Forty Year Decline or Stagnation of Objectivism (1967-2007)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The last kind of entity she would have wanted was an "Ayn Rand Institute." That nomenclature, essentially, is Peikoff's form of posthumous idolatry, begun and sustained with the money and archives he inherited from her.

Steve,

From the story I heard (and read), Peikoff would never give up his money, not even the inherited money or income from the copyrights, for something like that. He initially had Ed Snider at the start to bankroll ARI. Ed later jumped over to TAS after falling out with Peikoff and other investors have appeared over time.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael;

You are absolutely right about Peikoff and the money , royalties he got from Ayn Rand. Ed Snider was the principle donor for the creation of ARI.

They have had some success in getting new donors and getting bequests in wills. I hate to tell you all we're getting old.

Wolf; I wish there were 7-8 million Objectivists. The world would a much better place.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

That was quite funny.

Michael

[Greybird]

Perhaps so. Where, though, are the actual Ayn Rand Archives held? (Even though he still owns them.)

Why aren't the cards inserted into every Rand paperback directing readers only to the Leonard Peikoff Taped Lecture Service, Inc.? (The only authorized seller of his tapes is, now, a for-profit subsidiary of ARI.)

What entity is given the right to use AYN RAND® — yes, now, strangely and stupidly, a registered trademark of her estate — at, obviously, a preferential rate or on the most unfettered and favorable terms?

Not every form of financial or other support comes in the form of handing them money outright.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Greybird

[Dragonfly]

I wish there were 7-8 million Objectivists. The world would a much better place.

Based on the sample of Objectivists that I know, I think that is extremely unlikely.

[Brant Gaede]

No philosophy can overcome the inertia of the dominant culture absent a calamity that sends people looking for alternatives. Objectivism, so far, will not be ready for that until it puts people first and stops all this rationalistic nonsense that puts its adherents at each other's throats. That requires a certain humility conspicuously absent from the canon. Ayn Rand's way of dealing with the collectivists, once quite well justified if not necessary, is now obsolete behavior. Her absolutism needs to give way to some tentativeness, for only that way can others feel invited to participate in Objectivist oriented ratiocination. Objectivists have to learn that "Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand," is not objectively Objectivism, the philosophy of anyone else. This doesn't mean giving up certitude, only knowing that Objectivist certitude as commonly understood is frequently misdirected and off the wrong base.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf; I wish there were 7-8 million Objectivists. The world would a much better place

I believe it's a fair estimate worldwide. 90% of the readers took it to heart and changed their lives. Maybe only two percent are on strike. The private world of Objectivists is a much better place.

:heart:

[Wolf DeVoon]

No philosophy can overcome the inertia of the dominant culture absent a calamity that sends people looking for alternatives. Objectivism, so far, will not be ready for that until it puts people first and stops all this rationalistic nonsense that puts its adherents at each other's throats. That requires a certain humility conspicuously absent from the canon. Ayn Rand's way of dealing with the collectivists, once quite well justified if not necessary, is now obsolete behavior. Her absolutism needs to give way to some tentativeness, for only that way can others feel invited to participate in Objectivist oriented ratiocination. Objectivists have to learn that "Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand," is not objectively Objectivism, the philosophy of anyone else. This doesn't mean giving up certitude, only knowing that Objectivist certitude as commonly understood is frequently misdirected and off the wrong base.

I like Brant's approach to education. My question was and is: what about martketing? The target group is 18 to 25 both sexes. Anyone here speak Gen Z ?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Wolf; I wish there were 7-8 million Objectivists. The world would a much better place

I believe it's a fair estimate worldwide. 90% of the readers took it to heart and changed their lives. Maybe only two percent are on strike. The private world of Objectivists is a much better place.

:heart:

I agree with Wolf, why wait for the world to change? Create the world you want in your own life.

Jim

[Jerry Biggers]

Well, I fail to see in what manner the aftermath of the 9/11 attack could bear on the growth or decline of TOC/TAS, unless you mean that that organization has not presented a strong enough response to what should be done about islamic terrorism.

I do not see how the published statements of some people affiliated with ARI, that we should use nuclear weapons to destroy all major islamic states that overtly or covert support Al Qaida has aided or advanced the opinion of non-Objectivists regarding ARI. Much more likely, it made them (the ARIans in question) look like irresponsible fools.

It may be that at some future time, nuclear weapons (or the credible threat of using them) may have to be used against Iran - but not in the reckless, irresponsible, and inhuman manner that has been advocated by some ARIans.

Regarding the future spread of Objectivism, I think it is much more important for TOC/TAS to further develop academic training for Objectivists preparing to enter graduate or post-graduate work. I think Phil Coates is absolutely right about the need for advanced education on Objectivism.

It is equally important that the Logical Structure of Objectivism be finished and published in a manner that will make it available to scholars. There needs to be a viable alternative to Peikoff's OPAR, which has many faults in its presentation.

And, yes, it is damn important that Objectivism be promoted and spread. Those who deny the importance of such proselytization, should review Rand's title essay in For The New Intellectual; and Nathaniel Branden's Introductory Lecture in his Basic Principles of Objectivism series. In these, and in other Objectivist literature, the Objectivist theory of history (or "social change," or "societal progress") is presented that quite clearly states the crucial role of the intellectuals in determining the progress (or lack thereof) of civilization. If you believe that analysis, and you also believe the Objectivist analysis of our current and past cultural decline, then I do not see how the need for spreading our philosophy can be ignored.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Jerry Biggers

[bmacwilliam]

If you believe that analysis, and you also believe the Objectivist analysis of our current and past cultural decline, then I do not see how the need for spreading our philosophy can be ignored.

I always get a chuckle out of this argument. Ever since recorded history began, the older generation was convinced society was going to hell in a handbasket due to moral/cultural decline. Whether it was the Romans moaning about teenage morality or more modern times when Rock and Roll was sure to doom us all.

How many thousands of years does it take for us to realize that on the whole we're actually moving forward?

Just sayin....

Bob

[Jerry Biggers]

If you believe that analysis, and you also believe the Objectivist analysis of our current and past cultural decline, then I do not see how the need for spreading our philosophy can be ignored.

I always get a chuckle out of this argument. Ever since recorded history began, the older generation was convinced society was going to hell in a handbasket due to moral/cultural decline. Whether it was the Romans moaning about teenage morality or more modern times when Rock and Roll was sure to doom us all.

How many thousands of years does it take for us to realize that on the whole we're actually moving forward?

Just sayin....

Bob

This response appears to be a non sequitur and is also somewhat patronizing.

Well, if the cultural analysis presented by Rand is not correct, and there is no need to advance the spread of Objectivism because "everything is just fine," then let's all relax, have a beer, whatever... (O.K., have a beer anyway!)

But please explain where Rand's analysis is wrong (see for example, her essays, "Our Cultural Value Deprivation," or "The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age,"and "Faith and Force - The Destroyers Of Our Modern World.")

Whether or not there has been a general advance in the human condition, it does not mean that there is not room for significant improvement. It does not mean that there are not threats to our well-being. I don't think that these can be simply ignored. Many of these have caused significant human misery (i.e., communist, Nazi, and other totalitarian regimes. Or Al Qaida and its related supporters, today).

So, what is your alternative?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What entity is given the right to use AYN RAND® — yes, now, strangely and stupidly, a registered trademark of her estate — at, obviously, a preferential rate or on the most unfettered and favorable terms?

Steve,

Strangely enough, I am not against The Estate of Ayn Rand filing for trademark protection of the name, "Ayn Rand." All this means is that the term cannot be used on the name of a legal entity or as part of a product without paying for the privilege. (I am not sure about nonprofit legal entities.) There is no problem with other uses, which are provided for under fair use.

There are borderline cases where even this restriction can be contested. Take the case of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Legally, it would be extremely hard to block the use of the name "Ayn Rand" because the whole purpose of the publication is to study the work of the novelist/philosopher, not simply capitalize on the author's name. Imagine a publication called The Journal of Paul Newman Studies or The Journal of The Beatles Studies. The same idea applies. This holds for names of fan clubs. There is a big difference between these organizations and selling tee shirts or coffee mugs with "Ayn Rand" on them (unless her name is given within a quote or something like that). Also, "The Ayn Rand Fish and Seafood Store" or "Ayn Rand Ultra Soft Toilet Paper" are not a good ideas to put on the market (and even then, if the owner's name is Ayn Rand, this becomes an item of contention).

In the case of JARS, there is probably another issue. JARS was probably founded before the trademark application was filed or approved.

Lot's of celebrities trademark their names, as they should, since it is a source of income from their reputations. It makes sense to me that Rand's heir would do that. I have strong disagreements about how Rand's legacy is being managed from that end, but, on reflection, not about this issue.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Wolf:

>Among the 7 or 8 million, there are some very bright people who have withheld their skills, abilities and, yes, their inventions from the outside world. But you knew this about Atlas Shrugged, didn't you?

So: according to you, there really are a number of lone geniuses, who, specifically inspired by Rand, are withholding their radical inventions and supreme intellectual skills in order to not prolong this corrupted civilization and are currently working as short-order cooks, mailmen, car groomers etc until the purifying social collapse ensues?

On the other hand, there are no doubt short-order cooks, mailmen, car groomers etc who, inspired by Rand, believe they are lone geniuses with supreme intellectual skills, much as some people think they are Napoleon or truly believe that Scarlett Johansen is their girlfriend.

Unfortunately, until the Apocalypse occurs, and the Few choose to reveal themselves and their hidden supremacy, it will be rather difficult tell them apart.

>It is history inspired by fiction and it explains why the Chinese are manufacturing almost everything you buy in the US, except Japanese cars and Malaysian computer parts.

Obviously I have been under the illusion that basic economics, such as low wages and large populations, artificial currency pegs and governance that does not care much for copyrights or patents or negative externalities such as pollution or worker safety, thus making their goods incredibly competitively priced, was mostly responsible for the rise of Chinese manufacturing.

But according to Wolf this is not so. The rise of Chinese manufacturing is due to a secret strike of "men of the mind" here in the USA, inspired by reading "Atlas Shrugged." Rand's fiction, it turns out...is reality.

>I'm a lightning rod, a recruiter. Go ahead. Make jokes. I don't care. I wasn't addressing an adversary. I was speaking to the young people on this board who need to know they are not alone.

Actually, you were addressing me, but I'm happy to be a mere conduit for your highly original theories and inspirational messages to the "youth of the mind," encouraging them to keep their anti-gravity devices and Aristotlean resolutions of Quantum Theory to themselves while smiling and asking: "Do you want fries with that?"

Edited June 15, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

Say what you will about Wolf, he did it his way. First-hand mind and first-hand thinking, regardless of the price.

I respect the hell out of that.

That is his real message to the young.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

>First-hand mind and first-hand thinking, regardless of the price. I respect the hell out of that.That is his real message to the young.

Yes, well the problem is that just as the price of being completely "second-hand" is mindlessness, the price of being completely "first-hand" is solipsism.

[bmacwilliam]

Whether or not there has been a general advance in the human condition, it does not mean that there is not room for significant improvement. It does not mean that there are not threats to our well-being. I don't think that these can be simply ignored. Many of these have caused significant human misery (i.e., communist, Nazi, and other totalitarian regimes. Or Al Qaida and its related supporters, today).

So, what is your alternative?

You've illustrated my point.

That paragraph above makes much more sense (I generally agree with what you wrote) than your original "our current and past cultural decline" comment - which in most contexts is arguably quite false.

Bob

P.S. The Faith and Force essay I reread recently. This is one of the worst examples for me of how it's getting harder and harder to read her stuff. I find this essay among other things...

- condescending

- chock full of errors

- angry

- pathological

- zero intellectual merit

Edited June 15, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

Wolf:

>Among the 7 or 8 million, there are some very bright people who have withheld their skills, abilities and, yes, their inventions from the outside world. But you knew this about Atlas Shrugged, didn't you?

So: according to you, there really are a number of lone geniuses, who, specifically inspired by Rand, are withholding their radical inventions and supreme intellectual skills in order to not prolong this corrupted civilization and are currently working as short-order cooks, mailmen, car groomers etc until the purifying social collapse ensues?

On the other hand, there are no doubt short-order cooks, mailmen, car groomers etc who, inspired by Rand, believe they are lone geniuses with supreme intellectual skills, much as some people think they are Napoleon or truly believe that Scarlett Johansen is their girlfriend.

Unfortunately, until the Apocalypse occurs, and the Few choose to reveal themselves and their hidden supremacy, it will be rather difficult tell them apart.

>It is history inspired by fiction and it explains why the Chinese are manufacturing almost everything you buy in the US, except Japanese cars and Malaysian computer parts.

Obviously I have been under the illusion that basic economics, such as low wages and large populations, artificial currency pegs and governance that does not care much for copyrights or patents or negative externalities such as pollution or worker safety, thus making their goods incredibly competitively priced, was mostly responsible for the rise of Chinese manufacturing.

But according to Wolf this is not so. The rise of Chinese manufacturing is due to a secret strike of "men of the mind" here in the USA, inspired by reading "Atlas Shrugged." Rand's fiction, it turns out...is reality.

>I'm a lightning rod, a recruiter. Go ahead. Make jokes. I don't care. I wasn't addressing an adversary. I was speaking to the young people on this board who need to know they are not alone.

Actually, you were addressing me, but I'm happy to be a mere conduit for your highly original theories and inspirational messages to the "youth of the mind," encouraging them to keep their anti-gravity devices and Aristotlean resolutions of Quantum Theory to themselves while smiling and asking: "Do you want fries with that?"

This post made my day. Thank you.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, well the problem is that just as the price of being completely "second-hand" is mindlessness, the price of being completely "first-hand" is solipsism.

Daniel,

Oh, come on. The price is awful for some (especially under dictatorships). Tell the guy facing the firing squad for standing up for what he believed in that his life amounted to "solipsism."

What you said is a completely cynical view of existence and integrity. You may like your life like that. I won't have mine that way.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

I don't care what Mr Barnes thinks is funny. Downsizing, consolidation, call it what you will, America is losing its best middle management, engineering, and scientific staff. There are almost no qualified replacements coming from US colleges. Objectivists aren't teaching. They aren't in government. They aren't composing music or producing TV product. They aren't launching new industries. They are on strike.

W.

[Dragonfly]

Ha ha, that is indeed funny. When Objectivists are unable to make a career, they are on strike...

Just like Frank O'Connor was a John Galt on strike... The mother of all rationalizations!

[Daniel Barnes]

Egoist theorist: I believe that the success of Chinese manufacturing in the last 20 years is mainly due to American creative geniuses reading "Atlas Shrugged" and going on strike.

Critic: Your theory has little or no logical, economic, or evidentiary support.

Egoist theorist: If I cared about what you think, I wouldn't be an egoist!

Edited June 15, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh, you're just being overblown. Actually, just as the collectivist thinks only the opinions of others is ultimately of any importance, it is the egoist who thinks that only his judgement is ultimately of any importance. What is missing from both are simply [i]openness to and standards of criticism. The truly pitiful - not to mention blatantly self-flattering - psychological and social theorising we've seen recently emerging from the supposed "first-handers" on this board are testament enough to the basic error of this approach.

Daniel,

Not really. I have lived under a military dictatorship and have seen up close what first-hand thinkers suffer so that later, people from the comfort of their own safe homes and environments, can sit back and call it all "solipsism." I wonder how you personally would react with a gun in your face. Would you feel that you or the gunman were lacking in "openness" and "standards of criticism"? Would you beg for mercy?

Those who came before you literally faced that and they did not give up their first-hand thinking. They got rid of the tyrants. I respect them and offer a small whisper of thanks to all of them. I want to be like them.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

>Would you feel that you or the gunman were lacking in "openness" and "standards of criticism"?

Of course. This is exactly my point. Dictators are not open to criticism. They seek to silence critics, by force if necessary.

>Would you beg for mercy?

It depends. Quite possibly. It could be a question of living to fight another day. It would be a call you could only make at the time.

>Those who came before you literally faced that and they did not give up their first-hand thinking. They got rid of the tyrants. I respect them and offer a small whisper of thanks to all of them. I want to be like them.

You are quite welcome to compare Wolf DeVoon to Jean Moulin all day if you want. It does not make the comparison any less inaccurate.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You are quite welcome to compare Wolf DeVoon to Jean Moulin all day if you want. It does not make the comparison any less inaccurate.

Daniel,

Where did I do that?

Wolf is Wolf.

A is A.

Michael