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

[bmacwilliam]

Modern physics (even with its incompleteness) is one of the greatest intellectual triumphs in the -entire history- of our species, some 250,000 years. Especially quantum physics, the very physics that Rand and L.P. disdained the most. Bottom line: Rand and L.P. were ignoramuses with regard to physics and mathematics. Almost totally ignorant. Rock hard ignorant. Bottom of the barrel ignorant.

I think you need to add evolution to the list.

"Almost totally ignorant. Rock hard ignorant. Bottom of the barrel ignorant. "

I suspect it was willfull because of the implications.

I wrote a little more detail about this here.

Bob

Bob,

I'm strongly resisting becoming engaged in substantive debate on this list at this time, but I will once again register my view that you're being anachronistic in your charges against Rand on the subject of evolution. In fact, Rand's environmentalist perspective was thoroughly in keeping with that of the dominant theories of her era in anthropology, sociology, psychology. In all these fields, the prevailing opinion was that culture had taken over as the determinant of human behavior, that biological evolution had basically ceased to be relevant. Where Rand differed from mainstream environmentalism was in not being a determinist, not in not being a nativist.

See an excellent essay which discusses this subject in Stephen Boydstun's journal Objectivity (which can be found online): "Objectivist Ethics: A Biological Critique," by Ronald E. Merrill, Volume 2, Number 5.

The evolutionary psychology sorts of theories to which you subscribe only began to be popularized toward the end of Rand's life. The first edition of The Selfish Gene was published in 1976. By then, Rand had had an operation for lung cancer; she wasn't in good health; her husband was in severe decline and requiring the assistance of nursing personnel. He died in November 1979; she died in March 1982. Much of the evol psych research and theorizing you cite was only published after her death.

Although I myself always found her lack of interest in evolution odd, it wasn't near so odd as you indicate. She'd formed her basic views by the time Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. The kind of evolutionary theories you fault her for not knowing about were just beginning to be proposed to the world at large then and hadn't reached the stage of development and sophistication attained over the last about quarter century. It's hardly possible, for instance, for her to have been ignoring the thesis of The Selfish Gene, not pulished until 1976, while she was working on Atlas, published in 1957.

Ellen

___

With all due respect Ellen, you're missing the main point. Sure, the latest details of evolutionary biology/psychology were not at her disposal, but my problems with her go much deeper than that. Objectivism is at odds with the BASIC concepts of evolution. 'The Origin of Species' and 'Objectivism' cannot both be true and I simply cannot fathom how she, so supposedly intelligent as she was, did not know this. The simplest explanation is that she DID know it, but would not admit it and therefore did not entertain discussion on the topic.

"Although I myself always found her lack of interest in evolution odd"

I don't think it's odd, I think the explanation is rather obvious.

Bob

Edit: To sum up my position on this: The evolutionary concept of genetic data, and it's profound effect on behaviour was one thing. Add to that 'knowledge' or let's just say 'data' to avoid definitional conflict was clearly shown to be passed across generations rendered the concept of tabula rasa dead before it even started. Anyone who even read a single article on evolution would know this and as a result the assertion of her unfounded tabula rasa claims were profanely stupid. She had no choice but to remain mute, or admit an error quite fundamental in her reasoning chain, and that of course was not possible. I would need some serious evidence of another explanation for her silence to be swayed from this opinion.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Philip Coates]

In addition to the fact that this thread has pretty much drifted away from the original topic of the progress or problems of the Objectivist movement, the last post and many others are examples of why I find reading OL frustrating....it's not necessary to obsessively-compulsively quote and inside quote and inside-inside quote everything everyone else -- or a sequence of people said -- before you finally give us your view. A real good test is if what you are quoting is longer than what you have to say about it. It's best to condense or use ellipsis. This isn't graduate school and posters are not being marked down for the lack of footnotes.

No one has unlimited time to invest on reading the same thing over and over. Or seeing points beaten to death.

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

Edited June 29, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[william.scherk]

No one has unlimited time to invest on reading the same thing over and over. Or seeing points beaten to death.

To my shame, Master Civil, I discover you are correct. Not only are you correct, but your delivery makes the hair on my shoulders stand straight up. I hear you, Master. I have learned with your pithy, warm, and gently chiding manner that there is no one more perfect a teacher than he who is a perfect teacher, perfectly teaching.

That I am A Mere Critic, and the Master A Teacher, well, think of the gulf, the canyon, the vast interstellar distances between what he does, and what I do. To think that people, er, pupils, are allies who need encouragement, why that is worng, worgn, worgn. Imagine!

Imagine if we taught children with encouragement and rewards, instead of tired disparagements and needling criticisms delivered in a voice that throbs with contempt. If we didn't feel contempt for our pupils, how could they learn? What could they learn? It's as if we wouldn't, you know, correct someone constantly in an endless dripping torture, instead praising them! It doesn't need stating which is the axiomatic correctitude beyond question, and which a tried-and-true blueprint to build self-esteem and model good behaviour, attitudes, and life-skills.

I mean, look at all of Master Civil's pupils. They all love him. They love him to pieces, all of them. And they love him most when he treats them with disdain. I mean, who wouldn't, huh? I love disdain, myself. It motivates me, perks me up like a nourishing cola, makes me want to join hands with Lord Coates and run giggling through mountain meadows full of daisies, learning all the way, learning all the way. Disdain is the basic fuel of education and motivation. Disdain = Teaching. Discipline = Learning. A = A.

Derision is also a handy tool.

Class, please pay attention and don't be so stupid and unfocussed. I am not listening to you or reading what you wrote because I clearly indicated what you would say, how you would say it, the length, the tone, the colour of the pencil, the width of the lines. I also provided you all a full vocabulary of 120 words with whiich to be creative.

I am very disappointed with you, class. Very very very disappointed.

I am so disappointed with you that I am not going to listen to you or read what you express, even though I told you I was interested in what you said.

Do you remember the girl yesterday whom I dragged from the classroom, threw in my truck, drove to Hangman's Hill, set the parking brake, did my stretches, composed a love sonnet, addressed the UN, prepared a light lunch, strung her up and hanged her by the neck?

Do you remember why?

She coloured outside a line I had clearly indicated. I would have cut her down after one day, but she compounded the error. She used colours that were not on the approved list of colours. I clearly indicated in the binding seven-billion-year contract with all your parents that I would change your behaviour into the correct, well, everything. On the front of the contract (and on the back, and, well, on every page, and on all our mailings, in fact on the stamp) is the Colour Wheel. There are no other colours than are found in the Official Contractual Colour Wheel. I clearly indicated that. I clearly indicated that to her parents, her guardians -- after her parents were earlier hanged by the neck for not paying attention -- that this was Policy.

She is still hanging there. Shall I go cut her down? Shall we sit here for several billion years until one of you gives me a good reason why I should cut her down? Using our creative vocabulary, within the lines? Because if you think, any of you, that I will not drag you up Hangman's Hill on the slightest error, well. you will answer my question at once, correctly:

"WHAT WOULD SHE LEARN IF I CUT HER DOWN NOW?"

Oh, and I know in advance that since no one is smart enough to answer, we are all having a wee little bit of detention. That's right, by the time you get home, all your plants, pets, investments, children, parents and relatives will be dead, along with the earth and the universe. Do you you know why? Because you are all on double secret detention, and that lasts 85 billion years. And, if anyone even looks sideways, breathes, or alters one molecule, I can triple that. Policy.

Any questions?

No?

Let us then, having learned Lesson One, turn ahead to Lesson Two. We can wait for the stupid among you to figure out how to do that. No breathing, remember. Very Very Very Disappointed is Teacher.

**********************

Phil, with respect, why should anyone accept criticism from someone who pretends to be appears incorrigible? Why would I rather be hanged by my neck for 85 billion years (or until The Advent of Objectivism on Earth) than listen to you disparage me?

You deserve a break or, well, maybe a Professional Development Day. I hear these are basically all the teachers go to a motel in Lauderdale or LA or Buttfuck and get naked and drunk and frisky and get laid and dance and scream in the pool &cetera, before gong back to disdaining the pupils the following Monday. I'll chip in, because, hey, I like you and actually support your mission, if not your missionaries. Smiley.gif.

EDIT: removed added more to the nasty bits and corrected the tone.

Edited June 29, 2007 by william.scherk

[BAMF]

^Now, THAT was funny.

You know why there's a decline/stagnation of Objectivism? Well, studies show that 99% of all people really...errr....well, they don't actually like soap operas that much.