you'll refrain from attempts to mold the behavior of other persons into the form of your preferences. I think that where you made your big mistake on the current thread was in your attempt to get people to stick to the topic you wanted to be talking about. If a conversation isn't being productive for your particular interests, then, sure, you won't feel desirous of participating. Same goes for everyone in assessing what threads to post on, where to expend time and effort. But the tone and style of your attempt to keep the discussion on your favored subject were off-putting to a number of us. And things became personal from there.

Ellen

___

Edited April 24, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Speaking of digressions, I'll use this thread to announce that I'll be away from the web for the next eight days. I figure that most of those who might have any reason to want to contact me are reading this thread.

Cheers,

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

I just reviewed this entire thread. Phil made some very good contributions and made me aware that formal education in Objectivism might be of significant value if done right as long as things that are Objectivism that are shared with other philosophies--that aren't unique to Objectivism--are not just credited to Objectivism. I also realize that I put much more into studying this philosophy than I remember and it's harder than Dragonfly has indicated.

I think the real trick is to spread Objectivism and make money while doing so. Now that's powerful. If you need to beg for money maybe another approach would be more fruitful, if not out of Objectivism as such as out of your own profession.

But Phil, it wasn't valuable when you got pissed off with some seemingly off-topic postings. That was off-putting. It was downhill from there.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

...As I said, I've not been getting much enthusiasm or interest here in an OTP or in my ideas . . . and I have zero interest in continuing a pissing contest with MSK . . . so it certainly seems reasonable to port it somewhere else.

Okay, I'll look for your posts on the subject when you post them elsewhere.

J

[Dragonfly]

At first I thought that the title of this thread was meant a bit ironically, with that "evangelical" and "proselytize", but I now get the impression that some people here literally think in such terms, treating Objectivism as a religion that must be spread to save the world and being averse to any serious criticism of the theory itself. A philosophy that would be really rational would not be afraid to meet the challenge of dissenting opinions and would not think in terms of "converting" people. You'd expect that a rational philosophy in this regard would embrace the scientific stance and not the religious stance.

Several posters have tried to find an explanation for the failure of Objectivism to become widely accepted, like the "great split" or the incompetence of Rand's followers. They are missing the point, which is that it is Objectivism itself that makes it impossible to become a major philosophy. Rand's novels may continue to inspire people, but that doesn't make the philosophy viable, an inspiring message doesn't necessarily make a good philosophy. Call me Cassandra, but I'll predict that no scheme of educating people in Objectivism is ever going to work, as it ignores the quicksand on which it is built. Alas, Cassandra was never believed.

[Dragonfly]

I also realize that I put much more into studying this philosophy than I remember and it's harder than Dragonfly has indicated.

It isn't hard at all if you compare it with studying a real science.