Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[Philip Coates]

> It seems most likely to me that Objectivism will succeed by getting our ideas co-opted by major ideologies and religions. ...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... [REB, post 269]

I don't think I'd go with "open" yet. The institutions are not open to breaking the monopoly of hiring professors and giving them tenure at major universities or giving Objectivists major columns at the NYT, Washpost, L.A. Times, etc. Certainly, at least some sectors of the culture - the more conservative and business oriented perhaps - are more open than they used to be.

Cachet is an interesting point. Until the day when being an Objectivist has cachet, indicates being a thoughtful person with edgy, provocative, stimulating ideas -- rather than the common caricature: a lowbrow, lockstep, cult follower and advocated of eating babies, adulterous affairs, purges for disagreements, and starving the poor in favor of Wall Street fatcats -- Objectivism is not going to provoke interest in being explored by the intelligentsia, many curious college students, etc. Am I right that libertarianism has a bit of that 'cachet' these days, but Oism does not? The example of Reagan is interesting, but I wonder how unique it was and perhaps still is.

> 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.

I think your comments above hint at an answer. Objectivism can spread by indirection, partially, subliminally, by affecting attitudes in other ways. In epistemology, one sign might be an Aristotelian revival or a further discrediting of the 'irrationalists' and short run pragmatists in the humanities. (In fact, doing a lot of things by indirection and in pieces might be a good strategy in some cases.) GHS gave an example earlier in this thread about how some people had read one or more of his two books and even though mainly they were about atheism, they were minorly about Rand and many people drawn in by the one, indirectly or as an offshoot got interested in the other. As I've said before, indirection is important because people are not going to swallow the whole package at one gulp -- either now, for some...or at all, for many.

> philosophically? Ain't gonna happen, Phil. Permanent minority status

I think it can be a majority philosophy, but on the very non-intellectual level that busy, not abstract thinking, man on the street people commonly hold things. And it would be after a century** of being taught in the colleges, filtering down to mass media and entertainment and books and cartoons and so on. [**I hate to be that exact, what I really mean is 99 years and 212 days.]

Even Christians often just give lip service, don't fully understand or even practice the ethics. Oism might be held by a truck driver as "think things thru - do your work - don't expect or give handouts and people should let me alone to find happiness for myself and my family" and, much further along, a sort of 'enlightenment era' healthy skepticism toward priests and superstition and religion.

[john42t]

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'.

Don't underestimate comment sections.

The mainstream media can put up a website and joining the choir by supporting transfer of wealth to Greece, but if just below that article 90% of the comments are negative and hostile, their bias will be exposed. They can censor, of course, but that won't remain undetected if done systematically and will eventually create even more distrust.

When I put hope in the internet it's much more comment sections of the mainstream media I put hope in rather than actual alternative media.

[Xray]

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.

I can't see much evidence of any general ideology growing in Germany. What I do see is the chasm between the rich and the many poor steadily growing, with the middle class thinning out. This social tension carries in it the potential of a new protest movement which the Left may use to their advantage.

Also, the 2008 bank collapse was a cold shower that has left people very disillusioned about big business transactions. Now we have the Euro disaster. Since big German business companies like Allianz and Münchner Rück had bought Greek government bonds (wanting to profit from the higher interest rates this risky business partner had to pay), and now face whopping losses, labeling everything on 'statism' only would be way too simple.

All this can contribute to people's distrust in both politics and economy.

Eventually the masses will be Objectivist, but it might not be *called* Objectivism.

But Objectivsm is not conceived as a philosophy of the masses. Quite the contrary. The focus is on the 'prime movers'.

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

Is it? The burden of proof is on the person who claims something to be a fact. Therefore, unless supporting evidence is provided and proof conducted, to claim that "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy" would qualify as a mere personal opinion.

By stating that "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy - do you think there can exist only one, true, philosophy?

[john42t]

I can't see much evidence of any general ideology growing in Germany.

But you do see a drastic change in the Zeitgeist, don't you? Compare what you have today to 1990 or even 1970. It's amazing how fast things go these days.

What I do see is the chasm between the rich and the many poor steadily growing, with the middle class thinning out. This social tension carries in it the potential of a new protest movement which the Left may use to their advantage.

This is a leftist premise itself, and it's been around for centuries. In no way is a chasm between the rich and the poor the cause of any tensions or otherwise in and by itself a bad thing. Quite the contrary, incredible wealth in the hands of moral individuals is a blessing.

The chasm within Germany will be growing, ie. the moral will no longer be held hostage by the immoral.

Also, the 2008 bank collapse was a cold shower that has left people very disillusioned about big business transactions. Now we have the Euro disaster. Since big business companies like Allianz and Münchner Rück had bought Greek government bonds (wanting to profit from the higher interest rates this risky business partner had to pay), and now face whopping losses, labeling everything on 'statism' only would be way too simple.

All this can contribute to a deep distrust in both politics and economy.

Which is a good thing. It means less and less do-gooders in politics.

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

Is it? The burden of proof is on the person who claims something to be a fact. Therefore, unless supporting evidence is provided and proof conducted, it qualifies as mere personal opinion.

If Rand couldn't convince you, I won't even try.

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

By stating that "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy", do you mean that there can exist only one, true, philosophy?

This is itself an Objectivist premise.

In the same sense as there can only be one, true physics or one, true Maths. There can be different subdisciplines, but mutually contradictory premises within philosophy can not be true at the same time to accommodate different tastes.

Rand didn't invent "a" philosophy, she figured things out *in* philosophy.

[Philip Coates]

> Don't underestimate comment sections. The mainstream media can put up a website and joining the choir by supporting transfer of wealth to Greece, but if just below that article 90% of the comments are negative and hostile, their bias will be exposed.

John, I'm amazed more Objectivists and more libertarians don't post in the comments of liberal publications like the New York Times and The Huffington Post. Far from there being 90% hostility to the left, there is 99% support. Whenever I read something that really irks me (and I read the NYT every day), I simply click on comments and post something which takes me about 30 seconds, because I've been doing it for years.

Something like: "Ah, you are exposing your leftist bias again. Here is what you are overlooking:..." And then just one sentence. Polite but pointed. The fact that -someone- responded and not with insults or put downs but with logic shows that there is an intellectual challenge.

Why isn't everybody taking a minute occasionally to do this? Doesn't do much good to post on National Review or Newsmaxx or Fox Business where everyone -already- agrees. Cost you nothing and it's a one or two minute way to not 'take it lying down'.

[Xray]

I can't see much evidence of any general ideology growing in Germany.

But you do see a drastic change in the Zeitgeist, don't you? Compare what you have today to 1990 or even 1970. It's amazing how fast things go these days.

I think one can say that Germans today are far more concerned about their economic future than in the past decades of the 'Wirtschaftswunder', where there was no widespread awareness about resources being limited.

Environmentalists didn't exist either, nor did any 'earth as a global village' consciousness. The same goes for animal welfare - what is now widely accepted as a moral standard to be striven for (like providing domestic animals with living conditions conducive to their welfare) was not a topic of interest back then.

Imo this is a considerable progress in the moral development of mankind.

The chasm within Germany will be growing, ie. the moral will no longer be held hostage by the immoral.

I'm convinced that the long-term global development will continually move toward more humanity and justice for all.

What I do see is the chasm between the rich and the many poor steadily growing, with the middle class thinning out. This social tension carries in it the potential of a new protest movement which the Left may use to their advantage.

This is a leftist premise itself, and it's been around for centuries. In no way is a chasm between the rich and the poor the cause of any tensions or otherwise in and by itself a bad thing.

But of course the chasm betwen the rich and the poor causes tensions.

I think this is a principle deeply rooted in our biology. Just imagine an immensely hungry individual having to watch others eat to their delight.

No doubt this individual will feel tension. Now make this a whole group of hungy men having to watch another group having all the food they want. Again, the tension will be there.

It is also an objective fact that social tensions between parts of the population can make people more prone to extremism, like clinging to fundamentalist religions, or joining extremist political groups.

Quite the contrary, incredible wealth in the hands of moral individuals is a blessing.

Do you connote "moral" also with having a social consciousness?

[Xray]

> [John42t] 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 think the "getting things done" is also a very prevalent American characteristic. But how they go about it often differs from the German aproach. Germans tend to be very duty- and rule-oriented, and expect others to be the same. Thus they have the reputation of being overly critical. For example, they quickly bicker if e. g. the bus in their Italian holiday resort is not on schedule, or if the hotel service is less than perfect.

Whereas with Americans, one can often observe an optimistic "This sounds great, let's try it out!" attitude if someone comes up with a good idea. While the German may still voice concerns about a project possibly not conforming to certain (and often unneccesary) rules, the American willl probably already have started to put the plan into action.

[Xray]

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

By stating that "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy", do you mean that there can exist only one, true, philosophy?

This is itself an Objectivist premise.

And, as Rand herself has pointed out, premises are to be checked.

[anthony]

John,

Interesting - two German citizens, and two opposite opinions...

Frankly, I'd like to share your positivity, but I would be amazed if your country is bucking the world-wide trend to forced egalitarianism (sorry, a 'social conscience'.) And here I am taking into account the traditionally greater sense of self-responsibilty, and the work-ethic, of Germans.

I'm old enough to remember a time when the wealthy were not generally reviled - in fact were mostly admired.

Essentially, I think the rich/poor divide is propagated and emphasised by some intellectuals, and greedily sucked up by the semi-ignorant masses.

Here, we are talking fundamental psycho-epistemology, that try as you like, you can't argue away.

A person is either of the belief that all that's wrong in the world, and in his life, is that 'some' have more than 'others'.

OR, he is of the conviction that that is how it is, and should be, and the most evil act is to try to equalize wealth (read, the mind) out.

For him, the rich represent 1. an inspiration, that he may emulate 2. the deserving individual mind getting its just reward.

The first type cannot bear to consider that he may be lacking in talent, creativity, productivity and self-belief - his only recourse is to punish those who show themselves to be superior - and who stand as a constant reproach to him. That's the small mind at work. Essentially, I believe this one to possess an authoritarian mindset, hating the 'natural' disparity of human beings, and smugly revelling in his second-hand 'virtue.'

For me, the anti-authoritarian who will tolerate zero control over his mind - who does not even recognize others' hold over him -

is my inspiration. Not that I'm ever going to be hugely wealthy - that's immaterial, it is the concept that matters. to me.

I just love to see peoples' minds at work, and to see ability rewarded. This is reality in operation.

(It confuses many that I call myself "selfish".)

The burning question is: Does the self-professed lover of mankind hate all men, as he conceivably hates himself?

I'm certain you share my pov, but I wish I could share yours about a coming enlightenment in your country, and globally.

Tony

[Philip Coates]

> Jesus' only real commandment to his followers was "Love one another as you have loved me." Ayn Rand's was "Love yourself as I have loved myself." To do this properly you need to go to a whole whackload of lectures. The new Christians could just get on with loving their neighbours.

Daunce made this interesting point quite a few posts back that I'd been meaning to respond to. The underlying message I get out of this (whether she intended it or not) is: "True or false, complex ideas are harder. Christianity is easy to understand and thus much easier to spread, to fully understand, to commit oneself to than Objectivism which requires if not a 'whole whakload of lectures' at least a lot of time and reading and effort to understand, integrate, put into practice."

So not every method that works for spreading a religion of "love your neighbors" is going to work. Or not in the same way.

"Jesus founded his church on a man, Peter. Rand founded hers upon a speech in a book. To me this is a barrier to the ideas spreading from person to person."

If Daunce means that having a role model is more compelling than having to read, understand, apply, integrate, in a way that is true. The role model is the outside or surface attractant, easier to see almost 'perceptually', and then you get interested in what makes him or her this way, maybe I'll look more deeply into it.

[Philip Coates]

In my Post #211, " What is Persuasion? -and- How can we use it?", in the second and third paragraphs I talk about -good- and -bad- role models and how they've worked in Objectvism. This is one part of what I posted there:

"Better to show someone a tennis serve than to just tell them about it...If Branden or Peikoff or even Rand is taken as a negative role model, many people are led away from considering their ideas. If Christ is taken as a positive role model, the opposite is true."

[john42t]

Frankly, I'd like to share your positivity, but I would be amazed if your country is bucking the world-wide trend to forced egalitarianism (sorry, a 'social conscience'.) And here I am taking into account the traditionally greater sense of self-responsibilty, and the work-ethic, of Germans.

It seems to me that this trend is bucked by Germany (and to some extent its neighbours), eastern Europe and especially the Far East (whose sortie to egalitarianism was short anyway).

Those who are still spiralling downwards are the US, the UK and all the Commonwealth countries, but in the US there are interesting intellectual trends that might make a difference soon.

I agree with the rest of your comment.

[john42t]

I can't see much evidence of any general ideology growing in Germany.

But you do see a drastic change in the Zeitgeist, don't you? Compare what you have today to 1990 or even 1970. It's amazing how fast things go these days.

I think one can say that Germans today are far more concerned about their economic future than in the past decades of the 'Wirtschaftswunder', where there was no widespread awareness about resources being limited.

Environmentalists didn't exist either, nor did any 'earth as a global village' consciousness. The same goes for animal welfare - what is now widely accepted as a moral standard to be striven for (like providing domestic animals with living conditions conducive to their welfare) was not a topic of interest back then.

Imo this is a considerable progress in the moral development of mankind.

Einvironmentalists, animal welfare, resources being limited were all ideas present in 1990 and 1970, in a sense more than today (they are more mainstream today, but they mean less to the individual people). Also, I consider all of those things to be leftist corruption. If you go back in time even more, those ideas are replaced with Nazism.

Now, in 2011, I can tell people that 1. "I don't give a crap about the environment" and 2. "Don't think limited resources mean anything" and 3. "Care about Germany a lot more than Greece." and people will shrug it off, they won't care - everybody somehow believes different, but nobody cares any more. In 1990, they would have jumped in my face.

But of course the chasm betwen the rich and the poor causes tensions.

I think this is a principle deeply rooted in our biology. Just imagine an immensely hungry individual having to watch others eat to their delight.

No doubt this individual will feel tension. Now make this a whole group of hungy men having to watch another group having all the food they want. Again, the tension will be there.

It is also an objective fact that social tensions between parts of the population can make people more prone to extremism, like clinging to fundamentalist religions, or joining extremist political groups.

I depends on whether the poor believes they are justly or unjustly poor. If the left keeps telling every random rotter that he's been exploited, then *this* causes tensions.

That's why there's so little tension in China, where there are few leftists but much of a chasm.

Quite the contrary, incredible wealth in the hands of moral individuals is a blessing.

Do you connote "moral" also with having a social consciousness?

Hell no, I equate it with rational.

[john42t]

Interesting - two German citizens, and two opposite opinions...

Frankly, I'd like to share your positivity, [...]

I should be noted that I and Xray are opimistic in our vision of totally different visions of the future.

So one of us will be disappointed. :-)

[anthony]

Interesting - two German citizens, and two opposite opinions... Frankly, I'd like to share your positivity, [...]

I should be noted that I and Xray are opimistic in our vision of totally different visions of the future. So one of us will be disappointed. :-)

Apparently.

Good luck, and may the best man win.

[Selene]

Interesting - two German citizens, and two opposite opinions... Frankly, I'd like to share your positivity, [...]

I should be noted that I and Xray are opimistic in our vision of totally different visions of the future. So one of us will be disappointed. :-)

Apparently.

Good luck, and may the best man win.

Tony:

I was hoping for a naked pay for view mud wrestling contest. We could make money for the movement.

Call it the Battle of the Berlin Babes...where they check their premises at the door with their clothes...

Phil could be the naked referee...

Adam

[Xray]

Environmentalists, animal welfare, resources being limited were all ideas present in 1990 and 1970, in a sense more than today (they are more mainstream today, but they mean less to the individual people).

In my post, I had spoken of the times of the Wirtschaftswunder (early 1960s).

The 1973 Oil Crisis was something of a turning point in terms of the limited resources idea becoming mainstream.

As to your statements that these ideas mean less to the individual today, one always has to be careful (this caveat applies to my own argumentation too of course) not to thinking of one's own personal preferences as a standard applying to all others.

Since the term "sustainability" ('Nachhaltigkeit') is being talked about a lot in today's economy, I don't think environmental ideas mean less to the individual. One can invest in solar and wind energy; big companies construct cars that are more and more environment-sparing, etc.

Also, I consider all of those things to be leftist corruption.

This is your personal opininion. But the die-hard leftist aren't exactly known for being very conscious about sparing the environment, are they?

As for the ecologist party (the Greens), they are quite a motley crew.

Now, in 2011, I can tell people that 1. "I don't give a crap about the environment" and 2. "Don't think limited resources mean anything" and 3. "Care about Germany a lot more than Greece." and people will shrug it off, they won't care - everybody somehow believes different, but nobody cares any more. In 1990, they would have jumped in my face.

They might shrug it off because public awareness has increased regarding the complexity of issues. Imo more and more people don't really believe in any black-and-white thinking anymore and therefore know that for many global problems, neither easy solutions nor patent remedies exist.

I also think that the dying out of ideologies is closely connected to that.

I depends on whether the poor believes they are justly or unjustly poor. If the left keeps telling every random rotter that he's been exploited, then *this* causes tensions.

That's why there's so little tension in China, where there are few leftists but much of a chasm.

Since China is not a democracy allowing the freedom of speech that we are used to, it would be fallacious to conclude from the absence of Chinese people speaking in public about social tensions that these tensions don't exist.

[Xray]

Interesting - two German citizens, and two opposite opinions...

Frankly, I'd like to share your positivity, [...]

I should be noted that I and Xray are opimistic in our vision of totally different visions of the future.

So one of us will be disappointed. :-)

We won't live long enough though to see who was right. :-)

All we can do is to provide evidence backing up our prognoses.

Good luck, and may the best man win.

Tony:

I was hoping for a naked pay for view mud wrestling contest. We could make money for the movement.

Call it the Battle of the Berlin Babes...where they check their premises at the door with their clothes...

Phil could be the naked referee...

Adam

I think I'll stick to non-muddy verbal matches.

[Selene]

John:

You know that Red China is a cauldron of unrest and open revolution...correct?

First, the Wiegers and other Muslim groups are in open revolution in the South West regions.

Tibet is in open revolution.

The Northwester provinces are "declaring bankruptcy" and cannot pay the bills.

The "empty cities are decaying."

Large amounts of money are being "moved" out of China.

The Chinese economy is radically contracting.

Pollution is exploding.

Workers organizations are in open revolt in the "factory cities" where suicide is exponential.

And these are just some of the issues that leak out of that communist cesspool.

Adam

[Xray]

Do you connote "moral" also with having a social consciousness?

Hell no, I equate it with rational.

Does being rational exclude social consciousness?

[john42t]

As to your statements that these ideas mean less to the individual today, one always has to be careful (this caveat applies to my own argumentation too of course) not to thinking of one's own personal preferences as a standard applying to all others.

Mostly I take this from the leftists whining that people only care about money these days (their pessimism and despair is the new thing), together with a lack of political activity especially in the usual suspect groups students and professors.

Most of the young have moved from very leftist, highly political to pragmatic/consumerist. I don't think that it's only me who sees it this way.

Since the term "sustainability" ('Nachhaltigkeit') is being talked about a lot in today's economy, I don't think environmental ideas mean less to the individual. One can invest in solar and wind energy; big companies construct cars that are more and more environment-sparing, etc.

That's true and we will see this to continue for a good while, but I think this is more inertia of past ideologies passing by than the future.

Also, I consider all of those things to be leftist corruption.

This is your personal opininion.

All I say is my personal opinion. What else could it be?

But the die-hard leftist aren't exactly known for being very conscious about sparing the environment, are they?

As for the ecologist party (the Greens), they are quite a motley crew.

I'm not talking about groups that, within Germany, are considered leftists. I'm only talking about ideas that I consider leftist corruption. Many of those ideas are mainstream to an extent that even the majority of conservatives hold them, such as much of environmentalism.

I don't think there's much of a difference between German party lines.

[john42t]

Does being rational exclude social consciousness?

I even think having the word "social consciousness" in one's active vocabulary is a bad sign.

I suppose it is meant to imply a duty/responsibility to society (ie people I don't even know)? That would be very irrational, yes.

[Selene]

Does being rational exclude social consciousness?

I even think having the word "social consciousness" in one's active vocabulary is a bad sign.

I suppose it is meant to imply a duty/responsibility to society (ie people I don't even know)? That would be very irrational, yes.

John/Angela:

Define "social consciousness" please.

Here is the Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_consciousness

[john42t]

You know that Red China is a cauldron of unrest and open revolution...correct?

[...]

And these are just some of the issues that leak out of that communist cesspool.

No, my knowledge about China is very limited.

The reason is that I don't know any source I trust.

In particular, I don't trust sources that consider China to be Communist. I don't know what it is, but it's not Communist.

First, the Wiegers and other Muslim groups are in open revolution in the South West regions.

Complaining Muslims, who would have thought it possible.

[EDIT: I'm *so* glad the Chinese have them too.]

The Northwester provinces are "declaring bankruptcy" and cannot pay the bills.

That is surely a local issue. China is one of the most fiscally conservative countries on the planet.

Tibet is in open revolution.

The "empty cities are decaying."

Large amounts of money are being "moved" out of China.

The Chinese economy is radically contracting.

Pollution is exploding.

Workers organizations are in open revolt in the "factory cities" where suicide is exponential.

You wouldn't get those horror stories back in 1960 when the Chinese were starving in the millions. That's when they were actually still Communist and then the media loved them. Now that they are the world's factory for low-cost production the media don't love them any more, and now each factory suicide is worse than a thousand who starved in 1960.

I'm with Rand to believe that a country's wealth is the barometer of their morals. They are a lot more moral than in 1960. And whether they will out-do America in terms of wealth (and thus, morality) still remains to be seen.

However, I firmly state that the Chinese administrations have done a fairly good job over the last 3 decades and I might add that this is in harsh contrast to the American ones.

If Americans don't want their democracy to fail they really ought to stop whining about China and start voting for less evil presidents.

-- In response to the "social consciousness" link to wikipedia: leftist crap beyond redemption - I wouldn't know how to define it any meaningful way.

[Selene]

-- In response to the "social consciousness" link to wikipedia: leftist crap beyond redemption - I wouldn't know how to define it any meaningful way.

John:

Precisely my point. It is undefinable...take a look at this "chart" of absolute bullshit...

http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2011/04/picturing-social-consciousness.html

Sorry about that the chart image would not transfer. Just click on it in the link.

Adam