curi

What an interesting word, propagate...

It's the same root as propaganda, however it does not mean making people agree or convincing them. It merely means exposing ideas to them.

By this standard, Rand propagated her ideas just fine.

Her books still sell well, especially her two big fiction novels.

Michael

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propagate

: to make (something, such as an idea or belief) known to many people

people knowing how Objectivism works is different than being exposed to it. something pretty near 100% of disagreement with Objectivism is due to not understanding it, not knowing what it really says. and a lot of people who say they agree don't really know what it means either.

Rand was enormously adroit in propagating her philosophy, even on one foot.

I don't agree with this. I don't mean this as a criticism of Rand, but I don't think she was really that successful at propagating her philosophy. It's not a criticism because I think propagating reason is VERY VERY VERY hard, and no one else did great either, and there weren't any good ideas about how to do it that Rand ignored.

Rand has a large casual following, but I think she'd be one of the first to say that isn't worth very much.

Today, ARI is bad – but still closer to Rand's philosophy than the splits. Rand could not find even one intellectual heir who was much good. That's how much difficulty she had propagating her philosophy – in the sense of getting people to actually understand it and improve enough to live it.

Two examples of Peikoff's flaws are his mistaken ideas about voting for Democrats, and his siding against George Reisman. And Peikoff wants and expects to be treated like an authority, rather than having to argue and explain all his points. Peikoff did some good stuff while Rand was alive to help guide him, but things went downhill when he was on his own.

So if Peikoff is only borderline (a topic I'm willing to discuss in more detail), who exactly did Rand succeed at propagating her philosophy to? Me and Reisman? Is that about it? Yeah she had some broad vague influence on the culture, and that's something, but there is SOOOO much room for improvement in spreading Objectivism. There are zero people who are actually much like Rand #2, and some number pretty close to zero that understand Objectivism very well.

I have not solved this problem of propagating rational philosophy ideas either. It's something I've been working on. If I figure out a great answer, then I'd be in a better position to write introductory material and organize stuff, etc. But you need a good plan before you put a ton of effort into that.

if you just want a short approximate introduction, Rand's is fine. i'd say my disagreements are confined to issues beyond the introductory.

i don't think one-size-fits-all introductions work well. i've written some, but not i'm really satisfied with the results. i think a big key for people actually learning or understanding anything is back-and-forth discussion – that goes back and forth MANY times, typically in small chunks. this is why i run a philosophy discussion forum (in my signature).

people vary. and especially interesting/intelligent people are especially diverse. a good starting point for some of them will not work very well for some others.

and people reading stuff by themselves typically leads to a lot of misunderstandings, which require communication to sort out. people so often will read a book and then have so many misconceptions about it that they never want to sort them out. this has often happened to Rand's books – and to most other authors even more. it's less of a problem with short works, but i think optimally there usually needs to be some communication to start sorting out misunderstandings VERY early.

here is one of my introductions: http://curi.us/think/

it emphasizes fallibility – people need philosophy because they WILL make mistakes and need methods of dealing with error.

What is "Ur-Randian"?

It means, in this context, thoroughly Randian, or original, proto-, primitive. See Wiktionary's entry for all the flavours.

FYI you shouldn't call Objectivists "Randians" unless you are trying to insult them. Rand did not want it named after herself.

I'm not thoroughly Objectivist. I disagree on some things and believe my own philosophy is more consistent. An example point of disagreement is anarchism.

capitalism: the unknown ideal

One cannot call this theory [of competing governments] a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’s house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

To this I would point out that there already are competing governments and police forces in the world. Although they are geographically separated, they sometimes do come into conflict. What do then do then? They have diplomats and treaties and stuff, rather than just shooting at each other.

Rather than explaining a good enough argument (here or elsewhere in print that I'm aware of), Rand told people to take it from there. Well, I've done my best to take it from there, and I have not come to the same conclusion Rand was suggesting was correct.

You mean like how humans didn't create the laws of physics or logic, and don't control those laws? And the way morality works is fundamentally implied by and due to those laws.

I would agree with that but don't see any required connection to religion. An atheist can see it that way.

Any chance you could give us a quick rundown of your understanding of the intrincist/subjectivist dichotomy? It’s got to be in one of those old Peikoff courses. Particularly as it relates to Meta-Ethics?

Why do you want it?

What is "Ur-Randian"?

Many people think how much they dislike you or disagree with you measures your age. It doesn't. But it does reveal their ageism.

well other than believing it's designed, a secularist has no trouble then. and you don't have to believe it's designed to try to learn how it works and try to understand it.

"Amoral secularists"--aren't they sociopaths?

That would all depend on what their subjective opinion of right and wrong is. And this needs clarification... in that for secularists there is can be no objective moral standard because there is nothing greater than them to have created it for their own good... which by default leaves only peoples' subjective opinions based on what they think and feel.

In fact a secularist can't even declare one subjective opinion to be better than another for that in itself is just another subjective opinion of no greater weight than anyone else's subjective opinion.

Morality for the secularist is the futility of standing in a bucket while trying to lift it off the ground by its handle.

Now you can declare one behavior to be more moral than another if you first agree with an objective standard that is greater than yourself... that is, greater than the sum total of your intellect and emotions... Something to which you have to answer... Something to which you are held personally accountable through the consequences of your own actions...

...whether you like it or not!

Greg

I'm a secularist. The standard is reality itself and in particular the nature of a human being qua human being. This is greater than any human being.

--Brant

I answer to reality

It certainly is, Brant...

...and neither you, nor I, nor any other human created It by our intellect or our emotions... for It is greater than all of us.

You mean like how humans didn't create the laws of physics or logic, and don't control those laws? And the way morality works is fundamentally implied by and due to those laws.

I would agree with that but don't see any required connection to religion. An atheist can see it that way.

Atheism: The Case Against God, in the rational morality section:

Mr. Jones wants x.

In order to obtain x, one must do y.

Therefore, Mr. Jones ought to (or should, or must) do y.

This is false. Just because you want something it does not follow that you ought to (or should or must) do what it takes to obtain it. It might be immoral to want x. Maybe you shouldn't want it, and should change your preference instead of pursuing that preference.

I agree. Amorally is holds true, but falls apart the instant morality is invoked.

For secularists, morality by default can only be a matter of subjective opinion, as there is no standard of behavior greater than what people think or feel it is.

Hi,

Do you think Ayn Rand was a secularist? Yes, right?

Do you think Ayn Rand's morality was subjective, not objective? Do you disagree with Objectivism? Do you consider yourself an Objectivist? Are you religious?

I agree with Objectivism about morality and atheism. Do you want to talk about it?

did you actually write this on May 20, 2015?

Yes.

I don't understand. You think I put fake dates on my blog posts? What for?

Can you explain what you're talking about? This seems to be a misconception I haven't encountered before.

VoS:

P.S. Nathaniel Branden is no longer associated with me, with my philosophy or with The Objectivist (formerly The Objectivist Newsletter).

What do you think that was about? Some aspect of Branden not involving any ideas? Ideas are everywhere in life, there's no getting away from them.

Regarding Kelley, he laid out ideas incompatible with Objectivism after Rand died.

I'm confused. I copy pasted your entire post. you included your name in the post I quoted.

Mr. Elliot,

This is incorrect and it's right in front of your nose.

I'll only ask one more time.

Do you have difficulty reading?

Michael

Here is a screenshot. As you can see, your name is in the body of your original post that I quoted. As you can also see, hitting "quote" on that post creates a quote that includes your name. That's because it's part of the post.

http://puu.sh/hX9IB/1052b3c36f.png

Curi,

You're quite a little control freak, aren't you?

Michael

Mr. Temple,

Why did you put my name in this quote?

Do you have difficulty reading?

Michael

I'm confused. I copy pasted your entire post. you included your name in the post I quoted.

Reidy,

It's not true that if you want to achieve x, and y is the only way to do so, you "must" do y. You have the option to instead abandon the goal of doing x, which may be the better option.

The criterion for philosophical alignment is what ideas are held here and popular and promoted. So, for example, Rand considered the ideas of the Brandens unacceptable, and, I believe, would have considered Kelley's ideas unacceptable. People at this forum generally, contrary to Rand, consider those ideas OK, reasonable, not necessarily perfect but a valuable perspective that is worthy of a forum section. I disagree.

I do often give people I disagree with a chance at a discussion. I did that here previously. The site owner said to me:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13420&p=186657

Curi,

You're quite a little control freak, aren't you?

Michael

I judged this very negatively. Judge for yourself.

I am still interested in discussing the error in the book, especially with people who already cared about the book before I started this thread. I thought I might be able to find such people here.

Tangentially, Rand wrote in VoS:

The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of “saving everyone’s soul”—nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means: (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one’s own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one’s moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.

This last means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere “I don’t agree with you” is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one’s views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one’s own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent.

This gives some indication of why I'm answering questions about what I think of OL. I don't mind to share my judgment with anyone who is interested.

I am not to sure we have a morality section.

I'm talking about the section in the book I quoted. This is the forum section for George H. Smith, read his book if you want more context, but I did provide the full syllogism, which is enough to see that it's false.

Yes I'm familiar with Ayn Rand. I'm also familiar with OL – it's Branden and Kelley aligned, not Rand aligned, which is why I don't normally post here.

Why did you quote the book? A page number would help for I don't see any context. Anything to do with atheism? Is this a logic lesson?

--Brant

I quoted the book here because this is a the "George H. Smith Corner", it's his book, and he posts here. So I expected interest, here, in an error in the book. Figuring out mistakes in ideas, and figuring out better ideas, is very important to anyone interested in reason.

I don't have the page number because I have an ebook. That's why I gave the section. The section is only a few pages, so you'll have no trouble at all finding this part, if you look.

Therefore Mr. Jones ought to do y if he wants to achieve or obtain x.

But that's the same mistake from the book. That is false. It's perfectly possible that:

Mr Jones wants to achieve or obtain x.

Y is the one and only way to achieve or obtain x.

Mr Jones ought not do y. y and x are immoral. Instead he ought to change his mind to stop wanting to achieve or obtain x.

For a concrete example, consider x as "killing millions of Jews" and y as either the Holocaust (which is the only method that so far has achieved that goal) or whatever else you think would work to kill millions of Jews.

I am not to sure we have a morality section.

I'm talking about the section in the book I quoted. This is the forum section for George H. Smith, read his book if you want more context, but I did provide the full syllogism, which is enough to see that it's false.

Yes I'm familiar with Ayn Rand. I'm also familiar with OL – it's Branden and Kelley aligned, not Rand aligned, which is why I don't normally post here.

Atheism: The Case Against God, in the rational morality section:

Mr. Jones wants x.

In order to obtain x, one must do y.

Therefore, Mr. Jones ought to (or should, or must) do y.

This is false. Just because you want something it does not follow that you ought to (or should or must) do what it takes to obtain it. It might be immoral to want x. Maybe you shouldn't want it, and should change your preference instead of pursuing that preference.

That stuff like solipsism can't be falsified doesn't grant it legitimacy. It grants it the status of non-scientific. (And it still can be, and is, refuted by criticism.)

the very possibility of falsification requires a realist metaphysics

and popper had one. i don't get the point.

I know David very well. I did editing for his BoI book, for example. Here is an interview I did with him: http://beginningofinfinity.com/interview

Ellen,

Are you willing to stick your neck out, like Michael was not? Will you say "this post is right" -- and rethink things if it's refuted? Will you assert anything and risk criticism, as I have done?

I’m not afraid of you, Uncle Michael!

I understand that this is a forum, and if you want anyone to use it you need some basic quality standards. That means things like staying on topic and not having flamewars. I also understand that you own it and you can act on whim if you choose. I do not understand that ownership justifies irrationality or repeated off-topic flames.

If you expect special treatment in a discussion because you own the forum, think again.

If you're going to proceed in a rational manner, please go ahead. If not, please leave me alone.

You won't expose anything to criticism. You are refusing to take any risk. I am exposing ideas to potential refutation. You are not.

If you don't wish to discuss it you could stay out of the thread or provide a source (thus taking the risk that your source is refuted).

You will do none of this. You are flaming me, discussing irrationally, and refusing to discuss the actual topic. And even implying a threat to maybe ban me.

Please either discuss the topic or get out of my thread.

So you're unwilling to proceed in a way that it'd be possible for you to change your mind or learn anything. (Such as picking a particular criticism of Popper and saying "this one is right; if you refute it i'll concede stuff and reconsider"). Instead you refuse to take any particular position on the matter and therefore avoid any risk of criticism or learning. That is irrational and closed minded.

I'm aware of pre-existing low quality discussions about Popper and Objectivism in various places. I know how to use google. I was hoping to have a better discussion, with someone knowledgeable or at least open minded. If there are no Objectivists who know what they are talking about and are willing to discuss the matter or provide a reference they stand behind (thus allowing the possibility of criticism), then that speaks very badly about the Objectivist online community.