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

[Philip Coates]

> Another problem is none of the Objectivist organizations you are complaining about make any money, as far as I can tell. If they were profit oriented they might find your advice valuable if it demonstrably flowed to their bottom lines.....If you want to educate then you have to sell your educational product in the free market--or go into public education...Maybe people don't make money with Objectivism because it's not good enough to sell. Could be it's just packaged wrong, as you so claim, but maybe in it's present state it's not merely a matter of packaging. [brant]

Objectivism -is- good enough to sell. And the latent market exists out there, desperately hungry for good materials. NBI and the Objectivist proved that with regard to both lecture series and essays in a newsletter. Multiply 20,000 people by the subscription fees or by the costs of taking a lecture series enrollment. And that's a lot of money.

But the thing is: THE QUALITY HAS TO BE WORLD CLASS. It has to be lively, dramatic, meaningful, relevant, polished. And appeal to more than a handful of nerds. In today's context, you have to write with incisiveness and flair, like David Brooks or Tom Friedman. You have to have the common touch, not the esoteric or egghead touch.

It seems that one of the reasons for the enormous success of NBI and the Objectivist Newsletter and for their rapid growth was that (even though they were only directed at fans of Ayn Rand's novels) they were profit-making enterprises with the very immediate discipline that imposed. 1957 was just at the start of AR's royalties and before there was any Oist network or base. They couldn't simply ask for more money from contributors or AR if they had a bad year. Or to expand their activities and take on new projects. So they had to "sell" Objectivist courses and writing very directly:

Trial and error. If you don't know how, learn how. Fairly *quickly*. Go out and spend time talking to non-Oists - the markets you are going to need to approach.

[Brant Gaede]

> Another problem is none of the Objectivist organizations you are complaining about make any money, as far as I can tell. If they were profit oriented they might find your advice valuable if it demonstrably flowed to their bottom lines.....If you want to educate then you have to sell your educational product in the free market--or go into public education...Maybe people don't make money with Objectivism because it's not good enough to sell. Could be it's just packaged wrong, as you so claim, but maybe in it's present state it's not merely a matter of packaging. [brant]

Objectivism -is- good enough to sell. And the latent market exists out there, desperately hungry for good materials. NBI and the Objectivist proved that with regard to both lecture series and essays in a newsletter. Multiply 20,000 people by the subscription fees or by the costs of taking a lecture series enrollment. And that's a lot of money.

But the thing is: THE QUALITY HAS TO BE WORLD CLASS. It has to be lively, dramatic, meaningful, relevant, polished. And appeal to more than a handful of nerds. In today's context, you have to write with incisiveness and flair, like David Brooks or Tom Friedman. You have to have the common touch, not the esoteric or egghead touch.

It seems that one of the reasons for the enormous success of NBI and the Objectivist Newsletter and for their rapid growth was that (even though they were only directed at fans of Ayn Rand's novels) they were profit-making enterprises with the very immediate discipline that imposed. 1957 was just at the start of AR's royalties and before there was any Oist network or base. They couldn't simply ask for more money from contributors or AR if they had a bad year. Or to expand their activities and take on new projects. So they had to "sell" Objectivist courses and writing very directly:

Trial and error. If you don't know how, learn how. Fairly *quickly*. Go out and spend time talking to non-Oists - the markets you are going to need to approach.

I'm only in the education business indirectly. I have no desire to spread Objectivism as it is presently constituted or to make money that way. You talk about the philosophy the way Nathaniel Branden talked about it--40 years ago--continued by Peikoff. They were/are on top of a cult as much as a philosophy. Not to say you haven't made some good points here.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I just came to a conclusion. I think there is a problem with personality of Objectivists that turns many people off. Many of them are nasty little suckers (and very vocal about it) and I don't think it comes from Rand's fiction.

I have to do some reflecting, but offhand, I can't remember a Randian hero who goes out of his way to morally condemn anyone who is not impeding his personal action or plans (or is part of them). I certainly don't remember them bickering with each other about evasion and so forth because one voted for a particular candidate or disagreed with a statement.

Rand's all-encompassing command in "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?" from The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 82, has been a disaster on the movement:

I will name only one principle, the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today and which is responsible for the spread of evil in the world. That principle is: One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

Granted, she intoned against becoming a blind crusader and talked about "when it is rationally appropriate to do so," but she certainly left that one dangling in that essay.

So let's ask: When it is "rationally appropriate" to pass moral judgment?

The answer normally given (or at least the attitude most observed) is ALWAYS, especially when one encounters evil. That is so wrong with the rest of Objectivist ethics that I don't know how it keeps getting missed.

One must pass moral judgment when one's values are involved and as a practical matter, only then. That is selfishness. Otherwise, a person's life will become an entanglement of constant arguments about affairs that are of no value to him.

A moral comment once in a while about a news item or something like that is no problem since the value is the person's leisure, not the issue itself. Nobody reads newspapers for a living or dreams of becoming a master newspaper reader as his life's goal. This is his time off, so he can analyze something from a distance. However, undue focus on—and moral judgments about—current events, to the detriment of personal values that he is pursuing, is not rational. That, in fact, is when it is irrational to pass moral judgment.

If someone says that Objectivism is a value, so he is "protecting the philosophy" (or some other weird notion like that) by making a career of calling other Objectivists "evil," i.e., that he is trying to keep Objectivism from being contaminated, he is showing what he values. But what he says and what it is is are different. Objectivism might be involved, but he really values the party line and tribes and dogma. He also values people who submit and forfeit their minds to his way of thinking. He really, really values the sense of belonging to a collective.

People see this from the outside as clear as day.

Moral judgment is a part of living, not a replacement for it. It is only proper to people who have a life with real goals—selfish ones—like Rand's heroes. In the hands of cultists, moral judgment highlights the cult as their value.

When Galt was organizing his strike, can anyone imagine him calling Dagny a subjectivist/intrinsicist evil evader or second-hander of the soul, etc., because she did not join him right away? I kinda got the impression that Galt loved her and would have continued to do so even if she never joined. Or that Ragnar was a thug (or Attila) because he was initiating force all the time? No again. Galt loved Ragnar and objected to the piracy because of the danger to Ragnar.

Now transpose that kind of thinking to an Objectivist Internet forum. Is that what people on the outside see Objectivists do with each other?

Heh.

You wonder why Objectivism is not spreading as a movement. That kind of showcase is not one of a philosophy for living on earth. It's a mess.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

One should remember that all one is as to do is sometimes "but I don't agree with that idea." I also think that if a person asks why you think that you might give an explanation.

My sister has a quote on her wall from St. Francis of Assai that Objectivists might think about. The quote "Peach the Gospel every day sometimes use words." Objectivists might practice the virtues in their lives and not rant about it.

[BaalChatzaf]

One should remember that all one is as to do is sometimes "but I don't agree with that idea." I also think that if a person asks why you think that you might give an explanation.

My sister has a quote on her wall from St. Francis of Assai that Objectivists might think about. The quote "Peach the Gospel every day sometimes use words." Objectivists might practice the virtues in their lives and not rant about it.

The following good Rabbinical advice can be found in Pirke Avot (Ethics of the Sages), the sixth book of the Mishnah Torah: Say little, do much, and greet all with a cheerful face.

From the same source: Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Bob; Good quotes! Thanks!

[Roger Bissell]

My sister has a quote on her wall from St. Francis of Assai that Objectivists might think about. The quote "Peach the Gospel every day sometimes use words."

I say "Impeach the Gospel!" :-)

REB

[Chris Grieb]

Think about the spirit of the words not the word themselves.

Roger; You're not getting the point. I think more people should be living as Objectivists not just talking about it. For the record I'm not including you in that group.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Philip Coates]

> So let's ask: When it is "rationally appropriate" to pass moral judgment?...One must pass moral judgment when one's values are involved and as a practical matter, only then. [MSK]

On a deeper level, when does one -have enough information- to pass moral judgment even if it might be in such an area (on an individual, as opposed to a trend, an ideology, etc.)? The problem with most Oists who fling around terms like 'evil' and 'evader' is that there is lots of honest error, stupidity, inattention, lack of philosophical insight, etc. that exists in the world. David Kelley discussed this, I think, in his original Truth and Toleration. Peikoff made something close to this point as well.

The problem is one of Oists who presumptuously, smugly think they know more about the insides of the souls of others (they have often never met) than they actually do.

The wider problem with the abrasive and unsuccessful personality and actions of Oists, of Oist movements, of Oist think tanks, on Oist boards is ARROGANCE. The idea that you don't have to do lots of due diligence, lots of hard work. The idea that all you had to do is read a few books and essay collections by a Russian novelist and all of a sudden you are master of the universe, an oracle, knowldegeable in how to persuade or write or lecture. It's often combined with something like the attitude of a faculty meeting of smug and haughty professors, who bitterly abuse anyone outside their charmed circle. And each other. They don't listen; they don't learn; they stop growing. (Baal's quote about the wise man learns from everyone is apt.) They take offense very easily. How dare you criticize me, great unappreciated genius that I am?

While hardly universal, this is amazingly widespread in Objectivist circles. And, because its irrational, it's such a turnoff to well-adjusted and mature outsiders.

Just as one example, how often have the two think tanks, ARI and TOC decided they have a lot of very bright supporters and customers -- and/ or we simply need to know what our base is thinking -- let's email out a "how-are-we-doing?" "what-can-we-do-differently?" questionnaire to their entire mailing list?

ZERO that I am aware of.

How many Objectivists have you met who say "This is not an area where I am knowledgeable. Why don't you talk and I'll shut up and listen so I can learn from you."

Arrogance which is a vice is something very different from pride which is a virtue.

As I discussed in my TOC summer talk about Classical Greece in 2006, the Greeks understood better than Oists how destructive this can be and was to them and in their world. Leading to fratricide, internal quarrels, and the collapse of their entire culture as the Romans overran it. They had a special word for it, "hubris". You could also call it the Achilles problem, as shown by that character in the Iliad.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I agree in quantity, kind and degree with what you just wrote about arrogance.

Just to finish out the thought, though, there is another observation I want to add. As a former producer of pop artists, I am sensitive to something we could call "pop artist role playing games." Practically all pop artists with whom I have worked started out imitating some famous entertainer or other. They go through a phase of almost crawling into the skin of their idol, not only performing like the idol, but dressing the same, using the same verbal and facial expressions, eating the same food, adopting the same fads, walking the same, etc.

I see an identical behavior among our bickering heroes, but without the physical part. (However, I have read accounts of the early days of NBI when the young women would wear black capes with dollar sign broaches and smoke cigarettes using long cigarette holders, etc., and the young men would turn into NB look-alikes. Even NB had a touch of an affected Russian accent.)

I get the impression that some of the people I have read are salivating so badly to come across a real-live altruist or collectivist so they can pretend they are Ayn Rand and condemn something well-condemned with Objectivist put-downs that they almost hurt. But there is a problem. They can't find a villain in pure Randian molds out in the real world who will even talk to them, much less take them seriously.

Can you imagine the reaction of Fidel Castro or one of his staunch followers, for example, when faced with an Objectivist hero wannabe who levels a withering, "But I don't think of you," at him? The idea is comical and our hapless "hero" knows it underneath. He knows the world doesn't give a damn about his anger or contempt and basically thinks he is an incompetent fool when he mouths off. The feeling of impotence is painfully near the surface if you look at him from the right angle.

These kinds of Objectivists make up Randian villains out of each other so they can condemn something and be Ayn Rand for a day. This is out of necessity. Objectivists are the only ones who take Objectivist put-downs seriously.

To the outside world looking in, this is quite a sight to see.

If Objectivism is to grow as a movement, this kind of behavior and its practitioners need to be widely identified by mature people who relate to Objectivism as to what they really are: childish and nothing more, except maybe embarrassing. (I kinda like the "incompetent fool" label in some cases, too.)

Michael

[Danneskjold]

The problem with people who use "Objectivist putdowns" as putdowns are that they care that they are seen that way.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Phil,

I agree in quantity, kind and degree with what you just wrote about arrogance.

Just to finish out the thought, though, there is another observation I want to add. As a former producer of pop artists, I am sensitive to something we could call "pop artist role playing games." Practically all pop artists with whom I have worked started out imitating some famous entertainer or other. They go through a phase of almost crawling into the skin of their idol, not only performing like the idol, but dressing the same, using the same verbal and facial expressions, eating the same food, adopting the same fads, walking the same, etc.

I see an identical behavior among our bickering heroes, but without the physical part. (However, I have read accounts of the early days of NBI when the young women would wear black capes with dollar sign broaches and smoke cigarettes using long cigarette holders, etc., and the young men would turn into NB look-alikes. Even NB had a touch of an affected Russian accent.)

I get the impression that some of the people I have read are salivating so badly to come across a real-live altruist or collectivist so they can pretend they are Ayn Rand and condemn something well-condemned with Objectivist put-downs that they almost hurt. But there is a problem. They can't find a villain in pure Randian molds out in the real world who will even talk to them, much less take them seriously.

Can you imagine the reaction of Fidel Castro or one of his staunch followers, for example, when faced with an Objectivist hero wannabe who levels a withering, "But I don't think of you," at him? The idea is comical and our hapless "hero" knows it underneath. He knows the world doesn't give a damn about his anger or contempt and basically thinks he is an incompetent fool when he mouths off. The feeling of impotence is painfully near the surface if you look at him from the right angle.

These kinds of Objectivists make up Randian villains out of each other so they can condemn something and be Ayn Rand for a day. This is out of necessity. Objectivists are the only ones who take Objectivist put-downs seriously.

To the outside world looking in, this is quite a sight to see.

If Objectivism is to grow as a movement, this kind of behavior and its practitioners need to be widely identified by mature people who relate to Objectivism as to what they really are: childish and nothing more, except maybe embarrassing. (I kinda like the "incompetent fool" label in some cases, too.)

Michael

Michael,

I don't think most Objectivists "want to be Ayn Rand for a day". I think they simply want to stand up for values that they cherish and don't know how to do it. I think many Objectivists don't want to admit that ideas don't work like magic. They don't want to admit that competence doesn't come all in a nice unified package. Everyone has development work to do in terms of personal growth. Most of all, as Nathaniel Branden has said, philosophy doesn't substitute for thinking.

Cognition and communication happen in real world brains. Understanding neurology, psychology and our evolutionary heritage will allow us to understand and to not always try to swim against the current of our natural human endowment. People don't always accept Objectivism, not because it doesn't have a good message but because it is difficult to practice without self understanding and a concrete level understanding of human nature. For most people, the project of self discovery should come before dealing with any explicit philosophy. When we try to communicate Objectivism without this foundation and at an inappropriate cognitive level, we violate a person's hierarchy of values and reverse the normal order of human development.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

I don't know about "most Objectivists." I do know about some highly vocal ones (and there are many). Want me to cite examples? There are oodles out there.

Here's an anti-Objectivist site devoted to providing quotes about some of the more extravagant items: Randzapper.

Here's the sad fact: there would be no such quotes if Objectivists did not post them.

That's just for starters, too. I can do my own list with both hands tied behind my back, go all day and all night and still not run out of examples.

(btw - I am amused to see our dear Ba'al Chatzaf featured there—twice. Bob, do you know who this guy is? He seems to be quite impressed by you.)

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Think about the spirit of the words not the word themselves. Roger; You're not getting the point. I think more people should be living as Objectivists not just talking about it. For the record I'm not including you in that group.

Chris, I was just gently poking fun at your spelling booboo, OK? Must all the (attempts at) humor be confined to the Humor folder? Must every comment be substantive and on point to be worthwhile? <sigh>

For the record, I agree with your point, and every time I'm tempted to wade into some of the murkier discussion groups, I'm quickly reminded of why I stay away. Good discussions are fine and an important part of the life of an intellectual, but like philosophy in general, they are properly used only as tools to help one in living better, not as tools to help one dominate and hurt others, let alone as ends in themselves.

And thank you for not including me in that other group. Nathaniel Branden, about 18 months ago, told a group of L.A.-area Objectivists that the best thing they could do to help increase the influence of Objectivism in our culture was to spend less time arguing about Objectivism and more time applying it to their careers and personal lives. That profoundly affected me, because one of the things I want most is for my ideas to help make the world a better place, so I have been trying conscientiously to take his words to heart.

Best regards,

REB

[BaalChatzaf]

(btw - I am amused to see our dear Ba'al Chatzaf featured there—twice. Bob, do you know who this guy is? He seems to be quite impressed by you.)

I don't know who he is. I am not an Objectivist but he seems not to be aware of that or he overlooks it. I make it plain on the boards on which I post that I am not an Objectivist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

I don't know about "most Objectivists." I do know about some highly vocal ones (and there are many). Want me to cite examples? There are oodles out there.

Here's an anti-Objectivist site devoted to providing quotes about some of the more extravagant items: Randzapper.

Here's the sad fact: there would be no such quotes if Objectivists did not post them.

That's just for starters, too. I can do my own list with both hands tied behind my back, go all day and all night and still not run out of examples.

(btw - I am amused to see our dear Ba'al Chatzaf featured there—twice. Bob, do you know who this guy is? He seems to be quite impressed by you.)

Michael

Michael, thanks for the laugh . I'm sure you could do the same about pretty much any philosophy or religion, but it is a sobering reminder that what is on the internet is immortalized forever.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Nathaniel Branden, about 18 months ago, told a group of L.A.-area Objectivists that the best thing they could do to help increase the influence of Objectivism in our culture was to spend less time arguing about Objectivism and more time applying it to their careers and personal lives. That profoundly affected me, because one of the things I want most is for my ideas to help make the world a better place, so I have been trying conscientiously to take his words to heart.

Roger,

Ohhh noooooooo!

You are applying Objectivism to the real world?

And you are happy about that?

Wha... wha... wha... what about Atlantis?

How dare you?

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

I get the impression that some of the people I have read are salivating so badly to come across a real-live altruist or collectivist so they can pretend they are Ayn Rand and condemn something well-condemned with Objectivist put-downs that they almost hurt.

Yes, indeed, I remember well my first Boy-Objectivist letter to the editor of the ISU Daily, way back in 1967, shortly after I had devoured and reveled in the heated rhetoric and heretical ideas of Rand's Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal.

The very first phrase in my letter began: "With an ignorance akin to that of prehistoric savagery..." and it went downhill from there. or should I say, ?

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Nathaniel Branden, about 18 months ago, told a group of L.A.-area Objectivists that the best thing they could do to help increase the influence of Objectivism in our culture was to spend less time arguing about Objectivism and more time applying it to their careers and personal lives. That profoundly affected me, because one of the things I want most is for my ideas to help make the world a better place, so I have been trying conscientiously to take his words to heart.

Roger,

Ohhh noooooooo!

You are applying Objectivism to the real world?

And you are happy about that?

Wha... wha... wha... what about Atlantis?

How dare you?

Michael

Oh, yeah? Just watch! :poke:

Emboldened by my lectures in 2003 and 2006 to Objectivist groups in San Francisco and Orange, CA, :cheer: I am (hoping to) give a lecture next month in Nashville, Tennessee to NON-OBJECTIVISTS on the same material: emotional expression in music. Although the material is highly compatible with Objectivist aesthetics writings, they are not essential background for the lecture, and I may or may not even mention Ayn Rand's name! This particular presentation is going to be "practical tips" on emotional expression in music for listeners, performers, and composers. Kind of a 360-degree approach.

As I threatened last year at the TOC/TAS Summer Seminar in Orange, I will eventually write a book on it entitled "Passionate Pop and Serious Schmaltz," but I've got tons and tons of listening and analysis to do before I'll be ready to look for a publisher. :sweat:

In the meantime, those wanting a sneak peak at my perspective and approach can check out my "essay" in Ed Younkins' Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Literary Companion. (The book will be out shortly and available from Amazon.com and elsewhere.) My piece is entitled, "My Music: Why It's Romantic, and Why I Write It That Way," and it purports to be "A Hugh Akston Memorial Lecture by Dr. Richard Halley, composer-in-residence and professor emeritus of music theory and aesthetics, Patrick Henry University, Cleveland, Ohio, 2 September 200, as transcribed from the audio taped lecture." I can't recall any other essay/piece I've written during the writing of which I was so frequently grinning or laughing out loud. What fun to channel Richard Halley and Hugh Akston, "as they could and ought to have been." :devil:

As for Atlantis, why, that would be any place I hang my hat! :zorro:

REB

[Philip Coates]

> Roger, Ohhh noooooooo! You are applying Objectivism to the real world?

Michael, I know I was shocked too. He should be shunned.

What's even worse is he said this: "I am (hoping to) give a lecture next month in Nashville, Tennessee to NON-OBJECTIVISTS". ....I swear, he actually said that....

Doesn't he realize that by speaking to non-Objectivists he is *sanctioning* them, being a party to their madness...

Doesn't he realize that in sanctioning n.o.'s there is a distinct possibility that some of them will actually learn something, change their minds?

Doesn't he realize that the rational course is only to speak to those who are already convinced of an idea to try to convince them of that same idea?

Doesn't he realize that is is UNSAFE to speak to n.o.'s ...including, god-forbid libertarians....because one can get epistemological cooties by doing so?

Say it isn't so, Roger!!!!!!!!

[Daniel Barnes]

Phil:

>How many Objectivists have you met who say "This is not an area where I am knowledgeable. Why don't you talk and I'll shut up and listen so I can learn from you."

I suggest that one reason is this: that Rand made out that philosophy is a kind of master discipline for all knowledge, and that without the correct philosophy as a guide - that is, Objectivism - whatever knowledge you hold must be in error in some fundamental way.

This results in the following situation: whatever an Objectivist thinks on any subject, - even if they know next to nothing, and they're really just cruising on their intuitions or guesswork, they believe is nonetheless fundamentally right. And whatever anyone else thinks on a subject, no matter how experienced and knowledgeable, must be fundamentally wrong. After all, you started in the correct place, and they didn't, right? So you've got this built-in sense of intellectual supremacy from the start. Hence you have the remarkable sight of the newbiest newbie Objectivist feeling sufficiently qualified to dismiss complex theories like say, quantum physics, or even relativity, simply because they find them difficult and counter-intuitive. Hence they become reluctant to learn anything new, as surely all these weird sounding problems must be philosophic in origin - due to some underlying Kantian or Platonic influence, no doubt - which can in turn only be resolved by turning back to fundamentals, of which they are already fully and reassuringly persuaded.

Trouble is, this sense of instant and fundamental intellectual supremacy does not seem so far removed from simply demanding the unearned - claiming some kind of overriding authority for yourself over all human knowledge on the basis of not a whole hell of a lot; and the constant diversion of all matters to "fundamentals" can easily become a pattern of self-reinforcing, if perhaps rather comfortable, ignorance.

The problem will of course vary between individuals, but obviously this kind of "demanding the unearned" is a powerful magnet for the very people I would suppose you would want least in Objectivism.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Phil:

>How many Objectivists have you met who say "This is not an area where I am knowledgeable. Why don't you talk and I'll shut up and listen so I can learn from you."

I suggest that one reason is this: that Rand made out that philosophy is a kind of master discipline for all knowledge, and that without the correct philosophy as a guide - that is, Objectivism - whatever knowledge you hold must be in error in some fundamental way.

This results in the following situation: whatever an Objectivist thinks on any subject, - even if they know next to nothing, and they're really just cruising on their intuitions or guesswork, they believe is nonetheless fundamentally right. And whatever anyone else thinks on a subject, no matter how experienced and knowledgeable, must be fundamentally wrong. After all, you started in the correct place, and they didn't, right? So you've got this built-in sense of intellectual supremacy from the start. Hence you have the remarkable sight of the newbiest newbie Objectivist feeling sufficiently qualified to dismiss complex theories like say, quantum physics, or even relativity, simply because they find them difficult and counter-intuitive. Hence they become reluctant to learn anything new, as surely all these weird sounding problems must be philosophic in origin - due to some underlying Kantian or Platonic influence, no doubt - which can in turn only be resolved by turning back to fundamentals, of which they are already fully and reassuringly persuaded.

Trouble is, this sense of instant and fundamental intellectual supremacy does not seem so far removed from simply demanding the unearned - claiming some kind of overriding authority for yourself over all human knowledge on the basis of not a whole hell of a lot; and the constant diversion of all matters to "fundamentals" can easily become a pattern of self-reinforcing, if perhaps rather comfortable, ignorance.

The problem will of course vary between individuals, but obviously this kind of "demanding the unearned" is a powerful magnet for the very people I would suppose you would want least in Objectivism.

Daniel,

The thing is Rand didn't treat it that way. She knew that other disciplines such as psychology, physics, economics, biology etc. had to be built from the bottom up by empirical work and then generalization and integration. The thing was that what she knew about psychology told her to reject the dominant practitioner in the field at the time: B F Skinner (who bears an uncanny resemblance to her characterization of Floyd Ferris) and the crazy philosophical things coming out of modern physics gave her heartburn so there is a bequeathed disdain in some Objectivist quarters for those subjects.

Objectivism has several powerful tools for cutting off argument: stolen concept fallacy, the arbitrary, "contextual certainty", the canonical laws of logic, the axiom of free will and an integrated system that can, in the wrong hands, breed hubris.

I think there is a real problem that is more basic than that , though. A real divide exists between the hard sciences and the humanities. People who are not trained in mathematics are at a real disadvantage for understanding theories in science. Scientists are skeptical of a system like Objectivism because it doesn't seem empirical enough. Objectivism is an inductive system, but a lot of fertile areas of exploration and empirical wonderlands are left on the cutting room floor during the essentialization process.

So there is tension between those who want to innovate and those who want stasis in Objectivism. The fertile areas I think are: large areas of epistemology involving thinking, neurology and brain function, philosophy of history, synthesizing an empirical and value-driven economics, philosophy of law and philosophy of science. The "balance of power" in Objectivism will shift from philosophers to Objectivist intellectuals who do work in these areas simply because this is where most of the work is left to be done.

Jim

Edited June 20, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There are sinners in both camps.

Philosophy - A person who, after validating his mind and reality and coming up with the basic method for gaining and increasing his knowledge, extends his own limitations to science. You get some really strange ideas from this one, like the universe is finite. How on earth could he know that? Has he gone to the edge of the universe to see? Yet off he goes damning scientists for rejecting his "fact."

Science - A person who imagines that complexity of information will somehow refute fundamental axioms like existence and invalidate all knowledge up to that point, including how it is obtained and used. This is the scientist who tries to "prove" that consciousness actually does not exist, etc.

Both compete in the stupidest manner possible. And it's always over nothing—literally nothing. What they compete over doesn't exist at all.

Actually it does in one sense. It is called vanity that has not been diluted by reality.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

There are sinners in both camps.

Philosophy - A person who, after validating his mind and reality and coming up with the basic method for gaining and increasing his knowledge, extends his own limitations to science. You get some really strange ideas from this one, like the universe is finite. How on earth could he know that? Has he gone to the edge of the universe to see? Yet off he goes damning scientists for rejecting his "fact."

Science - A person who imagines that complexity of information will somehow refute fundamental axioms like existence and invalidate all knowledge up to that point, including how it is obtained and used. This is the scientist who tries to "prove" that consciousness actually does not exist, etc.

Both compete in the stupidest manner possible. And it's always over nothing—literally nothing. What they compete over doesn't exist at all.

Actually it does in one sense. It is called vanity that has not been diluted by reality.

Michael

Michael,

I was thinking not of competition, but of the treasure trove of material that is being developed in psychology and cognitive science these days. TAS is the only group catching this wave and I hope they give it a really good ride because it's where the action is right now. Digesting the work of people like Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Jeff Hawkins and Antonio Damasio will take all hands on deck.

Another big wave right now is complexity theory, open source and bottom up system-building. I don't know if Objectivism really has anything to say about this, but the technolibertarians sure do.

I look at the OCON offerings and I cringe- there's no emphasis on fertile areas. They just keep replowing the same ground over and over again.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

I agree with you. Let's concentrate on the positive. The world is an exciting place and there are some amazing things brewing. You recently mentioned some chemical to induce hibernating, which has some really staggering implications on longevity and survival.

Still, the topic of this thread is the spread of Objectivism as a philosophy (or lack thereof), not science.

Michael