Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[Brant Gaede]

...in my "Observations"...I'm going to select the ideas, the techniques, the lessons that are relevant to spreading reason and freedom, not the ones that can only be used in trying to deceive or spread irrationality or authoritarian orthodoxies.

Phil, you have two days (based on Will Thomas's announced Dec. 2 deadline) to put together a program proposal on this topic for the 2012 Atlas Society Summer Seminar, which will be held somewhere on the East coast. I strongly encourage you to do this.

As a veteran Student of Objectivism and attendee of many lectures and organizer of local groups, you are ideally suited to share your experience and observations with the TAS folks. Who knows? They might be receptive to your suggestions! Otherwise, what do you have in mind? What leverage will you have with your Observations, if not to get them accepted and adapted as part of TAS or ARI programs or campaigns?

REB

Good idea! I think that if Phil puts together a TAS presentation on how Objectivists can learn from the spreading of Christianity, he should end the presentation with a bang, such as revealing where in his studies on Christianity he picked up the persuasive tactic of calling a woman "cunt" after she provided overwhelming evidence of how wrong he had been, and how irrationally and unjustly he had been behaving. And also where Phil learned from the Christians that it's virtuous to never apologize for one's bad behavior.

J

Like the law you grind exceedingly fine. Unlike the law, you waste no time.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] every Jean Valjean deserves a Javert, and vice versa. [...].

I object to the dual injustice to Jean Valjean! Valjean didn't deserve Javert. He deserved to be left alone to live out his reformed life in peace. And he doesn't deserve being analogized to Phil.

(Neither do I think that Javert "deserv[ed]" a target for his monomania, and especially not someone like Jean Valjean, who had become a noble person.)

===

Jonathan, re your post #150, how you fancify with your caricatures. I didn't "[provide] overwhelming evidence of how wrong [Phil] had been, and how irrationally and unjustly he had been behaving" or indeed any evidence. I merely asserted that in my (more than 10) years of reading elists, I'd seen no one who more often than Phil honored in the breach the principles he preaches.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

...in my "Observations"...I'm going to select the ideas, the techniques, the lessons that are relevant to spreading reason and freedom, not the ones that can only be used in trying to deceive or spread irrationality or authoritarian orthodoxies.

Phil, you have two days (based on Will Thomas's announced Dec. 2 deadline) to put together a program proposal on this topic for the 2012 Atlas Society Summer Seminar, which will be held somewhere on the East coast. I strongly encourage you to do this.

As a veteran Student of Objectivism and attendee of many lectures and organizer of local groups, you are ideally suited to share your experience and observations with the TAS folks. Who knows? They might be receptive to your suggestions! Otherwise, what do you have in mind? What leverage will you have with your Observations, if not to get them accepted and adapted as part of TAS or ARI programs or campaigns?

REB

Good idea! I think that if Phil puts together a TAS presentation on how Objectivists can learn from the spreading of Christianity, he should end the presentation with a bang, such as revealing where in his studies on Christianity he picked up the persuasive tactic of calling a woman "cunt" after she provided overwhelming evidence of how wrong he had been, and how irrationally and unjustly he had been behaving. And also where Phil learned from the Christians that it's virtuous to never apologize for one's bad behavior.

J

Like the law you grind exceedingly fine. Unlike the law, you waste no time.

--Brant

Do keep in mind that Phil's behavior is the type of thing that has appealed to people at TAS in the past. Remember that when Pigero was being very hateful and abusive in the name of spreading Objectivism, there were people at TAS who were dazzled by him, and rewarded him by inviting him to give two presentations at their seminar (later rescinded by others at TAS). So, it could be a smart move for Phil to entice certain people at TAS with the likelihood that he might abuse their seminar guests by calling them "cunts" and such when faced with difficult questions during Q&A sessions.

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, re your post #150, how you fancify with your caricatures. I didn't "[provide] overwhelming evidence of how wrong [Phil] had been, and how irrationally and unjustly he had been behaving" or indeed any evidence. I merely asserted that in my (more than 10) years of reading elists, I'd seen no one who more often than Phil honored in the breach the principles he preaches.

Ellen

I was going back just a little further than your final straw which had broken the camel's back and set Phil off into his misogynist rage, and was including earlier straws. I think a significant part of what angered Phil so much was your participation in the Flame War Rant thread in which you "provided overwhelming evidence of how wrong he had been, and how irrationally and unjustly he had been behaving."

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] I think a significant part of what angered Phil so much was your participation in the Flame War Rant thread [...].

Hmm. I didn't think Phil paid any attention to what I said on that thread. I thought that what set him off was my comment "money where mouth is" when I enquired if he'd seen the Atlas movie and then my saying that he is a hypocrite.

Also, unlike, apparently, a number of others, I wasn't appalled by his response. I wasn't aware that the expletive he used is considered beyond beyond. I just thought but didn't say "Q.E.D."

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Yes, I think that your "money where mouth is" comment was indeed what finally set Phil off, but his rage for you had been building prior to that.

J

[9thdoctor]

I object to the dual injustice to Jean Valjean! Valjean didn't deserve Javert. He deserved to be left alone to live out his reformed life in peace.

Valjean didn’t need reforming! In the direst straits he stole a loaf of bread!

Jonathan, re your post #150, how you fancify with your caricatures.

If people have to keep track of the details of each instance of Phil’s bad behavior it’s going to get very boring around here.

[Brant Gaede]

I object to the dual injustice to Jean Valjean! Valjean didn't deserve Javert. He deserved to be left alone to live out his reformed life in peace.

Valjean didn’t need reforming! In the direst straits he stole a loaf of bread!

Jonathan, re your post #150, how you fancify with your caricatures.

If people have to keep track of the details of each instance of Phil’s bad behavior it’s going to get very boring around here.

You object to a great story, Ellen, in one of the world's greatest novels? Come, come, now gal. There are so many great things in that masterwork, the candlesticks, for instance. The pursuit through the sewers of Paris. My own favorite was the little girl--what was her name?--lugging that pail of water and Valjean comes up behind her and wordlessly picks it up out of her hands and all of a sudden all is right in her world and she knows it.

--Brant

that's post 250, BTW, expletive deleted

[9thdoctor]

You object to a great story, Ellen, in one of the world's greatest novels? Come, come, now gal. There are so many great things in that masterwork, the candlesticks, for instance. The pursuit through the sewers of Paris. My own favorite was the little girl--what was her name?--lugging that pail of water and Valjean comes up behind her and wordlessly picks it up out of her hands and all of a sudden all is right in her world and she knows it.

I think you're thinking of Cosette, when he goes to rescue her from the people the mother left her with. You just made me think, though, of the candlestick part. He does knock the priest on the head to swipe the candlesticks, but that was after he'd been in prison for 19 years, so by then maybe he did need some reforming.

[Ellen Stuttle]

You object to a great story, Ellen, in one of the world's greatest novels?

No, Brant, I don't object to the story.  Jeez, maybe you might bother to read someday.  I objected to the sentiment that Valjean deserved Javert, and to the analogy of Valjean to the quite-undeserving-of-the-comparison Phil.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

You [brant] just made me think, though, of the candlestick part.

Rather a significant part of the story.

Re keeping track of Phil's bad behavior, Phil wasn't the addressee of post #252. (The link should have said #250, not #150.)

Ellen

[9thdoctor]

You [brant] just made me think, though, of the candlestick part.

Rather a significant part of the story.

Wait a minute, weren’t the candlesticks a gift? He stole the silverware. Or maybe it was the other way round. Aw hell.

[Brant Gaede]

You object to a great story, Ellen, in one of the world's greatest novels?

No, Brant, I don't object to the story. Jeez, maybe you might bother to read someday. I objected to the sentiment that Valjean deserved Javert, and to the analogy of Valjean to the quite-undeserving-of-the-comparison Phil.

Ellen

I was just having a little sophistical fun with you as a take off point for my musings.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

You object to a great story, Ellen, in one of the world's greatest novels? Come, come, now gal. There are so many great things in that masterwork, the candlesticks, for instance. The pursuit through the sewers of Paris. My own favorite was the little girl--what was her name?--lugging that pail of water and Valjean comes up behind her and wordlessly picks it up out of her hands and all of a sudden all is right in her world and she knows it.

I think you're thinking of Cosette, when he goes to rescue her from the people the mother left her with.  You just made me think, though, of the candlestick part.  He does knock the priest on the head to swipe the candlesticks, but that was after he'd been in prison for 19 years, so by then maybe he did need some reforming.

And remember that before Valjean reaches the bishop, he steals a coin from a child. So, yes, he did need reforming, and the bishop's kindness and generosity were what reformed him.

J

[Jonathan]

No, Brant, I don't object to the story. Jeez, maybe you might bother to read someday. I objected to the sentiment that Valjean deserved Javert, and to the analogy of Valjean to the quite-undeserving-of-the-comparison Phil.

Yeah, I think it would be more fitting to compare Phil to Javert. Maybe kind of a wimpy Javert. Think of all of his schoolmarm rules and admonishments, and his blindered zeal. I think the only significant difference between Javert and Phil is that Javert wasn't a hypocrite. He put his money where his mouth was, and to the point of taking himself out when faced with the choice of acting lawfully or morally.

J

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Small Minds

Jonathan--> Ellen Stuttle--> ND

For the last day and a half and nearly fifteen posts - in a row, J and ND have continued their usual habit of almost never posting on the actual topic of a thread, and seldom finding anything intelligent to offer than to denigrate, to attack one of their personal foes.

And this is the kind of subject that Ellen Stuttle finds worth posting on again, after finding almost nothing else to post on on this list for the last six months.

[Jonathan]

Hey Schoolmarm, I thought that you were going to punish me by going back to your policy of ignoring me. What happened? You just can't stick to anything, can you? No volitional control over yourself at all, huh? Pretty sad, especially for someone so intent on "spreading Objectivism"! What will all of your potential converts say when they see that you can't make yourself practice what you preach?

J

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Things Anyone who Wants to Spread a Challenging Worldview can Learn from the Christians

> I think we have a lot to learn from ~contemporary~ Christianity. They have killer music in their churches, they have singles groups, they have opportunities to get together weekly for Bible study and/or choir practice, they have daycare for working parents as well as parochial schools and colleges (we're just getting ~started~ with the efforts of people like Lisa VanDamme, Marsha Enright, and Fred Stitt). [REB, Post 249]

Roger, those are great points! They've never just been offering "mysticism" but have offered things in two areas: (1) services and existential assistance and (2) knowledge and enlightenment which are useful to people. That helps get them in the door. And that' approach has been true of Christianity for about 2000 years. Here's the bottom line point: Objectivism and Objectivists need to not just be offering a highly radical and abstract philosophy. It's too soon for huge masses of people to understand that.

(On your last point, I certainly agree that general education -- primary, secondary, college, vocational and business and technical, adult education, homeschooling --is one of those 'niches' where Objectivists and libertarians could have more of an impact. The three people you mention are Oists who have each started their own schools. There's also Peter LePort , Carl Barney, and several Montessori projects. There are several people - including myself- who have been involved with private schools which have had a heavy Objectivist orientation....)

Since this thread has stretched, and with the trolls, it's taking too long to discuss the first century of Christianity, I'm going to jump ahead and summarize here some of my my observations about medieval Christianity and modern Christianity:

In the Dark Ages, the half-millenium after the fall of the Roman Empire, important reasons why Christianity advanced (northward, westward, in the British Isles and elsewhere) include the fact that they offered not just an alternative to the pagan religions, not just because they offered a life after death, but because -- take the monasteries and the monks as an example -- they offered tools for survival and advancement. Becoming a monk was the only career open to an intellectual or someone who wanted shelter from the uncertainty, and the endless wars. There were books and the ability to learn to read; there was security and work to do in exchange for isolation and accepting the religion. They were the keepers of what was left of Roman civilization in some ways.

And this approach of offering a kind of "civilization", offering some services, to the savages and the barbarians and the pagans, of offering very much needed services has actually been continued, not just by the different monastic orders, but by the missionaries who went to Africa early on, to the New World, to China today and Korea and to try to fill what was missing when the old "faith" never was, or was weak, or fell down (collapse of communism, which served as an ideological framework.)

Going first north and west in Europe, then moving east, then moving to the other major continents, they particularly targeted areas where the structures and institutions were weak or shaky or non-existent or corrupt or had collapsed. Filling a vacuum. People will be open to -anything- if they have -nothing-.

The Christian idea to be of service - motivates the soup kitchens, Salvation Army, etc., etc. even in the advanced world.

Now, it should be obvious that what Objectivists have to offer is not eternal life or soup kitchens. But if one can think outside of the box, let me ask the following questions:

1. Do you disagree that Christianity often (whether early, medieval, modern, or current) offered or offers

the positive values I named in addition to mysticism and those would be/were helpful in its become the world's most successful religion?

2. What other positive values have I omitted?

3. What are some of the things Objectivists, if they were interested and skilled and capable, could offer that would be attractive in getting people "in the door"?

[Roger Bissell]

Subject: Things Anyone who Wants to Spread a Challenging Worldview can Learn from the Christians

> I think we have a lot to learn from ~contemporary~ Christianity. They have killer music in their churches, they have singles groups, they have opportunities to get together weekly for Bible study and/or choir practice, they have daycare for working parents as well as parochial schools and colleges (we're just getting ~started~ with the efforts of people like Lisa VanDamme, Marsha Enright, and Fred Stitt). [REB, Post 249]

Roger, those are great points! They've never just been offering "mysticism" but have offered things in two areas: (1) services and existential assistance and (2) knowledge and enlightenment which are useful to people. That helps get them in the door. And that' approach has been true of Christianity for about 2000 years. Here's the bottom line point: Objectivism and Objectivists need to not just be offering a highly radical and abstract philosophy. It's too soon for huge masses of people to understand that.

(On your last point, I certainly agree that general education -- primary, secondary, college, vocational and business and technical, adult education, homeschooling --is one of those 'niches' where Objectivists and libertarians could have more of an impact. The three people you mention are Oists who have each started their own schools. There's also Peter LePort , Carl Barney, and several Montessori projects. There are several people - including myself- who have been involved with private schools which have had a heavy Objectivist orientation....)

Since this thread has stretched, and with the trolls, it's taking too long to discuss the first century of Christianity, I'm going to jump ahead and summarize here some of my my observations about medieval Christianity and modern Christianity:

In the Dark Ages, the half-millenium after the fall of the Roman Empire, important reasons why Christianity advanced (northward, westward, in the British Isles and elsewhere) include the fact that they offered not just an alternative to the pagan religions, not just because they offered a life after death, but because -- take the monasteries and the monks as an example -- they offered tools for survival and advancement. Becoming a monk was the only career open to an intellectual or someone who wanted shelter from the uncertainty, and the endless wars. There were books and the ability to learn to read; there was security and work to do in exchange for isolation and accepting the religion. They were the keepers of what was left of Roman civilization in some ways.

And this approach of offering a kind of "civilization", offering some services, to the savages and the barbarians and the pagans, of offering very much needed services has actually been continued, not just by the different monastic orders, but by the missionaries who went to Africa early on, to the New World, to China today and Korea and to try to fill what was missing when the old "faith" never was, or was weak, or fell down (collapse of communism, which served as an ideological framework.)

Going first north and west in Europe, then moving east, then moving to the other major continents, they particularly targeted areas where the structures and institutions were weak or shaky or non-existent or corrupt or had collapsed. Filling a vacuum. People will be open to -anything- if they have -nothing-.

The Christian idea to be of service - motivates the soup kitchens, Salvation Army, etc., etc. even in the advanced world.

Now, it should be obvious that what Objectivists have to offer is not eternal life or soup kitchens. But if one can think outside of the box, let me ask the following questions:

1. Do you disagree that Christianity often (whether early, medieval, modern, or current) offered or offers

the positive values I named in addition to mysticism and those would be/were helpful in its become the world's most successful religion?

2. What other positive values have I omitted?

3. What are some of the things Objectivists, if they were interested and skilled and capable, could offer that would be attractive in getting people "in the door"?

Phil, I don't think that Objectivism can be a "mass philosophy," like Christianity is a mass religion. It necessarily aims at those of independent minds (though attracting some without, also) -- and those are always a minority in any country or era. A very small minority.

It seems most likely to me that Objectivism will succeed by getting our ideas co-opted by major ideologies and religions. On a similar note: I heard Sean Hannity a couple nights ago saying that he was a libertarian, that he didn't care what people did in the privacy of their own homes. This guy is a staunch conservative and religious person -- so hearing this out of his mouth is as noteworthy as when Reagan told a young conservatives group at Vanderbilt University in 1975 that ~he~ was a libertarian. What matters is not so much their consistency in holding or advocating libertarian ideas, but that there was cachet in doing so. The culture is open to hearing and considering them -- or Ron Paul would not be as high as he is in the polls, and attracting as much campaign support from active duty armed forces personnel as he is. In other words, I think that Objectivists (and libertarians) will achieve victory, culturally and politically, in a manner similar to how the Fabian Socialists did politically.

But philosophically? Ain't gonna happen, Phil. Permanent minority status, unless a big group of Objectivists are having a conclave in some far-off corner of the globe when humanity finally destroys itself with WMD's.

Objectivists should concentrate on making ~themselves~ better people and being a good example of what they're preaching. That will win over more people than anything else, including Atlas Shrugged.

REB

[Jonathan]

3. What are some of the things Objectivists, if they were interested and skilled and capable, could offer that would be attractive in getting people "in the door"?

Steak bites wrapped in bacon.

[john42t]

But philosophically? Ain't gonna happen, Phil. Permanent minority status, unless a big group of Objectivists are having a conclave in some far-off corner of the globe when humanity finally destroys itself with WMD's.

I believe it's going to happen, rather quickly even.

But here's the thing: It happens because Objectivism is the one, true philosophy.

Here in Germany, the ideology slowly moves towards Objectivism on a number of levels, even though the label "Obejctivism" itself or Ayn Rand and her works are unknown.

Eventually the masses will be Objectivist, but it might not be *called* Objectivism. And it would happen even without Ayn Rand and her works.

[Philip Coates]

> Here in Germany, the ideology slowly moves towards Objectivism on a number of levels, even though the label "Obejctivism" itself or Ayn Rand and her works are unknown

John, don't get me wrong - I'd love to see this be true. (Especially in a country that is the most central/important in Europe, as economically strong, and culturally dynamic as Germany has been historically.) But can you offer any specifics or hard data - names, dates, trends, how things are different from say twenty or thirty years ago in your country. And - most importantly - could any ideological improvement be attributable to other factors than people reading Rand (who I understand does not have many works - or nonfiction - available in German translation?)

For example, could any political or economic movement away from the welfare or regulatory state be attributable to a temporary historical 'spike' from the absorption of millions of people (East Germany) who have lived under political collectivism and statism and now exactly how bad it is? In the US, for example, there have been temporary 'spikes' of this kind several times in my lifetime: The so-called "Reagan revolution" was one that petered out. And there is a (likely temporary) doubling in sales of Atlas Shrugged - which has happened before - due to an economic recession and a particularly collectivist president and because that book so clearly predicts some of the stuff going on now. Doesn't mean the abstract philosophy is going to 'take'.

[Philip Coates]

John, I just reread your post more carefully - it seems you think Germany is moving toward Objectivism without exposure to Rand. Is that correct?

Can you explain how that could be, what would be some examples, and what you think the causes are - and any reasons why the trends might be permanent -- rather than a 'temporary spike' of the kind I just described?

[john42t]

John, I just reread your post more carefully - it seems you think Germany is moving toward Objectivism without exposure to Rand. Is that correct?

Yes, that's what I believe is happening.

Can you explain how that could be, what would be some examples, and what you think the causes are - and any reasons why the trends might be permanent -- rather than a 'temporary spike' of the kind I just described?

Here are some examples:

* Thilo Sarrazin has enourmous support in the population with a lot of statements than reflect a pro-virtue and independence stance (eg "Those who can't afford heating should take the shower cold, those that take it warm don't get anywhere in life anyway", quoted liberally from memory). Two decades ago he would have been an outcast for saying something like that. He's still very statist, this example only reflects one aspect.

* A Movie like 300 is, though despised by certain classes, popular among the young, including its message to some extent.

* Altruism is dead as a Zeitgeist. Although I rarely mention Rand or Objectivism, I sometimes talk about the selfishness vs altruism issue in isolation. People generally agree with Rand on that one, they wouldn't have two decades ago. Also, "In the end, everybody has to pay his own bills in this world." is something that most Germans will agree with, but this is a new development.

* The "feminization" of men is beginning to be recognized and the trend is reversing.

* Welfare is being reduced and elements of individual responsibility are introduced on a number of levels. Two decades ago, you could have yourself fired and live on the same sallary without working indefinitely. This is no longer possible, now you fall back on general welfare, which is much less and much more degrading to be on.

Now to why I believe this is the case. I think there are two major factors.

First, Germans are ambitious. Not sure why this is, but it appears to be the case. The premise of "getting things done" as the primary goal in life seems to be constant for centuries.

From there, people figure things out by themselves, premise by premise. For example, people stop supporting welfare after they've seen the self-righteousness of those who pride themselves in their victim-status. Or they will stop being so feminist after they get forced to subsidise their cheating ex-wifes and being denied access to their children.

Or the issue of Greece; here we see a strong parallel to welfare recipients: There are strong anti-German sentiments in the Greek population that don't go unnoticed by those who are made to pay their bills. Two decades ago, Germans were strongly pro-EU - Greece is probably the most important turning point.

The other major factor is the internet: The mainstream media and the humanities professors are still leftist/collectivist, but the internet is a game changer in that it breaks their monopoly. People can now share their experience and realize that they are not alone.

I believe this will be permanent because I believe it to be ultimately an effect of media: I think the whole of the horrors of the 20th century could not have happened if media technology had not been of a kind where a few speak for many - which is how it was from the invention of the printing press up until the invention of the internet.

[Philip Coates]

Lots of interesting points, John. (I had to look up Thilo Sarrazin, had never heard of him.)

> First, Germans are ambitious. Not sure why this is, but it appears to be the case. The premise of "getting things done" as the primary goal in life seems to be constant for centuries.

This is a notable national trait (or strong tendency compared to, say, the Italians or the Greeks) of the Germans in Europe and of the Japanese in Asia (not alone in either continent obviously). Hard-working, scrupulous, meticulous, industrious, perfectionist, no nonsense. In the latter case, Confucianism is a cause. I saw this last time after time in the classes I taught in California where the Asian students always came in with their homework done, as opposed to the smug, complacent American kids.

> The mainstream media and the humanities professors are still leftist/collectivist, but the internet is a game changer in that it breaks their monopoly. People can now share their experience and realize that they are not alone.

Yes. The internet is inexpensive, searchable, available everywhere. It's tricky to use effectively, though and by now there's lots of competion vying for 'eyeballs'. You have to know what you're doing and hire competent people. Within the Objectivist movement, The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has been leveraging multiple websites for some time, has some internet skills, has made a big investment in that, and has a major plan getting start to soon teach Objectivism via the internet. The Atlasphere with over 25,000 members, an Oist project I've been involved with and done work for, has been successful at attracting members solely using a website - they are an example of first steps toward people sharing, not feeling alone, building 'community' that you mention.

The Atlas Society (TAS), on the other hand, doesn't have it's website act together despite several lame 'reworks'.

Of these three, the only one that has any sort of true 'global reach' is the Atlasphere. (The other two think the future is fairly narrowly with America, not with the emerging, fast growing, dynamic parts of the world.)